Comment on "Grasping Primate Origins"
- 2 May 2003
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Science
- Vol. 300 (5620) , 741
- https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1081587
Abstract
First, it is unclear to us why Bloch and Boyer (1) restricted their phylogenetic analysis to postcranial characters only. Their specimen includes an undescribed “virtually complete skull and left dentary” (1), and additional crania of carpolestids have been figured in previous publications (3–5). Furthermore, the dentition of C. simpsoni has been described (5) and the phylogenetic relationships of carpolestids and other plesiadapiforms have been thoroughly studied in a recent series of dental cladistic analyses (6, 7).Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Primate Origins NailedScience, 2002
- Grasping Primate OriginsScience, 2002
- New specimens ofElphidotarsius russelli(Mammalia, ?Primates, Carpolestidae) and a revision of Plesiadapoid relationshipsJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2001
- Morphological correlates of substrate use in didelphid marsupials: implications for primate originsJournal of Zoology, 1999
- The primitive dental formula of the Carpolestidae (Plesiadapiformes, Mammalia) and its phylogenetic implicationsJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1994
- Cranial anatomy of Ignacius graybullianus and the affinities of the PlesiadapiformesAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1992
- New views on primate originsEvolutionary Anthropology, 1992
- Additional fossil evidence on the differentiation of the earliest euprimates.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1991
- Primates: cladistic diagnosis and relationshipsJournal of Human Evolution, 1987
- Dental function and diet in the carpolestidae (primates, plesiadapiformes)American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1986