↓ Skip to main content

New infant cranium from the African Miocene sheds light on ape evolution

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
New infant cranium from the African Miocene sheds light on ape evolution
Published in
Nature, August 2017
DOI 10.1038/nature23456
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isaiah Nengo, Paul Tafforeau, Christopher C. Gilbert, John G. Fleagle, Ellen R. Miller, Craig Feibel, David L. Fox, Josh Feinberg, Kelsey D. Pugh, Camille Berruyer, Sara Mana, Zachary Engle, Fred Spoor

Abstract

The evolutionary history of extant hominoids (humans and apes) remains poorly understood. The African fossil record during the crucial time period, the Miocene epoch, largely comprises isolated jaws and teeth, and little is known about ape cranial evolution. Here we report on the, to our knowledge, most complete fossil ape cranium yet described, recovered from the 13 million-year-old Middle Miocene site of Napudet, Kenya. The infant specimen, KNM-NP 59050, is assigned to a new species of Nyanzapithecus on the basis of its unerupted permanent teeth, visualized by synchrotron imaging. Its ear canal has a fully ossified tubular ectotympanic, a derived feature linking the species with crown catarrhines. Although it resembles some hylobatids in aspects of its morphology and dental development, it possesses no definitive hylobatid synapomorphies. The combined evidence suggests that nyanzapithecines were stem hominoids close to the origin of extant apes, and that hylobatid-like facial features evolved multiple times during catarrhine evolution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,007 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Other 9 7%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 24 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 51 37%
Social Sciences 15 11%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Arts and Humanities 5 4%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 32 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1643. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2023.
All research outputs
#5,919
of 23,864,146 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#665
of 93,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85
of 319,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#8
of 774 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,864,146 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 93,139 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 101.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 774 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.