| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 971 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 227 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 63 | 6% |
| Spain | 36 | 4% |
| Canada | 26 | 3% |
| Brazil | 18 | 2% |
| Kenya | 17 | 2% |
| France | 16 | 2% |
| Australia | 10 | 1% |
| South Africa | 8 | <1% |
| Other | 98 | 10% |
| Unknown | 452 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 829 | 85% |
| Scientists | 102 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 24 | 2% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 144 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 15% |
| Researcher | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 31 | 22% |
| Unknown | 25 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 52 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 10% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 9 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 24 | 17% |
| Unknown | 33 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1648. 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 14 February 2024.
All research outputs
#6,709
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#720
of 98,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80
of 328,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#7
of 772 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 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 98,691 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.7. 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 328,598 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 772 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.