User:AndrewClarkHolmes/Rudapithecus

{Userspace draft|source=ArticleWizard|date=November 2013}}

Rudapithecus hungaricus is a large-bodied suspensory ape that lived in Hungary 10 million years ago. Based upon skeletal morphology, biogeography, cladistic analyses, it has been suggested that Rudapithecus is the common ancestor of the extant African ape and Human clade. Although the precise phylogenetic position of Rudapithecus remains an area of active debate, the consensus view among paleontologists is that Rudapithecus is most closely related to other large bodied Eurasian apes within the Dryopithecini tribe such as Pierolapithecus xxx, Hispanopithecusxxx, and Dryopithecus xxx.

History of Discovery
The type speciment of Rudapithecus, RUD 1, was discovered by Gabor Hernyák in 1965 at an abandoned mine in the town of Rudabánya, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County, Northern Hungary. The mine had been a source of copper, lead, silver, and iron ore since the medieval ages. By the middle of the twenieth century Rudabánya was mined for lignite, but operations shut down in 1987 when lignite reserves were depleated. In 1967 RUD 1 was analyzed by Miklós Kretzoi, a paleontologist of the Hungarian Geological Survey and professor at the University of Debrecen. Kretzoi determined the fossils were primate and named the species, Rudapithecus hungaricus.

Subsequent excavations in 1970's and 1980's unearthed more 'Rudapithecus'' fossils and in 1999 paleontologists László Kordos and David Begun discovered a well preserved crania (RUD 200).

Description
Rudapithecus is known RUD 200 (Rudapithecus Crania)

Short, vertical premaxilla with some maxillary overlap, relatively narrow, posteriorly divergent palate, biconcave premaxilla, modest supraorbital tori and supratoral sulcus, vertical frontal squama, elongated, klinorhynch crania, inion high on the skull, reduced subarcuate fossa, fused tympanic and articular temporal, large brain, robust lateral orbital margins, square orbits, broad interorbital space, ethmoidal frontal sinus, subvertical nasal aperture margins, high zygomaticoalveolar crest, convex and more laterally facing zygoma, more compressed canines and elongated postcanines, strongly tapered M3, more peripheral cusp positions, mesio-distally short, tall crowned I1, peg-shaped I2

Like other Dryopithecus, it has a relatively short face for a great ape, with a vertically oriented, bi-convex premaxilla and a stepped subnasal fossa. The anterior face is similar to juvenile great apes in that the premaxilla lacks the dramatic elongation of many adult great apes [though Dryopithecus overlaps Gorilla in relative premaxillary length (Begun, 1994)]. It is distinguished from other anthropoids including Hylobates, which have a much smaller premaxilla, in both length and breadth, a narrow or notched nasal aperture, a smooth transition to the nasal fossa, and a large fenestration between the premaxilla and the maxillary palatine process. RUD 200 also preserves a high and broad root of the zygomatic process positioned above the mesial half of M2, a vertically oriented maxillary nasal process preserved from the base of the nasal aperture for about 1·5 cm along the edge of the aperture, and a shallow canine fossa (damaged on right side). The interorbital space is broad and the orbits have sharp lateral margins. The frontal sinus is moderate in size and largest at nasion, continuing from below nasion into frontal squama. Two small zygomatico–facial foramina occur infero-lateral to the lower lateral corner of the orbit (preserved only on the right side) near the orbital margin. The malar surface of zygomatic is anterolaterally oriented and the frontal process of the zygomatic is comparatively robust given the overall size of the specimen. RUD 200 has a relatively projecting midface compared to Pan and Pongo, with the distal surface of canine alveolus about 8 mm from the anterior-most extension of the maxillary sinus. The maxillary sinus extends to P3–P4 anteriorly and is large, with some extension into zygomatic. The palate becomes deeper and broader posteriorly, and is shallow anterior to P3. The neurocranium is in anatomical connection with the face via the lateral orbital pillar on the right side. This pillar was found damaged by post-depositional processes but re-alignment was not problematic due to the comparative robusticity of this structure and good preservation of surface details. The neurocranium is elongated relative to cranial height and breadth (estimated), and inion is situated above the superior orbital margin in the approximated Frankfurt horizontal. On the frontal bone there is a shallow supraglabellar sulcus and a detectable but poorly developed supraorbital torus. In configuration these are much like those on RUD 77 (Kordos & Begun, 1997). A subtle temporal line (right side) continuous with the lateral edge of the lateral orbital pillar converges toward the sagittal suture posterior to bregma, but remains at least 1 cm lateral to the sagittal plane. RUD 200 has a broad, biconvex, relatively horizontal frontal squama that broadens posteriorly. Posteriorly the bi-parietal breadth is greatest near asterion, and a strong nuchal crest separates the occipital and nuchal surfaces of the occipital bone. The articular and petrous portions of the right temporal bone are present but poorly preserved. They are smaller but otherwise essentially identical to those described for a more fragmentary female cranium from Rudaba´nya, RUD 77, with a shallow but concave glenoid fossa, prominent entoglenoid, vertical postglenoid, fused articular and tympanic aspects of temporal laterally (inferred from the pattern of breakage), shallow subarcuate fossa, and details of the petrous morphology as described for RUD 77 (Kordos & Begun, 1997). The endocranial surface has well preserved sulcal and gyral impressions and an artificial endocranial cast is under analysis. The anterior cranial fossa is narrow but relatively tall. All cranial sutures are closed but not obliterated. The dentition is similar to Rudaba´nya Dryopithecus as described elsewhere (Begun & Kordos, 1993; Begun, 1994; Kordos & Begun, 1997). Briefly, the incisors are high crowned and relatively narrow with prominent lingual pillars and marginal ridges. The canine is also high crowned but clearly female in morphology, with the crown flared at the cervix and having a large angle between the apex and the mesial and distal edges. Canine indices that have been shown to effectively distinguish male and female hominoids are within the ranges of all female hominoids though they are also at the low end of the ranges of some males (Kelley, 1995) (Table 1). The P3 is ovoid with mild labial crown flare, and minimal cusp heteromorphy, as in other females of the taxon (Kretzoi, 1975; Begun & Kordos, 1993). These observations are consistent with overall dental and cranial size, both of which also suggest that RUD 200 is female. The P4 is more rectangular and symmetrical than the P3.Molar size order isM1<M2<M3, but all the molars are close in size. All the molars have a typical Dryopithecus morphology with cusps positioned toward the edges of the crown, enclosing relatively deep occlusal basins, and crossed by well-marked occlusal crests. The occlusal surfaces are more complex than many Dryopithecus molars due to the relative lack of wear. All three molars lack cingula, though M1 and M2 have small mesiolingual notches. M1 is nearly square in outline and slightly smaller than M2. M2 is more elongated with a larger hypocone and a reduced metacone. M3 is somewhat unusual in being elongated and tapered, with a strongly reduced metacone and a number of accessory cusps between the metacone and the hypocone along the distal marginal crista.M3 was in occlusion at the time of death, but with minimal wear. The root apices on the M3 are still open, while all other root apices are closed. All teeth are minimally worn and perikymata are clearly visible on most of the teeth. A linear hypoplastic defect is apparent on the buccal surface of the right P3. The right M2 crown has a clean transverse break between the metacone apex and the notch between protocone and hypocone (reassembled in Figure 1), revealing a thinly enameled crown cap with high dentine penetrance. The combined evidence of the dentition and cranium indicates a young adult female individual. In all dimensions RUD 200 is smaller but morphologically comparable to RUD 77 (Kordos & Begun, 1997) (Table 2). RUD 77 has slightly broader premolars and a less strongly tapered M3, but the same dental proportions. RUD 200 differs more from other females from Rudaba´nya, such as RUD 12 and RUD 15, which have more robust canines, relatively longer incisors compared to labiolingual breadth, lower crowned molars (at least partly related to differences in wear), shallower palates, more vertically implanted canines in frontal and lateral views, and deeper canine fossae. The males RUD 7 and RUD 44/45/47/140–144 are more similar to RUD 200 in maxillary and dental morphology. Currently we view the diversity in this sample as within the expected range of variation of one species. The I1 specimens RUD 199 and RUD 121 are the smallest of Dryopithecus from Rudaba´nya, while another specimen from the gray marl, RUD 82, is the largest I1. The M2 specimens from RUD 200 are also the smallest of Dryopithecus from the site, while RUD 85, again also from the gray marl, is the largest M2 (this specimen is identified as an M3 in Kordos & Begun (2001), but we now feel it is more probably an M2). At both tooth positions the range of variation as indicated by maxima/minima indices falls within, though at the high end, of the ranges of variation observed within larger samples of living hominoids (Table 1) (Martin & Andrews, 1993). Although the sample sizes are relatively small, this is probably a good indication of high sexual dimorphism in D. brancoi. Of course, it is also worth noting that RUD 82 and RUD 85 are the largest specimens in their respective positions for the entire sample of Dryopithecus, in which four species are currently recognized (Begun, 2001). Nevertheless, there are no morphological or metric criteria that convincingly justify the recognition of two species of Dryopithecus at Rudaba´nya, though we cannot exclude this possibility.

Phylogeny / Evolution
"Kretzoi recognized in these fossils evidence of the early phase of hominization. He called this new species Rudapithecus hungaricus and published his findings in 1967. "Rudi," as he's affectionately known, displays certain features present in the higher apes that point the road to the direct ancestors of humans. <-- came from the afore-linked blog article. find proper documentation.

ynonimized into Dryopithecus brancoi

In 2004 Begun and Kordos found the skull.

Dryopithecus elevated to the level of tribe.

Dryopithecus brancoi then changed to Rudapithecus hungaricus, as it as supperioty.

Rudapithecus hungaricus was discovered in mid-1960s by XXX. It was initially described by Miklos Kretzoi