Parahomo Fracticranius

“Pair Living Primates have several unique characteristics that set them apart from other nonhuman primates. Monogamous Primates are two primates of different sexes that mate exclusively with one and other. The unique qualities of these animals are a result of the ecological constraints that these primates face. Because of the exclusive and solitary relationship that is monogamy there is a lack of specialized defensive roles by the adult male, which is also extensively involved in paternal care. Monogamous primates are highly territorial and very closely associated, Morphologically, there is a lack of sexual dimorphism amongst pair living primates, this is due to the exclusively and predictable genetic outcome of these animals mating with only

(Dunbar, 1983) Among mountain gorillas, half of all the groups are one male. However, females leave from one group to another. “Polygynous females might be compensated for loss of exclusive paternal care by mating with a genetically superior male, thereby increasing the likelihood of their progeny’s survival and ability to produce offspring (Alatalo and Lundberg 1986).” (Hoglund, J. 1995) The competition for these mating opportunities is driven by the female’s choice. When this occurs, the males lose females to another one male group and it exploits what males mating opportunities.

From both the title of the chapter and the introduction by Dr. Shubin, this chapter begins with a focus on teeth. Because the function of teeth is to break down food before it enters the esophagus, the different shapes of teeth can represent many different things about the organism it belongs to including what type of eater it was (carnivore, herbivore, or omnivore). Teeth are the hardest tissue (not bone) in the human body and therefore fossilize well. As Dr. Shubin stated in chapter one, there must be many points that permit a fossil to make any kind of scientific conclusion. Obviously, the state of their presence is important, so the fact that teeth preserve well allows for them to be great specimens for analysis. Dr. Shubin and his team analyzed fossilized teeth in areas as different as Nova Scotia and the Arizona desert. Studying different fossils in these diverse regions allowed the team to see that mammalian and reptilian teeth are very different. For example, mammalian teeth differ from organism to organism to fit with the organisms need (Cheetahs that eat only meat will have different teeth than deer who are herbivores) and are replaced only once in the lifetime of the organism while reptilian teeth are usually sharp and are constantly replaced if damaged. These differences allowed scientists to characterize fossils as either a reptile or a mammal. Similar to Tiktaalik discussed in chapter one, the discovery of fossils that were part reptile and part mammal allowed the researchers to see that mammals evolved from reptiles, and further supported the theory of evolution. Further studies yielded even more

To begin this essay, Lovejoy appeals the notion of human uniqueness while focusing on human’s ability to be bipedal. By doing this, he introduces the possibilities of the first bipedal ancestor of humans while focusing the relation to other ape’s morphology. Lovejoy first discusses early Australopithecine as one the possibilities for a last common ancestor with chimpanzee, but quickly moves to Ardipithecus ramidus with their thesis of through examining the morphology and social behavioral structure of a CLCA , A. ramidcus can prove the African ape based models are not necessary. African apes models that are used to illustrate human and hominid behavior have become unreliable. To replace these models, Lovejoy proposes adaptive suites and explains

With a writing style that is enabled by an obvious adoration of the subject, Neil Shubin explores the predecessors of the human species in his book Your Inner Fish. Shubin draws upon his unique background as a paleontologist, embryologist, and geneticist to trace defining phenotypical traits that are inherent to humans to even the simplest of organisms. He delves into the difficult details of evolution that have long remained mysteries until recent years, specifically analyzing the transition from water to land, the rise of vision, basic body plans and scent. The magic of the book is that although these discoveries required the brightest minds of the past two centuries, Shubin unwraps them in a delightful manner that is interesting to both high school student and university professor. Your Inner Fish is meant to be persuasive, to educate and formulate opinions. By tracking these seeming complexities of human development, Shubin attempts to persuade a broad audience in the veracity of the common ancestor.

I decided to look at the sexual behavior of bonobos because they are known for their frequent sexual behavior. Though they are not one of the types of great apes mentioned in the book, a bonobo is nonetheless a great ape that belongs in the same genus as the common chimpanzee. Furuichi et al. observed bonobos in their naturalistic habitat in Wamba, Democratic Republic

The Spinosaurinae share unserrated straight teeth that are widely spaced (e.g., 12 on one side of the maxilla), as opposed to the Baryonychinae which have serrated curved teeth that are numerous. (2)

Boyd, Robert and Silk, Joan B. How Humans Evolved. Sixth edition. Ch. 15 and 16.

Direct female-female competition is an important feature of woolly monkey reproductive biology. Direct competition regarding reproduction among males was minimal despite the fact that females mated with multiple males. Relationships with females were similar in the sense that they were generally tolerant but non-affilitive; females often directed harassment toward copulating pairs.

This journal describes the growth over the past couple of years in terms of research on sexual selection. It articulates the influence sexual selection play on pre- and post-copulatory selection mechanisms, such as sperm storage/utilization, courtship, mate choice aggressive competition between male species and sexual conflict. In this journal, genetic mechanisms are highlighted to address some of the recently questioned areas of pre- and post-copulatory sexual selection. Although all the genetic mechanisms for sexual selection are not yet known, many of the identified genes show evidence of positive selection. It showed that sexual selection leads to the rapid coevolution of male and female reproductive organs. They identified how new techniques

After looking at many physical pictures and pictures of their skull, paranthropus boisei do have resemblance of human characteristics.

Homo erectus, a species found globally, lived from around 1.8. million years ago, to about 300,000 years ago. They were part of the genus Homo, which began emerging around 2.8 million years ago, and evolved from the genus Australopithecus, which inhabited the world around 3.8. million years ago. Homo erectus was unique in their ability to adapt to new environments, which allowed them to migrate to continents apart from Africa (04/12 lecture). The new ecological niches resulted in physical adaptations and a wide mosaic of traits within the species. Despite the variation there are many traits that are consistent found in species before and after the lifespan of Homo erectus. Homogeneous traits within the species included obligate bipedalism,

Within the suborder of Caniformia, Ursidae are one of nine families. The Ursidae differs from similar families in several ways: the presence of an alisphenoid canal, paroccipital processes that are large and not fused to the auditory bullae, auditory bullae are not englard, the lacrimal bone is vestigial, the cheek teeth are bunodont and hence indicative of a broad, hypocarnivorous diet. In addition, organisms within the family of Ursidae possess posteriorly oriented M2 postprotocrista molars, elongated m2 molars, and a reduction of the premolars. The earlier members of Ursidae belonged to the extinct subfamily known as Amphicynodontinae. The earliest members of the family were small and raccoon-like, in contrast to today’s larger

As a result of sexual selection, many male animals have evolved extraordinary structures, usually used as ornaments for attracting females, or weapons, for fighting mating rivals (Douhard et al., 2017; O’Biren et al., 2017; McCullough et al., 2016; McCullough and Emlen, 2013; Emlen, 2008). The diversity of these structures is usually extremely high (both intra- and interspecifically) and have existed in many animal groups, including extinct trilobites and dinosaurs, to beetles, birds and hoofed mammals (ungulates) found today (O’Biren et al., 2017; McCullough et al., 2016; Emlen, 2008; Emlen et al., 2005; Emlen, 2001). Although both ornaments and weapons will increase mating opportunities for males, the mechanisms shaping the evolution of

Organisms have participated in mating in order to pass their offspring into another generation. Mating refers to when animals court and breed each other, an act of reproduction. Male pregnancy is the norm for seahorses, becoming a part of behavioral evolution. Male parental care has led to the broad diversity of seahorses or sympatric speciation. Seahorses use assortative mating, also known as choosing mates based on their body size. The dependency of this type of mating was a consequence of the monogamous mating system and lifestyle of seahorses. Monogamous pairing is when marriage is to one entity at a time, compared to bigamy or polygamy. The demonstrated adaptative differences such as size in the same habitat proves the occurrence of sympatric divergence. Is that the only factor that influences the rise of new seahorse species? In this paper, I will examine five studies, from vast areas relating to the mating of seahorses and their patterns of mating behavior, illustrating its role in sympatric speciation. Altogether these studies demonstrate the uniqueness of seahorses and provide a new outlook on the diversity that