Reconstructing the Locomotor Repertoire of <i>Protopithecus brasiliensis</i>. II. Forelimb Morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of previous publications have suggested that the large-bodied subfossil Protopithecus brasiliensis was a suspensory ateline with a locomotor repertoire similar to that of extant Ateles and Brachyteles. This is unexpected, as the cranial morphology of Protopithecus is very similar to Alouatta, a genus usually classified as a deliberate quadrupedal climber. Complicating matters further, as Protopithecus is twice as large as Ateles and Brachyteles, its ability to be as suspensory as those two genera is suspect and a terrestrial component of the locomotor repertoire has also been hypothesized. The forelimbs of Protopithecus, while relatively elongated as would be expected in a suspensory animal, are also quite robust and show several adaptations for climbing. To test these hypotheses about the fossil locomotor repertoire, three-dimensional geometric morphometric techniques were used to quantify the shapes of the fossil distal humerus and proximal ulna and then compare them to a broad sample of extant primates with varying body sizes and locomotor patterns. Results indicate that Protopithecus is similar to Ateles and Brachyteles in terms of its forelimb joint surface morphology; however, the overall locomotor repertoire of the fossil is reconstructed as more flexible to include forelimb suspension, climbing, and potentially some terrestrial ground use. The combination of suspensory locomotion and quadrupedal climbing supported here indicates the beginnings of the evolutionary transition from a more acrobatic style of locomotion in the last common ancestor of alouattins and atelins to the current pattern of howler locomotion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".