Miocene hominoid biogeography: pulses of dispersal and differentiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To test the hypothesis that the ancestor of the hominines (African apes and humans) had an African origin by comparing the historical biogeographical patterns of hominoids with those of two other large land mammal clades, namely the hyaenids and proboscideans. Location Global, primarily the Old World over the last 25 Myr (Miocene to present). Methods Creation of a general area cladogram usingpact, a new method for generating area cladograms, and interpretation of general and clade‐specific speciation events involving hominoids, proboscideans and hyaenids. Results The analysis of the areas usingpactreveals both general patterns and clade‐specific exceptions to these patterns. All three groups share a general episode of species formation in Africa in the early Miocene, followed by ‘out of Africa’ expansion into Europe, Asia and North America, and a second general episode of species formation in Asia in the mid‐Miocene, followed by ‘out of Asia’ expansion into Africa, Europe and North America. Finally, there were two additional ‘out of Africa’ events during the late Miocene and into the Pliocene, the last one setting the stage for the emergence and spread ofHomo. In addition to these shared episodes of vicariance and dispersal, each group exhibits clade‐specific within‐area and peripatric speciation events. Main conclusions The complex history of dispersal and speciation over large areas exhibited by hominoids is part of a more general history of biotic diversification by taxon pulses. Refining this scenario will require the integration of additional clades from the same areas and times, as well as more detailed palaeoclimatological, palaeoenvironmental and geological evidence.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".