SIMONS - PNAS

528 ANTHROPOLOGY: E. L. SIMONS PROC. N. A. S.

9 Garby, L., and M. Hjelm, Blut, 9, 284 (1963).10 Borsook, H., J. B. Lingrel, J. L. Scaro, and R. L. Millette, Nature, 196, 346 (1962). These

authors fractionated rabbit reticulocytes in BSA density gradients with methods developed in theearly stages of this research.

11 Mateyko, G. M., and M. J. Kopac, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 105, 183 (1963).12 Bock, R. M., and N. S. Ling, Anal. Chem., 26, 1543 (1954).13 Lakshmanan, T. K., and S. Lieberman, Arch. Biochem. Biophys., 53, 258 (1954).14 Bukantz, S. C., C. R. Rein, and J. F. Kent, J. Lab. Clin. Med., 31, 394 (1946).15 de Duve, C., J. Berthet, and H. Beaufay, Progr. Biophys. Biophys. Chem., 9, 326 (1959).16Holmquist, W. R., and J. R. Vinograd, Biochim. et Biophys. Acta, 69, 337 (1963).17 Borsook, H., E. H. Fischer, and G. Keighley, J. Biol. Chem., 229, 1059 (1957). The composi-

tion of NKM in gm/i is 7.61 NaCl, 0.389 KCl, 1.52 MgCl2-6H20. The osmolarity is 0.293.18 Eagle, H., J. Exptl. Med., 102, 595 (1955).19 Brecher, G., E. F. Jakobek, M. A. Schneiderman, G. Z. Williams, and P. J. Schmidt, Ann.

N.Y. Acad. Sci., 99, 242 (1962).20 Kabat, D., and G. Attardi, personal communication.21 Ponder, E., Hemolysis and Related Phenomena (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1948).22 Scatchard, G., A. C. Batchelder, A. Brown, and M. Zosa, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 68, 2610 (1946).23 Hearst, J. E., and J. R. Vinograd, these PROCEEDINGS, 47, 999 (1961).24 This equation may be expressed in terms of tonicity and liquid volume, V. (dp/dV)ef=

dp/dV - dT/dV dp/dT. The method of evaluating dp/dV has been described. The value ofdT/dV was obtained as the product AT/Ap-dp/dV, where AT and Ap are the difference in tonicityand density, respectively, in the two BSA solutions used in the preparation of the gradient.Buoyant density distributions may be obtained with the above procedures in centrifuge tubes ofarbitrary shape.

26 Clark, P., Australian J. Sci., 22, 216 (1959).26 Burwell, E. L., B. A. Brickley, and C. A. Finch, Am. J. Physiol., 172, 718 (1953).27 Neuberger, A., and J. S. F. Niven, J. Physiol., 112, 292 (1951).28 Farquhar, W. J., and E. H. Ahrens, Jr., J. Clin. Invest., 42, 675 (1963).

ON THE MANDIBLE OF RAMAPITHECUS*

BY ELWYN L. SIMONS

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY, YALE UNIVERSITY

Communicated by G. E. Hutchinson, December 26, 1963

During the past three years a number of findings have enlarged scientific under-standing of the initial differentiation of hominids from pongids. These advancesare the outgrowth of significant developments in the study of man-like hominoidsof Miocene and Pliocene age, recovered from deposits in Africa and Eurasia. Inorder of their occurrence these additions to knowledge are as follows: (1) Thediscovery and description by Dr. L. S. B. Leakey of an African member of Ram-apithecus [=Kenyapithecus] at Fort Ternan, Kenya, in deposits which have beendated by the K/A method as about 14 million years old. (2) The assignment toRamapithecus by Simons' of a second maxilla (a referred specimen of Dryopithecuspunjabicus originally figured by Pilgrim,2 from Haritalyangar in the Nagri zone,Siwalik Hills, North India). (3) The recent determination at Yale that severalknown mandibles from the latest Miocene and/or early Pliocene of the Siwalikscan plausibly be referred to Ramapithecus. This contribution is an attempt torelate the first two of these discoveries to previously published discussions of

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 1,

202

1

VOL. 51, 1964 ANTHROPOLOGY: E. L. SIMONS 529

Ramapithecus (Leakey,3 Simons' 4) and to present new evidence showing thatmandibles of the earliest hominid, Ramapithecus, are known from the latestMiocene and/or Pliocene of the Siwalik Hills, India.

It seems advisable initially to point out that a revision of dryopithecine taxonomywill soon be forthcoming (Simons and Pilbeam,6 in press). Background andconclusions on dryopithecine taxonomy are presented in fuller detail in that study.

Abbreviations.-A.M.N.H., American Museum of Natural History, New York;B.M.N.H., British Museum (Natural History); C.M.N., Coryndon Museum ofNatural History, Nairobi; G.S.I., Geological Survey of India, Calcutta; M.C.Z.,Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard; N.M.N.H.P., National Museumof Natural History, Paris; and Y.P.M., Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven.Material.-The type species of the genus Ramapithecus, R. brevirostris, is founded

upon a right maxilla (Y.P.M. 13799) from the Siwalik Hills of North India con-taining the root of J2, alveolus of I', canine alveolus, and P3-M2. G. E. Lewis(written communication, 1964) states that it is probable that the specimen is notfrom the Tatrot as was originally indicated, but from the cuesta scarp at Hari-talyangar [Nagri(?), Simons 1961: 1; Lewis 1937: 142]. Recent intensive collect-ing in the Tatrot (?) north of Haritalyangar by K. N. Prasad (personal communi-cation) failed to produce any fossil Primates, although he recovered without dif-ficulty a series of Primates at the cuesta scarp. Consequently, the occurrence ofPrimates in the Tatrot of the Siwaliks has not been proved. G. E. Lewis haskindly supplied the following statement regarding the collection of Y.P.M. 13799:

Number 13799 was brought to me by a native, who took me to a spot some distance northwardfrom Haritalyangar and insisted he found it there. To be sure it may have occurred there, butI eventually decided that he wanted to hide its true locality. After my 1937 publication, andafter Krynine6 had had such good success in petrographic studies of large rock samples frommany Siwalik localities, we examined the matrix on Y.P.M. 13799 and found it to be identicalwith that on the collections from Haritalyangar cuesta scarp-which as Pilgrim says2 "representsa decidedly older type than that of Dhok Pathan." I had originally intended to publish my laterviews, but other matters and the war intervened.

Recently Simons referred a second right maxilla definitely from Haritalyangar(G.S.I. D-185) to Ramapithecus.1 This identification demonstrates the occur-rence of this primate at Haritalyangar and reinforces the later view of Lewis thatthis site could be that of the type. An isolated upper third molar also from thissite, recently recovered in India, is now under study by K. N. Prasad. It is of theproper, small size to belong to this same species. Thus, upper dental remains ofthree individuals have been recovered to date in India, all apparently from theNagri zone cuesta at Haritalyangar. A fourth portion of an upper dentitionrepresenting this species is that of Ramapithecus [=Kenyapithecus] from FortTernan, Kenya.

Since lower jaws with dentitions are quite commonly recovered in much greaternumbers than are maxillae and upper teeth in dissociated fossil concentrations ofcontinental deposition, there is a very high probability that if as many as four sepa-rate parts of upper dentitions of this taxon have been found, mandibular materialsof this species exist unrecognized among known dryopithecine specimens. Approxi-mately four dozen binomials have been coined to date for fossils which may rep-resent members of the Dryopithecinae. Not one of the types of any of these species

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 1,

202

1


include definitely associated upper and lower dental materials. This suggests thatsome of the upper and lower dentitions from these deposits with different speciesnames may represent the same species.The tentatively referred mandible of Ramapithecus, cf. R. brevirostris (Gregory,

Hellman, and Lewis8) represented by a cast Y.P.M. 13870,7 does not, in my opinion,4belong to the genus Ramapithecus, a conclusion which Lewis now believes to bejustified, inasmuch as the mandible was referred (in Gregory, Hellman, and Lewis,1938: 21) to Ramapithecus brevirostris only because of possible occlusal relation-ships with the holotype maxilla, whereas it was recognized that "the teeth aresomewhat too narrow and the P- has its long axis too anteroposteriorly oriented tofulfill completely the requirements of a lower dentition of the genotype." Otherreasons for doubting this reference are: (1) The specimen (G.S.I. D-618) is from adifferent horizon (Chinji) and locality (Salt Range) than are the maxillary materialsof Ramapithecus. (2) Unlike most dryopithecines, this specimen has a distinctsimian shelf. (3) It shows marked lower premolar heteromorphy which is not knownto date in undoubted Hominidae. Should Ramapithecus have possessed asectorial P3, like that seen in G.S.I. D-618, such a lower tooth would have produceda deep wear facet on the anterior face of P3 in Y.P.M. 13799, but no such facet existsin this specimen. In addition, the small upper canine of Ramapithecus figured byLeakey (not separated from P3 by a diastema in any of the three maxillae) will notallow for functional occlusion of a sectorial P3 such as that of G.S.I. D-618 (Y.P.M.13870, cast). G.S.I. D-618 together with a second lower jaw (left side with dam-aged P4-M3) from the upper Chinji zone near Domeli, India (B.M.N.H. M-15243)both show small size and mandibular gracility differing from all other Siwalikhominoid mandibles. In these two mandibles there is fairly marked developmentof the simian shelf-otherwise both fall within the metric and morphologic range ofvariability of Proconsul africanus. When B.M.N.H. M-15243 and G.S.I. D-618,both of which have been separated in the mid-line of the symphysis, are set to-gether along this line, they show a typical pongid U-shaped dental arcade, whichcould not occlude with that inferred for the Ramapithecus palate by Simons.4 Thesetwo specimens appear to represent in decreasing order of probability, (a) a newspecies, (b) a pigmy race of one of the described Eurasian pongids, or (c) an Indianvariety of Proconsul africanus.

Pilgrim's discussion2 of Dryopithecus punjabicus suggests a method of determiningmaxillary and mandibular associations in Ramapithecus. The material he as-signed to his new species D. punjabicus included the type, consisting of portions ofthe right and left horizontal rami of the same mandible (G.S.I. D-118, and D-119),the right containing M3 and the left M2, and a referred maxilla (G.S.I. D-185).The subsequent taxonomic allocation of these two finds is interesting. Lewis9assigned the mandibular fragments to the genus Bramapithecus, while (as isstated above) Simons1 referred the maxilla to Ramapithecus. If one, however,accepts Pilgrim's reason for placing these upper and lower dental materials in thesame species, a view which I will attempt to confirm below, then the obvious im-plication of taxonomic work to date is that Bramapithecus mandibles are the lowerjaws of Ramapithecus. Unless species distinctions can be supported, the priorbinomial for this earliest known hominid must be Ramapithecus punjabicus(Pilgrim) 1910 and the following "species" become junior synonyms of this taxon;

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 1,

202

1


Ramapithecus brevirostris, Bramapithecus thorpei, Bramapithecus (?) sivalensis,and Kenyapithecus wickeri.

Pilgrim's Contribution.-The type mandibular fragments of Ramapithecuspunjabicus (Pilgrim) came from a high horizon in the Chinji Zone near the villageof Chinji-the referred right maxilla, G.S.I. D-185, from the Haritalyangar cuestascarp in the Nagri zone (Pilgrim, 1915: 9, 16). In 1915 Pilgrim2 dealt with thequestion of whether the two specimens could have been sufficiently separatedtemporally to lessen the probability of their belonging to the same species. Heconcluded that this was not the case. Problems regarding the rate of sedimenta-tion, stratigraphic disconformities, and lithology in the Siwaliks are extensivelydiscussed by Colbert."0 From this discussion, and others, it seems clear that therate of sedimentation while the Upper Chinji-Nagri Zones were accumulating wasrapid and that there are no abrupt faunal or lithologic changes between these twozones. There is some reason to think that typical Hipparion may not occurin the Chinji Zone, as was reported by some earlier workers, while other authors,such as Borisiak,11 present evidence that the Chinji has the oldest Hipparionfauna in Asia. These data would seem to favor a pre-Pliocene age for the Chinji.The primate materials here referred to Ramapithecus punjabicus come from boththe Upper Chinji and the Nagri, and I would agree with Pilgrim that but one species,R. punjabicus, occurs in the two zones. Associated faunas of both Indian andAfrican specimens suggest that known Ramapithecus lived at about the time ofthe Miocene-Pliocene temporal boundary. In the absence of a series of geo-chemically dated faunas or detailed studies of faunal correlation between mammalsof the Fort Ternan and Siwalik localities, no more precise determination of thetemporal position of Ramapithecus is possible at this time. It seems unlikely,however, that the temporal range of materials here referred to Ramapithecuspunjabicus will ever prove to be sufficiently great to justify two or more time-successive species populations. At least l am not aware of any scientific evidence,now available, which would warrant such a conclusion.

It is well known that the reference of unassociated upper and lower dentitionsto the same species has its weaknesses. However, I believe that Pilgrim's decisionto do so in this case can be justified on morphological grounds. Pilgrim2 sum-marized his conclusions on this point as follows:

The dimensions of these teeth, the moderately low cusps, the complexity of the folding of theenamel, and, above all, the peculiar serrated outer edge of the molars incline one so strongly to theopinion that we have before us a maxilla and mandible which belong to the same species, that,unless fairly conclusive evidence were forthcoming of a close affinity to another genus, or of theexistence of features in the maxilla, which told against an affinity with Dryopithecs [now, in thiscase, Ramapithecus], I should feel fairly certain that the similarity mentioned between the man-dible and the maxilla indicated specific identity.

The Yale Mandibles.-Three specimens referable to Bramapithecus are in theYale collections-all are mandibular fragments with molars present (Y.P.M. Nos.13806, 13814, and 13833). They are closely comparable to the type of Ram-apithecus punjabicus (G.S.I. D-118-119) although, as in all other hominoids,there is some variation in the crown pattern of the molars. The four specimenshave in common a thick, robust mandible in the M2-3 region which, however, isquite shallow vertically. In this feature they differ significantly from Eurasian

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 1,

202

1


DRYOPITHECUS SIVAPITHECUS SUGRIVAPITHECUS PROCONSUL

N.M.N.H.P? \ .M.N.H. J ( A.M.N.N 6.5.1. YPM Sr N.H. C MN.

0-1 M-10970 19413 0-196 13611 M-1486 R (1942)

A.

BREADTH/ 54.54.5. 53....53. ............ 55.2...........57.3..........6.. ..... ........ 5DEPTH 54.1

RAMAPITHECUS

| *.M.N.H. 0 .5.5. 09 .6.5. 7YPM. / PM.. )

M-13264 0-119 D-116 13614 13606

B.

DREP0TH ....62.1. 70.0.......... 70.9..75.9 . 71.7.70 e

FIG. 1.-Diagrammatic vertical sections of hominoid mandibles across mid-line of M3showing distinctly lower breadth-depth ratios in the Dryopithecus group (A) than in Rama-pithecus (B). Diagrams are anterior views of left rami and reversed views of right rami.* Depth estimated either by adding height of M2, when M' missing, or by projecting thelower outline of mandible.

and African dryopithecines, in which the mandible under M3 is considerably deeperrelative to its thickness (Fig. 1). The molars tend to be quadrate and crowdedrather than anteroposteriorly elongate and spaced out as in Dryopithecus andProconsul. The one lower molar from Fort Ternan, figured by Leakey,3 and whichhe regards as belonging to the same individual as his East African Ramapithecusmaxillae also has this shape. In Y.P.M. 13806 and 13814, M2 and M3 are essentiallythe same length. In the Dryopithecus group M3 is typically longer than M2. As inRamapithecus upper molars, the individual cusps do not stand out in relief as inAfrican and Indian pongids. Distinct, large, wear facets are present on the anteriorand posterior faces of M2 in G.S.I. D-118, Y.P.M. 13806 and 13814, and on theanterior face of M3 in G.S.I. D-119 and Y.P.M. 13806, 13814, and 13833. Par-ticularly in Y.P.M. 13814, the type of "Bramapithecus thorpei," wear against adja-cent teeth has cut deep, arcuate "contact facets" into the anterior margins of M2and M3. This, together with the quadrate form of the teeth, strongly suggests thatthe animal must have had a short face, and a crowded tooth row which lackeddiastemata. Mr. D. R. Pilbeam has recently pointed out to me that the horizontalramus begins to turn toward the symphysis at the level of M1 while in dryopithe-cines, such as Sugrivapithecus, the inward curvature toward the symphysis com-monly does not begin until about the level of P3 (Fig. 2). This distinction is adirect reflection of the differences between tooth arrangement in a short-facedform and that seen in long-snouted hominoids. It is interesting to note thatthese same features, deep anterior contact facets, subequal size of quadrate M2 and

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 1,

202

1


M3, shallow but robust mandible andlingual curvature toward the sym- » -X'physis at the level of Ml, are presentin the type of "Telanthropus capensis"and are about equally developed inseveral of Dart's Makapan mandiblesof Australopithecus. Perhaps evenmore significant is the presence of /these same features, together withother similarities, in the Lantien jaw -1discovered on July 19, 1963 in North-west China."2 This mandible may beAustralopithecus (s.l.), or even a mem-ber of much more recent Homo; which-ever it is, resemblances between"Bramapithecus" and such hominidjaws are striking. These strong simi-larities reinforce the probability that"Bramapithecus" mandibles belong A Bto a taxon on or near the main line FIG. 2.-Comparison of Mio-Pliocene hominidof human descent. This conclusion mandible (A) Ramapithecus, Y.P.M. 13814, with

contemporary dryopithecine (B) Sugrivapithecus,can be reached independently without Y.P.M. 13811. Unlike living or fossil apes, in thereference of these mandibles to the hominid the mandible begins to turn inward toward

the symphysis at the level of Ml and the molarssame species as the previously dis- are rounded with low relief. In the Sugrivapithecuscussed maxillae of Ramapithecus. mandible, Ms is restored from those of other dryo-Nevertheless, the two sets of data pithecines. Scale Xl.are interrelated and reinforce the association of upper and lower jaws. It seemsmost unlikely that hominid mandibles differentiated in one species while hominidmaxillae first reached the hominid grade in a different taxon. Lewis clearly rec-ognized the hominid ties of "Bramapithecus" discussed above, but until more be-came known about Ramapithecus maxillae, the phyletic and taxonomic implicationof structure in "Bramapithecus" remained uncertain. Lewis13 commented percep-tively in his initial discussion of "Bramapithecus:" "...the sculpture of the crownsis highly suggestive of many human molars. The deep folds, persistent in spiteof severe wear, are notable features. The author .., believes that the genus hasaffinities with Dryopithecus and was probably derived from a common stock. Itmay very well lie near to the stem which led to the Hominidae proper."In his revision of 1937, Lewis9 placed the four partial lower dentitions, discussed

above, in the genus "Bramapithecus" but retained three different species, "B.thorpei," "B." punjabicus, and "(?) B. sivalensis." Lewis' recognition of the tax-onomic affinity of these materials was another important step but, in view of knownvariability in living Hominoidea, these materials need not indicate more than onespecies. For this species "B." punjabicus (Pilgrim) 1910 has priority. An ad-ditional specimen (here assigned to this species), B M.N.H. M-13264, from theAttock district, Punjab is either from the uppermost Chinji or from the Nagri.Three of the finds, Y.P.M. 13833, 13834, and the'type G.S.I. D-118-119,!come fromthe Upper Chinji And one of them, "(?) B." sivalensis, YP.M, 13806, from the

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 1,

202

1


Nagri age cuesta scarp at Haritalyangar. Thus, at Haritalyangar as well as atFt. Ternan, Kenya, lower teeth of this sort have been found at a locality which hasyielded Ramapithecus maxillae. It seems most unlikely that two species wereindependently differentiating toward Hominidae at this time (end of the Mioceneand/or early Pliocene), one of which is known only from mandibles, the otheronly from maxillae, but both of which occur at the same sites. I can find nomorphological, temporal, or distributional evidence for thinking that all the ma-terials belonging to the "species" listed below should not be referred to one species,Ramapithecus punjabicus, which was originally diagnosed by Pilgrim"4 in 1910.

In regard to the question of geographic distribution of this species, it is interestingthat a right M2 from the Pontian of Melchingen, Wirttemberg, assigned by Koken'6to Dryopithecus suevicus shows all the characteristic molar features outlined inthe diagnosis below for Ramapithecus punjabicus. A left M2 from the same collec-tion, markedly different, but also included in D. suevicus by Koken is a Dryopithe-cus-presumably D. fontani.

SystematicsOrder PRIMATES

Suborder AnthropoideaSuperfamily Hominoidea

Family HOMINIDAEGenus Ramapithecus Lewis, 1934

Dryopithecus Lartet, Pilgrim (partim) 1915:16Bramapithecus Lewis 1934:173Dryopithecus Lartet, Lewis (partim) 1934:171Kenyapithecus Leakey, 1962:690

Type Species.-Ramapithecus brevirostris Lewis 1934'3 (considered here to be asubjective synonym of Dryopithecus punjabicus Pilgrim, 1910).14

Generic Diagnosis.-Differs from Australopithecus and members of the Dryo-pithecus group in the following general features: slightly smaller over-all size (ex-cept for Proconsul africanus), shallower mandible, less complex patterns of toothcrenulation, shorter face, little or no evidence of cingula or Carabelli's cusps.Incisors and canines reduced, in relation to cheek-tooth size when compared toDryopithecus, but not as markedly as in Australopithecus; incisor procumbencyintermediate.

Differs from Dryopithecus and other apes in showing more widely spaced andmuch lower crowned molar cusps, so that central or occlusal fovea of molars coversmore of the crown surface of the tooth, and the sides of the upper molars (particu-larly) are more vertical. Also differs from Dryopithecus in showing a largerand lower canine fossa, an arched palate, arcuate tooth row, and much shorterrostrum.

Specific Diagnosis.-Same as for the genus, which is monotypic.Referred Species.-Ramapithecus brevirostris Lewis (1934:162), Bramapithecus

thorpei Lewis (1934:173), Bramapithecus(?) sivalensis Lewis (1934:171), Kenya-pithecus wickeri Leaky (1962:690).

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 1,

202

1


Summary.--Earlier discussionsof the mandible of Ramapithecus,the oldest probable forerunner ofman, have been based on a jawwhich actually belongs to a speciesof Dryopithecus. Materials pre-viously assigned to species of thegenus "Bramapithecus" are here ;__,referred to the genus and speciesRamapithecus punjabicus. Thisspecies probably occurred widely iClH-2--throughout Eurasia and Africaabout 14 or 15 million years ago.Considered together, known ma- -terial of R. punjabicus indicatesa Pan-sized primate with short FIG. 3.-Hypothetical appearance of the face ofRama-face, arcuate palate, and an pithecus. Maxilla Y.P.M. 13799; mandible, Y.P.M.Asrokmandible 13814 (reversed). Dotted outline of canine from typeAustralopithecus-likeof "Kenyapithecus wickeri." Dashed lines conjectural.

(Fig. 3). Dental and facial Scale XO.72.characters are so close to Austra-lopithecus africanus as to make difficult the drawing of generic distinctions be-tween the two species on the basis of present material. Provisionally the two genera,Ramapithecus and Australopithecus, are retained as distinct because of their consider-able time separation. Ramapithecus punjabicus is almost certainly man's forerun-ner of 15 million years ago. This determination increases tenfold the approximatetime period during which human origins can now be traced with some confidence.The author wishes to acknowledge valuable discussions of the subject with W. E. LeGros

Clark and D. R. Pilbeam. Figures were prepared at Yale by Miss Polly Porter and Miss AnnaHeld.

* The research reported here was supported in part by a grant in geology from the NationalScience Foundation, no. GP-433, and by grants from the Wenner-Gren Foundation of NewYork.

I Simons, E. L., Science, 141, 879 (1963).2Pilgrim, G. E., Records Geol. Surv. Ind., 45, 1 (1915).3Leakey, L. S. B., Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 13, 689 (1962).4Simons, E. L., PostiUa, 57, 1 (1961).6 Simons, E. L., and D. R. Pilbeam, Folia Primatologica, in press.6Krynine, P. D., Amer. J. Sci., 34, 422 (1937).7The original of this mandible G.S.I. D-618 cannot now be located in the collections at Cal-

cutta, therefore further comment as to the taxon which it represents will have to be based onY.P.M. 13870 (cast). Simons4 inadvertently referred to this specimen as Y.P.M. 13807, nowM.C.Z. 8386, the type of Ramapithecus hariensis Lewis (1934), which was ultimately assigned toSivapithecus sivalensis Lewis8 and which is not a Ramapithecus.

8 Gregory, W. K., M. Hellman, and G. E. Lewis, Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. No. 495,1 (1938).9 Lewis, G. E., Amer. J. Sci., 34, 139 (1937)."Colbert, E. H., Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc., 26, 1 (1935).11 Borisiak, A. A., (translation) Internat. Geol. Rev., 4, 845 (1962).12 Anon., IUust. Lond. News, 243 (6483), 742 (1963).13Lewis, G. E., Amer. J. Sci., 27, 161 (1934).14 Pilgrim, G. E., Records Geol. Surv. Ind., 40, 63 (1910).' Koken, E., Fatrher durch die samlungen (Tubingen, Stuttgart: Geol.-Min. Inst., 1905), p. 1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 1,

202

1

Documents

SIMONS - PNAS