Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, April 16, 2007 | Reason : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document New Primate Species Found In 42 Million-year-old Texas Fossils

by Science Daily

Reposted from:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070409161526.htm

Something old is now something new, thanks to Lamar University researcher Jim Westgate and colleagues. The scientists' research has led to the discovery of a new genus and species of primate, one long vanished from the earth but preserved in the fossil record.

Artist's depiction of Eocene Texas coastal habitat, with the newly discovered primate (Paralomys) inset. (Credit: Art by Abby Salazar)

Westgate is a professor of earth and space sciences at Lamar and a research associate in the Vertebrate Paleontology Laboratory, Texas Natural Science Center, University of Texas-Austin. He and his research colleagues, Dana Cope, professor of anthropology, College of Charleston, and Chris Beard, curator, Vertebrate Paleontology Section, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, announced their discovery at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Philadelphia, Pa., Thursday, March 29.

Molar, pre-molar and incisor teeth from the new primate genus and three other new primate species were recovered from 42 million-year-old tropical, mangrove palm swamp deposits of the Eocene age Laredo Formation exposed in Lake Casa Blanca International State Park in Laredo.

The association of primate fossils with the skeletal remains of oysters, sharks, rays, giant aquatic snakes and crocodiles, along with mangrove palm fruits and pollen, indicates that the middle Eocene shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico lay 150 miles inland of its present position, Westgate said.

The team is preparing detailed manuscripts describing the new Omomyid primates. One of the spoils of discovering a new species is the opportunity to give it a name. The formal name of the new genus, which means "primate of the coastal lagoons", will be released at publication time, Westgate said.

Omomyids (members of the extinct taxon Omomyidae) lived 34 to 50 million years ago during the Eocene Epoch and were one of two groups of known Eocene primates. The other, adapids, were more lemur-like. Fossils of these Eocene primates have been found in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The Eocene primates are the earliest known primates.

Omomyids had large eye orbits, long grasping fingers and short snouts. They weighed around one kilogram, or close to two pounds and were likely nocturnal, with large eyes for seeing better at night. Like most modern-day primates, the omomyids used their long fingers for climbing. They had small mouths, and it is likely that insects were a part of their regular diet.

The presence of a diverse primate community with four species living on the Texas coast during late middle Eocene time is significant because at that time primate diversity in the northern interior of North America had diminished greatly because of global climatic cooling and uplifting of the Rocky Mountains, Westgate said. The tropical environment on the Texas coast appears to have allowed primates to thrive locally while their relatives in the continental interior faced near extinction.

Lamar University, the University of Texas Geology Foundation, the National Geographic Society and the Geological Society of America provided funds for field excavations in Laredo.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Lamar University.

Comments 1 - 29 of 29 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #32156 by Rtambree on April 16, 2007 at 2:45 am

Hmmm - I wonder, for those that manage to believe in both God and evolution, at what point God is supposed to have said... "I'll put a soul into the primate....wait....wait.....wait.....now"

They're going to have to draw some line in the sand - and say... that hominid does not have an immortal soul and that one has.

It's a bit arbitrary. Another example of pulling a number out of the air... I remember Michael Shermer asking a Christian woman... "What age are you preserved at when you go to heaven" In your decrepitude? In your prime of your body or brain? But there was an answer - 26 or something. He was amazed that she had an answer.

Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #32157 by Veronique on April 16, 2007 at 2:49 am

 avatarMy god, you mean the world is older than 10,000 years? Who would have thought it:)

Isn't it wonderful when new finds come into the microscope? I don't know how the fossils were treated and therefore can't make a comment.

'Tis interesting that most archaeologists talk about human animals coming over the Bering Strait at about 14,000 to 18,000 years ago. And here we have primates at 42 million years. What an interesting find.

I await all reviews, peer reviews and further research. Bloody fascinating.

V

Other Comments by Veronique

3. Comment #32158 by Laurence Winch-Furness on April 16, 2007 at 2:54 am

 avatarThis fossil is a tool of statan and should be burnt!!! :-) Seriously though, I'm suprised palentologists still manage to work in Texas.

Other Comments by Laurence Winch-Furness

4. Comment #32164 by NJS on April 16, 2007 at 3:36 am

"Hmmm - I wonder, for those that manage to believe in both God and evolution, at what point God is supposed to have said... 'I'll put a soul into the primate....wait....wait.....wait.....now'"

On a debate on the BBC Have your say last year I saw a post where someone's understanding of evolution was "God took an animal called Homo Erectus and gave him a soul making Homo Sapien"

As I keep saying, this kind of blending of theism and evolution makes less sense than biblical literalism.

Other Comments by NJS

5. Comment #32166 by elvenearth on April 16, 2007 at 3:42 am

Laurence Winch-Furness: "Seriously though, I'm suprised palentologists still manage to work in Texas."


A bit harsh surely.

Other Comments by elvenearth

6. Comment #32184 by Luthien on April 16, 2007 at 5:37 am

 avatar
Laurence Winch-Furness: "Seriously though, I'm suprised palentologists still manage to work in Texas."


They have to do it under cover of darkness, but it's ok because the locals just think all the lights out in the desert are from UFOs...

Other Comments by Luthien

7. Comment #32185 by MiloC on April 16, 2007 at 5:40 am

According to the Vatican, Mankind received his soul at the point of his evolution when he became 'fully conscious' whenever that was.

Other Comments by MiloC

8. Comment #32186 by Rtambree on April 16, 2007 at 5:42 am

Luthien > They have to do it under cover of darkness, but it's ok because the locals just think all the lights out in the desert are from UFOs..

Good one!!

NJS > As I keep saying, this kind of blending of theism and evolution makes less sense than biblical literalism.

Yes, I must admit I do have some respect for the fundamentalists in the sense that at least they recognise there's a irreconcilibility between theism and evolution and they attempt to resolve it (falsely of course), but the moderates who cherry-pick and believe both the Bible AND Darwin are just being intellectually lazy e.g. "yeah, whatever, so long as I get my afterlife and justice is done to the wicked".

Other Comments by Rtambree

9. Comment #32201 by nancy2001 on April 16, 2007 at 7:00 am

Since these cute little creatures were discovered in Texas, the scientists should name them "Bush Babies." I'm sure that would embarrass Dubya and all his ID cronies.

Other Comments by nancy2001

10. Comment #32205 by Mango on April 16, 2007 at 7:17 am

 avatarAs Rtambree says, fundamentalists at least pick a clear side and do not try to have it both ways. Or to paraphrase Harris, "They betray their reason and their faith equally."

And to Veronique's remark in comment 2 about humans entering North America, bear in mind that anatomically modern humans evolved from the Australopithecines in Africa, a species that evolved over 2 millions years ago. Homo sapiens only evolved about 100,000 years ago in east and northeast Africa, at which time we radiated around the globe (in various waves) and entered North America by 15,000 years ago.

Other Comments by Mango

11. Comment #32207 by John P on April 16, 2007 at 7:29 am

 avatar
According to the Vatican, Mankind received his soul at the point of his evolution when he became 'fully conscious' whenever that was.

So, all those hominids that came before were walking zombies?

Other Comments by John P

12. Comment #32217 by ghostbuster on April 16, 2007 at 8:09 am

Nancy2001---pleeeease don't insult those cute little critters! They don't look at all like Bush's daughters.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

13. Comment #32223 by padster1976 on April 16, 2007 at 8:29 am

 avatarTo Laurence Winch-Furness,

I thought the same thing when I read just the title - and the irony...

A major scientific find in texas.

Why, I do think it qualifies as an oxymoron!

Other Comments by padster1976

14. Comment #32237 by Spinoza on April 16, 2007 at 10:03 am

 avatarIf there were a God, he'd be going "Ahahaha, I'm STILL fucking with you! Hahahahahaha!"

Which just makes me smile.

Other Comments by Spinoza

15. Comment #32241 by commonhumanity on April 16, 2007 at 10:46 am

>>>(by the way, can someone help? I previewed this before submitting, and noticed that the time given was 3 hours previous... I'm on the US east coast at about 12:05 pm and it said 9:05 am...)<<<

I think it's because Josh is in California.

Other Comments by commonhumanity

16. Comment #32247 by Harlon57 on April 16, 2007 at 12:15 pm

#32217 by ghostbuster

Insulting the innocent daughters of the U.S. president lacks class.

Other Comments by Harlon57

17. Comment #32267 by ghostbuster on April 16, 2007 at 2:42 pm

And killing the innocent daughters of Iraq lacks conscience never mind class. And most of the news items on Mr. Big's kids tells me I'm not the only one that lacks class.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

18. Comment #32271 by Ev3nt H0riz0n on April 16, 2007 at 3:07 pm

 avatarWTF is this I hear? the same retarded comments for the past 5000 articles! It stopped being funny and now is just sad. This is an article about a new species discovered and I suggest you talk about it instead of saying the same repetitive, stereotypical crap. You and I are atheists on an atheist website yet most posts lack intelligence and are turning this into fanboyist trash.
At the very least keep it in the forums.

Other Comments by Ev3nt H0riz0n

19. Comment #32276 by jayalenik on April 16, 2007 at 3:46 pm

 avatarLighten up dude

Other Comments by jayalenik

20. Comment #32277 by Shuggy on April 16, 2007 at 4:07 pm

 avatar"The formal name of the new genus, which means "primate of the coastal lagoons", will be released at publication time, Westgate said."

Someone with better Latin or Greek than me ought to be able to jump their gun. "Littorolacapithicus"?

Other Comments by Shuggy

21. Comment #32278 by maton100 on April 16, 2007 at 4:14 pm

 avatarhttp://www.thebook.co.za/cgi-bin/resource.cgi?61

Anyone heard of this bullshit site?

Other Comments by maton100

22. Comment #32280 by jayalenik on April 16, 2007 at 4:28 pm

 avatarMaton, Went to the "the book" site . Same bullshit different url.

Other Comments by jayalenik

23. Comment #32281 by krogercomplete on April 16, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Oh my.

Favorite line:

"To believe in evolution requires that its followers must check their brains at the laboratory door. They are expected to believe without asking questions. An evolutionist is required to believe that the millions of plants, animals, insects, and all other forms of life just happened to be here. Even the universe and all the stars just happened. Really millions of miracles. There are to date no scientific (note scientific, not postulations) proofs that evolution is possible. For example: one species cannot give rise to another, because no organism is able to change its DNA by itself."

Other Comments by krogercomplete

24. Comment #32295 by Rtambree on April 16, 2007 at 6:20 pm

25. Comment #32294 by Beth

>Isn't it a bit bigoted to assume that everyone in a particular area is incapable of rational thought or scientific enquiry?

When you read statistics on 80-90% of Americans believing in angels, hell, young Earth, etc, then some harmless fun-making of this type will tend to contain a bit of truth.

Other Comments by Rtambree

25. Comment #32296 by BAEOZ on April 16, 2007 at 6:21 pm

 avatarI just checked that site posted by maton100 and feel the urge to squeeze that guys throat! I don't know how RD or any of the other guys put up with the lies these guys spread.
I don't believe in non belief (Atheism). I don't believe in evolution. Evolution doesn't posit that things just appeared. Evolution is an explanation of a natural, observable phenomenon. And whilst I admire professor Dawkins, I certainly don't worship or believe in him.
Should be illegal this crap, but I guess that's the world we live in.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

26. Comment #32307 by DavidJMH on April 16, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
"Ev3nt H0riz0n" is right. Most postings on this website have now become inane, religion bashing and hardly ever on topic. The retort following his/her criticism confirms the low mentality all too prevalent. If you cannot keep it intelligent and on topic, go back to your sandbox.

Other Comments by DavidJMH

27. Comment #32492 by Ev3nt H0riz0n on April 17, 2007 at 6:55 am

 avatarthankyou

Other Comments by Ev3nt H0riz0n

28. Comment #32538 by laks.84 on April 17, 2007 at 10:27 am

wow! i didnt know primates were that old!!
Nice find!

Other Comments by laks.84

29. Comment #32620 by HappyPrimate on April 17, 2007 at 3:44 pm

 avatarFascinating article on this early primate. Living on the present coast of the Gulf of Mexico I couldn't help noting the article stated -- that the middle Eocene shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico lay 150 miles inland of its present position, Westgate said. -- which has me wondering if with the global warming trend, might the shoreline revert to its middle Eocene mark?

BTW - I also agree with Ev3nt H0riz0n and DavidJMH regarding the trend in postings.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: