ArticleNature communications2017
Evidence of a chimpanzee-sized ancestor of humans but a gibbon-sized ancestor of apes.
Article in Nature communications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Size Disparity in Putative Primate Adaptive Radiations and Other Mammalian Clades.American journal of biological anthropology · 2026Article
- Directionality theory and mortality patterns across the primate lineage.Biogerontology · 2024Article
- First evolutionary insights into the human otolithic system.Communications biology · 2024Article
- The reconstructed cranium ofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Principal component and linear discriminant analyses for the classification of hominoid primate specimens based on bone shape data.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Genomic features underlie the co-option of SVA transposons as cis-regulatory elements in human pluripotent stem cells.PLoS genetics · 2022Article
- Bipedal locomotion in zoo apes: Revisiting the hylobatian model for bipedal origins.Evolutionary human sciences · 2022Article
- The evolution of mammalian brain size.Science advances · 2021Article
- Article
- The Evolutionary Radiation of Hominids: a Phylogenetic Comparative Study.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- The African ape-like foot ofeLife · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Body mass directly affects how an animal relates to its environment and has a wide range of biological implications. However, little is known about the mass of the last common ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees, hominids (great apes and humans), or hominoids (all apes and humans), which is needed to evaluate numerous paleobiological hypotheses at and prior to the root of our lineage. Here we use phylogenetic comparative methods and data from primates including humans, fossil hominins, and a wide sample of fossil primates including Miocene apes from Africa, Europe, and Asia to test alternative hypotheses of body mass evolution. Our results suggest, contrary to previous suggestions, that the LCA of all hominoids lived in an environment that favored a gibbon-like size, but a series of selective regime shifts, possibly due to resource availability, led to a decrease and then increase in body mass in early hominins from a chimpanzee-sized LCA.The pattern of body size evolution in hominids can provide insight into historical human ecology. Here, Grabowski and Jungers use comparative phylogenetic analysis to reconstruct the likely size of the ancestor of humans and chimpanzees and the evolutionary history of selection on body size in primates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.