On the Adaptive Pattern of zyxw “Ramapithecus” zyx LEONARD OWEN GREENFIELD zyxwvut Department of Anthropology, Temple Uniuersity, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 KEY WORDS “Ramapithecus ” Siuapithecus ABSTRACT zyxwvuts A reconstruction of the adaptive pattern of the Miocene hominoid “Ramapithecus, ” supported by comparative data and morphological comparisons, is presented. It is based upon the completely known dentition, inferior portion of the face, and on the paleoecology and geographic distribution of “Ramapithecus ” bearing deposits. The known adaptive and morphological patterns of the “Ramapithecus ” spe- cies are almost indistinguishable from those of the contemporary species of Sivapithecus, which has taxonomic priority. The “Ramapithecus ” species are therefore referred to Sivapithecus, a dryopithecine genus which apparently radiated throughout Eurasia and Africa during the Middle Miocene. The Middle-Late Miocene hominoid, “Ra- mapithecus, ” has long interested students of paleoanthropology. In the more than four dec- ades since Lewis (’341 erected the taxon, there has been a continuing debate over its adaptive pattern and phylogenetic relationships. How- ever, by the early 70’s) there was a general consensus among those who had worked with all or some of the original materials referred to “Ramapithecus, ” notably Lewis (‘34, ‘371, Simons (’61, ’63, ’64, ’68, ’72, ’76, ’771, Pilbeam zyxwv (‘66, ‘67, ’68, ’69a,b, ’70, ’72), Simons and Pilbeam (’65, ’721, Tattersall (’751, Conroy (‘721, Conroy and Pilbeam (‘731, and Andrews and Tekkaya (‘761, that the dental and gnathic adaptations of the taxon were essen- tially hominid in character, distinguishable from those of contemporary dryopithecines, and suggestive of a direct phyletic relation- ship with Plio/Pleistocene hominids. Logically following from this interpretation was the conclusion that the African pongid and hominid lineages had been independent since the Middle Miocene (at least 15 mya). This now traditional view of “Ramapithecus” and hominid origins has received much support among paleoanthropologists despite the fact that systematic comparisons between “Rama- pithecus ” and relevant hominoids (earlier and contemporary dryopithecines, extant pongids, and PliolPleistocene hominids), had never been undertaken. Recently, this author also had the oppor- AM. J. PHYS. ANTHROP. (1979) 50: zyxwvut 527-548. tunity to examine and measure original “Ramapithecus, ” Sivapithecus, and Dryopith- ecus (Proconsul) specimens in Nairobi, Calcutta, and New Haven, and to collect com- parative metric and morphological data for Pan, Pongo, Gorilla, Gigantopithecus, and Plio/Pleistocene hominids. These essential data were collected in order to examine criti- cally, for the first time, all of the numerous assertions made about the hominid nature of the dental and gnathic region of “Rama- pithecus, ” the suggested horizontal and verti- cal phylogenetic relationships of the taxon, and the taxonomic treatment of specimens. In the subsequent analysis (Greenfield; ’77) the metrics and morphology of more than three dozen known features of “Ramapithecus” were systematically compared. These data showed that the dental and gnathic adapta- tions of “Rarnapithecus” are also those of the contemporary dryopithecine Sivapithecus, and that “Ramapithecus” exhibits no more similarities to Plio/Pleistocene hominids than do the species of Sivapithecus. The analysis further showed that the criteria used to deter- mine which specimens should be included in the hypodigm of “Ramapithecus ” were ap- plied inconsistently, and consequently the morphology of many included specimens con- tradicted the diagnosis. An abbreviated and modified version of that systematic analysis is presented here. While others (HrdliEka, ’35; Yulish, ’70; 527