taxonID	type	description	language	source
03EB87FDC8009813E8EFFB7D6433FEB2.taxon	etymology	Etymology. Turkae for the people who live in Anatolia.	en	Güleç, Erksin Savaş, Sevim, Ayla, Pehlevan, Cesur, Kaya, Ferhat (2007): A new great ape from the late Miocene of Turkey. Anthropological Science 115 (2): 153-158, DOI: 10.1537/ase.070501, URL: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/115/2/115_070501/_pdf
03EB87FDC8009813E8EFFB7D6433FEB2.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype. CO- 205, a maxilla fragment with right C – M 2 and left I 1 – M 3. Chilotherium sp. Rhinocerotinae indet. Ceratotherium neumayri Paratypes. CO- 300, a subadult mandible with right C – M 2 and left P 3 – M 1; CO- 710, an adult partial right mandible with P 3 – M 2; holotype and paratypes are housed at the University of Ankara.	en	Güleç, Erksin Savaş, Sevim, Ayla, Pehlevan, Cesur, Kaya, Ferhat (2007): A new great ape from the late Miocene of Turkey. Anthropological Science 115 (2): 153-158, DOI: 10.1537/ase.070501, URL: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/115/2/115_070501/_pdf
03EB87FDC8009813E8EFFB7D6433FEB2.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. O. turkae is distinguished from other Miocene hominoids, including Ankarapithecus as well as the probable sister taxon Ouranopithecus macedoniensis, by a constellation of dentognathic features that includes short- er and more vertical premaxilla, palate narrow relative to postcanine occlusal size, and homomorphic P 3 and P 4. The P 3 is nearly symmetrical and oval in occlusal outline and the pre-and postparacrista are subequal in length. O. turkae is further distinguished from O. macedoniensis by its smaller relative canine to cheek tooth size proportions, shorter-crowned male canines, maxillary incisors nearly aligned with the canines, and perhaps larger (male) size.	en	Güleç, Erksin Savaş, Sevim, Ayla, Pehlevan, Cesur, Kaya, Ferhat (2007): A new great ape from the late Miocene of Turkey. Anthropological Science 115 (2): 153-158, DOI: 10.1537/ase.070501, URL: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/115/2/115_070501/_pdf
03EB87FDC8009813E8EFFB7D6433FEB2.taxon	description	Description The upper incisors are very heteromorphic in size and shape. The I 1 is robust and squat, with nearly equivalent me- siodistal and labiolingual dimensions (Table 2). Its lingual surface is marked by deep vertical fissures, including prominent mesial and distal lingual grooves. The worn incisal edge angles steeply lingually. A prominent basal tubercle, contributing to the labiolingually thick crown, is slightly worn along the incisal wear plane. The I 2 crown is wider labiolingually than mesiodistally, and has a strong basal lingual cingulum and marked lingual relief. Relative to the cheek teeth, the incisors are small. In buccal aspect, the upper canine crown shoulders are set near the crown base. The basal canine outline is a labiolingually elongate oval. The mesial groove is narrow and deep. The right canine tip was fractured antemortem and the dentine was slightly worn apically. There is a distolingual honing facet formed by contact with the P 3 and an extensive and mammelated lingual cingulum. Relative to postcanine tooth size, CO- 205 has among the smallest canines of presumed males of any known late Neogene hominoid (Figure 3). The O. turkae upper postcanine teeth are in the size range of living gorillas. However, they feature broad, low, rounded cusps, weak cristae, broad, shallow occlusal basins, and simple occlusal morphology. The summed postcanine occlusal area of the CO- 205 exceeds that of all other Miocene hominoid primate taxa except Gigantopithecus. Except for P 3, O. turkae molars and premolars lack cingula and their enamel is thick. The enamel thickness of the lateral crown faces in CO- 300 measured by recently standardized micro-CT methodology (Suwa and Kono, 2005) at the major cusps ranges from 1.81 to 2.35 mm in the M 2 (Figure 4) and from 1.55 + to 2.03 + mm in the M 1. Average enamel thickness in the mesial cusp section of the little-worn M 2 is 1.94 mm. The relative enamel thickness value (enamel area divided by square root of dentine area; Smith et al., 2003, 2004; Kono, 2004) of M 2 is 27.3, making this the thickest enameled Miocene hominoid molar yet examined based on these parameters (Smith et al., 2003, 2004). The O. turkae P 3 is oval, rather than of an asymmetrical triangular form as seen in most other fossil and modern apes. The P 3 protocone and paracone are of subequal size. In buccal aspect, the crown profile also lacks the asymmetry seen in other ape P 3 s. This is because of the absence of a strong rootward mesiobuccal projection of the enamel line, and because the distobuccal (postparacrista) and mesiobuccal (preparacrista) occlusal edges are nearly equal in length. The P 4 crown is also more oval and symmetric than in most other apes. The mesial and distal foveae of both upper premolars are bounded by thick marginal ridges. In keeping with the large and robust premolars, the upper molars are massive, with distal cusps well expressed and not reduced as in some Miocene hominoids. The M 1 is smaller than the M 2, which is slightly smaller than M 3. The latter tapers distally, is mesiodistally elongate, and bears accessory distal cusps. The M 1 cusps were worn low before enamel perforation, with dentine exposed only at the protocone. The enamel thickness of the upper molars was not measured, but the enamel bounding the exposed dentine suggests a thickness comparable to that of the measured lower molars. Only the roots and alveoli of the mandibular incisor are preserved in CO- 300. The erupting canine had not reached occlusion, but it is tall, narrow, and pointed. In keeping with the morphology of the upper premolars, the P 3 is more oval in occlusal outline than in most apes and even some early hominids. A thin lingual cingulum is present. The protoconid is sharp and prominent. A small honing facet can be seen on the mesio-buccal face of the right P 3. The P 3 of CO- 710 has a prominent wear facet from protoconid to metaconid and also has a slight honing facet on the mesiobuccal surface. As is the case for the P 3, O. turkae has slightly more oval P 3 s than those of O. macedoniensis. As in the P 3, in buccal view, the mesial occlusal edge (preprotocristid) of the P 3 in CO- 300 is subequal (but slightly longer) in length compared to the distal occlusal edge (postprotocristid). This morphology is unlike the distinctly longer preprotocristid of most other Miocene and modern apes. Hence, the O. turkae P 3 is rather less sectorial in shape than in most other known Miocene hominoids, resembling the modern chimpanzee in this respect. The mandibular dental dimensions are given in Table 3. The palate of CO- 205 is distorted, but judging from the posterior margins of the incisor and canine alveoli, as well as a fragment of bone along the right lateral edge of the nasal aperture, it featured a short and fairly vertical premaxilla. As the incisors and canines are relatively reduced, the anterior palate is presumed to be relatively narrow, whereas the massive postcanine teeth render the entire palate long and seemingly narrow relative to postcanine size and palatal length. The incisors extend minimally beyond the anterior transverse plane of the canines and are notably vertically implant- ed, particularly for a young adult. There was little or no precanine diastema. The maxillary palatine processes are thin. We consider O. turkae to have had a more vertical face than O. macedoniensis. These apparently derived features may relate to the younger age of the Turkish fossils.	en	Güleç, Erksin Savaş, Sevim, Ayla, Pehlevan, Cesur, Kaya, Ferhat (2007): A new great ape from the late Miocene of Turkey. Anthropological Science 115 (2): 153-158, DOI: 10.1537/ase.070501, URL: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/115/2/115_070501/_pdf
03EB87FDC8009813E8EFFB7D6433FEB2.taxon	discussion	Discussion O. turkae is most similar to Ouranopithecus among known Miocene hominoids. The two taxa share many derived features, such as the weakly asymmetric upper and lower P 3 s, absolutely and relatively large postcanine size, and hyper-thick molar enamel, probably related to a diet that required heavy mastication. This is also evidenced by instances of heavy wear in upper (RPL- 128, XIR- 1) and lower (RPL- 56) dentitions of this genus. This wear was probably associated with an adaptation to more open habitats than those of extant apes. Indeed, Ouranopithecus lived in Eurasia during a time of considerable decline in forest cover, and development of more open country and seasonable environments (Bernor, 1983; de Bonis et al., 1994; Bernor et al., 1996; de Bonis and Koufos, 1999; Begun and Kordos, 1997; Begun, 2005). Previous interpretations of Ouranopithecus had suggested that this genus was a plausible ancestor of African Pliocene Australopithecus based on dentognathic morphological similarities (Begun et al., 2003). Indeed, the resemblance of the upper premolars of O. turkae and non-robust Pliocene Australopithecus such as Au. africanus, is striking. However, most early Australopithecus dentitions, A. anamensis (Ward et al., 2001) and A. afarensis (White, 1977), actually have more primitive postcanine dental features than seen in Ouranopithecus. Furthermore, the African late Miocene hominids Orrorin (Senut et al., 2001), Ardipithecus (White et al., 1994; Haile-Selassie, 2001; Haile-Selassie et al., 2004), and Sahelanthropus (Brunet et al., 2002) lack dentognathic specializations associated with tough / abrasive diets such as that inferred for Ouranopithecus and in early Australopithecus. Such considerations lead us to interpret Ouranopithecus as manifesting substantial dentognathic parallelism with Australopithecus (Begun and Kordos, 1997; Begun, 2001). Hence, we do not consider these features of Ouranopithecus to indicate placement within the hominid (African ape-human) clade (contra de Bonis et al., 1990, 1999; de Bonis and Koufos, 1993, 1994, 1997; Koufos, 1993). O. turkae, the youngest and largest of known Turkish Miocene hominoids, is unlike all modern and other fossil great apes in what is known of its preserved anatomy and its environmental circumstances.	en	Güleç, Erksin Savaş, Sevim, Ayla, Pehlevan, Cesur, Kaya, Ferhat (2007): A new great ape from the late Miocene of Turkey. Anthropological Science 115 (2): 153-158, DOI: 10.1537/ase.070501, URL: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/115/2/115_070501/_pdf
