Modern great apes include. Representatives of great apes. Good giants or monsters

Spring and summer don't pass without freckles? Yes, and in childhood you were teased with caulk? Let's figure out how to get rid of annoying marks on the face.

freckles

Spring and summer don't pass without freckles? Yes, and in childhood you were teased with freckles, and adults admired a charming girl with freckles? First, let's figure out what it is - freckles.

Freckles are not born with freckles: they begin to appear in children from one to two years of age. If you have freckles, then, as a rule, they are all the same in terms of the color palette, regardless of their location. But, being an individual feature of each person, they come in different shades: reddish, yellowish, light brown, brown and even black. The main rule: freckles are always a tone darker than the main skin color. They become more pronounced and dark after sunbathing, in the winter months they either disappear completely or become noticeably lighter.

freckles

Where do they come from?

According to scientists, the appearance of freckles is determined by a hereditary predisposition combined with the influence of ultraviolet radiation. Under the influence of sunlight or lamps used in tanning beds, the outer layer of the skin - the epidermis - thickens, and the cells that produce melanin begin to work in an emergency mode. This is a protective reaction of our skin to the action of ultraviolet radiation.

By and large, a freckle is a violation of the uniformity of melanin distribution, its delay in one point of the skin after damage to the epidermis caused by solar radiation. People with lighter skin and hair are more susceptible to the damaging effects of UV rays.

Freckles only happen to red-haired and fair-skinned people?

Not at all. There is a special classification of freckles: "simple" freckles and sunburn freckles.

1. "Simple" freckles are generally brownish, round and small. They are on the skin regardless of the season. They are most often manifested in owners of fair skin, and the likelihood of their occurrence is transmitted in families from generation to generation, that is, they are genetically determined. Such freckles most often delight red-haired and green-eyed people.

freckles

2. Freckles that appear as a result of prolonged and frequent exposure to the sun(for example, during vacation), often darker than "simple" freckles, have uneven, as if jagged boundaries and can be quite large in size. Sunburn freckles are most common on the upper back and shoulders, and these are the places where you get burned most often. The appearance of such "marks" is in no way connected with a genetic predisposition and can appear in people with any type of skin, even in dark-skinned people and burning brunettes. By the way, the doctors have not yet decided to the end: some doctors believe that this kind of pigment spots on the skin of people who, in principle, do not have freckles and should not have them, is nothing more than a skin disease. However, protection from ultraviolet rays with the help of special means can suppress the activity of this type of freckles.

freckles

Freckles and moles - what's the connection?

Unlike freckles, which do not occur in newborns, moles can appear at an early age, they also occur in places where melanin accumulates, but age does not play a role in this case. Moles can change over time, change shape, color, become more prominent. Moles appear all over the body and do not depend on the season. However, moles and freckles have one thing in common: although in most cases they are harmless neoplasms, there is always a risk of their degeneration into malignant ones. Especially under the influence of ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, be sure to use sunscreen cosmetics in summer. And do not forget to consult a doctor if you notice that pronounced brown spots appeared on the skin, moles or freckles darkened sharply, increased in size, became painful.

freckles

How can you prevent freckles on your skin?

These rules are simple, and you've probably already heard of them. But still we repeat.

1. Use sunscreen with a high SPF (UV protection factor) of 30 or more.
2. Wear wide-brimmed hats (useful and stylish).
3. Avoid sunburn: clothing made from lightweight fabrics will help you with this (long-sleeved shirts, trousers, tunics).
4. Avoid sun exposure during peak hours of solar activity - from 10 (12) in the morning until 16 (17) in the evening.
5. The sooner you start taking care of the prevention of freckles (the optimal age is early childhood), the better your skin will feel. Follow the same principle for caring for your baby's health.

The most optimal procedure for getting rid of freckles today is the use of devices of intense pulsed light, acting on the basis of the photorejuvenation effect.

But most doctors still agree that any effect on pigmented areas of the skin is fraught with consequences. So you better believe: freckles reflect your personality. Take care of your skin, avoid sunburn, enjoy spring and summer.

Question 4. Modern great apes

Large modern apes belong to the pongid family. These animals are of particular interest because a number of morphophysiological, cytological, and behavioral traits bring them closer to humans.

In humans, there are 23 pairs of chromosomes, in higher monkeys - 24. It turns out (this is more and more inclined genetics), the second pair of human chromosomes was formed from the fusion of pairs of other chromosomes of ancestral anthropoids.

In 1980, a rigorous scientific publication appeared in the journal Science with the title: Striking resemblance of high-resolution stained chromosomes in humans and chimpanzees. The authors of the article are cytogenetics from the University of Minneapolis (USA) J. Eunice, J. Sawyer and C. Dunham. Applying the latest methods for staining chromosomes at different stages of cell division in two higher primates, the authors observed up to 1200 bands for each karyotype (previously, a maximum of 300-500 bands could be seen) and made sure that the striation of chromosomes - carriers of hereditary information - in humans and chimpanzees is almost identical ...

After such a great similarity in chromosomes (DNA), no one can be surprised by the "striking similarity of blood proteins and tissues of humans and monkeys - after all, they, proteins, receive a" program "from the parent substances encoding them so close, as we have seen, those. from genes, from DNA.

Large apes and gibbons diverged 10 million years ago, while the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas lived only 6 or at most 8 million years ago.

Opponents of this theory argued that it was not verifiable, while proponents argued that the data obtained with the molecular clock corresponded to prehistoric dates that could be verified by other means. Fossil remains found later confirmed our recent ancestors among the fossilized great apes.

Question 5. Large apes

The extinct Dryopithecins and Pongin undoubtedly included the ancestors of humans and modern large apes, those large, hairy, intelligent inhabitants of the tropical forests of Africa and Southeast Asia. Fossil records of the ancestors of the great great apes are sparse, apart from finds linking the orangutan to the group of monkey fossils that included Ramapithecus. But biological research has shown that great apes and humans had a recent common ancestor.

Modern great apes include genera:

1. Pongo, orangutan, has shaggy reddish hair, long arms, relatively short legs, short thumbs on the hands and feet, large molars with low crowns.

2. Pan, chimpanzee, has long shaggy black hair, arms longer than legs, face not covered with hair, with large supraorbital ridges, large protruding ears, flat nose and mobile lips.

3. Gorilla, gorilla - the largest of the modern great apes. Males are twice the size of females, reaching a height of 6 feet (1.8 m) and weighing 397 pounds (180 kg).

Question 6. Social behavior of anthropoids

Communities of all animals leading a group lifestyle are by no means a random association of individuals. They have a well-defined social structure, which is supported by special behavioral mechanisms. In a group, as a rule, there is a more or less pronounced hierarchy of individuals (linear or more complex), the members of the group communicate with each other using various communicative signals, a special "language", which determines the maintenance of the internal structure and coordinated and purposeful group behavior. This or that type of social organization is associated, first of all, with the conditions of existence and the prehistory of the species. Many believe that the intragroup behavior of primates and the structure of their communities is much more determined by phylogenetic factors than environmental ones.

The question of the relative role of ecological and phylogenetic determinants of community structure plays an important role in the selection of a particular primate species as a model, the study of which can lead to a deeper understanding of the structure of society in ancient people. It is certainly necessary to take into account both those and other factors.

Experimental studies of the behavior of great apes have shown a high ability to learn, the formation of complex associative connections, extrapolation and generalization of previous experience, which indicates a high level of analytical and synthetic activity of the brain. The fundamental differences between man and animals have always been considered speech and tool activity. Recent experiments on teaching great apes to sign language (which is used by deaf and dumb people) have shown that they not only successfully assimilate it, but also try to pass on their "language experience" to their young and relatives.

MOSCOW, October 17- RIA Novosti, Anna Urmantseva. When paleoanthropologists are asked at what point the genus Homo emerged from the great apes family and what can be considered a defining moment in this process, they usually begin to talk long and vaguely about a variety of concepts.

The idea that "labor made a man out of a monkey", it turns out, has long been questioned, since in this case the answer to the main question must be sought in the moment of the appearance of the first tools of labor. And then it turns out that among those whom we arrogantly call "humanoid", at a certain point in time, like two drops of water, they are similar to the tools of our ancestors. And if there are no biological remains of the creature next to the chipped stone, it is almost impossible to establish who was the owner of the "product" - a great ape or a representative of the genus Homo.

The discrepancies begin with Australopithecus. Some scientists believe that they were the direct ancestors of modern man, others believe that this was a sister dead end branch of evolution.

But, according to general data, six to seven million years ago there were some animals that in all respects resembled modern apes. Then some of the animals from this group separated into the sapient line. It is not entirely clear whether the Australopithecines (this is how you can call a large evolutionary group of hominids, whose chronological period (as a genus) is determined from 4.2 to 1.8 million years ago) was bipedal and could use tools. Some believe that the first primitive pebble-type tools appear in the Australopithecines about 3,300,000 years ago. Other scientists insist that this is already a product of the Homo genus. The further fate of Homo sapiens is even more blurred.

© AP Photo / Anjan Sundaram

© AP Photo / Anjan Sundaram

Anatoly Derevyanko, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Scientific Director of the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, explains: “Australopithecines are our predecessors, but not yet people. Most scientists assume that erectus. However, at some stage modern humans and great apes were at the same stage of development. Therefore, I advocate that great apes should be ranked in the genus Homo. On the other hand, I understand very well that tools, which were made by both great apes and humans, are the same in shape, but not in essence. Chimpanzees, cracking nuts with a stone, can get a pinch. But they never use this pinch for their own purposes. These are rather actions on an intuitive level. "

In the 19th century, people received blood transfusions from bonobos (Pan paniscus) chimpanzees without prior preparation - this was quite possible from a medical point of view, since our blood groups are the same.

There have been several attempts to teach sign language to great apes. Successful experiments are connected again with chimpanzees: the first was taught by Washaw - she learned 350 signs from Amslen - American Sign Language. One of the most notorious was the project "Nim" - the chimpanzee got its name as a pun on the name of Noam Chomsky - an outstanding linguist who argued that language is inherent only in humans. However, here the opinions of scientists differed. The zoopsychologist Herbert Terres, who raised Nimes, claimed that at different moments of training, his vocabulary reached a thousand words. Other researchers talked about 125 words. Critics pointed to the obvious inability of monkeys to memorize words, build sentences, lag behind human children, who by the age of five already know up to two thousand designations.

And nevertheless, the number of identical signs inherent in both humans and our parallel branch - great apes, is quite large: these are facial expressions, social behavior, binocular vision, color discrimination, body structure, the ability to maintain it in an upright position, and others. Therefore, some paleoanthropologists have long been talking about the expansion of the genus Homo.

"This is more of a humanistic act, not a scientific one," explains Anatoly Derevyanko. Opponents of this idea quite rightly believe that we, humans, with great apes are divided by an abyss. From the point of view of the modern view, indeed. But seven million years ago we were Now great apes are actively destroyed, as they are classified as predators. However, if we equate them with the genus Homo, from the point of view of all international laws, killing them will be prohibited. The extension of human laws to our closest relatives will contribute to their survival in natural conditions. ".

They form an inseparable whole with a mineral mass that fills the cavity of the cranium.
The skull was taken to South African biologist Raymond Dart. He studied the skull and published a short description in which he proposed to name the found monkey African Australopithecus (i.e., the southern monkey).
The discovery of the "Taung monkey" sparked a lot of controversy. Some scientists, such as Otenio Abel, attributed the skull to a baby fossil gorilla. Others, like Hans Weinert, saw in it much more similarity to the skull of chimpanzees and based their opinion, in particular, on the concavity of the profile of the facial region, as well as on the shape of the nasal bones and eye sockets.
A third group of scientists, including Dart, as well as William Gregory and Milo Hellman, believed that Australopithecus was more similar to Driopithecus and humans. The location of the tubercles on the lower molars is not a very altered pattern of the Dryopithecus teeth.
The supraorbital ridge on the skull is poorly developed, the canines almost do not protrude from the dentition, the face as a whole, according to Gregory, is strikingly prehuman.
Others, like Wolfgang Abel, drew attention to traits of specialization that led Australopithecus away from human ancestry. So, the first permanent molars of Australopithecus, unlike human ones, are wider in their posterior half.
Let's move on to the question of the capacity of the cerebral box of the Australopithecus described by Darth. In 1937, the Soviet anthropologist V.M. Shapkin, applying the exact method he proposed, received the number 420 cm 3, which is not far from the one determined by W. Abel: 390 cm 3... Raymond Dart estimated the brain box capacity at 520 cm 3 but this figure is undoubtedly exaggerated. Taking into account the young age of the found specimen, it could be assumed that the capacity of the cerebral box of adult specimens of Australopithecus is 500-600 cm 3.
The concept of the type of Australopithecus was noticeably enriched when in the summer of 1936 a skull of a fossil anthropoid was discovered in the Transvaal. It was found in a cave near the village. Sterkfontein, near Krugersdorp, at 58 km southwest of Pretoria. This skull belongs to an adult and is very similar to the skull of a chimpanzee, but the teeth are similar to those of humans. The skull has an elongated shape: the length of the cranium is 145 mm, width 96 mm hence the cranial index is low. It is 96 X 100: 145 = 66.2 (ultradolichocrania).
South African paleontologist Robert Broome, who worked in South Africa for about forty years as a specialist in mammals and their evolution, studied the skull of the Sterkfontein fossil monkey and attributed it to the genus Australopithecus, a species of Transvaal Australopithecus. However, the study of the later found in the same place (in Sterkfontein) of the lower last molar, which turned out to be very large and similar to a human, made Brum

to establish a new genus - plesianthropes, that is, monkeys closer to humans. Therefore, the Sterkfontein anthropoid also received a new species name - the Transvaal plesianthropus.
Deeply interested in the finds of African anthropoid fossils and the problem of anthropogenesis, Broome put a lot of energy into further searches for their remains. From 1936 to 1947, over 10 incomplete skulls and 150 isolated teeth were discovered, as well as some bones of the plesianthrope skeleton. In 1938, Brum managed to find a remarkable skull of an anthropoid fossil (Fig, 35). The history of this discovery is as follows. One student from the village. Kromdraai retrieved a monkey's skull from a rock on a hillside near his village and smashed it into pieces to take some of the fallen teeth to play with. Broome accidentally found out about the found teeth, who hurried to the place of the find and, with the help of a schoolboy who gave him the teeth of a monkey, found pieces of a skull. The geological antiquity of the find falls, apparently, in the middle of the Quaternary period.
Having folded parts of the skull, Broome was struck by the features of its resemblance to the human, such as in the shape of the temporal bone, in the structure of the area of ​​the auditory canal, in the location of the occipital foramen closer to the middle of the base of the skull than in modern anthropoids. The dental arch is wide, the canine is small, the teeth are noticeably similar to human teeth.
As a result of his research, Broome called the cromdraai anthropoid a paranthrope, that is, a monkey,

box next to a person. In 1939, some bones of the skeleton of the paranthropus were also found, which showed a strong resemblance to the plesianthrope. Both monkeys have great affinity for Australopithecus.
In 1948-1950. Brum made new finds of South African anthropoids - large-toothed paranthropus and Australopithecus Prometheus (Fig. 36). From this we can conclude that Africa must be very rich in the remains of other monkeys that have not yet been discovered (Yakimov, 1950, 1951; Nesturkh, 1937, 1938), especially since in 1947 the English scientist L. Leakey found how we have already mentioned the skull of an African proconsul (with features similar to chimpanzees) in the Kavirondo region (Yakimov, 1964, 1965).
Based on the above facts, it can be considered very likely that in the first half of the Quaternary period and earlier, in the upper part of the Tertiary period, several different species of large highly developed apes had already formed in Africa (Zubov, 1964). The volume of their cerebral box is 500 - 600 cm 3 and even a little more (with a weight of 40-50 kg), and the jaws and teeth, possessing typically anthropoid features, at the same time show a significant affinity for human teeth. Australopithecus is considered by many to be "models" of human ancestors.
The geological antiquity of some of these Australopithecines goes back to the Lower Pleistocene, which is now chronologically dated to a depth of up to 2 million years, containing the Villafranchian layers (Ivanova, 1965).
Some of the fossil African anthropoids walked on two legs, as evidenced by the shape and structure of various bones found, for example, from the pelvis of Australopithecus Prometheus (1948) or Plesianthropus (1947). It is possible that they also used naturally-found sticks and stones as tools. Living in rather dry, steppe or semi-desert areas (Fig. 37), the Australopithecines also ate animal food. They hunted hares and baboons.
South African scientist R. Dart ascribes to fossil anthropoids, like Australopithecus, the ability to use fire and speech. But the facts in favor of this

assumption is not available (Koenigswald, 1959). Attempts to represent the anthropoids of South Africa as true hominids are groundless. There is also insufficient evidence that these monkeys were the ancestors of all of humanity or any part of it. The same applies to the oreopithecus found in Italy, the remains of which were found in Tuscany near Mount Bamboli. Known are his teeth, jaws, and fragments of forearm bones found in the layers of the Middle Miocene and Early Pliocene age. Judging by the bone remains, Oreopithecus bamboli is much closer to anthropoids (Hurzeler, 1954). In 1958, in Tuscany, near the village of Bacchinello, in layers of lignite dating from the Upper Miocene, at a depth of about 200 m almost complete skeleton of Oreopithecus was found. This is by far one of the largest discoveries in human paleontology.
Rather, Oreopithecus should be interpreted as "unsuccessful attempts" of nature: these monkeys became extinct. Man was probably given rise to one of the South Asian forms of anthropoids, which developed from the early Pliocene great apes of the Ramapithecus type and, probably, similar to the Australopithecines.
Of great interest, of course, are the discoveries of 1959, 1960 and later in Oldoway Gorge, Tanzania, made by Louis Leakey and his wife Mary: these were the bone remains of great apes - zinjanthropus (Fig. 38) and prezinjanthropus (Regletov, 1962 , 1964, 1966). According to the radiocarbon method, their antiquity was estimated at about 1 million 750 thousand years. Initially, Leakey attributed the skull of the Zinjanthropus with its well-defined sagittal and occipital ridges to the human ancestor, but later he himself rejected this opinion (Nesturkh, Pozharitskaya, 1965): the similarity here is more with the paranthropus than with the Australopithecus.
Apparently, the find of a prezinjantrop made by Leakey turned out to be closer to a man: judging by the skeleton of the left foot of an adult with a rather pronounced longitudinal arch, this creature had a two-legged gait; and judging by the parietal bones of a young individual

the volume of the cerebral cavity would be over 650 cm 3... Therefore, the prezinjantropa was called “a skilled man” - Homo habilis (Leakey, Tobias, Napier, 1964). Several small stones with traces of faceting were attributed to him (Yakimov, 1965), which, however, could have happened by accident when trying to kill some small animal on solid ground.
Recent years have been marked by new finds of fossil anthropoids. For example, K. Arambourg and I. Coppens (Arambourg, Coppens) found in the Omo Valley, western Ethiopia, the lower jaw was attributed to a form more primitive than Australopithecus, and named it "Paraustralopithecus aethiopicus". Researchers consider this Anthropoid from the Lower Villafranc to be more primitive than Australopithecines, which, however, are also found in the Lower Pleistocene layers.
The Pleistocene deepened according to the international agreement of geologists due to the addition of the Villafrancan epoch of the Upper Pliocene to it and is approximately 2 million years old. The number of finds of Australopithecus is increasing (in Garusi and Pelindzhi on Lake Neutron in Tanzania; near Lake Chad; in Kanapoy, Kenya and other places). The rich find of the remains of twelve australopithecines made by C. Brain (1968) in the breccias of Svartkrans from the old excavations of 1930-1935 is very successful; including it turned out to be possible to obtain a complete impression of the endocranium of one of them.

Thus, Homo habilis, or prezinjanthropus (Fig. 39), now stands not as isolated as it seemed to many before, and you can join those paleoanthropologists who consider it to be one of the geographical variants of the Australopithecus species populations. Also, his brain was not that big, not 680 cm 3, and 657, according to F. Tobayas himself, or even less - 560 (Kochetkova, 1969).
J. Robinson (Robinson, 1961) draws the radiation of the Australopithecines in this way. Leading a bipedal lifestyle, the paranthropes were predominantly herbivorous, and the Australopithecines, who also used tools, switched to semi-carnivorous food as the climate dried up and the forests thinned out. In this regard, the tool activity of the Australopithecus progressed and the level of intelligence increased. This means that the first stage is bipedality, and the second is the transition to meat food.
Naturally, writes Robinson, the use of tools could and did lead to their production and to the further development of the potential prerequisites for hominization. In general, this is so, but the qualitative difference between the third stage of hominization - the making of tools (its creative essence) remained unstressed for Robinson. As for the paranthropes, they experienced biological regression and became extinct.
Robinson's considerations regarding the ancestry of hominids are curious, which he draws as an independent one from a great geological antiquity. For him -

Nyu, Australopithecines trace their genus independently of the Early Miocene Pongids like the Proconsuls, and maybe even, taking into account the example of the Amphipithecus, from a lineage that was independent from the semi-ape stage and slowly developed throughout most of its history.
A similar idea about the antiquity of the separation of the human branch has appeared more than once in the history of science. For example, the famous Austrian paleontologist Otenio Abel considered the parapithecus to be the original representative of the human branch of development from the beginning of the Oligocene. Charles Darwin (1953, p. 265) wrote: “We are far from knowing how long ago man first separated from the trunk of the narrow-nosed; but this could have taken place in such a distant epoch as the Eocene period, because the higher apes were already separated from the lower ones as early as in the Upper Miocene period, as evidenced by the existence of Dryopithecus. " However, modern paleontology of higher apes believes that the separation of the prehuman branch most likely took place in the Miocene, and the most ancient people appeared during the Lower Pleistocene (see also: Bunak, 1966).
During the Tertiary and early Quaternary periods, according to V. P. Yakimov's theory of the adaptive radiation of the great apes (1964), some of them followed the line of enlarging the size of the body; Meanwhile, in others, in connection with the development of tool activity and the complexity of behavior, a more progressive path emerged, which the Australopithecines and the predecessors of the most ancient hominids entered (Uryson, 1969).
Among the forms related to Australopithecus, there is another find of a skull, but in the central part of Africa. This is the so-called chadanthropus (Tchadanthropus), discovered by the French paleontologist Yves Coppens (Coppens, 1965) at the beginning of 1961. This is a fragment of the skull with the frontal, orbital, zygomatic and maxillary parts; the forehead is sloping, with a sagittal thickening; the supraorbital ridge is well defined; the cheekbones are massive; the eye sockets are large. Coppens is inclined to place Chadanthropus closer to Pithecanthropus, but the Soviet anthropologist M.I.
African finds of anthropoids were thoroughly revised by W. Le Gros Clark (1967). He believes that the plesianthropus, zinjanthropus, prezinjanthropus and telanthropus belong to the same genus Australopithecines of the Australopithecus subfamily of the hominid family, in other words, that they are all the most primitive hominids, but not related to more highly developed people who form the genus homo. In the genus Australopithecus, Le Gro Clark distinguishes only two species - African and massive. In his opinion, their foot was unlikely to be grasping, although they still did not move very well on two legs due to the insufficiently developed pelvis. But in the hand, the first finger was well developed and it is possible that Australopithecines

During the hunt for animals, they used weapons made of bone, horn or teeth, since they did not have natural tools for their bodies. The Australopithecines had a herd organization and some level of initial communication, sound communication, due to their rather developed intelligence.
In recent times, many researchers refer to the family of hominids (Hominidae) not only people, in fact, starting with Pithecanthropus, but also Australopithecus and similar fossils of great apes. Meanwhile, modern and fossil large anthropoids usually belonged to the Pongidae family. Now there is a tendency to unite both of these families into the superfamily of hominoids (Hominoidea), or humanoid higher primates. And it seems to us that it would be more correct to place Australopithecines and similar forms in the Pongid family as a subfamily of Australopithecines (Australopithecinae), or Australopithecines (see also: Zubov, 1964). Moving on two legs and manipulating objects from among the Pleistocene Australopithecine pongids passed into the artificial manufacture of tools only in an ancestral species for humans, for hominids.
The chain of finds of ancient great apes continues in Asia Minor. Thus, in Israel, near the Ubeidiya hill in the Jordan Valley, in 1959, two fragments of a massive frontal bone of an unknown large hominoid were discovered. The Israeli archaeologist M. Stekelis considers the broken pebbles and other stones with chips found here and there as his tools, but, rather, these are natural fragments. The antiquity of a large anthropoid from Ubeidia is the Lower Quaternary era. Another, larger, one might say, giant, monkey became known for the lower jaw, discovered in 1955 near the city of Ankara, during excavations on Mount Sinap. She was distinguished by some features that brought her closer to the most ancient people, in particular, a rudimentary protrusion on the front jaw. This find suggests that the number of large anthropoids in Asia was probably no less than in Africa. The geological age of the Ankaropithecus is the Upper Miocene.
The finds of representatives of the Australopithecus group of South African anthropoids (Fig. 40) forced many scientists to think again about the question of the geographical range of the ancestral species for humans, about the ancestral home of mankind. Darth proclaimed southern Africa the cradle of mankind, Broome and Arthur Keyes joined Dart's opinion.
The idea of ​​Africa as the likely homeland of humanity is not new. As early as 1871, Charles Darwin pointed to the African continent as a possible place where the first people from apes emerged. He referred, in particular, to the important fact that the gorilla and chimpanzee live here, and they are the closest relatives of man. It is known that living within a fairly extensive

Great apes, or hominids, are not human ancestors. However, most likely, humans and anthropoid descend from common ancestors. Our anatomy is very similar to the body structure of hominids, but the human brain is much larger. The most important difference between humans and the great apes is the mind, the ability to think, feel, do deliberate actions and communicate with the help of language.

Hominids (Latin Hominidae) are a family of primates, which include gibbons and hominids. The latter include orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. The first researchers, who discovered such monkeys in the jungle, were amazed at their external resemblance to humans and at first considered them to be a kind of cross between humans and animals.

The brain of modern anthropoids is relatively larger in volume than that of other animals (except for dolphins): up to 600 cm³ (in large species); it is marked by well-developed furrows and curls. Therefore, the higher nervous activity of these monkeys resembles that of humans, conditioned reflexes are easily developed in them and - what is especially important - they are able to use various objects as the simplest tools. They have a good memory, fairly rich facial expressions, expressing different emotions: joy, anger, sadness, etc. But, despite all the similarities with humans, they cannot be put on the same level with humans.

Chimpanzee(lat. Pan) live in Africa, where, apparently, the first people appeared. Ordinary chimpanzees grow up to 1.3 m, weight - up to 90 kg, are able to move on their hind legs. This is the most closely related primate to humans. Once every three to five years, the female gives birth to one cub, which remains in the care of the elders for a long time. Chimpanzees have very strong family ties. It happens that an old female helps her daughter to nurse her grandchildren. Chimpanzees have a very rich "language" of communication: sounds, facial expressions and gestures.

When they ask, they stretch out their hands in a very human way. Rejoicing at the meeting, they hug and kiss. They know how to notify relatives by drumming on hollow tree trunks. They use stones and branches as tools. Break the nuts with stones and take out the termites with twigs. Leaves of medicinal plants are applied to the wounds and even ... wiped with them after using the toilet. In male chimpanzees, just like in humans, male friendship for life is of great importance. These naughty friends are always ready to help each other. They live in family groups, learn quickly and use a variety of tools. Although chimpanzees pass on their experience to the next generation, no animal is capable of doing it as effectively as humans. Pygmy chimpanzees are distinguished by a more fragile constitution, long legs, black skin (pink in a common chimpanzee), etc.

Gorillas(males) grow to 1.75 m or more and weigh up to 250 kg. Chest girth up to 180 cm. This is the largest primate in the world, including humans! Its range is the humid equatorial forest of Central and Eastern Africa. Ardent vegetarian. It feeds on fruits, lush herbaceous vegetation, young shoots. He does not eat any meat food in nature! The adult male always has a gray back. The gorilla is a sign of male maturity. At night, females with children sleep in the trees in the nest, and heavy males on the ground make a bed of branches. By nature, gorillas are phlegmatic and do not quarrel with anyone. Not aggressive. They begin to rage only when trying to persecute them, beat themselves in the chest, and then attack the enemy and selflessly defend their relatives. A great example of true nobility for animals and people.

NS(lat. Pongo) live in Borneo and Sumatra. Males grow up to 1.5 m, weight can reach 130 kg. Their long forelimbs allow them to move easily through trees, making it the largest arboreal animal in the world! The female gives birth to only one cub every three to five years. A baby up to four to five years old remains under her care. From the age of 4, they begin to unite in games with other kids. Its close relationship with man is confirmed even by the name. "Orangutan" in translation from the Malay language means "forest man". The orangutan is very strong, only the elephant and the tiger command his respect! In the hands of a leisurely, even slow. Does not make jumps. He simply swings the tree on which he is, with a long strong hand intercepts the branch of the neighboring one, then pulls himself up - and already on another tree. Its slowness is deceiving, no man in the forest can catch up with the rangutan. At night, it settles in a nest built of branches and leaves. It turns out to be a wonderful springy bed. From the downpour, it often hides under a plucked giant leaf of a palm tree, like under an umbrella.

If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.