Figure 2.1

An adult Bunomys chrysocomus skull illustrating limits of cranial and dental measurements employed.

Figure 2.2a

Collection localities for modern and subfossil samples of Lenomys meyeri.

Figure 2.2b

Collection localities for modern and subfossil samples of Lenomys meyeri.

Figure 2.3

Holotype of Mus meyeri.

Figure 2.4

Skull of the holotype of Mus meyeri.

Figure 2.5

Young adult female Lenomys meyeri from tropical lowland evergreen rainforest near Tomado, 1000 m.

Figure 2.6

Length of distal white tail segment relative to total length of tail in the sample of Lenomys meyeri.

Figure 2.7

Cranium and left dentary of Lenomys meyeri lampo, an adult female collected at 2200 m on Gunung Lompobatang.

Figure 2.8

Nomenclature of dental structures using right upper and lower molars of Lenothrix canus.

Figure 2.9

Occlusal views of right maxillary and mandibular molar rows of Lenomys meyeri from Gunung Lompobatang.

Figure 2.10

Specimen scores representing modern examples of Lenomys meyeri projected on first and second principal components.

Figure 2.11

Hillside primary forest along Sungai Sadaunta in area near where Lenomys meyeri was caught.

Figure 2.12

Ground cover over terrace where burrow of Lenomys meyeri was located.

Figure 2.13

Burrow system of Lenomys meyeri excavated on a stream terrace adjacent to Sungai Sadaunta, 915 m.

Figure 2.14

Dentaries from Lenomys obtained in the southwest peninsula.

Figure 2.15

Occlusal views of subfossil mandibular molar rows from two species of Lenomys.

Figure 2.16

Scores representing specimens of modern and subfossil Lenomys meyeri and subfossil L. grovesi projected on first and second principal components.

Figure 4.1a

Total number of storms that crossed through the ranges of Alouatta pigra and Alouatta palliata from 1851 to 2007.

Figure 4.1b

Total number of hurricanes that crossed through the ranges of Alouatta pigra and Alouatta palliata from 1851 to 2007.

Figure 5.1

Photograph of Professor Remane.

Figure 6.1

Examples of specimens classified into each of the four scraper classes.

Figure 6.2

Diagrammatic representation of the staged reduction model proposed by Dibble.

Figure 6.3

Notional illustration of the relationship of blank cross-section and extent of reduction for dorsally retouched Quina scrapers.

Figure 6.4

Illustration of the measurements of reduction used multiple values of Kuhn’s (1990) unifacial reduction index and a count of the number of zones.

Figure 6.5

Relationship between Kuhn GIUR and the percentage of original flake mass lost through retouching in the experimental dataset.

Figure 6.6

Histogram of the Kuhn GIUR values for single scrapers from Layer 21.

Figure 6.7

Examples of different levels of reduction on scrapers.

Figure 6.8

Histogram showing differences in the distribution of retouch on specimens classified as single scrapers and transverse scrapers.

Figure 6.9

Illustration of the typological status and reduction history of flakes retouched to different degrees.

Figure 8.1

Diagram ‘Showing the Origin of the Various Animals’.

Figure 8.2

This is a modification of Ruse following Bowler’s interpretation of Lamarck’s scheme.

Figure 10.1

Dental metrics, Penrose size statistics comparisons.

Figure 10.2

Dental metrics, Penrose shape distances, 17 male samples, 32 diameters, seriated average-linkage dendrogram.

Figure 10.3

Dental metrics, Penrose shape distances, 18 male samples, 16 buccolingual diameters, seriated average-linkage dendrogram.

Figure 10.4

Dental metrics, Penrose shape distances, 19 bisexual samples, 32 diameters, seriated average-linkage dendrogram.

Figure 10.5

Dental metrics, Penrose shape distances, 19 bisexual samples, 16 buccolingual diameters, seriated average-linkage dendrogram.

Figure 10.6

Dental metrics, Penrose shape distances, 23 bisexual samples, up to 32 diameters, seriated average-linkage dendrogram.

Figure 11.1a

Three shortest trees.

Figure 11.1b

Three shortest trees.

Figure 11.1c

Three shortest trees.

Figure 11.2

Bootstrap analysis.

Figure 11.3

Bodo and H. rhodesiensis.

Figure 11.4

Bodo and H. erectus.

Figure 11.5

Daka and H. erectus.

Figure 11.6

Daka and KNMs.

Figure 11.7

Ceprano and H. erectus.

Figure 11.8

Preferred phylogeny.

Figure 12.1a

The extreme thickness of Sangiran 6 is compared to that of Sangiran 1b.

Figure 12.1b

The very thick corpus of Sangiran 6 is similar to that seen in the Peninj Paranthropus mandible.

Figure 12.1c

The posterior view of Sangiran 31 showing the extreme robusticity of the occipital torus.

Figure 12.1d

Lateral view of Sangiran 31 showing the extreme robusticity of the occipital torus.

Figure 12.2

Liang Bua 1, the type specimen of Homo floresiensis.

Figure 12.3a

Autapomorphic characters identified in the Ngandong series.

Figure 12.3b

Autapomorphic characters identified in the Ngandong series.

Figure 12.4a

Robust and gracile Australian fossils often discussed in the Aboriginal origins debate.

Figure 12.4b

Robust and gracile Australian fossils often discussed in the Aboriginal origins debate.

Figure 12.5

Theorised representation of the emergence of cranial robusticity associated with the onset of the Last Glacial Maximum.

Figure 13.1

Takhi herd with stallion to the right, Hustai Nuruu National Park.

Figure 13.2

Individual takhi at Hustai Nuruu National Park.

Figure 13.3

A Mongolian horse herd in a snowstorm in spring, Arkhangai Province.

Figure 13.4

A prized Mongolian horse with elaborate saddle and bridle and wild-type characteristics.

Figure 13.5

Mongolian herder with Mongolian horse.

Figure 13.6

A saddled piebald (kharlag) Mongolian horse.

Figure 13.7

Mongolians greeting by passing snuff.

Figure 14.1

Black rhinoceros and skull, sketched by Anders Sparrman.

Figure 14.2

The famous Indian rhinoceros ‘Clara’, shown all around Europe between 1741 and 1758, depicted behind a human skeleton.

Figure 14.3

A rhinoceros skull drawn by the English physician James Parsons.

Figure 14.4

The first description of the double horned rhinoceros of Sumatra by William Bell.

Figure 14.5

Broadside published by the Dutch professor Petrus Camper to show the differences between skulls of a black rhinoceros obtained from the Cape of Good Hope and of a rhinoceros from Java.

Figure 14.6

Depiction of a rhino hunt at Chué Spring (Heuningvlei) in South Africa by William Burchell in 1812.

Figure 14.7

Skeleton of the ‘Rhinoceros unicorne de Java’ in the Paris Museum of Natural History.

Figure 14.8

Lateral view of black rhinoceros called ‘Rhinoceros keitloa’ drawn by Gerald Ford.

Figure 14.9

Images of the female Sumatran rhino ‘Begum’ shown in London Zoo from 15 February 1872 to 31 August 1900.

Figure 14.10

Nile rhino from the Lado Enclave in Sudan. Plate drawn by J. Terrier and printed by J. Pitcher.

Figure 15.1

Distribution of 18 allopatric populations of red colobus monkeys that have been given taxonomic names of subspecies or species rank.

Figure 15.2

Geographical distribution of red colobus monkeys according to nine-species arrangement of Groves.

Figure 15.3

Geographical distribution of red colobus monkeys according to 16-species arrangement of Groves.

Figure 15.4

Geographical distribution of red colobus monkeys according to five-species arrangement of Ting.

Figure 16.1

Change over time of the number of South-East Asian pig species described and generally recognised.

Figure 16.2

Change over time of the number of gibbon species described and generally recognised.

Table 2.1

Descriptive statistics for measurements of lengths of head and body, tail, hind foot, and ear, and for weight, derived from modern samples of Lenomys meyeri

Table 2.2

Age, sex, number of teats, and external, cranial, and dental measurements for holotypes associated with Lenomys meyeri

Table 2.3

Descriptive statistics for cranial and dental measurements derived from modern samples of Lenomys meyeri

Table 2.4

Results of principal-components analysis comparing modern specimens of Lenomys meyeri

Table 2.5

Summary of microhabitats at trapping sites and other relevant information for two specimens of Lenomys meyeri collected in Central Sulawesi, 1974-1975

Table 2.6

Subfossil fragments of Lenomys meyeri from the southwest peninsula of Sulawesi

Table 2.7

Measurements of mandibular molars from subfossil and modern samples of Lenomys meyeri and the subfossil specimen of Lenomys grovesi

Table 2.8

Subfossil representatives of murids excavated from Leang Burung 1

Table 2.9

Murid species represented by middle and late Holocene subfossils excavated from caves and rock shelters on the southern end of the southwestern peninsula of Sulawesi

Table 2.10

Results of principal-components analysis comparing modern and subfossil samples of Lenomys meyeri with the subfossil specimen of Lenomys grovesi

Table 3.1

Morphological features of proconsulids related to their form of locomotion

Table 4.1

Howler species (Genus Alouatta) as recognised by Colin Groves in Primate Taxonomy (2001)

Table 4.2

Studies included in behavioural comparisons of Alouatta pigra and A. palliata

Table 6.1

Sample of complete retouched flakes from Layer 21 used in this analysis, presented by implement type.

Table 6.2

Descriptive statistics for the Kuhn GIUR, Retouched zone index, and surface area/platform area ratio of four implement classes in Layer 21 of Combe Grenal.

Table 7.1

Key features of the primary Pacific malaria vectors

Table 7.2

Selected contrasts in variables relevant to malaria transmission between selected cryptic species in the An. punctulatus and An. gambiae species complexes

Table 10.1

Recent/historical samples used in the comparisons

Table 10.2

Historical Sulawesi dental metrics

Table 10.3

Prehistoric samples used in the comparisons

Table 10.4

Early Sulawesi dental metrical data

Table 10.5

First analysis: square roots of Penrose shape distances (top right) and after calibration and seriation (bottom left)

Table 10.6

Second analysis: square roots of Penrose shape distances (top right) and after calibration and seriation (bottom left)

Table 10.7

Third analysis: square roots of Penrose shape distances (top right) and after calibration and seriation (bottom left)

Table 10.8

Fourth analysis: square roots of Penrose shape distances (top right) and after calibration and seriation (bottom left)

Table 10.9

Fifth analysis, four additional samples: square roots of Penrose shape distances (left) and after calibration and seriation (right)

Table 10.10

Comparative data on major limb-bone lengths(A) in Java

Table 10.11

Comparison of Indo-Malaysian tooth size and cranial index

Table 15.1

Taxonomic arrangements of red colobus forms by different authors

Table 15.2

Selected threat status listings of red colobus taxa by IUCN