Study Suggests Primates and Dinosaurs Shared the Earth

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Image: NANCY KLAUD, Courtesy of the Field Museum

The first primates may have scampered among the trees while dinosaurs still ruled the planet, according to the results of a new study. Researchers writing today in the journal Nature conclude that primates--the order of mammals to which humans belong--arose more than 15 million earlier than previously thought. In addition to posing difficulties for widely held ideas about the emergence of this group, the findings could force scholars to rethink the timing of the origin of humans.

Conventional wisdom holds that primates arose no earlier than 65 million years ago (after the demise of the dinosaurs), a date based on the oldest accepted fossil representatives of the group, which hail from roughly 55 million years ago, plus a few million years thrown in for good measure. The problem with that approach to estimating the timing of primate origins, says study co-author Robert D. Martin of Chicago's Field Museum, is that the early primate fossil record is so scrappy. "Our calculations indicate that we have fossil evidence for only about 5 percent of all extinct primates," he reports, "so it's as if paleontologists have been trying to reconstruct a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle using just 50 pieces." Indeed, estimates Martin and his colleagues have come up with using a statistical approach place the number of extinct primate species at up to 9,000--many more than the 474 species known from the fossil record.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Taking that into consideration, the last common ancestor of the primates--today represented by lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, apes and humans--probably lived around 81 million years ago, the team proposes. As to why such ancient primates have not turned up in the fossil record, it may be that their remains simply did not have the conditions necessary for preservation. But Martin guesses that the common ancestor was small, nocturnal, and dwelled in tropical forest trees, feeding on fruit and insects (see image).

The new date, although at odds with previous paleontological estimates, actually accords fairly well with conclusions drawn from molecular studies, which have indicated that primates diverged from other mammals some 90 million years ago. It also suggests that humans and chimpanzees parted evolutionary ways earlier than once thought--eight million rather than five million years ago. "We hope our research will help reconcile the discrepancies between the various dates suggested by paleontologists and molecular biologists," Martin remarks, "not just for primates but for other groups of organisms, too."

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe