CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Amphipithecus

genus of mammals (fossil)

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 9, 2026
Entity authorityQ20312785 ↗
Source-derived summary

Amphipithecus mogaungensis ("ape-like creature of Mogaung", derived from the Ancient Greek ἀμφί, amphi- meaning "around" and pithēkos, pithecus meaning "ape") was a primate that lived in Late Eocene Myanmar. Along with another primate Pondaungia cotteri, both are difficult to categorise within the order Primates. What little is known suggests that they are neither adapiform nor omomyid primates, two of the earliest primate groups to appear in the fossil record. Deep mandibles and mandibular molars with low, broad crowns suggest they are both simians, a group that includes monkeys, apes, and humans, though more material is needed for further comparison. The teeth also suggest that these were frugivore primates, with a body mass of 6–10 kg (13–22 lb).

Discovery

In early 1923, notable fossil prospector Barnum Brown (famed for discovering the first Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton) traveled with his wife Lilian Brown to Yangon, the capital of Myanmar. Brown focused his fossil prospecting along areas of Pondaung Sandstone. In the outskirts of Mogaung town, he identified a mandible with three teeth (right). He did not recognise the significance of his find until 14 years later, when Edwin H. Colbert identified the fossil as a new species of primate and the earliest known anthropoid in the world.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Amphipithecus” as genus of mammals (fossil). This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Amphipithecus, genus and mammals.

Editorial reviewA sound reference starting point where classification, measurement and the date of the underlying evidence remain visible. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1923—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Amphipithecus, genus and mammals providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Amphipithecus”, the useful work is to connect “genus of mammals (fossil)” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 9, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q20312785. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1923.

Critical limits

A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Amphipithecus”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Amphipithecus primary sources, Amphipithecus archive and Amphipithecus research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Amphipithecus”?
  2. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
  3. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Amphipithecus” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.