Pongo weidenreichi

The Chinese orangutan (Pongo weidenreichi) is an extinct species of orangutan from the Pleistocene of South China and possibly Southeast Asia.

Chinese orangutan Temporal range: Middle Pleistocene–Late Pleistocene PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N ↓
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Primates
Suborder:	Haplorhini
Infraorder:	Simiiformes
Family:	Hominidae
Genus:	Pongo
Species:	†P. weidenreichi
Binomial name
†Pongo weidenreichi Hooijer, 1948
Synonyms
P. hooijeri Schwartz, Long, Cuong, Kha & Tattersall, 1995 P. pygmaeus weidenreichi (Hooijer, 1948) P. pygmaeus ciochoni (Schwartz, Long, Cuong, Kha & Tattersall, 1995) P. pygmaeus fromageti (Schwartz, Long, Cuong, Kha & Tattersall, 1995) P. pygmaeus kahlkei (Schwartz, Long, Cuong, Kha & Tattersall, 1995)

Description

The dental dimensions of P. weidenreichi are approximately 20% bigger than those of living orangutans.^[1]

Distribution

P. weidenreichi is known from fossil teeth found in the Sanhe Cave,^[2][3] as well as the Baikong, Juyuan, and Queque Caves in Chongzuo, Guangxi.^[4] The youngest known remains of the species date to between 66,000-57,000 years ago in Yincun Cave, Guangxi.^[5] An isolated canine from Thẩm Khuyên Cave, Vietnam, and a fourth premolar from Pha Bong, Thailand, could possibly be assigned to Gigantopithecus, though these could also represent Pongo weidenreichi.^[6] Two possible teeth previously attributed to Gigantopithecus from the Late Pleistocene deposit from Vietnam have been subsequently suggested to represent P. weidenreichi instead.^[7]

In southern China, P. weidenreichi was ecologically replaced by a smaller Pongo species, Pongo devosi, by the late Middle Pleistocene.^[8]

Palaeoecology

The dental microwear of P. weidenreichi reveals that it lived in forests and predominantly consumed soft fruits. P. weidenreichi had exceptionally similar dental microwear patterns to P. devosi, suggesting the latter species was likewise a frugivorous inhabitant of forested environments and that the two species did not differ substantially in their ecology.^[9]