DOCSLIB.ORG

Homo Habilis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Homo Habilis COMMENT SUSTAINABILITY Citizens and POLICY End the bureaucracy THEATRE Shakespeare’s ENVIRONMENT James Lovelock businesses must track that is holding back science world was steeped in on surprisingly optimistic governments’ progress p.33 in India p.36 practical discovery p.39 form p.41 The foot of the apeman that palaeo­ ‘handy man’, anthropologists had been Homo habilis. recovering in southern Africa since the 1920s. This, the thinking went, was replaced by the taller, larger-brained Homo erectus from Asia, which spread to Europe and evolved into Nean­ derthals, which evolved into Homo sapiens. But what lay between the australopiths and H. erectus, the first known human? BETTING ON AFRICA Until the 1960s, H. erectus had been found only in Asia. But when primitive stone-chop­ LIBRARY PICTURE EVANS MUSEUM/MARY HISTORY NATURAL ping tools were uncovered at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, Leakey became convinced that this is where he would find the earliest stone- tool makers, who he assumed would belong to our genus. Maybe, like the australopiths, our human ancestors also originated in Africa. In 1931, Leakey began intensive prospect­ ing and excavation at Olduvai Gorge, 33 years before he announced the new human species. Now tourists travel to Olduvai on paved roads in air-conditioned buses; in the 1930s in the rainy season, the journey from Nairobi could take weeks. The ravines at Olduvai offered unparalleled access to ancient strata, but field­ work was no picnic in the park. Water was often scarce. Leakey and his team had to learn to share Olduvai with all of the wild animals that lived there, lions included. They found the first trace of the poten­ Fifty years after tial toolmaker, two hominin teeth, in 1955. But these were milk teeth, which are not as easy to link to taxa as permanent teeth. The team’s persistence was rewarded in 1959, Homo habilis when archaeologist Mary Leakey, Louis’s wife, recovered the cranium of a young adult. Bernard Wood explains why the announcement of The specimen still boggles the mind because it is so strange: its small brain, large face, ‘handy man’ in April 1964 threw the field of hominin tiny canines and massive, thumbnail-sized evolution into a turmoil that continues to this day. chewing teeth were not at all like those of H. erectus. Its big molars earned it the nick­ name ‘Nutcracker Man’. alf a century ago, the British–Kenyan to this day. Even with all the fossil evidence Because Nutcracker Man was found in the palaeoanthropologist Louis Leakey and analytical techniques from the past same layers as the stone tools, the Leakeys and his colleagues made a contro­ 50 years, a convincing hypothesis for the assumed that it was the toolmaker, despite its Hversial proposal: a collection of fossils from origin of Homo remains elusive. odd appearance. But when Louis announced the Great Rift Valley in Tanzania belonged In 1960, the twig of the tree of life that the discovery, he was not tempted to expand to a new species within our own genus1. The contains hominins — modern humans, the definition of Homo. That would have announcement of Homo habilis was a turn­ their ancestors, and other forms more closely eliminated any meaningful distinction ing point in palaeoanthropology. It shifted related to humans than to chimpanzees and between humans and australopiths. Instead the search for the first humans from Asia to bonobos — looked remarkably straight­ he erected a new genus and species, Zinjan- Africa and began a controversy that endures forward. At its base was Australopithecus, thropus boisei (now called Paranthropus 3 APRIL 2014 | VOL 508 | NATURE | 31 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved COMMENT : Homo sapiens Some would lump all early Homo heidelbergensis P. BOISEI WHO WAS RELATED Homo species into Homo Homo antecessor Denisovans erectus; others would split some TO WHOM? Homo oresiensis Fifty years ago, the introduction of into a new non-Homo genus. Homo habilis shook up views of our Homo neanderthalensis genus, and the classication of Homo ergaster/erectus early Homo is still debated. Paranthropus boisei Homo rudolfensis Homo habilis Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus sediba Australopithecus garhi Australopithecus afarensis LIBRARY TRUEBA/MSF/SCIENCE PHOTO : JAVIER 4 million years ago (approx.) 3 2 1 Present Australopithecus Homo habilis Paranthropus Later Homo Australopiths Remains of a boisei Normal-sized : HUMAN ORIGINS PROGRAM/SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION; : HUMAN ORIGINS PROGRAM/SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION; walked upright, foot and Nutcracker Man, later Homo H. NEANDERTHALENSIS but were also jawbone were with its distinctively species had adapted for judged too large jaws, is neither larger brains, climbing. human-like for Australopithecus nor longer legs and H. HABILIS an australopith. Homo. smaller jaws. Fossil discovered 1974. Fossil discovered 1964. Fossil discovered 1959. Fossil discovered 1909. boisei), to accommodate it (see ‘Who was (around 600 cubic centimetres) of H. habilis. so easily shoe-horned into a single species as related to whom?’). The proposal was met with considerable those from Olduvai3. I concluded that there In 1960, Jonathan Leakey, Louis and scepticism. Some thought that the fossils were were two distinct types of face within early Mary’s eldest son, found the lower jaw and too similar to Australopithecus africanus to Homo4, and so in 1992, I suggested that a sec­ BLACKBIRD/ALAMY; : SABENA JANE the top of the head of a juvenile hominin. justify a new species. John Robinson, a lead­ ond early Homo species, Homo rudolfensis, Dubbed Johnny’s Child, it very definitely did ing authority on australopiths, suggested that should be recognized5. Two decades later, a not belong to the same species as ‘Zinj’, and H. habilis was a mix of earlier A. africanus team led by palaeontologist Meave Leakey LIBRARY; MUSEUM/SCIENCE PHOTO HISTORY NATURAL 6 the Leakeys began to suspect that it was the and later H. erectus bones. Other research­ (Richard’s wife) confirmed the ‘two-taxon’ AUSTRALOPITHECUS real toolmaker. ers agreed that the species was new. Very few hypothesis I had proposed, using a face and Phillip Tobias, a palaeoanthropologist accepted that it was the earliest human. two lower jaws found at Koobi Fora. But known for his work in South Africa, had Subsequent finds shaped the debate. A they — correctly, I believe — refuted my sug­ already been recruited to analyse Zinj, so the crushed cranium (dubbed Twiggy) from gestion about which jaws went with which Leakeys turned to him to analyse the juvenile the lowest strata at Olduvai nixed Robin­ faces. As ever in palaeontology, new fossils cranium. John Napier, a specialist in hand son’s argument that H. habilis was a mix of test and refine old ideas. anatomy (as well as sleight-of-hand magic an australopith and H. erectus. Another skel­ tricks) was recruited to examine wrist and eton indicated that H. habilis had a stronger DRAWING THE LINE hand bones found with the skull. and relatively longer (or more ape-like) upper In 1999, British anthropologist Mark Collard An adult foot was excavated along with limb than did H. erectus and its ilk. and I looked7 afresh at the boundary between Johnny’s Child, and three years later, a cra­ A handful of additional specimens from Homo and more-primitive hominins by nium with both the upper and lower jaw was Ethiopia to South Africa have since been focusing on features that hint at body size, uncovered, as was a very fragmented cranium added to H. habilis; the biggest contribution posture, locomotion, diet and life history. with well-preserved teeth. Napier had already to early Homo has come from Koobi Fora in For example, how long is the upper limb convinced himself that the juvenile hand Kenya. I have been involved with H. habilis compared with the lower, or the forearm com­ bones were like those of modern humans. My for all but two of its 50 years, starting in 1966, pared with the upper arm? Do molar teeth PhD supervisor, Michael Day at the Univer­ when I analysed the ankle bone excavated erupt early, as in apes, or form slowly and sity of London had come to the same conclu­ alongside Johnny’s Child. Far from being like dawdle in the jaw, as in modern humans? All sion about the foot. And Tobias was certain that of modern humans, the bone is a much are attributes that help to reveal how an ani­ that neither the long crowns of the chewing better match for an australopith. Other fea­ mal makes its living and allocates its energy. teeth in the lower jaw nor the large brain case tures of H. habilis have also turned out to be Although H. habilis is generally larger than could belong to the australopiths known from less like those of modern humans than Louis A. africanus, its teeth and jaws have the same southern Africa. and his team suggested. proportions. What little evidence there is In the mid-1970s, Louis and Mary’s sec­ about its body shape, hands and feet suggest HANDY HYPOTHESES ond son, Richard, offered me the challenge of that H. habilis would be a much better climber Thus, in a paper published in Nature in making sense of the early Homo skulls, crania than undisputed human ancestors. So, if April 1964 (ref. 1), Louis, Tobias and Napier and jaws from Koobi Fora. It was a lonely task H. habilis is added to Homo, the genus has made the case for adding the ‘handy man’ to involving 15 years poring over australopiths an incoherent mishmash of features. Others the genus Homo as H. habilis. They argued and H. erectus fossils in museums around disagree, but I think you have to cherry-pick that the Olduvai fossils met three key crite­ the world.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Defining the Genus Homo
    Defining the Genus Homo Mark Collard and Bernard Wood Contents Introduction ..................................................................................... 2108 Changing Interpretations of Genus Homo ..................................................... 2109 Is Genus Homo a “Good” Genus? ............................................................. 2114 Updating Wood and Collard’s (1999) Review of Genus Homo .............................. 2126 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 2137 Cross-References ............................................................................... 2138 References ...................................................................................... 2138 Abstract The definition of the genus Homo is an important but under-researched topic. In this chapter we show that interpretations of Homo have changed greatly over the last 150 years as a result of the incorporation of new fossil species, the discovery of fossil evidence that changed our perceptions of its component species, and reassessments of the functional capabilities of species previously allocated to Homo. We also show that these changes have been made in an ad hoc fashion. Criteria for recognizing fossil specimens of Homo have been outlined on a M. Collard (*) Human Evolutionary Studies Program and Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada Department of Archaeology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK e-mail: [email protected] B. Wood Center for the Advanced
    [Show full text]
  • Geologists Probe Hominid Environments
    1999 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS Geologists Probe Hominid Environments Gail M. Ashley, Department of Geological Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA, [email protected] ABSTRACT challenging areas of research often lie at artificially imposed disci- pline boundaries. Here lies the potential for synergy and perhaps The study of an early Pleistocene “time slice” in Olduvai even the generation of a new science (Fig. 2). However, integrat- Gorge, Tanzania, provides a successful example of a recon- ing sciences is not as easy as it might first appear. It requires peo- structed paleolandscape that is rich in detail and adds a small ple to learn language, theories, methodologies, and a bit about piece to the puzzle of hominid evolution in Africa. The recon- the “culture” of the other science and to continually walk in the struction required multidisciplinary interaction of sedimen- other person’s shoes. Simply having lots of scientists with differ- tologists, paleoanthropologists, paleoecologists, and geochro- ent backgrounds working in parallel on the same project doesn’t nologists. Geology plays an increasingly important role in produce the same end result as integrative science. unraveling the record of hominid evolution. Key questions This paper describes a study at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania (Fig. regarding paleoclimate, paleoenvironment, and perhaps even 3), using a relatively new approach, landscape paleoanthropol- hominid land use are answered by geology, and these answers ogy, that attempts to interpret the landscape during a geologic provide a basis for multidisciplinary work. Landscape pale- instant in time. The project is the Olduvai Landscape Paleo- oanthropology integrates these data from several disciplines anthropology Project (OLAPP), involving a multidisciplinary to interpret the ecological context of hominids during a nar- team.
    [Show full text]
  • Hands-On Human Evolution: a Laboratory Based Approach
    Hands-on Human Evolution: A Laboratory Based Approach Developed by Margarita Hernandez Center for Precollegiate Education and Training Author: Margarita Hernandez Curriculum Team: Julie Bokor, Sven Engling A huge thank you to….. Contents: 4. Author’s note 5. Introduction 6. Tips about the curriculum 8. Lesson Summaries 9. Lesson Sequencing Guide 10. Vocabulary 11. Next Generation Sunshine State Standards- Science 12. Background information 13. Lessons 122. Resources 123. Content Assessment 129. Content Area Expert Evaluation 131. Teacher Feedback Form 134. Student Feedback Form Lesson 1: Hominid Evolution Lab 19. Lesson 1 . Student Lab Pages . Student Lab Key . Human Evolution Phylogeny . Lab Station Numbers . Skeletal Pictures Lesson 2: Chromosomal Comparison Lab 48. Lesson 2 . Student Activity Pages . Student Lab Key Lesson 3: Naledi Jigsaw 77. Lesson 3 Author’s note Introduction Page The validity and importance of the theory of biological evolution runs strong throughout the topic of biology. Evolution serves as a foundation to many biological concepts by tying together the different tenants of biology, like ecology, anatomy, genetics, zoology, and taxonomy. It is for this reason that evolution plays a prominent role in the state and national standards and deserves thorough coverage in a classroom. A prime example of evolution can be seen in our own ancestral history, and this unit provides students with an excellent opportunity to consider the multiple lines of evidence that support hominid evolution. By allowing students the chance to uncover the supporting evidence for evolution themselves, they discover the ways the theory of evolution is supported by multiple sources. It is our hope that the opportunity to handle our ancestors’ bone casts and examine real molecular data, in an inquiry based environment, will pique the interest of students, ultimately leading them to conclude that the evidence they have gathered thoroughly supports the theory of evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Erectus Infancy and Childhood the Turning Point in the Evolution of Behavioral Development in Hominids
    10 Homo erectus Infancy and Childhood The Turning Point in the Evolution of Behavioral Development in Hominids Sue Taylor Parker In man, attachment is mediated by several different sorts of behaviour of which the most obvious are crying and calling, babbling and smiling, clinging, non-nutritional sucking, and locomotion as used in approach, following and seeking. —John Bowlby, Attachment The evolution of hominid behavioral ontogeny can be recon - structed using two lines of evidence: first, comparative neontological data on the behavior and development of living hominoid species (humans and the great apes), and second, comparative paleontolog- ical and archaeological evidence associated with fossil hominids. (Although behavior rarely fossilizes, it can leave significant traces.) 1 In this chapter I focus on paleontological and neontological evi - dence relevant to modeling the evolution of the following hominid adaptations: (1) bipedal locomotion and stance; (2) tool use and tool making; (3) subsistence patterns; (4) growth and development and other life history patterns; (5) childbirth; (6) childhood and child care; and (7) cognition and cognitive development. In each case I present a cladistic model for the origins of the characters in question. 2 Specifically, I review pertinent data on the following widely recog - nized hominid genera and species: Australopithecus species (A. afarensis , A. africanus , and A. robustus [Paranthropus robustus]) , early Homo species (Australopithecus gahri , Homo habilis , and Homo rudolfensis) , and Middle Pleistocene Homo species (Homo erectus , Homo ergaster , and others), which I am calling erectines . Copyrighted Material www.sarpress.org 279 S UE TAYLOR PARKER Table 10.1 Estimated Body Weights and Geological Ages of Fossil Hominids _______________________________________________________________________ Species Geologic Age Male Weight Female Weight (MYA) (kg) (kg) _______________________________________________________________________ A.
    [Show full text]
  • Neither Chimpanzee Nor Human, Ardipithecus Reveals the Surprising Ancestry of Both Tim D
    SPECIAL FEATURE: PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE SPECIAL FEATURE: Neither chimpanzee nor human, Ardipithecus reveals the surprising ancestry of both Tim D. Whitea,1, C. Owen Lovejoyb, Berhane Asfawc, Joshua P. Carlsona, and Gen Suwad,1 aDepartment of Integrative Biology, Human Evolution Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; bDepartment of Anthropology, School of Biomedical Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242–0001; cRift Valley Research Service, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; and dThe University Museum, The University of Tokyo, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku Tokyo 113-0033, Japan Edited by Neil H. Shubin, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, and approved September 10, 2014 (received for review April 25, 2014) Australopithecus fossils were regularly interpreted during the late 20th century in a framework that used living African apes, especially chimpanzees, as proxies for the immediate ancestors of the human clade. Such projection is now largely nullified by the discovery of Ardipithecus. In the context of accumulating evidence from genetics, developmental biology, anatomy, ecology, biogeography, and geology, Ardipithecus alters perspectives on how our earliest hominid ancestors—and our closest living relatives—evolved. human evolution | Australopithecus | hominid | Ethiopia “...the stock whence two or more species have chimpanzees, can serve as adequate repre- (5). Indeed, a widely used textbook still pro- sprung, need in no respect be intermediate sentations of the ancestral past. claims that, “Overall, Au. afarensis seems very between those species.” much like a missing link between the living Background T. H. Huxley, 1860 (1) Africanapesandlaterhomininsinitsdental, ’ Darwin s human evolution scenario attemp- cranial, and skeletal morphology” (6). Charles Darwin famously suggested that ted to explain hominid tool use, bipedality, Australopithecus can no longer be legiti- Africa was humanity’s most probable birth enlarged brains, and reduced canine teeth (2).
    [Show full text]
  • Seminar on the Evolution of Language PSYC GU4242 4 Points Professor Herb Terrace 418 Schermerhorn Hall [email protected]
    Seminar on the Evolution of Language PSYC GU4242 4 points Professor Herb Terrace 418 Schermerhorn Hall [email protected] 212-854-4544 Thursdays 10:10-12 Schermerhorn 200C Office hours: Thursdays 9-10am and other times TBA Course description: This seminar will consider the evolution of language at the levels of the word and grammar, in each instance, phylogenetically and ontogenetically. Since humans are the only species that use language, attention will be paid to how language differs from animal communication. Prerequisites: Introduction to linguistics, introduction to psychology, and permission of instructor. Role of PSYC GU4242 in the Psychology curriculum: GU4242 is a seminar open to graduate students and advanced undergraduate students. It fulfills the following degree requirements. • For graduate students, it can partially fulfill the seminar requirement for the M.A. or the elective requirement for the M.Phil. • For undergraduates Psychology majors or concentrators and for students in the Psychology Postbaccalaureate certificate program, it meets the Group I (Perception & Cognition) distribution requirement. • For Psychology majors and Psychology Postbac students, it fulfills the seminar requirement. • For undergraduates pursuing the Neuroscience & Behavior major, it fulfills the advanced seminar requirement in the Psychology portion of the major. • Graduate students in Psychology and junior and senior Neuroscience & Behavior, Psychology, and Linguistics majors will have priority for registration. However, for non-majors in the College and in G.S., GU4242 could count as one term of the natural science requirement, provided the student has taken the prerequisite courses and has instructor permission. Role of PSYC GU4242 in the Linguistics curriculum: This course can be used to meet the “psychology and biology of language” theme requirement or the elective course requirement for the Linguistics major.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Evolution: a Paleoanthropological Perspective - F.H
    PHYSICAL (BIOLOGICAL) ANTHROPOLOGY - Human Evolution: A Paleoanthropological Perspective - F.H. Smith HUMAN EVOLUTION: A PALEOANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE F.H. Smith Department of Anthropology, Loyola University Chicago, USA Keywords: Human evolution, Miocene apes, Sahelanthropus, australopithecines, Australopithecus afarensis, cladogenesis, robust australopithecines, early Homo, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Australopithecus africanus/Australopithecus garhi, mitochondrial DNA, homology, Neandertals, modern human origins, African Transitional Group. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Reconstructing Biological History: The Relationship of Humans and Apes 3. The Human Fossil Record: Basal Hominins 4. The Earliest Definite Hominins: The Australopithecines 5. Early Australopithecines as Primitive Humans 6. The Australopithecine Radiation 7. Origin and Evolution of the Genus Homo 8. Explaining Early Hominin Evolution: Controversy and the Documentation- Explanation Controversy 9. Early Homo erectus in East Africa and the Initial Radiation of Homo 10. After Homo erectus: The Middle Range of the Evolution of the Genus Homo 11. Neandertals and Late Archaics from Africa and Asia: The Hominin World before Modernity 12. The Origin of Modern Humans 13. Closing Perspective Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary UNESCO – EOLSS The basic course of human biological history is well represented by the existing fossil record, although there is considerable debate on the details of that history. This review details both what is firmly understood (first echelon issues) and what is contentious concerning humanSAMPLE evolution. Most of the coCHAPTERSntention actually concerns the details (second echelon issues) of human evolution rather than the fundamental issues. For example, both anatomical and molecular evidence on living (extant) hominoids (apes and humans) suggests the close relationship of African great apes and humans (hominins). That relationship is demonstrated by the existing hominoid fossil record, including that of early hominins.
    [Show full text]
  • Paranthropus Boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard A
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Biological Sciences Faculty Research Biological Sciences Fall 11-28-2007 Paranthropus boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard A. Wood George Washington University Paul J. Constantino Biological Sciences, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty Part of the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Wood B and Constantino P. Paranthropus boisei: Fifty years of evidence and analysis. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 50:106-132. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Faculty Research by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 50:106–132 (2007) Paranthropus boisei: Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis Bernard Wood* and Paul Constantino Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052 KEY WORDS Paranthropus; boisei; aethiopicus; human evolution; Africa ABSTRACT Paranthropus boisei is a hominin taxon ers can trace the evolution of metric and nonmetric var- with a distinctive cranial and dental morphology. Its iables across hundreds of thousands of years. This pa- hypodigm has been recovered from sites with good per is a detailed1 review of half a century’s worth of fos- stratigraphic and chronological control, and for some sil evidence and analysis of P. boi se i and traces how morphological regions, such as the mandible and the both its evolutionary history and our understanding of mandibular dentition, the samples are not only rela- its evolutionary history have evolved during the past tively well dated, but they are, by paleontological 50 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Curren T Anthropology
    Forthcoming Current Anthropology Wenner-Gren Symposium Curren Supplementary Issues (in order of appearance) t Humanness and Potentiality: Revisiting the Anthropological Object in the Anthropolog Current Context of New Medical Technologies. Klaus Hoeyer and Karen-Sue Taussig, eds. Alternative Pathways to Complexity: Evolutionary Trajectories in the Anthropology Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Steven L. Kuhn and Erella Hovers, eds. y THE WENNER-GREN SYMPOSIUM SERIES Previously Published Supplementary Issues December 2012 HUMAN BIOLOGY AND THE ORIGINS OF HOMO Working Memory: Beyond Language and Symbolism. omas Wynn and Frederick L. Coolidge, eds. GUEST EDITORS: SUSAN ANTÓN AND LESLIE C. AIELLO Engaged Anthropology: Diversity and Dilemmas. Setha M. Low and Sally Early Homo: Who, When, and Where Engle Merry, eds. Environmental and Behavioral Evidence V Dental Evidence for the Reconstruction of Diet in African Early Homo olum Corporate Lives: New Perspectives on the Social Life of the Corporate Form. Body Size, Body Shape, and the Circumscription of the Genus Homo Damani Partridge, Marina Welker, and Rebecca Hardin, eds. Ecological Energetics in Early Homo e 5 Effects of Mortality, Subsistence, and Ecology on Human Adult Height 3 e Origins of Agriculture: New Data, New Ideas. T. Douglas Price and Plasticity in Human Life History Strategy Ofer Bar-Yosef, eds. Conditions for Evolution of Small Adult Body Size in Southern Africa Supplement Growth, Development, and Life History throughout the Evolution of Homo e Biological Anthropology of Living Human Populations: World Body Size, Size Variation, and Sexual Size Dimorphism in Early Homo Histories, National Styles, and International Networks. Susan Lindee and Ricardo Ventura Santos, eds.
    [Show full text]
  • What Makes a Modern Human We Probably All Carry Genes from Archaic Species Such As Neanderthals
    COMMENT NATURAL HISTORY Edward EARTH SCIENCE How rocks and MUSIC Philip Glass on Einstein EMPLOYMENT The skills gained Lear’s forgotten work life evolved together on our and the unpredictability of in PhD training make it on ornithology p.36 planet p.39 opera composition p.40 worth the money p.41 ILLUSTRATION BY CHRISTIAN DARKIN CHRISTIAN BY ILLUSTRATION What makes a modern human We probably all carry genes from archaic species such as Neanderthals. Chris Stringer explains why the DNA we have in common is more important than any differences. n many ways, what makes a modern we were trying to set up strict criteria, based non-modern (or, in palaeontological human is obvious. Compared with our on cranial measurements, to test whether terms, archaic). What I did not foresee evolutionary forebears, Homo sapiens is controversial fossils from Omo Kibish in was that some researchers who were not Icharacterized by a lightly built skeleton and Ethiopia were within the range of human impressed with our test would reverse it, several novel skull features. But attempts to skeletal variation today — anatomically applying it back onto the skeletal range of distinguish the traits of modern humans modern humans. all modern humans to claim that our diag- from those of our ancestors can be fraught Our results suggested that one skull nosis wrongly excluded some skulls of with problems. was modern, whereas the other was recent populations from being modern2. Decades ago, a colleague and I got into This, they suggested, implied that some difficulties over an attempt to define (or, as PEOPLING THE PLANET people today were more ‘modern’ than oth- I prefer, diagnose) modern humans using Interactive map of migrations: ers.
    [Show full text]
  • Identity of Newly Found, Fully Intact Hominid Skulls from Ethiopia Chris Lemke College of Dupage
    ESSAI Volume 7 Article 31 4-1-2010 Identity of Newly Found, Fully Intact Hominid Skulls from Ethiopia Chris Lemke College of DuPage Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.cod.edu/essai Recommended Citation Lemke, Chris (2009) "Identity of Newly Found, Fully Intact Hominid Skulls from Ethiopia," ESSAI: Vol. 7, Article 31. Available at: http://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol7/iss1/31 This Selection is brought to you for free and open access by the College Publications at [email protected].. It has been accepted for inclusion in ESSAI by an authorized administrator of [email protected].. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lemke: Identity of Hominid Skulls Identity of Newly Found, Fully Intact Hominid Skulls from Ethiopia by Chris Lemke (Honors Biology 1151) ABSTRACT ecently, three fully intact hominid skulls have been found in the Afar Region of Ethiopia. Objectives were to date the skulls using Uranium-235, and to identify each of the skulls. RUranium-235 dating indicated skulls A and B to be 2.9 million years old, and skull C to be 1.7 million years old. Each skull was properly identified using existing fossil data. The two oldest skulls were found to be Australopithecus afarensis, and A. africanus. The younger skull was identified as Homo habilis. A discrepancy was found in the measured cranial capacity data against existing data. Due to condition of the newly found fossils, the most likely explanation for the discrepancy is inaccuracy of existing fossil data due to incomplete and fragmented specimens, or that the skulls in question were representative of a juvenile hominid.
    [Show full text]
  • Linnaean Taxonomic Classification Nomenclature All Biologists Use a Single Naming System That Essentially Follows the Practice O
    Linnaean Taxonomic Classification Nomenclature All biologists use a single naming system that essentially follows the practice of Linnaeus. Taxa are always given Latin names (or Latinized ones). This is a label and not a definition. (Homo sapiens – wise man) The name of a species always consists of two words – the genus (generic) name followed by the species (specific) name. Grammatically, the genus is a noun and the species is adjective or another noun in opposition. The genus name is always capitalized and italicized. The species name is italicized only. If you used the genus name already you may use the first letter followed by a period. Homo sapiens, H. sapiens In the rare cases where a subgenus name is used it is capitalized, italicized and put in parentheses after the genus. Australopithecus (Paranthropus) robustus If a subspecies name is used it comes at the end and is italicized only. E.G. Homo sapiens sapiens Categories above the genus level are capitalized but not italicized. They generally have endings that show the level of classification. ini for tribe (Infraorder), oidea for superfamily, idae for family. Above the superfamily the only rule is that the name must be Latin or Latinized. The Latin names are often anglicized by dropping the ending and it is not normally capitalized. Hominidae – hominid. Technically the full name of the taxon should include the name of its inventor and the date but this is only done if the discussion is concerning the taxonomy of the name. Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 Ideally, a taxon should have only one name, but some have been given more than one and there is a disagreement over which one has priority or which one is better.
    [Show full text]