DOCSLIB.ORG

Lab #9. Trends in the Evolution of Homo, Early "Modern" H. Sapiens

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lab #9. Trends in the Evolution of Homo, Early Lab #9. Trends in the evolution of Homo, early "modern" H. sapiens NOTE: There are 3 goals to this lab. First, you have an opportunity to review various fossil Homo specimens and take notes on their morphology. Second, you should be looking for morphological trends in human evolution (this is why the stations have been arranged in roughly chronological order), and third, you will have a chance to look at some specimens considered by many to be examples of early "anatomically modern" Homo sapiens. When making comparisons, be specific about character states. Finally, pay close attention to the dating of each specimen (some are more securely dated than others) and attempt to integrate your own observations with the discussion of the opposing models for the origin of modern humans discussed in the text and in the lecture to follow this lab. Station #1: Early Lower Pleistocene Homo. A: KNM-ER-1470. early Homo, Koobi Fora, East Turkana, Kenya, approx. 2mya, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 775 cc B: KNM-ER-1813. early Homo, Koobi Fora, East Turkana, Kenya, approx. 1.8mya CRANIAL CAPACITY: 600+ cc C: KNM-ER 992, early Homo/Homo erectus? Ileret, East Turkana, 1.4-1.6mya D: OH 13. early Homo/Homo erectus? aprox. 1.7mya E. D2700 & D2735. Dmanisi, Homo erectus? Dmainsi, Republic of Georgia, 1.75mya. COMPARATIVE SPECIMENS: F. Sts 71 and Sts 5, A. africanus, Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa, approx. 2-3mya CRANIAL CAPACITIES: 400-450 cc G. Homo sapiens. Recent, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1200-2000 cc H: Hadar reconstruction. A. afarensis, Hadar, Ethiopia approx. 3.5-3mya. Gracile Australopithecine. CRANIAL CAPACITY approx. 400+ cc I: LH 4. A. afarensis, Laetoli, Tanzania, approx. 3.8-3.5mya, gracile australopithecine J. KNM-WT-40000, Kenyanthropus platyops, Lomekwi, West Turkana, Kenya, approx. 3.5 mya, CRANIAL CAPACITY: approx. 400-450 cc Station #2: later Lower Pleistocene Homo erectus. A: KNM-ER-3733. Homo erectus. Koobi Fora, East Turkana, Kenya, 1.6mya CRANIAL CAPACITY: 848 cc B: KNM-ER-3883. Homo erectus. Koobi Fora, East Turkana, Kenya, 1.4-1.5mya CRANIAL CAPACITY: 804 cc C: OH 9. Homo erectus. Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, 1.2mya CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1067 cc D. KNM-WT-15000 Homo erectus. Nariokotome III, West Turkana, 1.6mya CRANIAL CAPACITY: 900 cc E: Sangiran 4 (reconstruction), Homo erectus. Sangiran, Java. F. Sangiran 17. Homo erectus, Java, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 900cc COMPARATIVE SPECIMEN: Homo sapiens. Recent. CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1200- Evolution of Homo, Page 2 2000 cc Station #3: Middle Pleistocene Homo erectus & Archaic Homo sapiens A: Zhoukoudian (reconstruction), Homo erectus. China, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1100cc B: "Sinanthropus" I, Homo erectus. Zhoukoudian, China, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1100cc C: Ngandong IV, Homo erectus?? Solo River, Java, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1150 cc D: Broken Hill 1, archaic Homo sapiens, Kabwe, Zambia, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1300 cc E: Steinheim, archaic Homo sapiens, Germany, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1100 cc F: Eringsdorf mandible, archaic Homo sapiens (early neandertal), Germany. G: Saldanha, archaic Homo sapiens, Cape Province, South Africa, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1250cc H. Mauer Mandible, Heidelberg, Germany, early middle Pleistocene. COMPARATIVE SPECIMEN: recent Homo sapiens Station #4: Mostly Upper Pleistocene Homo. LATE-MIDDLE/UPPER PLEISTOCENE 120,000 to 60,000 BP A: La Ferassie 1, (neandertal), Savignac du Bugue, France, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1700cc B: La Chapelle-aux-Saints, (neandertal), France, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1650 cc C: Gibraltar 1, (neandertal), Forbes Quarry, Gibraltar, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1286 cc D. Teshik-Tash, Juvenile neandertal from Uzbekistan. E. Atapuerca 5, Spain, approx 300,000 bp. Neandertal precursor? FIGURE F: Shanidar 1, (neandertal), Kurdistan, Iraq, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1500 cc FIGURES G: Variation in the Skhul and Quafzeh crania, Mount Carmel, Israel, dates: 60,000 to 100,000 BP? H: Skhul V, ("anatomically modern" H. sapiens?), Mount Carmel, Israel: 1550 cc I: Border Cave 1, (anatomically "modern" Homo sapiens?), 33-90,000 BP?, Older? LATE UPPER PLEISTOCENE 40,000 to 12,000 BP. J: Predmosti (anatomically "modern" H. sapiens male), Czech Republic: CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1600 cc K: Brno II (anatomically "modern" H. sapiens female), Czech Republic: CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1459 cc L: Brno I (anatomically "modern" H. sapiens male), Czech Republic: CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1400 cc M: Cro Magnon 1 "the old man" (Anatomically "modern" H. sapiens male), Dordgne, France: CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1636 cc N. Mainz 1. (Anatomically "modern" Homo sapiens) Discovered in 1998 in the Rhine River deposits in South West Germany near Mainz. The association with Mammuthus, Megaceros and Equis, as well as the state of mineralization, suggests an age of at least 10,000 to 30,000 bp. COMPARATIVE SPECIMEN: recent Homo sapiens, CRANIAL CAPACITY: 1200-2000 cc Evolution of Homo, Page 3 Question #1. Having examined these specimens and consulted your previous lab exercises, what trends do you see in human evolution over the period from which these specimens were sampled? Suggested things to look for are changes in cranial capacity, shape of the cranial vault, presence, size and thickness of various tori, relative size of the face and anterior or posterior teeth, positioning of maximum breadth of the skull, parietal shape and any other traits you can think of (which might get you some extra credit if valid). Do these trends continue throughout the entire chronological sequence represented or do some start and stop at different times? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________Finish answer on additional sheet(s) Question #2. Examine carefully the specimens at Stations #3 and #4. Do any of these specimens exhibit characteristics commonly thought to be characteristic of anatomically modern Homo sapiens? (see list below). In addition, do any of the commonly alleged "anatomically modern" specimens exhibit traits of archaic humans in general or neandertals in particular. Be very specific about specimens and traits in your response to all three parts of this question. I'm going to be very picky about grading it. ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Evolution of Homo, Page 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________Finish answer on additional sheet(s) Partial List of Derived traits Commonly used to define "anatomically modern" Homo sapiens. 1. Cranial Vault. Short from front to back (Glabella to Inion) and high from Porion (top of earhole) to Vertex (highest point on top of skull). This is associated with a vertical forehead. 2. Small to tiny supraorbital tori. The tori over each orbit are usually divided into a trangular medial portion (supraorbital trigone) and a much thinner lateral supracilliary arch. 3. Maximum breadth of skull high on parietals (parietal bosses) when viewed from behind. In posterior view, the walls of the cranial vault appear to run parallel to each other. 4. Loss of strong torus development. Separation of occipital/nuchal torus into superior and inferior nuchal lines. 5. The reappearance of a well excavated canine fossa. Very reduced face (length & breadth) relative to the size of the cranial vault. 6. Presence of a mental eminence (chin) at the lower border of the mandible at the symphysis. 7. Reduction in size of anterior, as well as posterior teeth. Note that traits 2 and 5 throuugh 7 are highly correlated, relate to an extreme reduction in emphasis on the masticatory system and are trends that have continued up to the present day. Thus, although we may call some Pleistocene hominid "anatomically modern" based on derived freatures it shares with us, that does not mean that human morphological evolution stopped at the end of the Paleolithic. These people would represent an extreme,very robust phenotypes, of the range of variation in living humans. Evolution of Homo, Page 5 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fate of the Neanderthals Announcement
    The Fate of the Neanderthals Announcement The first midterm exam will take place in class on Monday, October 1. You only need to bring a pencil or pen with you. The exam will have 2 parts: 1) 16 multiple choice questions (1 point each, 15 minutes) 2) 6 out of 7 short IDs (4 points each, 30 minutes) Sample questions are posted on the course website. After Homo erectus, several species of archaic Homo emerged during the Middle Paleolithic Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are often called “Archaic Homo” or “Archaic Humans” Neanderthals Homo sapiens Denisovans (400-30kya) (200kya-present) (40kya) Europe and Middle East Africa first Asia Homo heidelbergensis (600-200kya) Africa, Europe, and the Middle East Homo erectus (2mya-150kya?) Africa and Asia. Europe? Outline of Today’s Class: The Fate of the Neanderthals 1) Neanderthal biology and behavior 2) Modern humans - Early expansions out of Africa >100kya - Later expansions out of Africa 60kya associated with Upper Paleolithic modern human behavior 3) Neanderthal ancient DNA and clues about Neanderthal extinction The Neanderthals (300kya-30kya) • First fossils discovered in 1856 in the Neander Valley, Germany. • Large brains, large noses, and large brow ridges. Short, stocky bodies. • Cold-weather adapted to life during the Pleistocene “Ice Ages” (ca. 736kya-11.7kya). • Covered a wide geographic range extending from Europe to the Near Boyd & Silk (2014). East and West Asia. • Neanderthals living in different regions had different diets and behaviors (e.g., European Neanderthals hunted large game whereas Near Eastern Neanderthals had a more diverse diet of plants and small animals).
    [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]
  • Video Program 12 - a LIFE in the TREES Video Program 13 - the COMPULSIVE COMMUNICATORS
    page 165 LIFE ON EARTH UNIT SIX SUMMARY UNIT SIX MATERIAL The videotapes to watch for this unit are: Video Program 12 - A LIFE IN THE TREES Video Program 13 - THE COMPULSIVE COMMUNICATORS Read the CONCEPTS in the study guide: CONCEPTS FOR EPISODE 12 CONCEPTS FOR EPISODE 13 Answer the QUESTIONS in the study guide: QUESTIONS FOR EPISODE 12 QUESTIONS FOR EPISODE 13 OVERVIEW OF LEARNING OBJECTIVES Video Episode 12 To become acquainted with: 1. adaptations to life in the trees 2. the various groups of primates and their characteristics 3. the forms of communication found in the primates 4. social behavior of the primates 5. lemurs, tupaia, monkeys, orangutans, gibbons, gorillas and chimpanzees Video Episode 13 To become acquainted with: 1. the evolutionary history of man 2. Australopithecus, Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Homo sapiens 3. role of bipedalism, tools, language in the evolution of man 4. study of primitive cultures today as a means to study the possible past 5. culture, agriculture, society in human culture page 166 CONCEPTS FOR EPISODE 12: A LIFE IN THE TREES PRIMATES The primates are mammals that are adapted for tree-dwelling lifestyles. They typically have large brains, large eyes, binocular vision and grasping hands. Primates include lemurs, lorises and tarsiers, monkeys, great apes and humans. The earliest primates first appeared about 55 million years ago. Two distinct characteristics evolved in the primates. First, the primates developed grasping hands and/or feet with opposable thumbs. Look at your hand. The thumb is at a different angle from the other fingers. You can touch the pad of your thumb to the pads of the other fingers, which allows you to hold and manipulate an object or tool.
    [Show full text]
  • A Timeline for the Denisovans, an Enigmatic Group of Archaic Humans 1 1 by Zenobia Jacobs | Professor; Richard ‘Bert’ Roberts | Professor
    July 10, 2019 Evolution & Behavior A timeline for the Denisovans, an enigmatic group of archaic humans 1 1 by Zenobia Jacobs | Professor; Richard ‘Bert’ Roberts | Professor 1 : Centre for Archaeological Science, School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences and Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, University of Wollongong, Australia This Break was edited by Max Caine, Editor-in-chief - TheScienceBreaker ABSTRACT The Denisovans are a mysterious group of archaic humans named after the type locality of Denisova Cave in southern Siberia. The site was also occupied at times by Neanderthals and modern humans. Thanks to optical dating and environmental reconstructions we defined a robust chronology for these archaic humans. Anui River valley in which Denisova Cave is located. Image credits: Richard Roberts © One of the most intriguing revelations in human to Neanderthals, a sister group to the Denisovans, as evolution of the past decade was the announcement well as modern humans (Homo sapiens). Placing in 2010 of the genome of a completely unknown these comings and goings on a reliable timeline has archaic human (hominin), obtained from a girl’s proven elusive, however, largely because the fingerbone found buried in Denisova Cave—a three- deposits containing traces of Denisovans and chambered cavern nestled in the foothills of the Altai Neanderthals are too old for radiocarbon dating, Mountains in southern Siberia. Even more which is limited to the last 50,000 years. astonishingly, present-day Aboriginal Australian and New Guinean people have by far the greatest In our recent paper, we used another method— amount of Denisovan DNA in their genomes, despite known as optical dating—that can extend back much living 8,000 km away.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuity in Animal Resource Diversity in the Late Pleistocene Human Diet of Central Portugal
    Continuity in animal resource diversity in the Late Pleistocene human diet of Central Portugal Bryan Hockett US Bureau of Land Management, Elko District Office, 3900 East Idaho Street, Elko, NV 89801 USA [email protected] Jonathan Haws Department of Anthropology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 USA [email protected] Keywords Palaeolithic, diet, nutritional ecology, Portugal, Neanderthals Abstract Archaeologists studying the human occupation of Late Pleistocene Iberia have identified the Late Upper Palaeolithic, including the Pleistocene-Holocene transition, as a time of resource intensification, diversification and speciali- sation. The primary drivers for these changes were argued to be the result of population-resource imbalances triggered by the postglacial climatic warming and human population growth. Recent research, however, has pushed resource intensification and diversification back in time to the Early Upper Palaeolithic in Iberia and beyond. Dietary diversity may have given anatomically modern humans a selective advantage over Neanderthals. In this article we review the accumulated evidence for Late Middle and Upper Palaeolithic diet in central Portugal, emphasising the importance of small animal exploitation. We incorporate results from on-going research at Lapa do Picareiro and other sites to explore the possibility that the dietary choices of modern foragers in Iberia contrib- uted to the extinction of the Neanderthal populations occupying the region until ca 30,000 14C BP. 1 Introduction Archaeologists studying the human occupation of Late Pleistocene with one that linked situational shifts in Pleistocene Iberia often frame explanations for their different types of small game to human population subsistence economies within the now-classic ‘Broad pulses.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia
    World Heritage papers41 HEADWORLD HERITAGES 4 Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia VOLUME I In support of UNESCO’s 70th Anniversary Celebrations United Nations [ Cultural Organization Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia Nuria Sanz, Editor General Coordinator of HEADS Programme on Human Evolution HEADS 4 VOLUME I Published in 2015 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France and the UNESCO Office in Mexico, Presidente Masaryk 526, Polanco, Miguel Hidalgo, 11550 Ciudad de Mexico, D.F., Mexico. © UNESCO 2015 ISBN 978-92-3-100107-9 This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. Cover Photos: Top: Hohle Fels excavation. © Harry Vetter bottom (from left to right): Petroglyphs from Sikachi-Alyan rock art site.
    [Show full text]
  • Arguments That Prehistorical and Modern Humans Belong to the Same Species
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 6 May 2019 doi:10.20944/preprints201905.0038.v1 Arguments that Prehistorical and Modern Humans Belong to the Same Species Rainer W. Kühne Tuckermannstr. 35, 38118 Braunschweig, Germany e-mail: [email protected] May 2, 2019 Abstract called either progressive Homo erectus or archaic Homo sapiens. I argue that the evidence of the Out-of-Africa A more primitive group of prehistorical hu- hypothesis and the evidence of multiregional mans is sometimes classified as Homo erec- evolution of prehistorical humans can be un- tus, but mostly classified as belonging to dif- derstood if there has been interbreeding be- ferent species. These include Homo anteces- tween Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, sor, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo and Homo sapiens at least during the preced- ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo heidelbergen- ing 700,000 years. These interbreedings require sis, Homo mauretanicus, and Homo rhodesien- descendants who are capable of reproduction sis. Sometimes the more primitive Homo habilis and therefore parents who belong to the same is regarded as belonging to the same species as species. I suggest that a number of prehistori- Homo ergaster. cal humans who are at present regarded as be- A further species is Homo floresiensis, a dwarf longing to different species belong in fact to one form known from Flores, Indonesia. This species single species. shows some anatomical characteristics which are similar to those of the more primitive humans Keywords Homo ergaster and Homo georgicus and other Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo anatomical characteristics which are similar to erectus, Homo floresiensis, Neandertals, Deniso- those of Homo sapiens [1][2][3].
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin of Modern Anatomy: by Speciation Or Intraspecific Evolution?
    Evolutionary Anthropology 17:22–37 (2008) ARTICLES The Origin of Modern Anatomy: By Speciation or Intraspecific Evolution? GU¨ NTER BRA¨ UER ‘‘Speciation remains the special case, the less frequent and more elusive Over the years, the chronological phenomenon, often arising by default’’ (p 164).1 framework for Africa had to be Over the last thirty years, great progress has been made regarding our under- somewhat revised due to new dating standing of Homo sapiens evolution in Africa and, in particular, the origin of ana- evidence and other discoveries. For tomically modern humans. However, in the mid-1970s, the whole process of example, in 1997, we presented a re- Homo sapiens evolution in Africa was unclear and confusing. At that time it was vised scheme14 in which the time widely assumed that very archaic-looking hominins, also called the ‘‘Rhode- periods of both the early archaic and sioids,’’ which included the specimens from Kabwe (Zambia), Saldanha (South the late archaic groups had to be Africa), and Eyasi (Tanzania), were spread over wide parts of the continent as somewhat extended because of new recently as 30,000 or 40,000 years ago. Yet, at the same time, there were also absolute dates for the Bodo and Flo- indications from the Omo Kibish skeletal remains (Ethiopia) and the Border Cave risbad hominins, among others. The specimens (South Africa) that anatomically modern humans had already been current updated version (Fig. 1) present somewhat earlier than 100,000 years B.P.2,3 Thus, it was puzzling how includes the most recently discovered such early moderns could fit in with the presence of very archaic humans still specimens from Ethiopia as well as existing in Eastern and Southern Africa only 30,000 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Upper Palaeolithic Humans in Europe Had Recent Neanderthal Ancestry
    Article Initial Upper Palaeolithic humans in Europe had recent Neanderthal ancestry https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03335-3 Mateja Hajdinjak1,2 ✉, Fabrizio Mafessoni1, Laurits Skov1, Benjamin Vernot1, Alexander Hübner1,3, Qiaomei Fu4, Elena Essel1, Sarah Nagel1, Birgit Nickel1, Julia Richter1, Received: 7 July 2020 Oana Teodora Moldovan5,6, Silviu Constantin7,8, Elena Endarova9, Nikolay Zahariev10, Accepted: 5 February 2021 Rosen Spasov10, Frido Welker11,12, Geoff M. Smith11, Virginie Sinet-Mathiot11, Lindsey Paskulin13, Helen Fewlass11, Sahra Talamo11,14, Zeljko Rezek11,15, Svoboda Sirakova16, Nikolay Sirakov16, Published online: 7 April 2021 Shannon P. McPherron11, Tsenka Tsanova11, Jean-Jacques Hublin11,17, Benjamin M. Peter1, Open access Matthias Meyer1, Pontus Skoglund2, Janet Kelso1 & Svante Pääbo1 ✉ Check for updates Modern humans appeared in Europe by at least 45,000 years ago1–5, but the extent of their interactions with Neanderthals, who disappeared by about 40,000 years ago6, and their relationship to the broader expansion of modern humans outside Africa are poorly understood. Here we present genome-wide data from three individuals dated to between 45,930 and 42,580 years ago from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria1,2. They are the earliest Late Pleistocene modern humans known to have been recovered in Europe so far, and were found in association with an Initial Upper Palaeolithic artefact assemblage. Unlike two previously studied individuals of similar ages from Romania7 and Siberia8 who did not contribute detectably to later populations, these individuals are more closely related to present-day and ancient populations in East Asia and the Americas than to later west Eurasian populations. This indicates that they belonged to a modern human migration into Europe that was not previously known from the genetic record, and provides evidence that there was at least some continuity between the earliest modern humans in Europe and later people in Eurasia.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin and the Recent African Origin of Modern Humans
    EDITORIAL Darwin and the recent African origin of modern humans Richard G. Klein1 Program in Human Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 n this 200th anniversary of When Darwin and Huxley were ac- The Course of Human Evolution Charles Darwin’s birth and tive, many respected scientists sub- In the absence of fossils, Darwin could the 150th anniversary of the scribed to the now discredited idea that not have predicted the fundamental pat- publication of his monumen- human races represented variably tern of human evolution, but his evolu- Otal The Origin of Species (1859) (1), it evolved populations of Homo sapiens. tionary theory readily accommodates seems fitting to summarize Darwin’s The original Neanderthal skull had a the pattern we now recognize. Probably views on human evolution and to show conspicuous browridge, and compared the most fundamental finding is that the how far we have come since. Darwin with the skulls of modern humans, it australopithecines, who existed from at famously neglected the subject in The was decidedly long and low. At the same least 4.5 million to 2 million years ago, Origin, except near the end where he time, it had a large braincase, and Hux- were distinguished from apes primarily noted only that ‘‘light would be thrown ley regarded it as ‘‘the extreme term of by anatomical specializations for habit- on the origin of man and his history’’ by a series leading gradually from it to the ual bipedalism, and it was only after 2 the massive evidence he had compiled highest and best developed of [modern] million years ago that people began to for evolution by means of natural selec- human crania.’’ It was only in 1891 that acquire the other traits, including our tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Clarifying Distinct Models of Modern Human Origins in Africa
    UC Davis UC Davis Previously Published Works Title Clarifying distinct models of modern human origins in Africa. Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1vg9c10k Authors Henn, Brenna M Steele, Teresa E Weaver, Timothy D Publication Date 2018-12-01 DOI 10.1016/j.gde.2018.10.003 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Clarifying distinct models of modern human origins in Africa 1,2 1 1 Brenna M Henn , Teresa E Steele and Timothy D Weaver Accumulating genomic, fossil and archaeological data from and geographic distribution of modern human origins and Africa have led to a renewed interest in models of modern evolution in Africa. We attempt to delineate these ideas human origins. However, such discussions are often discipline- into four models (Figure 1), with the goal of distinguish- specific, with limited integration of evidence across the ing features of each that lend themselves to model different fields. Further, geneticists typically require explicit testing. specification of parameters to test competing demographic models, but these have been poorly outlined for some One scenario that has generated recent discourse is a form of scenarios. Here, we describe four possible models for the multiregionalism that is limited to Africa (i.e. African Multi- origins of Homo sapiens in Africa based on published literature regionalism, Model 1) (Figure 1a) [8,9,10 ]. This view has from paleoanthropology and human genetics. We briefly outline been motivated by the presence of regional geographic expectations for data patterns under each model, with a special variation in the African archaeological record by 300 000 focus on genetic data.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolutionary History of Neanderthal and Denisovan Y
    The evolutionary history of Neanderthal and Denisovan Y chromosomes Martin Petr, Mateja Hajdinjak, Qiaomei Fu, Elena Essel, Hélène Rougier, Isabelle Crevecoeur, Patrick Semal, V Liubov, Vladimir Doronichev, Carles Lalueza-Fox, et al. To cite this version: Martin Petr, Mateja Hajdinjak, Qiaomei Fu, Elena Essel, Hélène Rougier, et al.. The evolution- ary history of Neanderthal and Denisovan Y chromosomes. Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2020. hal-02990265 HAL Id: hal-02990265 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02990265 Submitted on 5 Nov 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. RESEARCH ◥ male late Neanderthals, Spy 94a (38 to 39 ka old) REPORT and Mezmaiskaya 2 (43 to 45 ka old) (13) (Fig. 1A). To enrich for Y chromosome DNA F1 YEVOLUTION from these individuals, we performed hybrid- ization capture using probes we designed to The evolutionary history of Neanderthal target ~6.9 Mb of the nonrecombining portion of the human Y chromosome (Fig. 1B) (14). and Denisovan Y chromosomes This yielded sequence coverage of 1.4× for Denisova 4, 3.5× for Denisova 8, 0.8× for Spy Martin Petr1*,MatejaHajdinjak1,2,QiaomeiFu3,4,5,ElenaEssel1,HélèneRougier6,IsabelleCrevecoeur7, 94a, and 14.3× for Mezmaiskaya 2 (Fig.
    [Show full text]