DOCSLIB.ORG

Homo Rudolfensis Homo Rudolfensis (Also Australopithecus Rudolfensis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Homo Rudolfensis Homo Rudolfensis (Also Australopithecus Rudolfensis Homo rudolfensis Homo rudolfensis (also Australopithecus rudolfensis) is an extinct species of the Hominini tribe known only through a handful of representative fossils, the first of which was discovered by Bernard Ngeneo, a member of a team led by anthropologist Richard Leakey and zoologist Meave Leakey in 1972, at Koobi Fora on the east side of Lake Rudolf (now Lake Turkana) in Kenya. The scientific name Pithecanthropus rudolfensis was proposed in 1978 by V. P. Alekseyev who later (1986) changed it to Homo rudolfensis for the specimen Skull 1470 (KNM ER 1470). It remains an open question whether the fossil evidence is sufficient for postulating a separate species, and if so whether this species should be classified as within the Homo or Australopithecus genus. On 8 August 2012, a team led by Meave Leakey announced the discovery of a face and two jawbones belonging to H. rudolfensis. KNM-ER 1470 Reconstruction of the KNM ER 1470 skull UR 501 (original specimen), the oldest fossil of genus Homo The fossil KNM-ER 1470 was the center of much debate concerning its species. The skull was at first incorrectly dated at nearly three million years old, predating the Homo habilis species. Since then, the estimate has been corrected to 1.9 million years, but the differences in this skull, when compared to others of the Homo habilis species, are said to be too pronounced, leading to the presumption of a Homo rudolfensis species, contemporary with Homo habilis. It is not certain whether H. rudolfensis, H. habilis or some, as of yet undiscovered, third species was ancestral to the later Homo line. In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looked very ape-like (possibly due to an exaggerated rotation of the skull) and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy. Bromage said his team's reconstruction included biological knowledge not known at the time of the skull's discovery, of the precise relationship between the sizes of eyes, ears, and mouth in mammals. A newer publication by Bromage has since further downsized the cranial capacity estimate from 752 cm³ to 700 cm³.[5] Homo habilis vs. Homo rudolfensis Comparisons between fossil OH 24, recognized as a Homo habilis skull discovered by Peter Nzube, along with the female H. habilis fossil KNM ER 1813, and KNM-ER 1470 (male) have brought much controversy as to whether H. rudolfensis and H. habilis should be classified as two separate species or lumped together into H. habilis. When compared to other older H. habilis fossils like OH 24, the mandible and jaw of ER 1470 do not fit within the limits of variation of H. habilis. KNM-ER 1470 displays less prognathism and a rounder brain case. After much debate, but no clear settlement, fossil KNM ER 1813 was found in 1973 by Kamoya Kimeu, which helped settle some disputes regarding the H. habilis and H. rudolfensis species. When compared to ER 1813, ER 1470 manifests a larger braincase ranging from 750-800ml. Even if sexual dimorphism were considered, the size difference in the mandible and teeth would be too great compared to KNM-ER 1813. Fossil KNM-ER 1470, a male H. rudolfensis, has massive teeth in comparison to the female H. habilis fossil KNM-ER 1813 and portrays a much larger brain case than KNM-ER 1813. When KNM-ER 1813 and KNM-ER 1470 are compared to OH 24, similarities between OH 24 and KNM-ER 1813 are more widely evident than with KNM-ER 1470. These similarities include smaller orbits, the projection of the mid-face below the nose and a smaller skull size over all. The assumed ages of these three fossils, the places were they were found and some of the anatomical similarities between them leads many scholars to assume that the two species - H. habilis and H. rudolfensis - co-existed somewhere in the East African area sometime between 2.0 and 1.5 million years ago along with Homo erectus and Paranthropus boisei. 2012 fossil find In August 2012, a team led by Meave Leakey published an academic paper in Nature announcing three additional H. rudolfensis fossils from northern Kenya had been found: two jawbones with teeth and a face. The face (fossil KNM-ER 62000) was of a juvenile, but had features in common with KNM-ER 1470, suggesting that the latter skull's uniqueness is due to being a separate species, rather than a large male H. habilis. Team member Fred Spoor described the face as "incredibly flat", with a straight line from the eye socket to the incisor tooth. The jawbones, which appeared to match KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 62000, were also shorter and more rectangular than known H. habilis specimens. The fossils were dated to about two million years ago, being contemporaneous with H. habilis. According to Leakey et al., "the new fossils confirm the presence of two contemporary species of early Homo [that is, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis], in addition to Homo erectus, in the early Pleistocene of eastern Africa". Lee Rogers Berger, however, called the argument "weak", and proposed the finds be compared to other possibilities, such as Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus sediba. Tim D. White of the University of California also challenged the findings, asking, "How can practitioners in this field possibly expect to be able to accurately identify fossil species based upon a few teeth, jaws, and lower faces in light of what we know about the great variation found among different individuals in a single living species?" Leakey replied, "I would challenge Tim to find any primate in which you would see the same degrees of variation as those that we are seeing between our new fossils and KNM-ER 1802". KNM-ER 1802 is a lower-jaw fossil that is thought to be of a Homo rudolfensis. Given the difference between this fossil and the ones found in 2012, Leakey has proposed that the fossil is not of a H. rudolfensis, but possibly, of a H. habilis. Bernard Wood considers that it is "perfectly possible" that there were interactions between these different species. References В.П. Алексеев. Палеоантропология земного шара и формирование человеческих рас. М., Наука, 1978г Wood, B. (1999). "'Homo rudolfensis' Alexeev, 1986: Fact or phantom?". Journal of Human Evolution 36 (1): 115– 118.doi:10.1006/jhev.1998.0246. PMID 9924136. John Hawks (31 March 2007). "KNM-ER 1470 is not a microcephalic". Than, Ker (29 March 2007). "Controversial Human Ancestor Gets Major Facelift". LiveScience. Retrieved 8 August 2012. Bromage, TG, McMahon, JM, Thackeray, JF, et al. (2008). "Craniofacial architectural constraints and their importance for reconstructing the early Homo skull KNM-ER 1470". The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 33 (1): 43–54.PMID 19093651. Chip Clark (6 May 2014). "KNM-ER 1470". Retrieved 20 April 2014. Stuart, Humphreys (3 December 2009). "Homo rudolfensis". Retrieved 20 April 2014. Ghosh, Pallab (9 August 2012). "Many human 'prototypes' coexisted in Africa". BBC News. Retrieved 8 August 2012. Leakey, Meave; Spoor, Fred; Dean, M. Christopher; Feibel, Craig S.; Antón, Susan C.; Kiarie, Christopher; Leakey, Louise N. (8 August 2012). "New fossils from Koobi Fora in northern Kenya confirm taxonomic diversity in early Homo".Nature 488 (7410): 201-4. Bibcode:2012Natur.488..201L.doi:10.1038/nature11322. PMID 22874966. Retrieved 9 August 2012. Wayman, Erin (8 August 2012). "Multiple Species of Early Homo Lived in Africa". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 9 August 2012. Landau, Elizabeth (8 August 2012). "Fossils complicate human ancestor search". CNN. Retrieved 9 August 2012. Kaplan, Matt (8 August 2012). "Fossils point to a big family for human ancestors". Nature. Retrieved 8 August 2012. Article Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis Photo Attributions: "Homo rudolfensis" by Durova - Own work. Licensed under GFDL via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_rudolfensis.jpg#/me dia/File:Homo_rudolfensis.jpg "HPCR-UR 501-03" by Gerbil - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HPCR- UR_501-03.jpg#/media/File:HPCR-UR_501-03.jpg .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Early Members of the Genus Homo -. EXPLORATIONS: an OPEN INVITATION to BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
    EXPLORATIONS: AN OPEN INVITATION TO BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Editors: Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera and Lara Braff American Anthropological Association Arlington, VA 2019 Explorations: An Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. ISBN – 978-1-931303-63-7 www.explorations.americananthro.org 10. Early Members of the Genus Homo Bonnie Yoshida-Levine Ph.D., Grossmont College Learning Objectives • Describe how early Pleistocene climate change influenced the evolution of the genus Homo. • Identify the characteristics that define the genus Homo. • Describe the skeletal anatomy of Homo habilis and Homo erectus based on the fossil evidence. • Assess opposing points of view about how early Homo should be classified. Describe what is known about the adaptive strategies of early members of the Homo genus, including tool technologies, diet, migration patterns, and other behavioral trends.The boy was no older than 9 when he perished by the swampy shores of the lake. After death, his slender, long-limbed body sank into the mud of the lake shallows. His bones fossilized and lay undisturbed for 1.5 million years. In the 1980s, fossil hunter Kimoya Kimeu, working on the western shore of Lake Turkana, Kenya, glimpsed a dark colored piece of bone eroding in a hillside. This small skull fragment led to the discovery of what is arguably the world’s most complete early hominin fossil—a youth identified as a member of the species Homo erectus. Now known as Nariokotome Boy, after the nearby lake village, the skeleton has provided a wealth of information about the early evolution of our own genus, Homo (see Figure 10.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture No. 5. the Evidence of Language Origins
    Semiotix Course 2006, Cognition and symbolism in human evolution Robert Bednarik Lecture No. 5. The evidence of language origins Human language Culture refers to the individually acquired system of ‘understanding’ which reflects the distinctive life trajectory of the organism in question. It refers to socially rather than genetically transmitted behaviour patterns and their products. ‘Cultural dynamics’, therefore, are the processes by which the intelligent organism alters its perceptible reality through its dialectic participation in the processes shaping it (Bednarik 1990). Since the inevitable outcome of such interaction between percepts, concepts and behaviour patterns is selection in favour of increased level of ‘intelligence’, it is to be expected to result in forms of ‘consciousness’, such as those of humans. The process is reified through the perceptible (perceptible, for instance, to humans) externalizations of a species’ concepts onto physical reality (art, in the case of humans), which renders possible the reality constructs of the species, because the neural structures supporting such concepts become available for processing natural sensory stimuli in a taxonomizing format (Bednarik 1995: 628). Since this is the basis of human consciousness, it would be pointless trying to understand human constructs of reality without considering this evolutionary context, or their nexus with cognitive evolution. The purpose of this lecture is to examine the origins of human language ability itself, but this involves visiting several other issues, as well as considering a variety of potential explanations. There is no consensus on this subject at all, and the hypotheses we have range from one extreme to the other. According to the spectrum of current hypotheses, the advent of language occurred at some point between 3.5 million and 32,000 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Paranthropus Through the Looking Glass COMMENTARY Bernard A
    COMMENTARY Paranthropus through the looking glass COMMENTARY Bernard A. Wooda,1 and David B. Pattersona,b Most research and public interest in human origins upper jaw fragment from Malema in Malawi is the focuses on taxa that are likely to be our ancestors. southernmost evidence. However, most of what we There must have been genetic continuity between know about P. boisei comes from fossils from Koobi modern humans and the common ancestor we share Fora on the eastern shore of Lake Turkana (4) and from with chimpanzees and bonobos, and we want to know sites in the Nachukui Formation on the western side of what each link in this chain looked like and how it be- the lake (Fig. 1A). haved. However, the clear evidence for taxic diversity The cranial and dental morphology of P.boisei is so in the human (aka hominin) clade means that we also distinctive its remains are relatively easy to identify (5). have close relatives who are not our ancestors (1). Two Unique features include its flat, wide, and deep face, papers in PNAS focus on the behavior and paleoenvi- flexed cranial base, large and thick lower jaw, and ronmental context of Paranthropus boisei, a distinctive small incisors and canines combined with massive and long-extinct nonancestral relative that lived along- chewing teeth. The surface area available for process- side our early Homo ancestors in eastern Africa between ing food is extended both forward—by having premo- just less than 3 Ma and just over 1 Ma. Both papers use lar teeth that look like molars—and backward—by the stable isotopes to track diet during a largely unknown, unusually large third molar tooth crowns, all of which but likely crucial, period in our evolutionary history.
    [Show full text]
  • Bipedal Hominins
    INTRODUCTION Although captive chimpanzees, bonobos and other great apes have acquired some of the features of There is fairly general agreement that language is a language, including the use of symbols to denote uniquely human accomplishment. Although other objects or actions, they have not displayed species communicate in diverse ways, human anything like recursive syntax, or indeed any language has properties that stand out as special. degree of generativity beyond the occasional 4 The most obvious of these is generativity -the ability combining of symbols in pairs. To quote Pinker, to construct a potentially infinite variety of they simply don’t “get it.” This suggests that the sentences, conveying an infinite variety of common ancestor of humans and chimpanzee was meanings. Animal communication is by contrast almost certainly bereft of anything we might stereotyped and restricted to particular situations, consider to be true language. Human language and typically conveys emotional rather than must therefore have evolved its distinctive propositional information. The generativity of characteristics over the past 6 million years. Some language was noted by Descartes as one of the have claimed that this occurred in a single step, characteristics separating humans from other and recently -perhaps as recently as 170,000 years species, and has also been emphasized more ago, coincident with the emergence of our own recently by Chomsky, as in the following often- species. This is sometimes referred to as the “big quoted passage: bang” theory of language evolution. For example, Bickerton5 asserted that “… true language, via the “The unboundedness of human speech, as an emergence of syntax, was a catastrophic event, expression of limitless thought, is an entirely occurring within the first few generations of Homo different matter (from animal communication), sapiens sapiens (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Diet in Early Homo: a Review of the Evidence and a New Model of Adaptive Versatility
    ANRV287-AN35-12 ARI 17 October 2006 20:18 Diet in Early Homo: A Review of the Evidence and a New Model of Adaptive Versatility Peter S. Ungar,1 Frederick E. Grine,2 and Mark F. Teaford3 1Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701; email: [email protected] 2Departments of Anthropology and Anatomical Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794; email: [email protected] 3Center for Functional Anatomy and Evolution, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21205; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006. 35:209–28 Key Words First published online as a Review in Hominin, feeding adaptations, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Advance on May 17, 2006 erectus The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org Abstract This article’s doi: Several recent studies have stressed the role of dietary change in the 10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123153 origin and early evolution of our genus in Africa. Resulting models Copyright c 2006 by Annual Reviews. have been based on nutrition research and analogy to living peoples All rights reserved and nonhuman primates or on archeological and paleoenvironmen- Access provided by CASA Institution Identity on 11/11/19. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:209-228. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org 0084-6570/06/1021-0209$20.00 tal evidence. Here we evaluate these models in the context of the hominin fossil record. Inference of diet from fossils is hampered by small samples, unclear form-function relationships, taphonomic fac- tors, and interactions between cultural and natural selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of the 'Homo' Genus
    MONOGRAPH Mètode Science StudieS Journal (2017). University of Valencia. DOI: 10.7203/metode.8.9308 Article received: 02/12/2016, accepted: 27/03/2017. EVOLUTION OF THE ‘HOMO’ GENUS NEW MYSTERIES AND PERSPECTIVES JORDI AGUSTÍ This work reviews the main questions surrounding the evolution of the genus Homo, such as its origin, the problem of variability in Homo erectus and the impact of palaeogenomics. A consensus has not yet been reached regarding which Australopithecus candidate gave rise to the first representatives assignable to Homo and this discussion even affects the recognition of the H. habilis and H. rudolfensis species. Regarding the variability of the first palaeodemes assigned to Homo, the discovery of the Dmanisi site in Georgia called into question some of the criteria used until now to distinguish between species like H. erectus or H. ergaster. Finally, the emergence of palaeogenomics has provided evidence that the flow of genetic material between old hominin populations was wider than expected. Keywords: palaeogenomics, Homo genus, hominins, variability, Dmanisi. In recent years, our concept of the origin and this species differs from H. rudolfensis in some evolution of our genus has been shaken by different secondary characteristics and in its smaller cranial findings that, far from responding to the problems capacity, although some researchers believe that that arose at the end of the twentieth century, have Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis correspond to reopened debates and forced us to reconsider models the same species. that had been considered valid Until the mid-1970s, there for decades. Some of these was a clear Australopithecine questions remain open because candidate to occupy the «THE FIRST the fossils that could give us position of our genus’ ancestor, the answer are still missing.
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Erectus Years Ago Australopithecus Sediba Homo Habilis Homo Rudolfensis
    Dr. Briana Pobiner Smithsonian Institution “The human family tree: meet your ancestors” February 3, 2014 George Mason University Osher Lifelong Learning Institute Course: The History of Life, Part 2 Milestones in the 10,000 years ago Evolution of Humans 32,000 years ago 800,000 years ago 2.6 million years ago 6 million years ago 90,000 years ago 4 million years ago 1.8 million years ago 200,000 years ago You are here. Today Homo group Paranthropus group 1 Million years ago 2 Million years ago 3 Million years ago 4 Million years ago Ardipithecus group Australopithecus group 5 Million years ago 6 Million years ago Past You are here. Homo sapiens Today Homo neanderthalensis Homo floresiensis Homo group Paranthropus group Homo heidelbergensis 1 Paranthropus boisei Million Homo erectus years ago Australopithecus sediba Homo habilis Homo rudolfensis 2 Australopithecus africanus Million years ago Paranthropus robustus Australopithecus afarensis 3 Million Paranthropus aethiopicus years ago Australopithecus garhi 4 Ardipithecus ramidus Million years ago Ardipithecus group Australopithecus group 5 Australopithecus anamensis Million years ago Sahelanthropus tchadensis 6 Ardipithecus kadabba Million years ago Orrorin tugenensis Past Today 1 Million years ago 2 Million years ago 3 Million Ardipithecus group years ago 4 Ardipithecus ramidus The earliest humans are our closest link to other primates. They evolved in Africa Million years ago and took the first steps towards walking upright. 5 Million years ago Sahelanthropus tchadensis Ardipithecus kadabba 6 Million years ago Orrorin tugenensis Past Sahelanthropus tchadensis Name Means: Sahel ape-man from Chad Nickname: “Toumai” When Found: 2001 Who Found: M.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Beginning Was… the Monkey!
    E no princípio... era o macaco! WALTER A. NEVES Introdução ONFORME TENTAREI demonstrar neste artigo, muito já sabemos sobre a evolução de nossa linhagem, a dos hominíneos1 (Figura 1). Mais ainda, Ctentarei demonstrar como é inquestionável o fato de sermos, como to- das as demais criaturas do planeta, resultado de um processo natural de modi- ficação ao longo do tempo; no nosso caso, a partir de um grande símio. Em outras palavras, tentarei, da maneira mais didática que consiga, convencer os leitores de que o homem, inexoravelmente, veio mesmo do macaco, mas por curvas extremamente sinuosas. Não é menos verdade, porém, que muita coisa ainda precisamos aprender sobre os detalhes desse processo e de como e por que viemos a ser o que somos. Décadas de pesquisas em campo e em laboratório ainda serão necessárias para que a comunidade científica possa disponibilizar para todo o mundo, dentro e fora da academia, um quadro detalhado do que ocorreu conosco e com nossos ancestrais nos últimos sete milhões de anos, quando nossa linhagem evolutiva se separou do ancestral comum que compartilhamos com os chimpanzés. Nunca é demais lembrar que os chimpanzés de hoje resultaram também de um processo evolutivo de sete milhões de anos. Prova disso é que, a partir dos chimpanzés comuns, diferenciou-se, há cerca de 2,5 milhões de anos, uma outra linhagem, ainda viva, conhecida como bonobos ou chimpanzés pigmeus. Para aqueles que como eu se dedicam ao estudo da evolução humana, é muito comum ouvir dos colegas e dos alunos, pelos corredores acadêmicos, que basta um novo fóssil ser encontrado na África para que tudo o que conhecemos sobre nossos antepassados se modifique completamente.
    [Show full text]
  • Genera of the Human Lineage
    Genera of the human lineage Camilo J. Cela-Conde* and Francisco J. Ayala†‡ *Departamento de Filosofia, Universitat de las Islas Baleares, E-07071 Palma (Baleares), Spain; and †Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697 Contributed by Francisco J. Ayala, April 21, 2003 Human fossils dated between 3.5 and nearly 7 million years old genera, such as Zinjanthropus (13) and Paraustralopithecus (14) discovered during the last 8 years have been assigned to as many were also eventually discarded.§ as four new genera of the family Hominidae: Ardipithecus, Orrorin, The scenario of hominids being represented by only a few Kenyanthropus, and Sahelanthropus. These specimens are de- genera has critically changed in recent years with the discovery scribed as having morphological traits that justify placing them in of very early hominid specimens with ages between 3.5 and 7 the family Hominidae while creating a new genus for the classifi- million years (Myr). These newly discovered specimens are cation of each. The discovery of these fossils pushed backward by sufficiently informative, according to their describers, to support >2 million years the date of the oldest hominids known. Only two the proposal of four new genera: Ardipithecus,¶ Orrorin (20), or three hominid genera, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Kenyanthropus (21), and Sahelanthropus (22). The subsequent Homo, had been previously accepted, with Paranthropus consid- increase from three to seven hominid genera in the few years ered a subgenus of Australopithecus by some authors. Two ques- from 1995 to the present constitutes an exceptional event in tions arise from the classification of the newly discovered fossils: hominid systematics.
    [Show full text]