DOCSLIB.ORG

HUMAN HISTORY Ardipithecus Ramidus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HUMAN HISTORY Ardipithecus Ramidus HUMAN HISTORY Ardipithecus ramidus - 4.4 million years old. Name means “ground ape” and “root.” May represent the first human ancestor after the common anscestor with chimps. Others believe that it is actually in the chimp lineage and not human. Appears to have unique method of locomotion. Australopithecus anamensis: lived around 4 million years ago? Australopithecus afarensis: lived 3.9 to 3 million years ago. Australopithecus africanus: 3 to 2.3 million years ago. Had powerful arms and short legs. Teeth show wear patterns similar to modern primates that feed maily on leaves and fruit. Anatomical evidence indicates that these early homonids spent much of their time among tree branches avoiding predators on the ground as well as in the air. Austrolopithecines had apelike bodies and smaller brains than Homo, but they were definitely bipedal, which marks all homonids. They have the spinal hole in the skull at the base of the skull, not at the rear as in four-legged primates. Scientists have identified at least 7 spp of australopithecines, including several species called robust australopithecines. The robust types had larger jaws for crushing tough plant foods in their high fiber diet. Move to bipedalism spurred by: (1) shift to drier, open woodland, (2) fruit gathering from small trees where it was more efficient to gather from the ground than from the branches, and (3) higher energy efficiency to stay on two legs between trees than to repeatedly raise and lower the body. Consequently, the hands were freed to do other things. Evolution of foot adaptations for walking upright came slowly. Some fossil evidence indicates that the ankle had anatomical modifications that preceded changes in the toes. One homonid fossil has a human-like ankle but still has a big toe that could deviate outward like an apes, or point forward for walking. Evolutionary changes don’t come in huge leaps, but through the accumulation of many small, usually gradual changes. Bipedalism allowed homonids to gather a wider varitey of foods. Walking upright also exposed more skin to moving air to cool them on the open plains, and exposed less skin to absorb solar heat. During the period of highest heat load, a biped gets only one-third the heat load that a quadruped receives. Pollen trapped in ocean floor sediments along coasts tell us a lot about past climates by telling us what plants were growing in the area at the time. Vegetation patterns can tell us about temperature and rainfall. Prior to 3.5 million years ago, Africa was warmer and wetter with more extensive rain forests. Then North and South America moved closer together and the Isthmus of Panama rose and changed global circulation patterns. Rain forests in Africa got smaller, broad stretches of grassland divided forests, and Africa became cooler and drier. This shift in the weather pattern of Africa may have promoted the split between Australopithecus and Homo. Australopithecus inhabited much of Africa around 4 million years ago. The genus Homo appeared around 2.5 million years ago. There have been at least 3 genera of Homo: H. habilis, H. erectus, and H. sapiens. Why Australopithecus disappeared and Homo became so widespread is one of the persistent mysteries of anthropology. Human brains use about 20% of the body’s total energy production. Australopithecines had a mainly herbivorous diet. Early Homo species added meat to the diet and increased the caloric intake per meal. Higher calorie meals and a higher quality diet allowed a reduction in gut size, which in turn allowed more energy invested in the further development of the brain. Members of the genus Homo were also tool makers and could cut through thick hides that teeth could not tear, crack open bones for fatty marrow and cut up and collect meat from larger animals, perhaps the victims of large predators. These three traits, enlarged brain size, high-quality diets and toolmaking all influenced each other’s development. Homo habilis is one of the earliest known species of the genus Homo. Lived 2.5 to 1.6 million years ago. Homo erectus evolved later, followed by Homo sapiens. Just as Australopithecus had a split and evolved a robust line, the genus Homo had a split, probably at the Homo erectus stage and diverged into Homo sapiens and Neandertals. NEANDERTALS Named because fossils were first found in the Neander Valley in Germany. Neandertals appeared around 300,000 years ago and lived up until 30,000 years ago. They were resourceful, intelligent, and social humans. They used a variety of tools, were mainly carnivores and adapted to life in cold, harsh climates. They cared for their injured and made grave offerings when they died. The Neandertals were in Europe during periods of glaciation, and were adapted for the cold. They had short, stocky bodies which helped conserve body heat. They were very muscular, and had broad noses which would help warm air and add moisture to the cold, dry air they inhaled. They had larger brains than we do today. They used fire and made stone hearths. Their hyoid bone, which supports the voice box, is indistinguishable from ours, indicating that they were probably vocal, though we have no idea how complex a language, if any, they had. Neandertals used not only hand axes, but also scrapers and points (flaked tools). Modern humans developed blade tools. Neandertals hunted with wooden spears with a sharp point, some may have had stone tips. They hunted cooperatively to bring down large animals and to kill numerous animals in a single hunt. Had to move in close to their prey and thrust spears into them. Very dangerous and often suffered injury. The pattern of injuries is most comparable to those suffered by modern rodeo riders. Indicates they were engaged in fairly violent activity. Life was tough with clans constantly on the move. The average life expectancy of the adult was 30 years of age. We may share Homo erectus as a common ancestor with Neandertals, but that is still subject to debate. Homo erectus was the first hominid to leave Africa. Modern Homo sapiens began to spread throughout Europe some 40,000 years ago, and within 10,000 years Neandertals vanished. Did Homo sapiens kill them off by conquest, kill them off by disease, or simply outcompete them?.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • The Reflection of an Ape an Aquatic Approach to Human Evolution
    The Reflection of an Ape An Aquatic Approach to Human Evolution A thesis submitted to the Miami University Honors Program in partial fulfillment of the requirements for University Honors with Distinction by Erica Kempf December 2006 Oxord, Ohio Acknowledgements There are a number of people I would like to thank for their help in the production of this story. Linda Marchant was my advisor and provided invaluable data, advice, support, and motivation during this venture. Lynn and Greg Kempf offered helpful feedback throughout, but especially during the early stages of writing. Mary Cayton and Scott Suarez kindly agreed to read the last draft of my project, and gave me final grammatical suggestions to further polish my final copy. I am also grateful to the people whose enthusiasm and moral support throughout the long process of writing this story kept me going: Amanda Zorn, Kait Jones, Ali Wolkin, Ashley Piening, Lindsay Good, Rachel Mount and Jamie Eckert. Special thanks also go to Randy Fiedler for the initial idea to begin this work and for his help in getting started. Table of Contents Introduction viii Map x Kinship Chart xi 1 Meer 1 2 Natte 13 3 Bain 18 4 Welle 22 5 Etang 28 6 Praia 34 7 Lago 39 8 Samman 43 9 Rio 47 10 Alga 51 11 Gens 56 Works Consulted 59 Introduction The study of how humans have come to be what we are has fascinated us for as long as we have written such things down, and for countless generations before that through oral histories. Every human culture has some type of creation myth, a tale of how people came to be on Earth, ranging from molded mud to thrown rocks to drops of deity’s blood and nearly everything in between.
    [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]
  • 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]