DOCSLIB.ORG

Neither Chimpanzee Nor Human, Ardipithecus Reveals the Surprising Ancestry of Both Tim D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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). mately viewed as a short-lived transition be- continent, but warned that without fossils, it It easily fit the fossil record of his day, when tween apes and humans. Rather, it represents was “...useless to speculate on this subject” Homo only a few Neanderthals were known. an adaptive plateau occupied for ∼3Maby (2). Nevertheless, Darwin and his less cau- erectus Austral- was found in the 1890s, and up to four species lineages of small-brained tious contemporaries and intellectual descen- opithecus in the 1920s. Both were rejected as African bipeds. Many assumed that when dants used humans and modern apes to hominids by eminent authorities, but two pre-afarensis fossils were eventually re- triangulate ancestral anatomy and behaviors, grades of human evolution were eventually covered they would increasingly resemble which promulgated the erroneous metaphor Australopithecus recognized. comprised chimpanzees. Today “conventional wisdom” of a hominid “missing link.” Even today, de- different species of small-brained but bi- continues to reflect the deeply held assump- spite thousands of available fossils, this deeply pedal Pliocene primates. Homo was its tion that Australopithecus is close to some embedded metaphor reinforces the mis- descendant. imagined chimpanzee-like Miocene ape spe- conceptions that extant apes—particularly In the 1960s molecular data challenged cies. Furthermore, because Australopithecus chimpanzees—can be viewed as “living notions that species lineages of modern apes is often found in open environments, hom- missing links,” or that that modern African and humans could be traced directly to early inid origins are frequently presented as the apes combined can be used to represent the and middle Miocene fossils. The data ulti- tale of a tropical forest ape forced to adapt to past “as time machines” (3). mately resolved the phylogenetic branching open savannas that expanded via global cli- The notion that modern great apes are order among extant great apes and humans. mate change. The new fossils disrupt such little changed from the last common ances- However, without our current appreciation frameworks. tors we shared with them promoted the of the power of regulatory mechanisms, faith assumption that hominid fossils anatomically in simple DNA similarity also helped reify Conventional Wisdom Challenged intermediate between living apes and our- the notion that chimpanzees were appropriate Ardipithecus is a primate that ruptures sev- selves would eventually be found. Now, primitive proxies for hominid ancestors (4). eral deeply held perceptions, particularly Australopithecus afarensis however, long sought and recently discovered During the 1970s those visualizing humans as “just a third African fossils provide escape from such discoveries pushed knowledge back to 3.7 persistent but inaccurate projection. These million years ago (Ma), but even the iconic paleontological discoveries do not yet include “Lucy” differed little from already known Author contributions: T.D.W., C.O.L., B.A., and G.S. designed research; the common ancestor we shared with chim- T.D.W., C.O.L., B.A., J.P.C., and G.S. performed research; T.D.W., C.O.L., South African fossils. The preoccupation B.A., J.P.C., and G.S. analyzed data; and T.D.W., C.O.L., B.A., J.P.C., and panzees (the CLCA). However, they sub- with chimpanzee comparisons led many to G.S. wrote the paper. stantially reveal the early evolution of the argue that Lucy and her conspecifics walked The authors declare no conflict of interest. “ ” hominid clade (the term hominid denoting like apes, without human-like hip and knee This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. all species on the human side of the human/ extension. Thus, despite a host of unique 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: timwhite@ chimpanzee phylogenetic split). These fossils specializations to committed terrestrial bi- berkeley.edu or [email protected]. “ have begun to rectify the mistaken notion pedality, many declared this species ...very This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/ that contemporary apes, in particular common close to what can be called a ‘missing link’” lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1403659111/-/DCSupplemental. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1403659111 PNAS | April 21, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 16 | 4877–4884 Downloaded by guest on September 25, 2021 species of chimpanzee” (7). Broader aspects ramidus skeleton ARA-VP-6/500 (“Ardi”) However, the abundant colobine monkeys of Australopithecus paleobiology emerged preserves so many anatomical parts—in such andkudusfoundwithArdipithecus were not gradually during the 20th century. In contrast, clear ecological context—that it transforms adapted to open savannas (as evidenced by the Ardipithecus niche was comprehen- our understanding of early hominid evolution. their microwear, mesowear, isotopes, and sively revealed in ∼250 published pages Ardi preserves crucial elements from a postcranial ecomorphology). By analogous of a single issue of Science in 2009 (8). single adult female who died 4.4 Ma on a evidence, neither was Ardipithecus,which Perhaps because Ardipithecus was so sud- broad Ethiopian floodplain supporting grassy maintained a woodland-to-forest adaptation denly revealed in so many dimensions of woodlands. Her hands and feet are extraor- well into the Pliocene. Even the earliest context and anatomy—and is so different dinarily preserved. Less well preserved, but Australopithecus species appears to have re- from Australopithecus—aformof“cognitive nevertheless nearly complete elements of her tained elements of woodland adaptation (16). dissonance” settled over some practitioners of teeth, skull, arms, legs, and pelvis provide Accordingly, despite valiant efforts at its re- paleoanthropology. The condition’ssymp- further informative anatomy. This fossil and surrection (17), the hypothesis that opening toms range from post hoc cautionary advice associated evidence allow assessment of lo- grasslands led to hominid emergence and (9) to speculation (10) or inexplicable omis- comotion, diet, habitat preference, and even bipedality now stands effectively falsified. sion (11). However, Ardipithecus was one social behavior. of the few surviving lineages of the Miocene The remains of well over 100 additional Locomotion ape adaptive radiation: it preserved funda- individuals from Ardi’s species confirm that Living primates display a wide range of lo- mental arboreal adaptations and it exclu- her critical morphologies are not idiosyn- comotor abilities. Primatologists have for de- “ ” sively shares several independent character cratic but characteristic of the species. Fur- cades attempted to parse these into modes, “ ” complexes with all later hominids. This pri- thermore, these additional individuals reveal such as vertical clinging and leaping, “ ” “ ” mate therefore illuminates human and normal variation for several body parts, such quadrupedalism, and brachiation. In char- chimpanzee origins in ways that Austral- as the dentition (SI Text, Note 1; Tables S1– acterizations of postural/locomotor adapta- opithecus never could. S4), allowing, for example, assessment of tions of both living and fossil primates, such The Ardipithecus fossils fortuitously ar- sexual dimorphism. These fossils belong labels are combined with standard postural “ ” rived at an auspicious time in the history of to a stratigraphically associated, geologically designations, such as orthograde (upright “ ” biology, just as revelations of developmental contemporaneous, >7,000-specimen
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EAZA Best Practice Guidelines Bonobo (Pan Paniscus)
    EAZA Best Practice Guidelines Bonobo (Pan paniscus) Editors: Dr Jeroen Stevens Contact information: Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp – K. Astridplein 26 – B 2018 Antwerp, Belgium Email: [email protected] Name of TAG: Great Ape TAG TAG Chair: Dr. María Teresa Abelló Poveda – Barcelona Zoo [email protected] Edition: First edition - 2020 1 2 EAZA Best Practice Guidelines disclaimer Copyright (February 2020) by EAZA Executive Office, Amsterdam. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in hard copy, machine-readable or other forms without advance written permission from the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA). Members of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) may copy this information for their own use as needed. The information contained in these EAZA Best Practice Guidelines has been obtained from numerous sources believed to be reliable. EAZA and the EAZA APE TAG make a diligent effort to provide a complete and accurate representation of the data in its reports, publications, and services. However, EAZA does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information. EAZA disclaims all liability for errors or omissions that may exist and shall not be liable for any incidental, consequential, or other damages (whether resulting from negligence or otherwise) including, without limitation, exemplary damages or lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use of this publication. Because the technical information provided in the EAZA Best Practice Guidelines can easily be misread or misinterpreted unless properly analysed, EAZA strongly recommends that users of this information consult with the editors in all matters related to data analysis and interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Sergio Almécija
    Sergio Almécija Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology Email: [email protected] Department of Anthropology Cellphone: (646) 943-1159 The George Washington University Science and Engineering Hall 800 22nd Street NW, Suite 6000 Washington, DC 20052 EDUCATION PhD, Cum Laude. Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Universitat de Barcelona, Biological Anthropology, (October 30th, 2009). Dissertation: Evolution of the hand in Miocene apes: implications for the appearance of the human hand. Advisor: Salvador Moyà-Solà. MA with Advanced Studies Certificate (DEA). Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Biological Anthropology, 2007. BS. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Biological Sciences, 2005. PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS Assistant Professor. Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University. Present. Research Instructor. Department of Anatomical Sciences, Stony Brook University. 2012-2015. Fulbright Postdoctoral Fellow. Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History and New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology. 2010-2012. Research Associate. Department of Paleoprimatology and Human Paleontology, Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont. 2010-present. RESEARCH INTERESTS Evolution of humans and apes. Based on the morphology of living and fossil hominoids (and other primates), to identify key skeletal adaptations defining different stages of great ape and human evolution, as well as the original selective pressures responsible for specific evolutionary transitions. Morphometrics. Apart from describing new great ape and hominin fossil materials, I am interested in broad comparative studies of key regions of the skeleton using state-of-the-art methods such as three-dimensional morphometrics and phylogenetically-informed comparative methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Sahelanthropus Or 'Sahelpithecus'?
    brief communications 10.Noonkester, V. R. J. Atmos. Sci. 41, 829–845 (1984). 1.2 claim that there are other facial similarities 1.8 11.Hudson, J. G. & Yum, S. S. J. Atmos. Sci. 58, 915–926 (2001). to Homo. However, the facial similarities are 12.Garrett, T. J. & Hobbs, P. V. J. Atmos. Sci. 52, 2977–2984 (1995). 1.0 13.Hudson, J. G. & Li, H. J. Atmos. Sci. 52, 3031–3040 (1995). mostly not with early hominids but with 1.6 14.Noone, K. J. et al. J. Atmos. Sci. 57, 2729–2747 (2000). Pleistocene Homo, and therefore do not 0.8 15.Noone, K. J. et al. J. Atmos. Sci. 57, 2748–2764 (2000). β provide any phylogenetic information (no Competing financial interests: declared none. 1.4 evidence hints that Homo erectus could be 0.6 6–7 million years old). There is little sub- 0.4 nasal prognathism because the canines are Relative dispersion 1.2 small and the subnasal region is short, 0.2 COMMUNICATIONS ARISING and the closely packed anterior dentition, 0 200 400 600 Palaeoanthropology Droplet number concentration (cm–3) crowded together because of the expanded postcanine teeth, explains the absence of Figure 1 Relation between the relative dispersion of cloud droplet Sahelanthropus or diastemata. The vertical height of the size distribution, ᒎ, and the number concentration of cloud ‘Sahelpithecus’? impressive supraorbitals is greater than in droplets, N. Symbols indicate programs and/or references from any extant ape or australopithecine, and can which the data points were derived. Connected points represent eginning with Ramapithecus, there has only be matched in Homo erectus and in a cases previously identified as evidence for an indirect aerosol been a continued search for an ape- few later humans.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict and Cooperation in Wild Chimpanzees
    ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF BEHAVIOR VOL. 35 Conflict and Cooperation in Wild Chimpanzees MARTIN N. MULLER* and JOHN C. MITANIt *DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY BOSTON UNIVERSITY BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 02215, USA tDEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, 48109, USA 1. INTRODUCTION The twin themes of competition and cooperation have been the focus of many studies in animal behavior (Alcock, 2001; Dugatkin, 2004; Krebs and Davies, 1997). Competition receives prominent attention because it forms the basis for the unifying, organizing principle of biology. Darwin's (1859) theory of natural selection furnishes a powerful framework to understand the origin and maintenance of organic and behavioral diversity. Because the process of natural selection depends on reproductive competition, aggression, dominance, and competition for mates serve as important foci of ethological research. In contrast, cooperation in animals is less easily explained within a Darwinian framework. Why do animals cooperate and behave in ways that benefit others? Supplements to the theory of natural selection in the form of kin selection, reciprocal altruism, and mutualism provide mechanisms that transform the study of cooperative behavior in animals into a mode of inquiry compatible with our current understand- ing of the evolutionary process (Clutton-Brock, 2002; Hamilton, 1964; Trivers, 1971). If cooperation can be analyzed via natural selection operating on indivi- duals, a new way to conceptualize the process emerges. Instead of viewing cooperation as distinct from competition, it becomes productive to regard them together. Students of animal behavior have long recognized that an artificial dichotomy may exist insofar as animals frequently cooperate to compete with conspecifics.
    [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]
  • New Fossils of Australopithecus Anamensis from Kanapoi, West Turkana, Kenya (2003E2008)
    Journal of Human Evolution 65 (2013) 501e524 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol New fossils of Australopithecus anamensis from Kanapoi, West Turkana, Kenya (2003e2008) C.V. Ward a,*, F.K. Manthi b, J.M. Plavcan c a Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, M263 Medical Sciences Building, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65212, USA b Department of Earth Sciences, National Museums of Kenya, P.O. Box 40658, Nairobi, Kenya c Department of Anthropology, 330 Old Main, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA article info abstract Article history: Renewed fieldwork from 2003 through 2008 at the Australopithecus anamensis type-site of Kanapoi, Received 29 January 2013 Kenya, yielded nine new fossils attributable to this species. These fossils all date to between 4.195 and Accepted 7 May 2013 4.108 million years ago. Most were recovered from the lower fluvial sequence at the site, with one from Available online 30 August 2013 the lacustrine sequence deltaic sands that overlie the lower fluvial deposits but are still below the Kanapoi Tuff. The new specimens include a partial edentulous mandible, partial maxillary dentition, two Keywords: partial mandibular dentitions, and five isolated teeth. The new Kanapoi hominin fossils increase the Australopithecus anamensis sample known from the earliest Australopithecus, and provide new insights into morphology within this Kanapoi New fossils taxon. They support the distinctiveness of the early A. anamensis fossils relative to earlier hominins and Dentition to the later Australopithecus afarensis. The new fossils do not appreciably extend the range of observed variation in A.
    [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]
  • The Threads of Evolutionary, Behavioural and Conservation Research
    Taxonomic Tapestries The Threads of Evolutionary, Behavioural and Conservation Research Taxonomic Tapestries The Threads of Evolutionary, Behavioural and Conservation Research Edited by Alison M Behie and Marc F Oxenham Chapters written in honour of Professor Colin P Groves Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at http://press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Taxonomic tapestries : the threads of evolutionary, behavioural and conservation research / Alison M Behie and Marc F Oxenham, editors. ISBN: 9781925022360 (paperback) 9781925022377 (ebook) Subjects: Biology--Classification. Biology--Philosophy. Human ecology--Research. Coexistence of species--Research. Evolution (Biology)--Research. Taxonomists. Other Creators/Contributors: Behie, Alison M., editor. Oxenham, Marc F., editor. Dewey Number: 578.012 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press Cover photograph courtesy of Hajarimanitra Rambeloarivony Printed by Griffin Press This edition © 2015 ANU Press Contents List of Contributors . .vii List of Figures and Tables . ix PART I 1. The Groves effect: 50 years of influence on behaviour, evolution and conservation research . 3 Alison M Behie and Marc F Oxenham PART II 2 . Characterisation of the endemic Sulawesi Lenomys meyeri (Muridae, Murinae) and the description of a new species of Lenomys . 13 Guy G Musser 3 . Gibbons and hominoid ancestry . 51 Peter Andrews and Richard J Johnson 4 .
    [Show full text]
  • Morphological Affinities of the Sahelanthropus Tchadensis (Late Miocene Hominid from Chad) Cranium
    Morphological affinities of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Late Miocene hominid from Chad) cranium Franck Guy*, Daniel E. Lieberman†, David Pilbeam†‡, Marcia Ponce de Leo´ n§, Andossa Likius¶, Hassane T. Mackaye¶, Patrick Vignaud*, Christoph Zollikofer§, and Michel Brunet*‡ *Laboratoire de Ge´obiologie, Biochronologie et Pale´ontologie Humaine, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique Unite´Mixte de Recherche 6046, Faculte´des Sciences, Universite´de Poitiers, 40 Avenue du Recteur Pineau, 86022 Poitiers Cedex, France; §Anthropologisches Institut, Universita¨t Zu¨rich-Irchel, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zu¨rich, Switzerland; †Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138; and ¶Department de Pale´ontologie, Universite´deNЈDjamena, BP 1117, NЈDjamena, Republic of Chad Contributed by David Pilbeam, November 5, 2005 The recent reconstruction of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis cra- cross-sectional ontogenetic samples of Pan troglodytes (n ϭ 40), nium (TM 266-01-60-1) provides an opportunity to examine in Gorilla gorilla (n ϭ 41), and Homo sapiens (n ϭ 24) (see Table detail differences in cranial shape between this earliest-known 3, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS hominid, African apes, and other hominid taxa. Here we compare web site). In addition, we digitized as many of the same land- the reconstruction of TM 266-01-60-1 with crania of African apes, marks as possible on a sample of available relatively complete humans, and several Pliocene hominids. The results not only fossil hominid crania: the stereolithograhic replica of AL 444-2 confirm that TM 266-01-60-1 is a hominid but also reveal a unique (Australopithecus afarensis) (9); CT scans of Sts 5 and Sts 71 mosaic of characters.
    [Show full text]