Sahelanthropus Or 'Sahelpithecus'?

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

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. effect. The parameter ȋ is defined by equation (2). Green symbols Blike hominid ancestor in the Miocene The supraorbital size is attributed to (from ref. 8): triangle, FIRE, northeastern Pacific; crossed circles, Epoch. Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an enig- strong sexual selection1, which we consider SOCEX, Southern Ocean; filled circle, ACE1, Southern Ocean. Blue matic new Miocene species, whose charac- unlikely. The size and form of the supra- symbols: filled circles, ASTEX8, northeastern Atlantic; diamonds, teristics are a mix of those of apes and orbital structures are probably a mechanical SCMS8, Florida coast; filled triangles, Sounding9, ASTEX; filled Homo erectus and which has been pro- response4 to strain from anterior tooth squares, horizontal9, ASTEX; open inverted triangles, level 1; open claimed by Brunet et al. to be the earliest loading in the region above the orbits, con- upright triangles, level 2; open circles, level 3 — all from south- hominid1. However, we believe that features centrated by the flexed frontofacial angle. west of San Diego10; open diamonds, SCMS11; stars, vertical, of the dentition, face and cranial base that The biomechanical model of the supra- ASTEX12; plus signs, horizontal, ASTEX12; multiplication signs, are said to define unique links between this orbital region5 would predict that an ASTEX13; squares, INDOEX, Indian Ocean (G. M. McFarquhar, per- Toumaï specimen and the hominid clade orthognathic face such as that of Sahelan- sonal communication). Red circles, MAST6,14,15, California coast. are either not diagnostic or are conse- thropus, combined with a low forehead, cre- quences of biomechanical adaptations. To ates the potential for greater strain during polluted cloud compete for water vapour represent a valid clade, hominids must anterior tooth loading than would a prog- and broaden the droplet size distribution share unique defining features2, and Sahel- nathic face with a higher forehead, as in compared with clean clouds that have fewer anthropus does not appear to have been an African apes. Significant force during ante- droplets and less competition. obligate biped. rior tooth use is indicated by the expanded According to equations (1) and (2), an We consider the following features that posterior temporalis musculature –– this increase in ᒎ acts to negate the effect of are proposed by Brunet et al. to constitute muscle forms a sagittal crest that meets the increased N on effective radius and cloud links with the hominid clade. First, they nuchal crest very high on the posterior reflectivity. Because this effect has been note that the canine is small. The canine vault, in a gorilla-like morphology that far largely neglected in estimates of the indirect breadth (the length is not given) is similar exceeds the much weaker-muscled chim- aerosol effect, cooling by an indirect aerosol to the chimpanzee mean, being within the panzee condition. The supraorbital torus is effect is likely to have been overestimated. range of both chimpanzee and gorilla the bony response to strain. From the data presented in Fig. 1, we esti- females and of chimpanzee males. The Third, Brunet et al. infer that the inter- mate that a 15% increase in N at Nǃ100 crown is low and the root is narrow relative mediate thickness of the specimen’s post- cmǁ3 causes a total forcing that ranges to the crown, suggesting that Toumaï might canine enamel is also an important link. between ǁ0.19 and ǁ0.93 W mǁ2, which have been female (canine area is a more However, thickened enamel relative to corresponds to a factor that is 10–80% reliable sex indicator than brow ridges); chimpanzees would be expected whatever lower than the ǁ1.03 W mǁ2 calculated for however, the postcanine teeth are all large the phylogenetic relations of Sahel- the Twomey effect alone2. compared with chimpanzees — as in several anthropus, not only because of the other The effect of the enhancement in ᒎ is Miocene ape females. adaptations to a diet that requires powerful evidently large enough to be considered in The canine shows apical wear and has a mastication, but also because thickened assessing the indirect aerosol effect, and thin strip of wear along the distal edge of enamel is a plesiomorphic condition. understanding the relation between ᒎ and N the crown, which reaches the crown base. Fourth, the authors assign an anterior will help to reduce the large uncertainty Although Brunet et al. conclude that the position to the foramen magnum on the inherent in this effect. tooth was not used in honing, we find this basis of its front edge meeting the bicarotid Yangang Liu, Peter H. Daum difficult to reconcile with the details that and biporion chords, claiming that in chim- Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, they provide. Decades ago, when Miocene panzees the foramen magnum is posterior New York 11973, USA primate jaws with small canines and to these chords and that this positioning e-mail: [email protected] enlarged postcanine teeth were found, they reflects their posture. STS 5, an obligate 1. Twomey, S. Atmos. Environ. 8, 1251–1256 (1974). were given distinct names (Kenyapithecus biped, does not differ from some chim- 2. Charlson, R. J. et al. Science 255, 423–430 (1992). and Ramapithecus, for example) and were panzees by these criteria, however. Neither 3. Liu, Y. & Daum, P. H. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 1903–1906 (2000). described as the earliest hominids because does this apply to the biporion chord of 4. Liu, Y. & Daum, P. H. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. On Clouds and (it was assumed) the canine honing func- some chimpanzees, according to the pos- Precipitation, Reno, USA 586–589 (2000). 5. Martin, G. M., Johnson, D. W. & Spice, A. J. Atmos. Sci. 51, tion had, by then, been replaced by tools ition of the foramen magnum determined 1823–1842 (1994). (it was also assumed that they were from photographs of 70 adult chimpanzee 6. Ackerman, A. S. et al. J. Atmos. Sci. 57, 2684–2695 (2000). bipeds)3. These specimens turned out to be cranial bases aligned with the Frankfurt 7. McFarquhar, G. M. & Heymsfield, A. J. J. Geophys. Res. D 106, female apes. horizontal (J. Ahern, personal communica- 28675–28698 (2001). 8. Yum, S. S. & Hudson, J. G. Atmos. Res. 57, 81–104 (2001). Second, the specimen has a large, con- tion). This alignment is important in the 9. Hudson, J. G. & Yum, S. S. J. Atmos. Sci. 54, 2642–2654 (1997). tinuous supraorbital torus, and the authors determination, but we have no information NATURE | VOL 419 | 10 OCTOBER 2002 | www.nature.com/nature © 2002 Nature Publishing Group 581 brief communications on how the Sahelanthropus position was Overlooking their flippant taxonomic than a hominid ancestor. They interpret assessed. Moreover, the anterior edge of the proposal (the genus name ‘Sahelpithecus’), our description of distal dentin exposure of foramen is far from the back of the Sahelan- which disregards the requirement for a the upper canine as evidence of honing thropus third molar, in contrast to hominids new genus to have a type species and wear (roughly equivalent to describing an and similar to chimpanzees and female description7, we disagree with their (pre- African millet pestle as a Samurai sword). gorillas. sumably more serious) opinions on the The Toumaï canine is not honing because There are many other features that link morphology and phylogeny of the Toumaï it does not display the sharpened distal the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or fossil. edge that is shared by all apes. Rather, this both, to the exclusion of hominids. Most Because the Toumaï fossil is the earliest tooth is similar to those of later hominids significantly, the nuchal plane is long, flat known hominid ancestor8, it is not surpris- in both size and proportion to the post- and angled at about 55ᑻ to the Frankfurt ing that it bears primitive characters. Fol- canine teeth. horizontal: “relatively longer than in Pan lowing modern systematic practice, we used In a modern example of how to miss [and] Gorilla … and with crests as marked newly evolved characters (rather than the morphology between measuring as those of Gorilla”1.
Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Fossil Primates
    AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Education Page 1 of 16 www.accessscience.com Fossil primates Contributed by: Eric Delson Publication year: 2014 Extinct members of the order of mammals to which humans belong. All current classifications divide the living primates into two major groups (suborders): the Strepsirhini or “lower” primates (lemurs, lorises, and bushbabies) and the Haplorhini or “higher” primates [tarsiers and anthropoids (New and Old World monkeys, greater and lesser apes, and humans)]. Some fossil groups (omomyiforms and adapiforms) can be placed with or near these two extant groupings; however, there is contention whether the Plesiadapiformes represent the earliest relatives of primates and are best placed within the order (as here) or outside it. See also: FOSSIL; MAMMALIA; PHYLOGENY; PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY; PRIMATES. Vast evidence suggests that the order Primates is a monophyletic group, that is, the primates have a common genetic origin. Although several peculiarities of the primate bauplan (body plan) appear to be inherited from an inferred common ancestor, it seems that the order as a whole is characterized by showing a variety of parallel adaptations in different groups to a predominantly arboreal lifestyle, including anatomical and behavioral complexes related to improved grasping and manipulative capacities, a variety of locomotor styles, and enlargement of the higher centers of the brain. Among the extant primates, the lower primates more closely resemble forms that evolved relatively early in the history of the order, whereas the higher primates represent a group that evolved more recently (Fig. 1). A classification of the primates, as accepted here, appears above. Early primates The earliest primates are placed in their own semiorder, Plesiadapiformes (as contrasted with the semiorder Euprimates for all living forms), because they have no direct evolutionary links with, and bear few adaptive resemblances to, any group of living primates.
    [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]
  • Sahelanthropus Tchadensis: an Examination of Its Hominin Affinities
    nature of bipedalism is a holdover from a gradistic approach to phylogeny. Future discoveries of infra-cranial material to determine locomotor abilities are of utmost importance. If S. tchadensis is shown to be a biped, then bipedalism arose soon after the divergence point, and much earlier than anticipated. Some caution should be taken, as the mosaic features of S. tchadensis could be evidence of a complicated evolutionary history during the supposed divergence period. Genetic evidence now points to a period of hybridization, which would make sorting out the species affiliation of purported hominin fossils problematic. For the present, it appears that S. tchadensis can be classified as the first known hominin. Sahelanthropus tchadensis: AN Even if future finds cause a re-evaluation of EXAMINATION OF ITS HOMININ its phylogenetic status, S. tchadensis is a AFFINITIES AND POSSIBLE valuable addition to the fossil record. PHYLOGENETIC PLACEMENT Knowledge of early panin morphology is also essential to phylogenetic relationships of early hominins. Abstract WHAT IS A HOMININ? An examination of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis is a Sahelanthropus tchadensis material supports candidate for the first known hominin.1 Its its putative hominin status. The cranial age, at nearly seven million-years-old morphology of S. tchadensis exhibits a (Vignaud et al. 2002: 155), places it very mosaic of primitive and derived close to the supposed divergence point of characteristics. This is to be expected from a the chimpanzee and human lineages (Wood species so near to the assumed divergence 2002: 133). A hominin is a member of the point of the chimpanzee and human Tribe Hominini, which include any species lineages.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoartist Brings Human Evolution to Life for Elisabeth Daynès, Sculpting Ancient Humans and Their Ancestors Is Both an Art and a Science
    Paleoartist Brings Human Evolution to Life For Elisabeth Daynès, sculpting ancient humans and their ancestors is both an art and a science A hyper realistic reconstruction of an Australopithecus africanus based on cast of the skull STS5 (nicknamed “Mrs Ples”) discovered in 1947 in Sterkfontein, South Africa. The fossil STS5 is between 2.1 and 2.7 million years old. (Photo: © P.Plailly/E.Daynès – Reconstruction Atelier Daynès Paris) By Helen Thompson SMITHSONIAN.COM MAY 7, 2014 A smiling 3.2-million-year-old face greets visitors to the anthropology hall of the National Museum of Anthropology and History in Mexico City. This reconstruction of the famous Australopithecus afarensis specimen dubbed “Lucy” stands a mere 4 feet tall, is covered in dark hair, and displays a pleasant gaze. She’s no ordinary mannequin: Her skin looks like it could get goose bumps, and her frozen pose and expression make you wonder if she’ll start walking and talking at any moment. This hyper-realistic depiction of Lucy comes from the Atelier Daynès studio in Paris, home of French sculptor and painter Elisabeth Daynès. Her 20-year career is a study in human evolution—in addition to Lucy, she’s recreated Sahelanthropus tchadensis, as well as Paranthropus boisei, Homo erectus, and Homo floresiensis, just to name a few. Her works appear in museums across the globe, and in 2010, Daynès won the prestigious J. Lanzendorf PaleoArt Prize for her reconstructions. Though she got her start in the make-up department of a theater company, Daynès had an early interest in depicting realistic facial anatomy and skin in theatrical masks.
    [Show full text]
  • Hominid/Human Evolution
    Hominid/Human Evolution Geology 331 Paleontology Primate Classification- 1980’s Order Primates Suborder Prosimii: tarsiers and lemurs Suborder Anthropoidea: monkeys, apes, and hominids Superfamily Hominoidea Family Pongidae: great apes Family Hominidae: Homo and hominid ancestors Primate Classification – 2000’s Order Primates Suborder Prosimii: tarsiers and lemurs Suborder Anthropoidea: monkeys, apes, and hominids Superfamily Hominoidea Family Hylobatidae: gibbons Family Hominidae Subfamily Ponginae: orangutans Subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimps, Homo and hominin ancestors % genetic similarity 96% 100% with humans 95% 98% 84% 58% 91% Prothero, 2007 Tarsiers, a primitive Primate (Prosimian) from Southeast Asia. Tarsier sanctuary, Philippines A Galago or bush baby, a primitive Primate (Prosimian) from Africa. A Slow Loris, a primitive Primate (Prosimian) from Southeast Asia. Check out the fingers. Lemurs, primitive Primates (Prosimians) from Madagascar. Monkeys, such as baboons, have tails and are not hominoids. Smallest Primate – Pygmy Marmoset, a New World monkey from Brazil Proconsul, the oldest hominoid, 18 MY Hominoids A lesser ape, the Gibbon from Southeast Asia, a primitive living hominoid similar to Proconsul. Male Female Hominoids The Orangutan, a Great Ape from Southeast Asia. Dogs: Hominoids best friend? Gorillas, Great Apes from Africa. Bipedal Gorilla! Gorilla enjoying social media Chimp Gorilla Chimpanzees, Great I’m cool Apes from Africa. Pan troglodytes Chimps are simple tool users Chimp Human Neoteny in Human Evolution.
    [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]
  • Genetics and the Making of Homo Sapiens
    review article Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens Sean B. Carroll Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Laboratory of Molecular Biology, University of Wisconsin, 1525 Linden Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Understanding the genetic basis of the physical and behavioural traits that distinguish humans from other primates presents one of the great new challenges in biology. Of the millions of base-pair differences between humans and chimpanzees, which particular changes contributed to the evolution of human features after the separation of the Pan and Homo lineages 5–7 million years ago? How can we identify the ‘smoking guns’ of human genetic evolution from neutral ticks of the molecular evolutionary clock? The magnitude and rate of morphological evolution in hominids suggests that many independent and incremental developmental changes have occurred that, on the basis of recent findings in model animals, are expected to be polygenic and regulatory in nature. Comparative genomics, population genetics, gene-expression analyses and medical genetics have begun to make complementary inroads into the complex genetic architecture of human evolution. What is a man, numbers of candidate loci. Finally, I will address some of the If his chief good and market of his time disciplines in which future advances are likely to have a central Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more. role in furthering our knowledge of the genetic and developmental Sure, he that made us with such large discourse, basis of human evolution. Looking before and after, gave us not That capability and god-like reason Hominid evolution To fust in us unused.
    [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]
  • Bones of Contention: Classifying Hominin Fossils
    Bones of Contention Teacher’s Guide Overview This activity gives students access to a database that provides information on about 60 fossils of hominins (the biological classification consisting of modern humans and chimpanzees), extinct human species, and all our immediate ances- tors. For the purposes of comparison, the database also includes eight records of contemporary hominids, the biological classification consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes. Students can sort and search the fossils by feature, read about what each feature signifies, and use search filters to create groups of fossils with characteristics in common. Students have these primary tasks: 1. Use the database to classify each of ten mystery fossils by comparing them to fossils of known hominid species. Or, if the fossil is unique, assign it a species name of their choice. 2. Compare and defend their classifications. 3. Revise their findings if necessary. 4. Optional: Compare their findings to the species names given by scientists (to be facilitated by teacher). Grade Level This activity is recommended for grades 9–12. Use the “open-ended inquiry” approach (described below) with more advanced students and the more structured approach with less advanced students. Suggested Time (including ways to structure for different time frames) One to three class periods. Students should work in small groups of two or three. • Shorter: If you have limited time, each group should receive the Introduc- tion and either Part A, B, or C as a structured investigation. At the end of the activity, students share their findings, using the “jigsaw” method. Then all groups do the Conclusion section.
    [Show full text]
  • India at the Cross-Roads of Human Evolution
    Human evolution in India 729 India at the cross-roads of human evolution R PATNAIKa,* and P CHAUHANb aCentre of Advanced Studies in Geology, Panjab University, Chandigarh 160 014, India bThe Stone Age Institute and CRAFT Research Center (Indiana University), 1392 W Dittemore Road, Gosport, IN 47433, USA *Corresponding author (Email, [email protected]) The Indian palaeoanthropological record, although patchy at the moment, is improving rapidly with every new fi nd. This broad review attempts to provide an account of (a) the Late Miocene fossil apes and their gradual disappearance due to ecological shift from forest dominated to grassland dominated ecosystem around 9–8 Ma ago, (b) the Pliocene immigration/evolution of possible hominids and associated fauna, (c) the Pleistocene record of fossil hominins, associated fauna and artifacts, and (d) the Holocene time of permanent settlements and the genetic data from various human cultural groups within India. Around 13 Ma ago (late Middle Miocene) Siwalik forests saw the emergence of an orangutan-like primate Sivapithecus. By 8 Ma, this genus disappeared from the Siwalik region as its habitat started shrinking due to increased aridity infl uenced by global cooling and monsoon intensifi cation. A contemporary and a close relative of Sivapithecus, Gigantopithecus (Indopithecus), the largest ape that ever-lived, made its fi rst appearance at around 9 Ma. Other smaller primates that were pene-contemporaneous with these apes were Pliopithecus (Dendropithecus), Indraloris, Sivaladapis and Palaeotupia. The Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene witnessed northern hemisphere glaciations, followed by the spread of arid conditions on a global scale, setting the stage for hominids to explore “Savanahastan”.
    [Show full text]