DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is the Difference Between Calling This Lineage Hominid Vs. Hominin?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is the Difference Between Calling This Lineage Hominid Vs. Hominin? Last time... • What is the adaptive niche of the Hominids? • What is the difference between calling this lineage hominid vs. hominin? • What are the defining characteristics of the hominids? • When did hominids first emerge? • Why bipedalism and small canines? 1 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Bipedalism • What are the advantages and disadvantages of bipedalism? • How does bipedalism change the skeleton? • What are the various theories for the origin and adoption of bipedalism? • Which is the most likely given what we now know about the origins of hominids? 2 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Who did the hominids come from? Tuesday, April 19, 2011 The Rift Valley Tuesday, April 19, 2011 The First Hominids? • Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7.0-6.0 MYA) • Orrorin tugenensis (6.0 MYA) • Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 MYA) and Ardipithecus kadabba (5.8-5.2 MYA) 5 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Sahelanthropus tchadensis • 5.2-7 mya • small canines • thick enamel • indications of bipedality Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Orrorin tugenensis Orrorin and Pan Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Orrorin tugenensis • Kenya • 6 mya • Humerus and femur suggest bipedalism • Thick enamel • Small teeth • Large upper canines 8 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Ardi Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Ardipithecus ramidus and Ardipithecus kadabba • A. ramidus 4.4 my A. kadabba 5.7-5.8 my • A. ramidus has smaller canine than A. kadabba • Anterior foramen magnum • Non-weight bearing arm • Grasping feet 10 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Ardipithecus ramidus Tuesday, April 19, 2011 More Ardipithecus Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Ardi Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Ardi bones Tuesday, April 19, 2011 More Ardi Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Ardipithecus reconstruction Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Tree Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Pliocene Hominids Early Australopithecus anamensis (4.2-3.9 mya) Australopithecus afarensis (2.9-2.9 mya) Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 mya) Australopithecus bahrelghazali (3.5-3.0 mya) Gracile Robust Australopithecus gahri Australopithecus (P.) aethiopicus (2.5 mya) (2.7-2.5 mya) Australopithecus africanus Australopithecus (P.) boisei (3.5-<2.0 mya) (2.3-1.2 mya) Australopithecus sediba Australopithecus (P.) robustus ~2.0 mya (2.0-1.5 mya) 19 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Early Australopithecines Short snout • Bipedal • Relatively Small • • small brain canines and ~420 cc incisors large degree Non- • • of sexual sectorial dimorphism premolar chimp-like large face • • diet Tuesday, April 19, 2011 21 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Australopithecus anamensis 22 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 23 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Australopithecus anamensis • 4.2-3.9 mya • Thickened tibia • Primitive dentition • Maybe same as A. afarensis? • Forested environment 24 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 A. afarensis 25 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 A. afarensis 26 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Laetoli Footprints 27 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Australopithecus afarensis • 3.9-2.9 mya • Short, broad pelvis • tilted femurs • In-line big toe • Sagittal crest • Sexually dimorphic • Small bodied • Small brain 28 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 29 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Australopithecus bahrelghazali • 3.5-3.0 mya • Western africa - Chad • Same as A. afarensis? 30 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Kenyanthropus platyops 31 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Kenyanthropus lateral 32 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 A. afarensis and K. platyops 33 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Kenyanthropus platyops • 3.5 mya • Flat face • Small molars • Australopithecus? Even A. afarensis? 34 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Evolutionary Relationships 35 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 36 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 37 Tuesday, April 19, 2011.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Homo Habilis
    COMMENT SUSTAINABILITY Citizens and POLICY End the bureaucracy THEATRE Shakespeare’s ENVIRONMENT James Lovelock businesses must track that is holding back science world was steeped in on surprisingly optimistic governments’ progress p.33 in India p.36 practical discovery p.39 form p.41 The foot of the apeman that palaeo­ ‘handy man’, anthropologists had been Homo habilis. recovering in southern Africa since the 1920s. This, the thinking went, was replaced by the taller, larger-brained Homo erectus from Asia, which spread to Europe and evolved into Nean­ derthals, which evolved into Homo sapiens. But what lay between the australopiths and H. erectus, the first known human? BETTING ON AFRICA Until the 1960s, H. erectus had been found only in Asia. But when primitive stone-chop­ LIBRARY PICTURE EVANS MUSEUM/MARY HISTORY NATURAL ping tools were uncovered at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, Leakey became convinced that this is where he would find the earliest stone- tool makers, who he assumed would belong to our genus. Maybe, like the australopiths, our human ancestors also originated in Africa. In 1931, Leakey began intensive prospect­ ing and excavation at Olduvai Gorge, 33 years before he announced the new human species. Now tourists travel to Olduvai on paved roads in air-conditioned buses; in the 1930s in the rainy season, the journey from Nairobi could take weeks. The ravines at Olduvai offered unparalleled access to ancient strata, but field­ work was no picnic in the park. Water was often scarce. Leakey and his team had to learn to share Olduvai with all of the wild animals that lived there, lions included.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Lieberman 2001E.Pdf
    news and views Another face in our family tree Daniel E. Lieberman The evolutionary history of humans is complex and unresolved. It now looks set to be thrown into further confusion by the discovery of another species and genus, dated to 3.5 million years ago. ntil a few years ago, the evolutionary history of our species was thought to be Ureasonably straightforward. Only three diverse groups of hominins — species more closely related to humans than to chim- panzees — were known, namely Australo- pithecus, Paranthropus and Homo, the genus to which humans belong. Of these, Paran- MUSEUMS OF KENYA NATIONAL thropus and Homo were presumed to have evolved between two and three million years ago1,2 from an early species in the genus Australopithecus, most likely A. afarensis, made famous by the fossil Lucy. But lately, confusion has been sown in the human evolutionary tree. The discovery of three new australopithecine species — A. anamensis3, A. garhi 4 and A. bahrelghazali5, in Kenya, Ethiopia and Chad, respectively — showed that genus to be more diverse and Figure 1 Two fossil skulls from early hominin species. Left, KNM-WT 40000. This newly discovered widespread than had been thought. Then fossil is described by Leakey et al.8. It is judged to represent a new species, Kenyanthropus platyops. there was the finding of another, as yet poorly Right, KNM-ER 1470. This skull was formerly attributed to Homo rudolfensis1, but might best be understood, genus of early hominin, Ardi- reassigned to the genus Kenyanthropus — the two skulls share many similarities, such as the flatness pithecus, which is dated to 4.4 million years of the face and the shape of the brow.
    [Show full text]
  • Mandibular Ramus Shape of Australopithecus Sediba Suggests a Single Variable Species
    Journal of Human Evolution 100 (2016) 54e64 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol Mandibular ramus shape of Australopithecus sediba suggests a single variable species * Terrence B. Ritzman a, b, c, d, , 1, Claire E. Terhune e, 1, Philipp Gunz f, Chris A. Robinson g a Department of Neuroscience, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave., St. Louis, MO, USA b Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7701, South Africa c Human Evolution Research Institute, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7701, South Africa d School of Human Evolution, Arizona State University, School of Human Evolution and Social Change Building, P.O. Box 872402, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA e Department of Anthropology, 330 Old Main, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 72701, USA f Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany g Department of Biological Sciences, Bronx Community College, City University of New York, 2155 University Avenue, Bronx, NY, 10453, USA article info abstract Article history: The fossils from Malapa cave, South Africa, attributed to Australopithecus sediba, include two partial Received 15 December 2015 skeletonsdMH1, a subadult, and MH2, an adult. Previous research noted differences in the mandibular Accepted 1 September 2016 rami of these individuals. This study tests three hypotheses that could explain these differences. The first two state that the differences are due to ontogenetic variation and sexual dimorphism, respec- tively. The third hypothesis, which is relevant to arguments suggesting that MH1 belongs in the genus Keywords: Australopithecus and MH2 in Homo, is that the differences are due to the two individuals representing Australopithecus sediba more than one taxon.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphological Affinities of Homo Naledi with Other Plio
    Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências (2017) 89(3 Suppl.): 2199-2207 (Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences) Printed version ISSN 0001-3765 / Online version ISSN 1678-2690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720160841 www.scielo.br/aabc | www.fb.com/aabcjournal Morphological affinities ofHomo naledi with other Plio- Pleistocene hominins: a phenetic approach WALTER A. NEVES1, DANILO V. BERNARDO2 and IVAN PANTALEONI1 1Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, Departamento de Genética e Biologia Evolutiva, Laboratório de Estudos Evolutivos e Ecológicos Humanos, Rua do Matão, 277, sala 218, Cidade Universitária, 05508-090 São Paulo, SP, Brazil 2Instituto de Ciências Humanas e da Informação, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Laboratório de Estudos em Antropologia Biológica, Bioarqueologia e Evolução Humana, Área de Arqueologia e Antropologia, Av. Itália, Km 8, Carreiros, 96203-000 Rio Grande, RS, Brazil Manuscript received on December 2, 2016; accepted for publication on February 21, 2017 ABSTRACT Recent fossil material found in Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, was initially described as a new species of genus Homo, namely Homo naledi. The original study of this new material has pointed to a close proximity with Homo erectus. More recent investigations have, to some extent, confirmed this assignment. Here we present a phenetic analysis based on dentocranial metric variables through Principal Components Analysis and Cluster Analysis based on these fossils and other Plio-Pleistocene hominins. Our results concur that the Dinaledi fossil hominins pertain to genus Homo. However, in our case, their nearest neighbors are Homo habilis and Australopithecus sediba. We suggest that Homo naledi is in fact a South African version of Homo habilis, and not a new species.
    [Show full text]
  • Class 2: Early Hominids
    Earliest Hominins CHARLES J VELLA, PHD JULY 25 2018 This is latest theory of how Lucy died! We are Mammals 3 defining mammalian traits: hair, mammary glands, homeothermy Mammalian traits show an adaptation for adaptability Miocene era: 23 to 5 Ma, Warmer global period • Ape grade: Planet of the apes • Over 30 genera and 100 species of ape – compared with 6 today • Location: Africa and Eurasia Proconsul: 25 to 23 Ma, during Miocene; arboreal quadruped Primates • Larger body size • Larger brain • Complete stereoscopic vision • Longer gestation, infancy, life span • More k-selected (tend towards single offspring) • Greater dependency on learned behavior • More social Great Apes Bonobos and Chimps split ~1 Ma Superfamily: Hominoidea Gibbons, Gorillas, Orangutan, Chimpanzee, Human Greater encephalization (brain to body ratio) = smarter larger body, brachiation, social complexity, lack of tail Why did Newt Gingrich recommend this book to all new politicians? Detailed and thoroughly engrossing account of ape rivalries and coalitions. Machiavellianism: political behavior is rooted at a level of development that is below the cognitive and is as much instinctive as it is learned. de Waal 1982 De Waal: Machiavellian IQ Machiavelli's The Prince: Frans de Waal introduced the term 'Machiavellian Intelligence' to describe the social and political behavior of chimpanzees Social behaviors: reconciliation, alliance, and sabotage Tactical deception in primates: Vervet monkeys use false predator alarm calls to get extra food Chimpanzees use deception to mate with females belonging to alpha male Chimpanzee cultures • Chimp Cultures: shared behaviors in different communities: • pounding actions • fishing; • probing; • forcing • comfort behavior • miscellaneous exploitation of vegetation properties • exploitation of leaf properties; • grooming; • attention-getting.
    [Show full text]
  • Verhaegen M. the Aquatic Ape Evolves
    HUMAN EVOLUTION Vol. 28 n.3-4 (237-266) - 2013 Verhaegen M. The Aquatic Ape Evolves: Common Miscon- Study Center for Anthropology, ceptions and Unproven Assumptions About Mechelbaan 338, 2580 Putte, the So-Called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis Belgium E-mail: [email protected] While some paleo-anthropologists remain skeptical, data from diverse biological and anthropological disciplines leave little doubt that human ancestors were at some point in our past semi- aquatic: wading, swimming and/or diving in shallow waters in search of waterside or aquatic foods. However, the exact sce- nario — how, where and when these semi-aquatic adaptations happened, how profound they were, and how they fit into the KEY WORDS: human evolution, hominid fossil record — is still disputed, even among anthro- Littoral theory, Aquarboreal pologists who assume some semi-aquatic adaptations. theory, aquatic ape, AAT, Here, I argue that the most intense phase(s) of semi-aquatic Archaic Homo, Homo erectus, adaptation in human ancestry occurred when populations be- Neanderthal, bipedalism, speech longing to the genus Homo adapted to slow and shallow littoral origins, Alister Hardy, Elaine diving for sessile foods such as shellfish during part(s) of the Morgan, comparative biology, Pleistocene epoch (Ice Ages), possibly along African or South- pachyosteosclerosis. Asian coasts. Introduction The term aquatic ape gives an incorrect impression of our semi-aquatic ancestors. Better terms are in my opinion the coastal dispersal model (Munro, 2010) or the littoral theory of human evolution, but although littoral seems to be a more appropriate biologi- cal term here than aquatic, throughout this paper I will use the well-known and common- ly used term AAH as shorthand for all sorts of waterside and semi-aquatic hypotheses.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation of Northern Tanzania During the Plio-Pleistocene: a Synthesis of the Paleobotanical Evidences from Laetoli, Olduvai, and Peninj Hominin Sites
    Quaternary International 322-323 (2014) 264e276 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint Vegetation of Northern Tanzania during the Plio-Pleistocene: A synthesis of the paleobotanical evidences from Laetoli, Olduvai, and Peninj hominin sites Doris Barboni CEREGE, Aix-Marseille University, UM34, CNRS, IRD, Europole de l’Arbois, BP80, 13545 Aix-en-Provence cedex 4, France article info abstract Article history: More than 40 years of scientific investigations of the hominin bearing Plio-Pleistocene sediments of Available online 5 February 2014 northern Tanzania have provided a number of paleobotanical data, which, taken as a whole, provide today a way to investigate vegetation changes between 4 and 1 Ma, at a time when our early ancestors emerged. Here, I have integrated the data from all vegetation proxies obtained for the paleontological sites of Laetoli, Olduvai, and Peninj (i.e. macroscopic plant remains, pollen and phytolith assemblages, carbon and oxygen isotopic ratios measured on carbonates, and organic biomarkers). This important, yet discontinuous botanical record suggests some similarities between past and present-day vegetation at the regional scale: Afromontane forests with Olea, Podocarpus, Juniperus, Hagenia abyssinica in the highlands, and wooded grasslands with grasses and drought-adapted Acacia, Commiphora, Cappar- idaceae, and Chenopodiaceae and/or Amaranthaceae in the lowlands were present in the southern SerengetieCrater Highlands region since 4 Ma. Grasses of the C4 photosynthetic type made their first appearance in the record at w3.7 Ma, i.e. during the mid-Pliocene, w700 ky before major pCO2 and temperature decline. C4 grasses became dominant in the vegetation soon after (w3.66 Ma), probably in response to reduced precipitation.
    [Show full text]