Fossil Homo Research Articles

Hominid Brain Volume

Having calculated the brain volumes of several australopithecine and early Homo fossil hominid brain endocasts ([1][1]–[3][2]), I read with considerable interest the report by Glen C. Conroy et al. (12 June, p. [1730][3]) and the commentary by Dean Falk (Perspectives, Science 's Compass, 12 June,

The Mauer mandible and the evolutionary significance of Homo heidelbergensis

The significance of the species H. heidelbergensis is discussed by means of the comparison of the holotypeof this species-the mauer mandible- with a large set of Homo fossils. It is argued that the primitive appearance of the Mauer mandible occurs along with unequivocal indications of Neandertal apomorphies. The BL dimensions of the incisors and morphology of premolars as well as the variables related to the position of the mental foramen and retromolar space definitely indicate that Mauer should be classified as a member of the evolutionary lineage which evolved into classic Neandertals. We conclude that the Mauer mandible represents a population forming part of the Neandertals evolutionary lineage. Therefore, the name H. heidelbergensis cannot be used to denote the last common ancestor to Neandertals and Modern humans. It is proposed that the taxon H. heidelbergensis should be used only to name a European Middle Pleistocene chronospecies of the Neandertal evolutionary lineage.

The M. obturator internus sulcus on Middle and Late Pleistocene human ischia

Recent human ischia and those of Middle and Late Pleistocene hominids exhibit variation in the cranio-caudal location of the sulcus for the internal obturator muscle as it rounds the ischium through the lesser sciatic notch, from being fully cranial of the ischial tuberosity, to bordering the tuberosity, to crossing the superior tuberosity. Among two recent human samples, all three forms exist, with the cranial position of the sulcus being more common in a 20th century Euroamerican sample whereas the intermediate one predominates in a horticultural late prehistoric Amerindian sample. The available Pleistocene Homo fossil remains exhibit the full range of variation with no one form being dominant in Middle Pleistocene archaic humans and Middle Paleolithic late archaic and early modern humans. It is only within the Upper Paleolithic that the cranial and intermediate locations for the sulcus become predominant. These patterns therefore indicate that it is inappropriate to use this feature for distinguishing later Pleistocene hominid groups. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

On Neanderthal speech and human evolution

AbstractLoring Brace's assertion that “Neanderthals were just as capable of articulate speech as we are” reflects ignorance of speech anatomy and physiology. Metrical analyses of hyoid bone morphology cannot predict supralaryngeal vocal tract (SVT) shape. Houghton's (1993) “modern” Neanderthal SVT reconstruction yields an impossible creature who had a larynx positioned in his chest. The reconstructed modem SVTs of early fossil Homo sapiens indicate brains that can regulate speech, consistent with Merlin Donalds timetable for the evolution of language.

Craniometric variation in large-bodied hominoids: testing the single-species hypothesis for Homo habilis

The species question regarding Homo habilis remains unresolved. This study tests the null hypothesis that this hominid taxon represents a single paleospecies by comparing the fossils' magnitude and pattern of craniometric variation to samples of extant, large-bodied hominoids including Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus and Homo sapiens. Unlike previous quantitative approaches to this problem, randomization methodology is used to assess the significance of univariate and multivariate measures of variation. The benefits of randomization include its applicability to problems of small sample size, its robusticity in producing statistical probabilities, and its freedom from underlying assumptions concerning the normality of variable distribution. This study demonstrates that the magnitude of variation in H. habilis does not exceed that displayed by the most sexually dimorphic apes such as orang-utans and gorillas, but that the pattern of variation in these early Homo fossils is unlike that shared by any of the modern referents. Although the effects of geological time are considered as possibly responsible for the unique pattern of craniometric variation seen in H. habilis , we interpret these results as providing tentative support for a multiple-species solution, thereby provisionally rejecting the null hypothesis of Homo habilis as a single species.

New hominid fossils from the Swartkrans formation (1979-1986 excavations): postcranial specimens.

New postcranial fossils of Paranthropus robustus and Homo cf. erectus were recovered from Swartkrans from 1979 through 1986. These fossils are from Members 1, 2, and 3. The new fossils are described here along with their morphological affinities. Fossils that are assigned to Paranthropus indicate that the South African "robust" australopithecines engaged in tool behavior and were essentially terrestrial bipeds at around 1.8 Myr BP. The manual dexterity and bipedal locomotion of Paranthropus may have equaled that of Homo habilis in East Africa at approximately the same time.

A probabilistic approach to the problem of sexual dimorphism in Homo habilis: a comparison of KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813

Craniofacial traits of two crania from Koobi Fora, Kenya, KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813, are compared to determine the probability that they are from the same species, Homo habilis. It is argued that unless Homo habilis was significantly more sexually dimorphic than Gorilla gorilla, it is improbable that the two fossils can both be classified as Homo habilis. The creation of at least one new species is required to account for the morphological and metrical variation of Late Pliocene-Early Pleistocene Homo fossils in eastern Africa.

Dental metric assessment of the omo fossils: implications for the phylogenetic position of Australopithecus africanus.

The discovery of Australopithecus afarensis has led to new interpretations of hominid phylogeny, some of which reject A. africanus as an ancestor of Homo. Analysis of buccolingual tooth crown dimensions in australopithecines and Homo species by Johanson and White (Science 202:321-330, 1979) revealed that the South African gracile australopithecines are intermediate in size between Laetoli/hadar hominids and South African robust hominids. Homo, on the other hand, displays dimensions similar to those of A. afarensis and smaller than those of other australopithecines. These authors conclude, therefore, that A. africanus is derived in the direction of A. robustus and is not an ancestor of the Homo clade. However, there is a considerable time gap (ca. 800,000 years) between the Laetoli/Hadar specimens and the earliest Homo specimens; "gracile" hominids from Omo fit into this chronological gap and are from the same geographic area. Because the early specimens at Omo have been designated A. afarensis and the later specimens classified as Homo habilis, Omo offers a unique opportunity to test hypotheses concerning hominid evolution, especially regarding the phylogenetic status of A. africanus. Comparisons of mean cheek teeth breadths disclosed the significant (P less than or equal to 0.05) differences between the Omo sample and the Laetoli/Hadar fossils (P4, M2, and M3), the Homo fossils (P3, P4, M1, M2, and M1), and A. africanus (M3). Of the several possible interpretations of these data, it appears that the high degree of similarity between the Omo sample and the South African gracile australopithecine material warrants considering the two as geographical variants of A. africanus. The geographic, chronologic, and metric attributes of the Omo sample argue for its lineal affinity with A. afarensis and Homo. In conclusion, a consideration of hominid postcanine dental metrics provides no basis for removing A. africanus from the ancestry of the Homo lineage.

Middle Pleistocene hominids from Olduvai Gorge, northern Tanzania.

Cranial, dental, and mandibular remains of eight Olduvai hominids are described in detail. Four individuals were recovered in situ in Beds II to IV, while three more are most probably derived from Bed IV, the Masek Beds and the Lower Ndutu Beds. One specimen is of uncertain provenance. Deposits from which the fossils were collected range from late Lower Pleistocene to Middle Pleistocene in age. Of particular interest are three fragmentary lower jaws, which can be compared to mandibles of Homo erectus known from localities in Northwest Africa and China. Olduvai hominid 22, a nearly complete half mandible with crowns of P3-M2 in place, shares many anatomical features with fossils from Ternifine and Choukoutien. This individual is also similar to a jaw from the Kapthurin Formation west of Lake Baringo, Kenya. How best to interpret these comparisons is not clear, but in view of marked similarities between specimens representing geographically diverse populations from different time periods, it may be unwise to rely on mandibular evidence alone to document the presence of regional lineages. Gradual change and continuity within a sequence of Northwest African Homo fossils has been endorsed by many workers, but such hypotheses cannot be tested adequately with the fragmentary jaws available.

: Pleistocene Man in Minnesota: A Fossil Homo Sapiens . Albert Ernest Jenks.

American AnthropologistVolume 39, Issue 4 p. 680-681 Free Access NORTH AMERICA: Pleistocene Man in Minnesota: a Fossil Homo Sapiens. BRUNO OETTEKING, BRUNO OETTEKING COLUMBIA UNIVERSITYSearch for more papers by this author BRUNO OETTEKING, BRUNO OETTEKING COLUMBIA UNIVERSITYSearch for more papers by this author First published: October‐December 1937 https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1937.39.4.02a00160AboutRelatedInformationPDFPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessClose modalShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume39, Issue4October‐December 1937Pages 680-681 RelatedInformation RecommendedHomo Sapiens 1900Jonathan Marks, Medical Anthropology QuarterlyCOMMENTS ON WEIDENREICH'S PAPER CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF HOMO SAPIENSM. F. Ashley Montagu, American AnthropologistThe Relationships between Neanderthal Man and Homo sapiensJ. E. WECKLER, American Anthropologist