现代人出现和演化的化石证据

近年来,新材料的发现、新测年结果的更新以及分子生物学的加入,刷新了关于现代人在各主要区域出现时间、在迁徙扩散中与古老人群的交流模式、晚更新世晚期现代人演化复杂场景等方面的认识。本文梳理了关于现代人出现和演化路径的主要化石证据和研究成果。目前化石证据显示：非洲准现代人的出现时间最早可到MIS 9阶段,非洲现代人在中更新世晚期到晚更新世化石证据连续;欧亚大陆现代人的出现时间可追溯到MIS 6阶段,在MIS 5a-MIS 4阶段经历“瓶颈期”,在MIS 3阶段开始广泛分布。从已有证据来看,MIS 3和MIS 2阶段,欧亚大陆不同区域的现代人演化链条并非单一线性,而是呈现有断点的“网状”演化模式。     

Fourier harmonic analysis of the sagittal profile of the Plesianthropus transvaalensis (STS5) skull

An analytical morphometrical investigation of fronto facial profile of Plesianthropus transvaalensis was carried out by means of Fourier spectral series. Amplitude of contributors was evaluated in comparison with harmonic sets of a modern skull and two "mosaics" obtained by a convenient merging of segments of modern and hominid skull profiles. Patterns are distinctly different in Plesianthropus and modern profile because amplitude of second harmonic is greater than first in the former and viceversa in the latter; moreover while in Plesianthropus first and second harmonic give the same phase, it does not occur for modern skull. Fourier series of "mosaic" obtained by frontal profile of Plesianthropus and facial profile of modern resembles the set of modern skull while "mosaic" of modern frontal profile and hominid facial one resembles closely pattern of Plesianthropus.     

The place of Neandertals in the evolution of hominid patterns of growth and development

This study uses the two developmental fields of dental maturation and femoral growth to determine if the pattern of growth and development in Neandertals (archaic Homo sapiens) was intermediate between that of Homo erectus and recent modern humans. Specimens used in the analysis included Neandertals and Upper Palaeolithic early modern Homo sapiens from Europe and individuals from two recent modern human populations. Ontogenetic data for the H. erectus adolescent KNM-WT 15000 and for Gorilla gorilla were included for comparison. Previous reports have indicated that H. erectus demonstrates a pattern of ontogeny characterized by earlier and more rapid linear growth than in modern humans. Results reported here demonstrate that Upper Paleolithic early modern Homo sapiens display a growth trajectory indistinguishable from that of recent modern humans. The pattern of Neandertal ontogeny is not intermediate between the pattern displayed in H. erectus and the derived pattern seen in the modern reference samples and the early modern H. sapiens sample. The Neandertal growth trajectory is consistent with either slow linear growth or advanced dental development.     

中国特色现代医院管理制度的基本框架与发展路径

建立现代医院管理制度是提高医院竞争力的紧迫要求,也是我国公立医院改革发展的必然趋势。从内部和外部两个方面对中国特色现代医院管理制度进行了界定,强调现代医院外部管理制度重点是医院管理体制创新,现代医院内部管理制度的核心是建立医院的法人治理结构和机制。阐述了中国特色现代医院管理制度的基本框架,并提出中国现代医院管理制度的发展路径,为构建理想的现代医院管理制度提供了思路。     

Did the lateral enamel of Neandertal anterior teeth grow differently from that of modern humans?

The formation of lateral enamel in Neandertal anterior teeth has been the subject of recent studies. When compared to the anterior teeth of modern humans from diverse regions (Point Hope, Alaska; Newcastle upon Tyne, England; southern Africa), Neandertal anterior teeth appear to fall within the modern human range of variation for lateral enamel formation time. However, the lateral enamel growth curves of Neandertals are more linear than those of these modern human samples. Other researchers have found that the lateral enamel growth curves of Neandertals are more linear than those of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic modern humans as well. The statistical significance of this apparent difference between Neandertal and modern human lateral enamel growth curves is analyzed here. The more linear Neandertal enamel growth curves result from the smaller percentage of total perikymata located in the cervical halves of their teeth. The percentage of total perikymata in the cervical halves of teeth is therefore compared between the Neandertal sample (n=56 teeth) and each modern human population sample: Inuit (n=65 teeth), southern African (n=114 teeth), and northern European (n=115 teeth). There are 18 such comparisons (6 tooth types, Neandertals vs. each of the three modern human populations). Eighteen additional comparisons are made among the modern human population samples. Statistically significant differences are found for 16 of the 18 Neandertal vs. modern human comparisons but for only two of the 18 modern human comparisons. Statistical analyses repeated for subsamples of less worn teeth show a similar pattern. Because surface curvature is thought to affect perikymata spacing, we also conducted measurements to assess surface curvature in thirty teeth. Our analysis shows that surface curvature is not a factor in this lateral enamel growth difference between Neandertals and modern humans.     

尼安德特人基因组学研究进展

尼安德特人是现代人最近的旁支,也是化石资料最丰富的古人类。在现代人起源问题的争论中,尼安德特人对现代人是否有遗传贡献是一个焦点问题。文章综述了近年来关于尼安德特人线粒体基因组和核基因组的研究进展,初步研究表明尼安德特人可能对现代人有遗传贡献,这引发了人们对现代人起源问题的重新思考。藉尼人基因组研究经验进行的古人类基因组学研究将有望揭开现代人起源的谜团,并丰富进化生物学相关领域的理论体系。     

现代人的出现与扩散——中国的化石证据

自2002年在周口店附近的田园洞发现大约4万年前的现代人化石以来,相继在湖北郧西黄龙洞、广西崇左智人洞等地点发现了早期现代人化石。这些化石发现证实大约10万年前早期现代人在华南地区已经出现。最近在湖南道县福岩洞发现的人类牙齿化石及相关研究进一步揭示具有完全现代形态的人类8万-12万年前在华南局部地区已经出现;而在这个时间段的华北地区,以许家窑人为代表的人类化石形态仍较原始,其演化尚未进入早期现代人阶段。这些研究发现提示,在中国地区,华南是现代人形成与扩散的中心区域,早期现代人以及完全现代类型的人类都可能首先在华南地区出现,然后向华北地区扩散。现有的化石形态证据显示,更新世晚期华南地区人类具有较大的演化变异,可能同时生存有几种不同的演化类群。智人洞属于从古老型智人向现代人演化的过渡类型,而道县则代表着演化进入完全现代类型的人类。基于前人研究及本文的分析,作者认为柳江、资阳、丽江、田园洞等更新世晚期人类化石特征比较进步,在演化上属于与道县相似的现代类型人类。值得注意的是,这些研究进展在引起对现代人在东亚地区出现和扩散关注的同时,古人类学界对其中涉及的许多问题还存在争论。本文在回顾分析这些研究进展的基础上,就相关问题进行了讨论。     

中国古人类颅容量的推算方法比较

古人类的体质特征和现代人不同,依据现代人头骨测量数据计算出来的公式往往不适于古人类颅容量的推算。获取古人类颅容量最准确的方法是复原出其内部的颅内模;然而,由于颅内模的复原工艺复杂,加上古人类头骨化石数量稀少且多数残破,如何准确地推算其颅容量,成为古人学者研究的难点问题之一。本文通过对中国境内发现的不同演化阶段的古人类颅容量推算方法的对比和验证,试图找出推算古人类颅容量的最适合的公式法。研究结果显示：1）早期现代人解剖特征同现代人基本接近,依据现代人头骨推算出来的回归方程可以用来推算其颅容量;2）直立人头骨厚重、脑颅低矮,体质特征不同于现代人,其颅容量的推算不能使用现代人公式法。依据本文中国直立人头骨测量数据推导出来的回程方程（C=-1301.944+60606L+0.718b+9.936h）适合其颅容量的推算。采用此直立人公式法,推算出蓝田直立人的颅容量为918 mL;3）古老型智人的体质特征位于直立人和现代人之间,对其颅容量的推算不能一概而论：体质特征接近直立人的,如大荔人、华龙洞6号,可采用直立人公式法;体质特征接近早期现代人的,如许昌1号,可采用现代人公式法;体质特征位于直立人和早期现代人中间位置的,如马坝人、金牛山人,其颅容量约等于采用现代人公式法和采用直立人公式法获得的颅容量的平均值。     

东亚现代人来源的考古学思考:证据与解释

现代人的起源与扩散是当今古人类学界极具争议的问题。目前,"多地区进化"假说和非洲起源为主的"同化"假说是该争议的两大阵营。在"多地区进化"假说的基础上,立足中国的化石材料,吴新智提出了中国乃至东亚古人类"连续演化、附带杂交"的假说,认为中国的现代人主要由本地古老类型人类演化而来。本文从现代人扩散关键时段的考古材料出发,讨论氧同位素5～3阶段(大约13～3万年)考古材料在研究中国现代人形成中的作用和存在的挑战。首先,概括介绍现代人起源的主要假说和现代人扩散的假定路线——南线和北线的多重证据;其次,在此背景下,通过对中国境内考古材料的概括,分析不同石器技术可能反映的现代人来源;最后,简要探讨立足考古材料研究现代人起源与扩散的挑战。总体而言,氧同位素5～3阶段的旧石器考古材料支持中国北方南部和中国南方古人类的连续演化,同时也指示了非洲扩散而出的现代人人群自西北地区和南方地区进入中国的可能性。该模式支持中国古人类"连续演化、附带杂交"假说,然而我们也认识到中国现代人起源研究的考古基础仍十分薄弱,使用考古学材料研究现代人扩散的理论基础也需探讨。目前,细化、完善基础考古数据仍是中国旧石器时代考古学和古人类学学者努力的主要方向之一。如此,我们才能够更加有效地将人类化石与考古学证据融合,进而结合分子生物学的研究,更为全面地理解现代人的起源与演化。     

山顶洞人与现代华北人头骨非测量性特征比较及中国更新世晚期人类演化的一些问题

山顶洞人化石是迄今在东亚地区发现的数量最为丰富、保存状态最为完好的更新世晚期人类化石。多年来,山顶洞人作为东亚地区更新世晚期人类的代表,在研究东亚地区现代蒙古人种及美洲印第安人起源方面发挥着重要作用。随着对现代人起源与演化研究的深入,学术界对更新世晚期人类演化及现代人群形成过程的许多细节及演化机制予以了越来越多的注意,提出了现代人群出现时间及现代人群分化时间的概念。一些研究对山顶洞人的演化程度及其在东亚地区现代人群形成上的作用也提出了不同看法。为了深入探讨这些问题,本文对12项颅骨非测量特征在山顶洞人与现代中国人的表现情况进行了对比研究。发现有8项特征在山顶洞人与现代中国人之间具有不同的表现,作者认为山顶洞人在颅骨特征表现上较现代中国人具有更多的原始性。在此基础上,作者就更新世晚期人群内部变异、现代人群特征标准等问题进行了讨论。     

Ancient human mtDNA genotypes from England reveal lost variation over the last millennium

We analysed the historical genetic diversity of human populations in Europe at the mtDNA control region for 48 ancient Britons who lived between ca AD 300 and 1000, and compared these with 6320 modern mtDNA genotypes from England and across Europe and the Middle East. We found that the historical sample shows greater genetic diversity than for modern England and other modern populations, indicating the loss of diversity over the last millennium. The pattern of haplotypic diversity was clearly European in the ancient sample, representing each of the modern haplogroups. There was also increased representation of one of the ancient haplotypes in modern populations. We consider these results in the context of possible selection or stochastic processes.     

Were neandertal and modern human cranial differences produced by natural selection or genetic drift?

Most evolutionary explanations for cranial differences between Neandertals and modern humans emphasize adaptation by natural selection. Features of the crania of Neandertals could be adaptations to the glacial climate of Pleistocene Europe or to the high mechanical strains produced by habitually using the front teeth as tools, while those of modern humans could be adaptations for articulate speech production. A few researchers have proposed non-adaptive explanations. These stress that isolation between Neandertal and modern human populations would have lead to cranial diversification by genetic drift (chance changes in the frequencies of alleles at genetic loci contributing to variation in cranial morphology). Here we use a variety of statistical tests founded on explicit predictions from quantitative- and population-genetic theory to show that genetic drift can explain cranial differences between Neandertals and modern humans. These tests are based on thirty-seven standard cranial measurements from a sample of 2524 modern humans from 30 populations and 20 Neandertal fossils. As a further test, we compare our results for modern human cranial measurements with those for a genetic dataset consisting of 377 microsatellites typed for a sample of 1056 modern humans from 52 populations. We conclude that rather than requiring special adaptive accounts, Neandertal and modern human crania may simply represent two outcomes from a vast space of random evolutionary possibilities.     

Patterns of endemic extinctions among island bird species

The relationship between island biogeography and the vulnerability of island biota to extinction as a result of human activities was examined. In particular, this study analyzed whether island area, maximum elevation of an island, isolation from the nearest continental landmass, or date of human colonization had statistically significant relationships with the proportion of endemic island bird species that have become endangered or extinct. The study examined islands or island groups with endemic bird species, and which have never been connected to a continental landmass. Both modern and fossil bird species were incorporated into the analysis. Islands that were colonized by humans earliest had the lowest proportion of modern species alone, and modern and fossil species combined, that have gone extinct. However, date of human arrival was not correlated with the proportion of modern species that are endangered. Maximum elevation of an island was negatively correlated with the proportion of modern species that are extinct, and was positively correlated with the proportion of modern species that are endangered. Area was negatively correlated with the proportion of modern species that are endangered. Isolation of islands was not significantly correlated with the proportion of modern species extinct or endangered, but was positively correlated with the proportion of modern and fossil species combined that have gone extinct. These results indicate that the initial spasm of island bird extinctions due to human contact may have, in part, passed. They also indicate that bird species on islands colonized earliest by humans may have had more time to adapt to the presence of man and his commensal species, resulting in reduced extinction rates.     

生态学在现代科学发展中的地位

生态学这个术语由Heckel所首创(1869),在当时并未为学术界所接受,Heckel本人也时以“自然经济学”,时而以“个体生态学”取而代之。尔后,其它生态学家又作过各种不同的解释,如“自然科学史”,“自然界的结构与功能的研究”等,但对生态学解释持反对意见的也不乏其人,如俄国著名的植物生理学家季米里亚捷夫直到最后才放弃自己的意     

Quantitative analysis of Neanderthal temporal bone morphology using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics

The temporal bone is the location of several traits thought to differentiate Neanderthals from modern humans, including some proposed Neanderthal-derived traits. Most of these, however, are difficult to measure and are usually described qualitatively. This study applied the techniques of geometric morphometrics to the complex morphology of the temporal bone, in order to quantify the differences observed between Neanderthal and modern human anatomy. Two hundred and seventy modern human crania were measured, representing 9 populations of 30 individuals each, and spanning the extremes of the modern human geographical range. Twelve Neanderthal specimens, as well as Reilingen, Kabwe, Skhul 5, Qafzeh 9, and 4 Late Paleolithic European specimens, were included in the fossil sample. The data were collected in the form of three-dimensional (3-D) landmark coordinates, and specimen configurations were superimposed using generalized Procrustes analysis. The fitted coordinates were then analyzed by an array of multivariate statistical methods, including principal components analysis, canonical variates analysis, and Mahalanobis D(2). The temporal bone landmark analysis was very successful in separating Neanderthals from modern humans. Neanderthals were separated from modern humans in both the principal components and canonical variates analyses. They were much further in Mahalanobis distances from all modern human populations than any two modern human groups were from each other. Most of the previously described temporal bone traits contributed to this separation.     

Do modern humans and Neandertals have different patterns of cranial integration?

Studies of cranial differences between modern humans and Neandertals have identified several characteristics for which the two groups differ in their mean values, the proportional relationships with other traits, or both. However, the limited number of fairly complete Neandertals has hindered investigations into patterns of integration – covariance and correlation among traits – in this fossil group. Here, we use multiple approaches specifically designed to deal with fragmentary fossils to test if metric cranial traits in Neandertals fit modern human patterns of integration. Based on 37 traits collected from a sample of 2524 modern humans from Howells’ data set and 20 Neandertals, we show that overall patterns of cranial integration are significantly different between Neandertals and modern humans. However, at the same time, Neandertals are consistent with a modern human pattern of integration for more than three-quarters of the traits. Additionally, the differences between the predicted and actual values for the deviating traits are rather small, indicating that the differences in integration are subtle. Traits for which Neandertals deviate from modern human integration patterns tend to be found in regions where Neandertals and modern humans are known to also differ in their mean values. We conclude that the evolution of patterns of cranial integration is a cause for caution but also presents an opportunity for understanding cranial differences between modern humans and Neandertals.     

A comparison of modern and presettlement pollen from southern Michigan (U.S.A.)

Use of samples of modern pollen to interpret assemblages of fossil pollen requires that the effects of man's impact be identified in the modern pollen. A comparison of the modern and presettlement pollen in 23 short cores taken within the lower peninsula of Michigan reveals a varied effect of man's activities on the vegetation. When obvious indicators of human activity (such as ragweed pollen) are removed from the pollen sum, many differences in the composition of the arboreal pollen are still evident between presettlement and modern records. When compared to presettlement data, birch, elm, and willow pollen in the modern data appear in proportionately higher quantities throughout the state, whereas beech, maple, and hemlock are in lower quantities. Within the region of primeaval pine forests, white pine values are much lower and oak values show an increase. Despite these differences in the pollen record, the modern pollen reflect the same basic patterns in the vegetation as the presettlement pollen. Principal component analysis shows the same patterns to exist in the modern data as are in the presettlement pollen.     

Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications

The craniometric affinities among Neandertals. Upper Palcolithic Europeans, early anatomically modern Southwest Asians, and archaic and modern Africans are investigated using univariate and multivariate methods. For the first time, it is possible to analyse the North African finds Dar-es-Soltane 5, Nazlet Khater, and Wadi Kubbaniya. It was not possible to include the Neandertals from Central Europe due to their poor state of preservation. The results point to, first, a basic distinction between Neandertals on the one hand and modern humans from all geographic regions on the other, and, secondly, to great similarities between modern African and European populations. Late archaic sapiens specimens from Africa were more similar to Upper Paleolithic Europeans than were the Neandertals. The results do not support the hypothesis that a regional evolution giving rise to modern humans took place in Europe. The results are, however, consistent with the hypothesis that modern populations originated in Africa and spread to Europe from there.     

No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans

The retrieval of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from four Neandertal fossils from Germany, Russia, and Croatia has demonstrated that these individuals carried closely related mtDNAs that are not found among current humans. However, these results do not definitively resolve the question of a possible Neandertal contribution to the gene pool of modern humans since such a contribution might have been erased by genetic drift or by the continuous influx of modern human DNA into the Neandertal gene pool. A further concern is that if some Neandertals carried mtDNA sequences similar to contemporaneous humans, such sequences may be erroneously regarded as modern contaminations when retrieved from fossils. Here we address these issues by the analysis of 24 Neandertal and 40 early modern human remains. The biomolecular preservation of four Neandertals and of five early modern humans was good enough to suggest the preservation of DNA. All four Neandertals yielded mtDNA sequences similar to those previously determined from Neandertal individuals, whereas none of the five early modern humans contained such mtDNA sequences. In combination with current mtDNA data, this excludes any large genetic contribution by Neandertals to early modern humans, but does not rule out the possibility of a smaller contribution.