禄丰古猿的两性差别

本文首先讨论了粗壮池猿化石标本的性别判断问题,然后把粗壮池猿和禄丰西瓦古猿分别与有关的现生猿类的两性差别进行比较研究,得出这两个进化系统性别差异的时代变化的结论。这样的结论支持禄丰西瓦古猿的系统地位的论证。     

Plantigrady and foot adaptation in African apes: implications for hominid origins.

In living primates, except the great apes and humans, the foot is placed in a heel-elevated or semi-plantigrade position when these animals move upon arboreal or terrestrial substrates. Heel placement and bone positions in the non-great ape primate foot are designed to increase mobility and flexibility in the arboreal environment. Orangutans have further enhanced foot mobility by adapting their feet for suspension and thus similarly utilize foot positions where the heel does not touch the substrate. Chimpanzees and gorillas represent an alternative pattern (plantigrady), in which the heel contacts the surface of the support at the end of swing phase, especially during terrestrial locomotion. Thus, chimpanzees and gorillas possess feet adapted for both arboreal and terrestrial substrates. African apes also share several osteological features related to plantigrady and terrestrial locomotion with early hominids. From this analysis, it is apparent that hominid locomotor evolution passed through a quadrupedal terrestrial phase.     

The nature and affinities of the “robust” Australopithecines: a review

The fossil evidence of the “robust” australopithecines is reviewed with an emphasis on the taxonomic divisions and evolutionary relationships among this group of hominids. The hypodigms of A. robustus, A. crassidens and A. boisei are described, and the significance of morphological variation within and between these species is assessed. Phylogenetic relationships among the “robust” australopithecines are examined using maximum parsimony analysis, and evolutionary scenarios are evaluated in the light of recent discoveries in East Africa.     

Estimating canine tooth crown height in early Australopithecus

Canine tooth size reduction and the associated reduction in canine dimorphism is a basal hominin character that also provides important evidence for models of behavioral evolution. Two specimens of Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-KP 29287 and KNM-KP 29283) that do not preserve the canine crown, but do preserve the root or alveolus, appear to suggest that canine size variation and canine dimorphism in this species may have been greater than in other hominins. We evaluate canine root and crown dimensions in a series of extant hominoids, and estimate canine crown height in Australopithecus afarensis and A. anamensis. Our results demonstrate that it is possible to generate estimates of canine crown height from basal canine crown and root dimensions with a moderate degree of accuracy. Estimates of maxillary canine crown size for A. anamensis are slightly larger than those of A. afarensis, and are approximately the same size as canines of modern female chimpanzees. Estimated mandibular canine crown height is very similar in the two species. Variation within the A. anamensis sample of estimated canine crown heights is similar to that of modern humans, suggesting a low degree of sexual dimorphism. Inclusion of estimates for KNM-KP 29287 and KNM-KP 29283 does not substantially increase either the estimate of overall canine size or variation for A. anamensis.     

Petite bodies of the “robust” australopithecines

The “robust” australopithecines are often depicted as having large and powerfully built bodies to match their massive masticatory apparatus, but until 1988 the sample of postcranial remains attributed with certainty to this group was very limited. Almost nothing was known about the body of the East African “robust” australopithecine because taxonomic attribution of the postcrania was so uncertain. The body of the South African “robust” australopithecine had to be reconstructed from about a dozen isolated fragments of postcrania. Now a partial skeleton is attributed with confidence to the East African “robust” group along with several isolated bones. The South African sample has more than tripled. Analyses of this vastly expanded sample reveal that a large portion of postcrania attributed to “robust” australopithecines from Swartkrans Member 1 (35%) are from extraordinarily small-bodied individuals similar in size to a modern Pygmy weighing as little as 28 kg. These small elements include parts from the forelimb, spine, and hindlimb. About 22% of these Swartkrans 1 “robust” australopithecines are about the same size as a modern human weighing about 43 kgs and about 43% are larger than this standard but less than or equal to a 54 kg modern human. Approximately the same pattern is true for the Swartkrans 2 hominids, but taxonomic attribution is less certain. All of the Member 3 specimens are similar in size to the 45 kg standard. The partial skeleton of the East African “robust” australopithecine (KNM-ER 1500) has hindlimb joints that would correspond to a modern human of 34 kgs although the actual weight may be 5 to 10 kgs greater judging from shaft robusticity and forelimb size. The largest postcranial element attributed with some certainty to the East African “robust” australopithecine group (the talus, KNM-ER 1464) is about the same overall size as a modern human of 54 kgs, although its tibial facet is slightly smaller. Although many previous studies have hinted at the possibility that “robust” australopithecines had relatively small bodies, the new fossils provide substantial evidence that these creatures ranged from quite small to only moderate in body size relative to modern humans. These were the petite-bodied vegetarian cousins of our ancestors. Sexual dimorphism in body size appears to be greater than that in modern humans, similar to that in Pan, and less than that in Gorilla or Pongo, although such comparisons are of limited value given the small samples, poorly known body proportions, time averaging, and many other problems.