An alternative interpretation ofAustralopithecus afarensis fossil material

Hominoid fossils from Hadar, in Ethiopia and Laetoli, in Tanzania, and dated from the late Pliocene, were described as a new species of hominid, “Australopithecus afarensis,”Johanson, White andCoppens, 1978. A comparative morphological analysis of the lectotype and several paralectotypes reveal that that two taxa were synthesized and that “Australopithecus afarensis” represents a hominid and a pongid. The hominid is relatively unspecialized, and the pongid is remarkably similar toDryopithecus (Sivapithecus) sivalensis (Lydekker), 1879. The pongid is the first anthropoid ape recorded from the late Pliocene in Africa.     

Cladometric analysis of Pliocene hominids

Quantification of individual crown features allows maximization of information retrieval from isolated hominid molars. The Lukeino specimen demonstrates phenetic affinity to Pan; the Lothagam fossil appears closer to a hypothetical ancestral hominid morphotype than the Laetolil specimens. Consideration of 41 metric features in a cladistic framework establishes Australopithecus afarensis as the sister taxon of Homo and of later australopithecines.     

The capitate of Australopithecus afarensis and A. africanus

The capitates of Australopithecus afarensis (AL 288-lw and AL 333–40) and A. africanus (TM 1526) have the identical combination of modern pongid, modern hominid, and unique characteristics. These traits include the combination of a length that is proximodistally shortened (Homo sapiens-like), a facet for the second metacarpal that is distolaterally facing (unique), the reduced styloid process on the third metacarpal (pongidlike), a dorsally placed trapezoid facet (pongidlike), mediolaterally constricted metacarpal III facet (pongidlike), a prominent palmar beak (pongidlike), a single elongated facet for the second metacarpal (H. sapiens-like), a waisted neck (pongidlike), and a reduced amount of “cupping” in the third metacarpal facet (H. sapiens-like). In overall shape the bones are more like H. sapiens than other extant hominids, although they are uniquely different. The two A. afarensis capitates provide no evidence that there are two postcranial morphotypes at Hadar. Available evidence shows that A. afarensis and A. africanus are strikingly similar postcranially. The morphological differences between the capitate of Australopithecus and H. sapiens may relate to the retention of climbing ability and an absence of certain grip capabilities in these early hominids.     

Australopithecus afarensis and the single species hypothesis

Ferguson (1989) has recently argued that the variability seen in the fossils assigned toA. afarensis is far more than expected for a single hominid species, and therefore proposes they represent multiple taxa. In particular, he utilizes data on variation in dental metrics and in premolar morphology in support of this hypothesis. A re-evaluation of these data finds the above conclusion to be unwarranted. Variation in dental metrics providesno basis for separating this sample into multiple taxa, regardless of the analog that is used (i.e. modern primate species or fossil hominid species). Additionally, data on P₃ morphology indicate that thepattern of variation seen in the Laetoli/Hadar sample is comparable to the sexual variation seenwithin a single hominoid species. Overall, the balance of the evidence at present indicates that the fossils from Laetoli and Hadar represent a single hominid species,A. afarensis.     

The taxonomic status ofpraeanthropus africanus (primates: Pongidae) from the late pliocene of Eastern Africa

The taxonPraeanthropus africanus (Weinert, 1950), represented by the Garusi maxilla, is valid and reinstated. The morphological pattern of the Garusi maxilla is not that of a primitive hominid, but of a relatively generalized pongid. Since the apelike lectotype L.H.-4 and paralectotype A.L.200-1a ofAustralopithecus afarensis Johanson et al. 1978 are conspecific withP. africanus, and originate from the same formation, they are reassigned toPraeanthropus africanus.     

Critique of ‘Australopithecus afarensis’ as a single species based on dental metrics and morphology

Leonard andHegmon (1987) compare a series of dental metrics of ‘Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, White, andCoppens, 1978’ with criteria for modern apes, to test the hypothesis that ‘A. afarensis’ represents a single species. They also compare the morphology of the lower third premolar. The dental breadth of ‘A. afarensis’ shows a wide range of variation, particularly in the lower third premolar morphology which displays greater variation than in modern apes—yet the study concludes that the single species hypothesis cannot be rejected. The study is flawed by applying criteria for pongids inappropriate for a hominid. When ‘A. afarensis’ is compared with criteria for hominids, the range of variation in dental size, breadth, and third premolar morphology is greater than that in any hominid species. The single species hypothesis is, therefore, once again rejected. Moreover, the name ‘A. afarensis’ is preoccupied byPraeanthropus africanus (Weinert) and must be dropped.     

A reappraisal of variation in hominid mandibular corpus dimensions

The relationship between breadth and height of the mandibular corpus has been investigated in a sample of 77 hominid mandibles. An interspecific allometric increase in robusticity with size occurs between four taxonomic subgroups of Australopithecus, but subgroups of Homo vary in robusticity while differing little in size. Within taxonomic subgroups, variation in breadth is not significantly related to variation in height among the “gracile” australapithecines; however, it is isometrically related to height in the “robust” australopithecines and bears an allometric relationship to height in Homo. Thus, robusticity, in conjunction with size, may provide a useful indicator of the taxonomic affinities of hominid mandibles.     

An enlarged postcranial sample confirms Australopithecus afarensis dimorphism was similar to modern humans

In a previous study, we introduced the template method as a means of enlarging the Australopithecus afarensis postcranial sample to more accurately estimate its skeletal dimorphism. Results indicated dimorphism to be largely comparable to that of Homo sapiens. Some have since argued that our results were biased by artificial homogeneity in our Au. afarensis sample. Here we report the results from inclusion of 12 additional, newly reported, specimens. The results are consistent with those of our original study and with the hypothesis that early hominid demographic success derived from a reproductive strategy involving male provisioning of pair-bonded females.     

Further analysis of mandibular molar crown and cusp areas in Pliocene and early Pleistocene hominids

Crown and cusp areas of mandibular molars were measured and analyzed on a sample of 249 specimens attributed to Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, A. (Paranthropus) robustus, A. (P.) boisei, and early Homo. In addition to intertaxon comparisons, we compared data that had been collected independently by two of the authors using methods that differ slightly in technique of measurement. Interobserver differences were evaluated by the t-test of paired comparisons, method error statistic, percent differences, and principal component analysis. Results suggest that between-technique error of measurement of overall crown area is small. Error estimates for individual cusp area measurements were of larger relative magnitude. However, these were not sufficient to detract from the conclusions derived from comparative analyses. Our results are in general agreement with previous assessments of early hominid dental size. Crown areas of A. africanus, however, exhibit a mosaic pattern, with M1 similar in size to that of A. afarensis and early Homo, and M2 and M3 similar in size to that of A. robustus. Intertaxon comparisons of relative cusp area were undertaken by univariate statistics and principal component analysis. These analyses revealed that while A. (P.) robustus and A. (P.) boisei both possess mandibular molars with cusp proportions significantly different from the ‘non-robust’ taxa, these differences are substantially greater in A. (P.) boisei. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Mandibular postcanine dentition from the Shungura Formation,Ethiopia: Crown morphology,taxonomic allocations,and Plio-Pleistocene hominid evolution

Over 200 hominid specimens were recovered by the International Omo Expedition of 1967–1976. Despite the fragmentary nature of this primarily dental collection, these hominid remains represent a major body of evidence about hominid evolution in eastern Africa during the 2–3 myr time period. Our analysis of the Omo dental collection is based on a large comparative sample of 375 quantifiable mandibular postcanine teeth of A. afarensis, A. africanus, A. aethiopicus, A. boisei, A. robustus, and early Homo. A total of 48 isolated mandibular premolars and molars of the Omo collection spanning the 2–3 myr time period is sufficiently preserved to allow reliable serial allocations and intertaxon comparisons and is the object of study in this paper. We present taxonomic identifications of these teeth and seven other mandibular specimens preserving tooth crowns. Metric analyses of this study include cusp area and crown shape variables taken on occlusal view diagrams. Nonmetric analyses were based on simultaneous observations of all relevant material to ensure accuracy of categorical evaluations. First, a combined metric and morphological evaluation was conducted to allocate each Omo tooth to either robust or nonrobust categories. Further taxonomic affinities were then examined. Our results indicate that nonrobust and robust lineages cooccur by circa 2.7 myr. We consider the Shungura robust specimens from Members C through F to represent A. aethiopicus. A significant phenetic transformation occurs at circa 2.3 myr, with the mosaic emergence of the derived A. boisei morphology across Member G times. Characterization of the East African nonrobust lineage is more difficult because of the comparatively subtle morphological differences seen among the dentitions of A. afarensis, A. africanus, and early Homo. The earlier Members B and C nonrobust specimens are difficult to evaluate and are considered indeterminate to genus or species. Both molars and premolars from Members E through G exhibit phenetic similarities to the early Homo condition and are considered as aff. Homo sp. indet. At present, there is no indication of multiple species in the Omo nonrobust sample at any time horizon. The 2–2.4 myr Omo nonrobust specimens exhibit some similarities to the stated Homo “rudolfensis” condition in size and morphology and are likely to represent the ancestral condition of the genus Homo. The bearing of these results on interpretations of early hominid evolution and diversification is considered. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Taxonomic and functional implications of mandibular scaling in early hominins

Body mass estimates for fossil hominin taxa can be obtained from suitable postcranial and cranial variables. However, the nature of the taphonomic processes that winnow the mammalian fossil record are such that these data are usually only available for the minority of the specimens that comprise the hypodigm of a species. This study has investigated the link between species mean body mass and the height and width of the mandibular corpus in a core sample of 23 species of extant simians. The slopes of the least-squares regressions for the whole sample and for the hominoid subset are similar. However, the intercepts differ so that for a given body mass, a hominoid will generally have a smaller mandible than a generalized simian. The same mandibular measurements were taken on 75 early hominin mandibles assigned to eight species groups. When mandibular corpus height- and width-derived estimates of body mass for the fossil taxa were compared with available postcranial and cranial-derived body mass estimates, the eight early hominin species sort into four groups. The first, which includes A. afarensis and A. africanus, has mandibles which follow a “generalized simian” scaling relationship. The second group, which comprises the two “robust” australopithecine species, P. boisei and P. robustus, has mandibles which scale with body mass as if they are “super-simians,” for they have substantially larger mandibles than a simian with the same body mass. The two “early Homo” species, H. habilis sensu stricto and H. rudolfensis, make up the third group. It has mandibular scaling relationships that are intermediate between that of the comparative simian sample and that of the hominoid subsample. The last of the four groups comprises H. ergaster and H. erectus; their mandibles scale with body mass as if they were hominoids, so that of the four groups they have the smallest mandibles per unit body mass. These results are related to comparable information about relative tooth size. Their relevance for attempts to interpret the dietary adaptations of early hominins are explored. Am J Phys Anthropol 105:523–538, 1998. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

The Belohdelie frontal: new evidence of early hominid cranial morphology from the Afar of Ethiopia

Study of the Belohdelie frontal has demonstrated that this four-million-year-old specimen belongs to a very generalized hominid that may be close to the divergence point of the hominid and African ape clades. Features associated with the temporalis muscle in the Belohdelie frontal and other new hominids from Hadar (AL 333-125) and West Turkana (KNM-ER 17000) suggest that the earliest hominids shared a large anterior component of this muscle relative to the extinct and extant apes. Results of this study support the phylogenetic hypothesis put forward by many workers that A. afarensis gave rise to the “robust” Australopithecus and A. africanus clades.     

How big were early hominids?

The recent discovery of new postcranial fossils, particularly associated body parts, of several Plio-Pleistocene hominids provides a new opportunity to assess body size in human evolution.¹ Body size plays a central role in the biology of animals because of its relationship to brain size, feeding behavior, habitat preference, social behavior, and much more. Unfortunately, the prediction of body weight from fossils is inherently inaccurate because skeletal size does not reflect body size exactly and because the fossils are from species having body proportions for which there are no analogues among modern species. The approach here is to find the relationship between body size and skeletal size in ape and human specimens of known body weight at death and to apply this knowledge to the hominid fossils, using a variety of statistical methods, knowledge of the associated partial skeletons of the of early hominids, formulae derived from a modern human sample, and, finally, common sense. The following modal weights for males and females emerge: Australopithecus afarensis, 45 and 29 kg; A. africanus, 41 and 30 kg; A. robustus, 40 and 32 kg; A. boisei, 49 and 34 kg; H. habilis, 52 and 32 kg. The best known African early H. erectus were much larger with weights ranging from 55 kg on up. These estimates imply that (1) in the earliest hominid species and the “robust” australopithecines body sizes remained small relative to modern standards, but between 2.0 and 1.7 m.y.a. there was a rapid increase to essentially modern body size with the appearance of Homo erectus; (2) the earliest species had a degree of body size sexual dimorphism well above that seen in modern humans but below that seen in modern gorillas and orangs which implies (along with other evidence) a social organization characterized by kin-related, multi-male groups with females who were not kin-related; (3) relative brain sizes increased through time; (4) there were two divergent trends in relative cheek-tooth size—a steady increase through time from A. afarensis to A. africanus to the “robust” australopithecines, and a decrease beginning with H. habilis to H. erectus to H. sapiens.     

Pliocene hominid mandibles from the Hadar formation,Ethiopia: 1974–1977 collections

The Pliocene hominid mandibles of A. afarensis from Hadar, Ethiopia are described anatomically.     

Sangiran 5,(“Pithecanthropus dubius”), homo erectus, “Meganthropus,” orPongo?

There are now eleven known mandibular remains from the Lower and Middle Pleistocene of Java, all but one being from the Sangiran site. All of these have been assigned toHomo erectus by most workers, while others have suggested as many as four different hominoid taxa. The author finds that the jaws cannot be a homogeneous sample. Morphologically, they are a mixture of undoubtedH. erectus, “H. meganthropus,” and possibly a pongid. If the jaws are allH. erectus then they have a sexual dimorphism exceeding that of modern gorillas. The case of“Pithecanthropus dubius” (Sangiran 5) is even less certain; even its hominid status is disputed. If it is indeedHomo it must be placed with the other“H. meganthropus” specimens. Its size and morphology are well beyond the known range anyH. erectus.     

Reexamination of the immature hominid maxilla from Tangier,Morocco

Reexamination of the immature Upper Pleistocene hominid maxilla from Mugharet el-'Aliya (Tangier), Morocco is undertaken in light of new evidence on the growth and development of Upper Pleistocene hominids. Metric and qualitative comparisons were made with 17 immature Upper Pleistocene maxillae, and with a recent Homo sapiens sapiens sample. No unambiguous criteria for aligning the maxilla with Neandertals were found, although one character, the degree of maxillary flexion on the zygoma, strongly suggests that this child could be a representative of H. s. sapiens. The probable lack of a canine fossa in Mugharet el-'Aliya 1, the primary criterion used previously to align it with Neandertals, cannot be accurately extrapolated to its adult form from this juvenile. The present evidence suggests that it is inappropriate to refer to this fossil as “Neandertal-like” or as a North African “neandertaloid.” Thus, the Tangier maxilla should not be cited as evidence for the presence of Neandertal facial features in North Africa during the Upper Pleistocene. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Variability and sexual dimorphism in canine size of Australopithecus and extant hominoids

Among extant hominoids degrees of sexual dimorphism and combined-sex coefficients of variation of canine teeth dimensions are highly correlated. Based on this relationship and coefficients of variation of four species of the genus Australopithecus, we predict degrees of canine dimorphism for these extinct hominids. The estimates show that A. afarensis is as dimorphic as the pygmy chimpanzee, A. boisei slightly less dimorphic than the pygmy chimpanzee, A. robustus slightly more dimorphic than the lar gibbon, while A. africanus overiaps with the lar gibbon as well as a modern human sample. These estimates represent degrees of canine dimorphism substantially lower than results based upon prior sexing of individual specimens. The relationship between canine dimorphism and body weight dimorphism is also analyzed. All four species of Australopithecus are considerably less dimorphic in canine size for their body weight dimorphism than expected. This dissociation of canine size dimorphism and body weight dimorphism is shared with modern humans, and thus represents a unique hominid trait. We interpret the moderate to strong body weight dimorphism in australopithecines as the result of intra- and intersexual selection typical of a polygynous mating structure, while the rather mild canine dimorphism is interpreted in terms of the “developmental crowding” model for reduction in canine size.     

On deflecting wrinkles and the Dryopithecus pattern in human mandibular molars

The utility of the traditional Dryopithecus pattern observations on mandibular molars in hominid dental analysis has been challenged recently from several points of view. Both fossil and contemporary evidence suggest the independence of cusp number and groove pattern on mandibular molars and the quality of dentitions which are normally available for study make it difficult to determine both aspects of pattern (cusp number, groove pattern) equally. Now this paper shows that one of the polymorphisms on the occlusal surface of mandibular molars, the “deflecting wrinkle,” may be responsible for the spurious appearance of a Y molar pattern. It presence serves to insure a “2–3 contact” and hence the identification of the Y molar pattern. While seldom reported in traditional dental data, the wrinkle varies in frequency from 7% in South African white first permanent molars to 78.5% in Bushmen. Elsewhere, Hanihara has proposed that it be considered part of the “Mongoloid dental complex”.     

Taxonomic status of the hominid mandible KNM-ER TI 13150 from the middle pliocene of tabarin,in Kenya

A partial mandible with two molars intact was recovered between 1981 and 1984 from deposits of the Middle Pliocene at Tabarin, in Kenya. It has been described and assigned toAustralopithecus cf.afarensis Johanson, White, andCoppens, 1978, with the condition that if ‘A. afarensis’ is revised, then the attribution may change. The taxon ‘A. afarensis’ was found to be invalid and was revised. The smaller specimens of ‘A. afarensis,’ to which the Tabarin mandible was said to be similar, were redescribed asHomo antiquus Ferguson, 1984. Since the Tabarin mandible andH. antiquus are successive transients of the same gens and are allopatric, the Tabarin hominid population is described as an earlier chronosubspecies,Homo antiquus praegens ssp. n.