Genetics and modern human origins

The past decade has brought considerable debate on the subject of modern human origins. The nature of the transition from Homo erectus to archaic Homo sapiens to modern H. sapiens has been examined primarily in terms of the relative contribution of archaic populations to later moderns, both within and among geographic regions. The recent African origin model proposes that modern humans appeared first in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, and then spread through the rest of the Old World, replacing preexisting populations.^1–6 This model has been referred to by a variety of names, including “replacement”, “Garden of Eden”, “Noah's Ark”, and “out of Africa”. The recent African origin model contrasts with the multiregional model, which proposes a species-wide transition to modern humans throughout the Old World during the past million years or more.^7–10 Indeed, some proponents of the multiregional model advocate placing Homo erectus and all subsequent species of Homo in the evolutionary species Homo sapiens.¹¹ This contrasts with the view that there were multiple hominid species during the Middle Pleistocene. The debate continues.^12,13 Although the multiregional model is often portrayed as proposing a simultaneous transition to anatomically modern humans in different geographic regions, it explicitly allows for varying degrees of continuity across time and space.¹⁰ This model, in the broad sense, does not rule out the possibility that modern human morphology appeared first in Africa and then spread through the rest of the Old World through gene flow. However, not all advocates of the multiregional model adhere to this specific subset of the general model.⁹ Comparison of the African and multiregional models is complicated by considering other, less extreme, hypotheses. Some versions of the recent African origin model imply a speciation event associated with the initial origin of modern humans. Another version, which suggests the possibility of some admixture between “moderns” leaving Africa and preexisting “archaics” elsewhere in the Old World,^14,15 is similar to some variants of the multiregional model, which also suggest that modern morphology appeared first in Africa, but involved admixture with other Old World populations.¹⁶ The major difference between these views appears to be the extent of admixture, although the exact level is never specified. A further complication is the possibility that multiple dispersals from Africa produced a more complicated pattern of worldwide variation.¹⁷     

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。     

The Conflict of Pre-Paradigm Schools in Modern Human Origins Research

The debate on the origins of modern humans is one of the oldest and most controversial in the field of palaeoanthropology. In the 1860s the debate was established in the evolutionary context and, as a conflict between two major schools and various sub-schools, it has continued up until the present day. The opposing schools were and still are, at best, in only partial alignment on the major scientific issues. Each of them is founded in its own metaphysics and focuses on an exclusive set of observations that it is capable of explaining. It would appear, therefore, that the history and present state of modern human origins research may be interpreted, in terms of Kuhn's philosophy of science, as an example of a pre-paradigm scientific dispute. This interpretation shows the immaturity of modern human origins research and calls for the re-examination of palaeoanthropology's basic theoretical propositions as well as of this sciencie's controversial relationship with the society.     

Crossing disciplinary lines: reconciling social and genomic perspectives on the histories and legacies of the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans

Over the past two decades, advances in the field of genomics have presented new opportunities to shed light upon the origins of enslaved Africans and their contemporary descendants. While this possibility has caused enthusiasm among members of the public, it has provoked contention within the academic sphere. This paper represents an attempt to reconcile these opposing disciplinary divisions, by examining, explaining, and discussing the processes involved in the production of genetic “ancestry” estimates, in order to moderate the aura of absolute “truth” that is often associated with such techniques. Our discussion focuses on two case studies – the academic use of ancient DNA analyses to estimate the geographic origins of historically enslaved individuals, and the commercialization of DNA “ancestry” testing techniques aimed at African-American roots-seekers – and draws upon recent ethnographic data relating to the experiences of test creators and test-takers, in order to contribute to this debate.     

The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin of behavioral modernity

Two contradictory theories of human cognitive evolution have been developed to model how, when, and among what hominid groups behavioral modernity emerged. The first model, which has long been the dominant paradigm, links these behavioral innovations to a cultural “revolution” by anatomically modern humans in Europe at around 40,000 years ago, coinciding with the first arrival of our species in this region.^1–4 According to this model, the sudden and explosive character of this change is demonstrated by the appearance in the archeological record of previously unseen carvings, personal ornaments, musical instruments, depictions on cave walls, and new stone and bone technology. A variant of this model sees behavioral modernity resulting from a rapid biological change, a brain mutation producing no apparent change in skull anatomy, which occurred in Europe or, more probably, in Africa at ca. 50,000 years ago.⁵⁶.     

The archeology of modern human origins

Two competing hypotheses have long dominated specialist thinking on modern human origins. The first posits that modern people emerged in a limited area and spread from there to replace archaic people elsewhere. Proponents of this view currently favor Africa as the modern human birthplace.^1–5 The second suggests that the evolution of modern humans was not geographically restricted, but invlved substantial continuity between archaic and modern populations in all major regions of the occupied world.^6–7 Based solely on the fossil record, both hypotheses are equally defensible, but the spread-and-replationships scenario is far more strongly supported by burgeoning data on the genetic relationships and diversity of living humans.^8–16 These data impy that there was a common ancestor for all living humans in Africa between 280,000 and 140,000 year ago, and that Neanderthals and other archaic humans who inhabited Eurasia during the same interval contributed few, if any, genes to living peiple. I argue here that the spread-and-replacement hypothesis is also more compatible with a third line of evidence: the spread-and-replacement hypothesis is also more compatible with a third line of evidence: the archeological record for human behavioral evolution.     

Les origines de l’art et les théories sur l’évolution humaine : le cas français

In recent years, we have witnessed an international debate about the question of the origins of art. On the one hand, some specialists have suggested that art appeared for the first time at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic associated to the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens. From this point of view, Paleolithic art as well as other hallmarks of behavioral modernity were exclusive to anatomically modern humans. On the other hand, some scholars have put into question the traditional paradigm concerning the origins of art and have suggested that artistic objects arose over a long period of time among different species, including Neanderthals. In order to contextualize this debate, we analyze in this article the history of the different interpretations and controversies concerning the question of the origins of art. Taking as reference the French case, we examine the connections between the different theories about art's origins suggested by Pleistocene art specialists during the last century and the dominant paradigms in human paleontology during the same period. Informed by one another, the question of the origins of art and that of human evolution seems to be inextricable linked.     

The origin of modern human behavior

Archaeology's main contribution to the debate over the origins of modern humans has been investigating where and when modern human behavior is first recognized in the archaeological record. Most of this debate has been over the empirical record for the appearance and distribution of a set of traits that have come to be accepted as indicators of behavioral modernity. This debate has resulted in a series of competing models that we explicate here, and the traits are typically used as the test implications for these models. However, adequate tests of hypotheses and models rest on robust test implications, and we argue here that the current set of test implications suffers from three main problems: (1) Many are empirically derived from and context-specific to the richer European record, rendering them problematic for use in the primarily tropical and subtropical African continent. (2) They are ambiguous because other processes can be invoked, often with greater parsimony, to explain their character. (3) Many lack theoretical justification. In addition, there are severe taphonomic problems in the application of these test implications across differing spans of time. To provide adequate tests of these models, archaeologists must first subject these test implications to rigorous discussion, which is initiated here.     

Links between the discovery of primates and anatomical comparisons with humans,the chain of being,our place in nature,and racism

I focus on the crucial links between the discovery of nonhuman primates by Westerners, discussions on our place in nature, the chain of being, racism, and the history of primate comparative anatomy and of so‐called “anatomical human racial studies.” Strikingly, for more than a millennium humans knew more about the internal anatomy of a single monkey species than about that of their own bodies. This is because Galen used monkeys to infer human anatomy, in line with the human‐animal continuity implied by the Greek notion of scala naturae. With the rise of Christianity, nonhuman primates were increasingly seen in a negative way. A more positive view emerged in the 14th century when nonhuman primates were directly studied/seen by Europeans, culminating in Tyson's 1699 work showing that chimps share more gross anatomical similarities with humans than with monkeys. However, the discomfort caused by this human‐chimp similarity then led to a new idea of animal‐human discontinuity, now related not to anatomy but to “civilization”: between Europeans vs. non‐Europeans + other primates. Moreover, Linnaeus' Systema Naturae and the emergence of “anatomical racial studies” influenced by Camper's craniology then led to even more extreme ideas, such as the notion that Europeans were both mentally and morphologically “ideal.” Unfortunately the biased and often incorrect “results” of such studies, combined with ideas based on Darwin's “struggle for survival”, became crucial in propaganda that lead to the rise of eugenics in the end of the 19th/first half of 20th centuries and that culminated in Nazism. Since the 1950s there has been an emphasis on the continuity/unity between all human groups and other primates, in great part influenced by what happened during World War 2. Reviews such as this one are, therefore, particularly necessary to illuminate and guard against attitudes against “the Other” and racist ideologies that are re‐emerging in modern political discourse across the globe.     

A whole new world of ancestors: Eocene anthropoideans from Africa

The last decade has witnessed enormous gains in our knowledge of early anthro-poidean primates,

1 “Anthropoidean” refers to members of the suborder Anthropoidea, whch contaings New and Old world monkeys, apes, and humans. These primates are also often called “simians,” “simiiforms” or “anthropoids;” the latter term is potentially confusing because it has often been used to refer only to the great apes.

the oldest known relatives of monkeys, apes and humans. Recent fossil finds in Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, and Oman, along with the associated geological research at these sites, have radically changed our models of anthro-poidean origins and differentiation. Instead of first appearing as robust-jawed herbivorous primates in the earliest Oligocene, it is now apparent that there was radiation of small-bodied, fruit-and-insect-eating anthropoideans during the Eocene. These early forms included at least two oligopithecines (squirrel-monkey-sized primates with a catarrhine dental formula) and two early “parapithecid monkeys” (three-premolared primates with lumpy, bunodont dentitions). In addition, several smaller species from Algeria and Egypt, ranging in size from pygmy marmosets to tamarins, are not definitely assignable to previously known families. Alongside the early anthropoideans, there are also at least four recently identified prosimian families. The continental Eocene of Africa—for years, little more than a blank on the paieontologi-cal map—now comprises an increasingly productive field source of new data that is important in deciphering phyletic and adaptive aspects of the prosimian-anthropoid transition.     

Multiple dispersals and modern human origins

Despite a massive endeavour, the problem of modern human origins not only remains unresolved, but is usually reduced to “Out of Africa” versus multiregional evolution. Not all would agree, but evidence for a single recent origin is accumulating. Here, we want to go beyond this debate and explore within the “Out of Africa” framework an issue that has not been fully addressed: the mechanism by which modern human diversity has developed. We believe there is no clear rubicon of modern Homo sapiens, and that multiple dispersals occurred from a morphologically variable population in Africa. Pre-existing African diversity is thus crucial to the way human diversity developed outside Africa. The pattern of diversity—behavioural, linguistic, morphological and genetic—can be interpreted as the result of dispersals, colonisation, differentiation and subsequent dispersals overlaid on former population ranges. The first dispersals would have originated in Africa from where two different geographical routes were possible, one through Ethiopia/Arabia towards South Asia, and one through North Africa/Middle East towards Eurasia.     

Taxonomy and systematics of the genus Pinus based on morphological, biogeographical and biochemical characters

For a long time, systematists have subdivided the genus Pinus into Diploxylon and Haploxylon according to morpho-anatomy and the number of needles. Nevertheless, divergent views remain regarding the structure of these two subgenera, mainly at the section and subsection levels. We propose to clarify some of these uncertainties by studying 45 Pinus taxa of different origins. Our results, based on morphometric and biochemical (flavonoids) parameters, complement those obtained from classical anatomical and morphological studies, and also modern macro-molecular markers (proteins, DNA). We confirm the subdivision of the genus into Pinus = Diploxylon versus Strobus = Haploxylon and the further sectioning of the first subgenus into sections Pinus and Trifoliae. Moreover, we specify the different subsections, whereby the contents of the methylated flavonol isorhamnetin coupled with needle morphometry play a significant role (subsections Pinus vs. Pinaster in section Pinus, Australes + Ponderosae vs. Contortae in section Trifoliae). Given that isorhamnetin proceeds from quercetin by the irreversible action of an O-methyl-transferase, this methylated flavonol becomes a dynamic marker in such way that the taxa rich in isorhamnetin can be considered as more “derived = evolved”. In addition, there exists a highly significant negative correlation between methylation index and number of needles. Consequently, the pines from the Holarctic Strobus group (with five needles and low isorhamnetin contents) can be considered as “ancestral”, in reference to a Laurasian origin of the genus. In the subgenus Pinus, the Nearctic group (=section Trifoliae) remains near the ancestral base. On the other hand, the Holarctic subset “densiflorae” is connected to the other members (mainly European) of the polyphyletic subsection Pinus, in particular with series “sylvestres”. Because of their very high contents of isorhamnetin, the Mediterranean pines result from an accentuation of this evolutionary trend (=subsection Pinaster). In fact, the pines growing under hot and dry climates (Mediterranean region) are highly evolved compared to those from cold and/or wet regions (Eurasia and North America but also, to a lesser extent, the south-eastern USA and East Asia). Our dynamic propositions based on plant phenolics data complete those from more modern macromolecular (DNA, proteins) studies.     

A pathway to cure chronic infection with Toxoplasma gondii through immunological intervention

Toxoplasma gondii, an obligate intracellular protozoan parasite, can establish a chronic infection in the brain by forming tissue cysts. This chronic infection is widespread in humans worldwide including developed countries, with up to one third of the population being estimated to be infected with this parasite. Diagnosis of this chronic infection is usually conducted by serological detection of IgG antibodies against this parasite. Since infected individuals remain positive for these antibodies for years, it has generally been considered that this infection is a lifelong infection. It is also often considered that this chronic infection is “latent” or “quiescent”. However, recent discovery of the capability of perforin-dependent, CD8⁺ T cell-mediated immune responses to eliminate T. gondii cysts in collaboration with phagocytes illustrated dynamic interplays between T. gondii cysts and host immune system during this chronic infection. Importantly, the cytotoxic T cell-mediated protective immunity is able to remove mature cysts of the parasite. It is now clear that chronic T. gondii infection is not “latent” or “quiescent”. Elucidating the mechanisms of the dynamic host-pathogen interactions between the anti-cyst protective immunity and T. gondii cysts and identifying the pathway to appropriately activate anti-cyst CD8⁺ cytotoxic T cells would be able to open a door for eradicating T. gondii cysts and curing chronic infection with this parasite.     

Precision grips,hand morphology,and tools

This study asks whether there are discernable links between precision gripping, tool behaviors,

1 The term “tool behavior” has been variously used in the literature, in some cases implying exclusively tool making distinctive of humans (Susman, 1991) and in others referring variably to tool using and/or tool-making abilities, some shared with us by other animals (Susman, 1988a,b, 1994). In this paper the term is used to include both tool using and tool making behaviors of humans and non-humans; the term “tool making” is used in place of “tool behavior” whenever the discussion is focused upon distinguishing a capacity for removing flakes from stone preforms from a more general capacity to manipulate stone tools.

and hand morphology in modern hominoids, which may guide functional interpretation of early hominid hand morphology. Findings from a three-pronged investigation answer this question in the affirmative, as follows. (1) Experimental manufacture of early prehistoric tools provides evidence of connections between distinctive human precision grips and effective tool making. (A connection is not found between the “fine” thumb/index finger pad precision grip and early tool making.) (2) Manipulative behavior studies of chimpanzees, hamadryas baboons, and humans show that human precision grips are distinguished by the greater force with which objects may be secured by the thumb and fingers of one hand (precision pinching) and the ability to adjust the orientation of gripped objects through movements at joints distal to the wrist (precision handling). (3) Morphological studies reveal eight features distinctive of modern humans which facilitate use of these grips. Among these features are substantially larger moment arms for intrinsic muscles that stabilize the proximal thumb joints. Examination of evidence for these reveals that three of the eight features occur in Australopithecus afarensis, but limited thumb mobility would have compromised tool making. Also, Olduvai hand morphology strongly suggests a capacity for stone tool making. However, functional and behavioral implications of Sterkfontein and Swartkrans hand morphology are less clear. At present, no single skeletal feature can be safely relied upon as an indicator of distinctively human capabilities for precision gripping or tool making in fossil hominids. Am J Phys Anthropol 102:91–110, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Ancient mtDNA Analysis of Early 16th Century Caribbean Cattle Provides Insight into Founding Populations of New World Creole Cattle Breeds

The Columbian Exchange resulted in a widespread movement of humans, plants and animals between the Old and New Worlds. The late 15^th to early 16^th century transfer of cattle from the Iberian Peninsula and Canary Islands to the Caribbean laid the foundation for the development of American creole cattle (Bos taurus) breeds. Genetic analyses of modern cattle from the Americas reveal a mixed ancestry of European, African and Indian origins. Recent debate in the genetic literature centers on the ‘African’ haplogroup T1 and its subhaplogroups, alternatively tying their origins to the initial Spanish herds, and/or from subsequent movements of taurine cattle through the African slave trade. We examine this problem through ancient DNA analysis of early 16^th century cattle bone from Sevilla la Nueva, the first Spanish colony in Jamaica. In spite of poor DNA preservation, both T3 and T1 haplogroups were identified in the cattle remains, confirming the presence of T1 in the earliest Spanish herds. The absence, however, of “African-derived American” haplotypes (AA/T1c1a1) in the Sevilla la Nueva sample, leaves open the origins of this sub-haplogroup in contemporary Caribbean cattle.     

The zooarchaeology and paleoecology of early hominin scavenging

Questions about the timing, frequency, resource yield, and behavioral and biological implications of large animal carcass acquisition by early hominins have been a part of the “hunting‐scavenging debate” for decades. This article presents a brief outline of this debate, reviews the zooarchaeological and modern ecological evidence for a possible scavenging niche among the earliest animal tissue‐consuming hominins (pre‐2.0 Ma), revisits some of the questions that this debate has generated, and outlines some ways to explore answers to those questions with evidence from the archaeological record.     

“Lucy” (A.L. 288‐1) had five sacral vertebrae

A “long‐backed” scenario of hominin vertebral evolution posits that early hominins possessed six lumbar vertebrae coupled with a high frequency of four sacral vertebrae (7:12‐13:6:4), a configuration acquired from a hominin‐panin last common ancestor (PLCA) having a vertebral formula of 7:13:6‐7:4. One founding line of evidence for this hypothesis is the recent assertion that the “Lucy” sacrum (A.L. 288‐1an, Australopithecus afarensis) consists of four sacral vertebrae and a partially‐fused first coccygeal vertebra (Co1), rather than five sacral vertebrae as in modern humans. This study reassesses the number of sacral vertebrae in Lucy by reexamining the distal end of A.L.288‐1an in the context of a comparative sample of modern human sacra and Co1 vertebrae, and the sacrum of A. sediba (MH2). Results demonstrate that, similar to S5 in modern humans and A. sediba, the last vertebra in A.L. 288‐1an exhibits inferiorly‐projecting (right side) cornua and a kidney‐shaped inferior body articular surface. This morphology is inconsistent with that of fused or isolated Co1 vertebrae in humans, which either lack cornua or possess only superiorly‐projecting cornua, and have more circularly‐shaped inferior body articular surfaces. The level at which the hiatus' apex is located is also more compatible with typical five‐element modern human sacra and A. sediba than if only four sacral vertebrae are present. Our observations suggest that A.L. 288‐1 possessed five sacral vertebrae as in modern humans; thus, sacral number in “Lucy” does not indicate a directional change in vertebral count that can provide information on the PLCA ancestral condition. Am J Phys Anthropol 156:295–303, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Form in the context of function: Fundamentals of an energy effective striding walk,the role of the plantigrade foot and its expected size

What morphological and functional factors allow for the unique and characteristic upright striding walk of the hominin lineage? Predictive models of locomotion that arise from considering mechanisms of energy loss indicate that collision-like losses at the transition between stance limbs are important determinants of bipedal gait. Theoretical predictions argue that these collisional losses can be reduced by having “functional extra legs” which are physically the heel and the toe part of a single anatomical foot. The ideal spacing for these “functional legs” are up to a quarter of a stride length, depending on the model employed. We evaluate the foot in the context of the dynamics of a bipedal system and compare predictions of optimal foot size against empirical data from modern humans, the Laetoli footprint trackways, and chimpanzees walking bipedally. The dynamics-based modeling approach provides substantial insight into how, and why, walking works as it does, even though current models are too simple to make predictions at a level adequate to anticipate specific morphology except at the most general level.     

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.     

Human nonshivering thermogenesis

Metabolic responses, skin temperatures and changes in heart rate and blood pressure were measured in a control group and in “polar swimmers” after infusion of different doses of epinephrine, norepinephrine and isoprenaline. In controls the highest infusion dose of isoprenaline (0.1 μg min⁻¹ kg⁻¹) increased metabolic rate in normal humans by 36%, while the highest infusion doses of epinephrine and norepinephrine (0.45 μg min⁻¹ kg⁻¹) increased metabolic rate by 24%, only. In “polar swimmers” the epinephrine thermogenesis was potentiated significantly, reaching about 45% of the basal metabolic rate. The norepinephrine and isoprenaline thermogenesis were not different from that of the control group. It is concluded that in humans the epinephrine thermogenesis is probably located in muscles and in the white fat (Simonsen et al., 1992), and may be the principal mechanism of metabolic adaptation to cold. It was calculated that the increased capacity of epinephrine thermogenesis in cold exposed “polar swimmers” could theoretically shift the survival limit downwards to lower environmental temperatures by about 5°C.