Technical note: Comparability of Hrdlička's Catalog of crania data based on measurement landmark definitions

Archival sources of data are critical anthropological resources that inform inferences about human biology and evolutionary history. Craniometric data are one of the most widely available sources of information on human population history because craniometrics were critical in early 20th century debates about race and biological variation. As such, extensive databases of raw craniometric data were published at the same time that the field was working to standardize measurement protocol. Hrdli?ka published between 10 and 16 raw craniometric variables for over 8,000 individuals in a series of seven catalogs throughout his career. With a New World emphasis, Hrdli?ka's data complement those of Howells ( 1973 , 1989 ) and the two databases have been combined in the past. In this note we verify the consistency of Hrdli?ka's measurement protocol throughout the Catalog series and compare these definitions to those used by Howells. We conclude that 12 measurements are comparable throughout the Catalogs, with five of these equivalent to Howells' measurements: maximum cranial breadth (XCB), basion‐bregma height (BBH), maximum bizygomatic breadth (ZYB), nasal breadth (NLB), and breadth of the upper alveolar arch (MAB). Most of Hrdli?ka's measurements are not strictly comparable to those of Howells, thus limiting the utility of combined datasets for multivariate analysis. Four measurements are inconsistently defined by Hrdli?ka and we recommend not using these data: nasal height, orbit breadth, orbit height, and menton‐nasion height. This note promotes Hrdli?ka's tireless efforts at data collection and re‐emphasizes observer error as a legitimate concern in craniometry as the field shifts to morphometric digital data acquisition. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2011. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Upper pleistocene human remains from Vindija cave,Croatia, Yugoslavia

Human remains excavated from Vindija cave include a large although fragmentary sample of late Mousterian-associated specimens and a few additional individuals from the overlying early Upper Paleolithic levels. The Mousterian-associated sample is similar to European Neandertals from other regions. Compared with earlier Neandertals from south central Europe, this sample evinces evolutionary trends in the direction of Upper Paleolithic Europeans. Compared with the western European Neandertals, the same trends can be demonstrated, although the magnitude of difference is less, and there is a potential for confusing temporal with regional sources of variation. The early Upper Paleolithic-associated sample cannot be distinguished from the Mousterian-associated hominids. We believe that this site provides support for Hrdli?ka's “Neandertal phase” of human evolution, as it was originally applied in Europe.     

The correlation of bone robusticity with the perforation of the coronoid-olecranon septum in the humerus of man

Hrdli?ka ('32) theorized that the tendency towards perforation of the coronoid-olecranon septum of the humerus was phylogenetic in origin, but its appearance also seemed to be negatively correlated with bone size. By determining the correlation between the occurrence of the perforation and certain standard anthropometric measurements, the present study provides a statistical tool to test Hrdli?ka's hypothesis more rigorously. The minimum middle diameter of the humerus is shown to be significantly related to the occurrence of septal perforation, in samples of archeological skeletal material. Using the minimum middle diameter of the humerus as a quantitative assessment of robusticity, more robust samples were found to have smaller mean percentages of perforation.     

Ape-like endocast of “ape-man” Taung

I have identified and illustrated a spherical “dimple” or “depression” on the Taung endocast as indicating the most likely position of the medial end of the lunate sulcus but have not drawn an actual lunate sulcus on Taung because one is not visible. In a recent paper, R.L. Holloway (Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 77:27–33, 1988) drew a lunate sulcus on his copy of the Taung endocast, incorrectly attributed this sulcus to me, and used it to obtain a ratio of 0.254 to describe “Falk's” position of the lunate sulcus. My published ratio of 0.242 for Taung (Falk: Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 67:313–315, 1985a) was not considered, although the focus of Holloway's paper was my assessment of the position of the lunate sulcus. Holloway also excluded published ratios for a chimpanzee in my collection from his statistical analysis but, even so, my published ratio for Taung is still only 1.5 standard deviations from his chimpanzee mean. If my chimpanzee brain is included in the sample, the ratio for Taung is 1.2 standard deviations from the mean. Furthermore, one of Holloway's own chimpanzees (B60–7) has a ratio of 0.241, just 0.001 below my ratio for Taung. There is no sulcus where Holloway has drawn one on Taung, his “F(LS)” is not mine, his 2 mm error is not mine, and the correct ratio for my measurement of Tuang is the one that I published, not the one that Holloway attributes to me. Assessment of Holloway's chimpanzee data supports my claim that the dimple on the Taung endocast is within the chimpanzee range for the medial end of the lunate sulcus.     

Lansing man: a half century later

One of the major fossil man finds from the Plains Area of the United States and one of the few from Kansas are the “Lansing Man” skeletons. The discovery was in February 1902 on the west bank of the Missouri River, south of Leavenworth near the town of Lansing, Kansas. Much was written about this skeleton following its discovery and Ale? Hrdli?ka's only trip to Kansas in October 1902 was to observe the skeletons and the site of its discovery. Numerous articles were written suggesting that “Lansing Man” was many thousands of years old. Geologists could not agree on an age of the skeletons, an adult male and a six to seven year old child, because they were discovered in deposits of slumped loess, confusing the geological picture. Hrdli?ka states that the skeletons were physically identical to Indians of that region at the period of historical contact. William Holmes had the skull sent to the U. S. National Museum and the remaining bones were placed in the Museum of Natural History at the University of Kansas. While on the staff of the University of Kansas, I had Carbon-14 tests conducted on bones from the lower limbs by three separate laboratories. These dates range from 2660 to 5020 B.C. with an average date of four samples (1 each from Geochron Laboratories and the University of Michigan and two from the Smithsonian Institution) of 3579 B.C. This suggests that the “Lansing Man” skeletons are Early Middle Archaic and not Paleoindian. They do, however, represent the oldest known human skeletons from Kansas.     

150 Jahre “Biogenetisches Grundgesetz”

150 years “Biogenetic Law” The zoologist Ernst Haeckel is one of the most well‐known, but also one of the most controversial scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was one of the earliest Darwinists and a forceful advocate of evolutionary theory. Together with “Darwin's Bulldog” Thomas Henry Huxley, Haeckel was a central figure in the early history and popularization of Darwinism. But his name is not only a symbol for the disputes about the theory of evolution and its popularization, but also for a campaign for monism, a world‐view or philosophy created by Haeckel himself. Together with Fritz Müller, Ernst Haeckel was one of the first to formulate a “Biogenetic Law”. He also created several concepts and terms still in use in biology today, such as “ontogeny”, “phylogeny”, “ecology”, “cholorogy” and “phylum” in his first, and maybe most important book “General Morphology of Organism”, which was published in 1866, 150 years ago.     

Teilhard de Chardin,human evolution and “Piltdown Man”

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit paleontologist, priest, and philosopher. In the figures published in articles in 1943 and 1951, he attempted to draw a “plausible schematic reconstruction of the natural connections between fossil men” and a “phyletic composition of the human group”. I draw attention to Teilhard's reference to Eoanthropus (“Piltdown Man”) in small print in his figure that was first printed in 1943. Most suspiciously, there is no reference to this (supposedly important) genus in the associated text, nor is there any reference whatsoever to “Piltdown Man” in the article published in 1951. Even as early as January 1913, Teilhard may have been aware that “Piltdown Man” was a hoax or joke, artificially associating a human cranium with a modified orangutan mandible. A new suspect is Edgar Willett (rather than Charles Dawson). Teilhard may have been an advisory accomplice in a joke that went seriously wrong.     

Physical anthropology in 1918 and the founding of the U.S. journal

In 1918, the first issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology was prepared and distributed by Aleš Hrdlička, the Curator of Physical Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution. This was a singular act, both in the general and specific sense. It was the first journal of physical anthropology published in the United States, and it was a sole effort by Hrdlička, who was committed to promoting and recognizing physical anthropology as a new science in America. On this 100th anniversary of the founding of the journal, Hrdlička's efforts were successful: physical/biological anthropology is a strong and timely discipline that represents a major area of scientific research today.     

Russian comparative embryology takes form: a conceptual metamorphosis toward “evo‐devo”

This essay recapitulates major paths followed by the Russian tradition of what we refer to today as evolutionary developmental biology (“evo‐devo”). The article addresses several questions regarding the conceptual history of evolutionary embryological thought in its particularly Russian perspective: (1) the assertion by the St. Petersburg academician Wolff regarding the possible connections between environmental modifications during morphogenesis and the “transformation” of species, (2) the discovery of shared “principles” underlying animal development by von Baer, (3) the experimental expression of Baer's principles by Kowalevsky and Mechnikoff, (4) Severtsov's theory of phylembryogenesis, (5) Filatov's approach to the study of evolution using comparative “developmental mechanics”, and (6) Shmalgausen's concept of “stabilizing” selection as an attempt to elucidate the evolution of developmental mechanisms. The focus on comparative evolutionary embryology, which was established by Kowalevsky and Mechnikoff, still continues to be popular in present‐day “evo‐devo” research in Russia.     

THE CONTRIBUTION OF GENE MOVEMENT TO THE “TWO RULES OF SPECIATION”

The two “rules of speciation”—the Large X‐effect and Haldane's rule—hold throughout the animal kingdom, but the underlying genetic mechanisms that cause them are still unclear. Two predominant explanations—the “dominance theory” and faster male evolution—both have some empirical support, suggesting that the genetic basis of these rules is likely multifarious. We revisit one historical explanation for these rules, based on dysfunctional genetic interactions involving genes recently moved between chromosomes. We suggest that gene movement specifically off or onto the X chromosome is another mechanism that could contribute to the two rules, especially as X chromosome movements can be subject to unique sex‐specific and sex chromosome specific consequences in hybrids. Our hypothesis is supported by patterns emerging from comparative genomic data, including a strong bias in interchromosomal gene movements involving the X and an overrepresentation of male reproductive functions among chromosomally relocated genes. In addition, our model indicates that the contribution of gene movement to the two rules in any specific group will depend upon key developmental and reproductive parameters that are taxon specific. We provide several testable predictions that can be used to assess the importance of gene movement as a contributor to these rules in the future.     

Transcriptome analysis reveals the difference between “healthy” and “common” aging and their connection with age‐related diseases

A key goal of aging research was to understand mechanisms underlying healthy aging and develop methods to promote the human healthspan. One approach is to identify gene regulations unique to healthy aging compared with aging in the general population (i.e., “common” aging). Here, we leveraged Genotype‐Tissue Expression (GTEx) project data to investigate “healthy” and “common” aging gene expression regulations at a tissue level in humans and their interconnection with diseases. Using GTEx donors' disease annotations, we defined a “healthy” aging cohort for each tissue. We then compared the age‐associated genes derived from this cohort with age‐associated genes from the “common” aging cohort which included all GTEx donors; we also compared the “healthy” and “common” aging gene expressions with various disease‐associated gene expressions to elucidate the relationships among “healthy,” “common” aging and disease. Our analyses showed that 1. GTEx “healthy” and “common” aging shared a large number of gene regulations; 2. Despite the substantial commonality, “healthy” and “common” aging genes also showed distinct function enrichment, and “common” aging genes had a higher enrichment for disease genes; 3. Disease‐associated gene regulations were overall different from aging gene regulations. However, for genes regulated by both, their regulation directions were largely consistent, implying some aging processes could increase the susceptibility to disease development; and 4. Possible protective mechanisms were associated with some “healthy” aging gene regulations. In summary, our work highlights several unique features of GTEx “healthy” aging program. This new knowledge could potentially be used to develop interventions to promote the human healthspan.     

“Capacity”, “best interests”, “will and preferences” and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is the most up‐to‐date international legal instrument concerning the rights of persons with disabilities. Such persons are taken to include those with serious mental disorders. According to an authoritative interpretation of a crucial Article (Article 12 ‐ Equal recognition before the law) by the UN CRPD Committee, involuntary detention and treatment of people with mental health disabilities are prohibited under the Convention. Both conventional mental health law and “capacity‐based” law are deemed to violate the Convention. However, some other UN bodies are not in full agreement (for example, the UN Human Rights Committee and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), while others are less explicitly absolutist (for example, the Human Rights Council). Furthermore, strong criticisms of the position of the CRPD Committee have been mounted from a number of academic quarters. These criticisms center on whether the role of a person's ability to make a decision can be ignored, no matter the circumstances. Much of the above debate turns on the concept of “legal capacity” and the now often‐repeated precept that one must always respect the “will and preferences” of the person with a disability. However, “will and preferences” remains undefined. In this paper, I offer an analysis of “will and preferences” that can clarify interventions that may be acceptable or non‐acceptable under the terms of the UN Convention.     

What are genes “for” or where are traits “from”? What is the question?

For at least a century it has been known that multiple factors play a role in the development of complex traits, and yet the notion that there are genes “for” such traits, which traces back to Mendel, is still widespread. In this paper, we illustrate how the Mendelian model has tacitly encouraged the idea that we can explain complexity by reducing it to enumerable genes. By this approach many genes associated with simple as well as complex traits have been identified. But the genetic architecture of biological traits, or how they are made, remains largely unknown. In essence, this reflects the tension between reductionism as the current “modus operandi” of science, and the emerging knowledge of the nature of complex traits. Recent interest in systems biology as a unifying approach indicates a reawakened acceptance of the complexity of complex traits, though the temptation is to replace “gene for” thinking by comparably reductionistic “network for” concepts. Both approaches implicitly mix concepts of variants and invariants in genetics. Even the basic question is unclear: what does one need to know to “understand” the genetic basis of complex traits? New operational ideas about how to deal with biological complexity are needed.     

“Words matter.” A Response to Jørgensen's Treatment of Historic Range and Definitions of Reintroduction

According to Jørgensen, the definition of reintroductions is crucial to their proper implementation and she highlights a number of ambiguities in existing definitions, particularly associated with the concept of historic range. We could not agree more and have incorporated her suggested term of “indigenous range” rather than “historic range” into the current revision of the InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Guidelines for Reintroductions and other Conservation Translocations (in preparation by IUCN Species Survival Commission Reintroduction and Invasive Species Specialist Groups). We also agree with Jørgensen's interpretation that reintroductions are not always necessitated by humans causing the extirpation of species. However, we disagree with other aspects of Jørgensen's argument such as the critique of Seddon, the interpretation of previous IUCN guidance documents, and the recommendation that the conservation community “rethink the basic definition of reintroduction” rather than moving toward other translocation‐based interventions. With regard to the latter point, we emphasize that reintroductions are part of a spectrum of translocations and to focus on reintroductions alone would overlook the fact that introductions beyond a species' indigenous range are being attempted. The new revision of the IUCN guidelines incorporates the whole conservation translocation spectrum and aims to avoid the ambiguities of previous definitions highlighted by Jørgensen.     

Alpha male chimpanzee grooming patterns: implications for dominance “style”

In social primates, individuals use various tactics to compete for dominance rank. Grooming, displays and contact aggression are common components of a male chimpanzee's dominance repertoire. The optimal combination of these behaviors is likely to differ among males with individuals exhibiting a dominance “style” that reflects their tendency to use cooperative and/or agonistic dominance tactics. Here, we examine the grooming behavior of three alpha male chimpanzees at Gombe National Park, Tanzania. We found that (1) these males differed significantly in their tendency to groom with other males; (2) each male's grooming patterns remained consistent before, during and after his tenure as alpha, and (3) the three males tended to groom with high‐ middle‐ and low‐ranking partners equally. We suggest that body mass may be one possible determinant of differences in grooming behavior. The largest male exhibited the lowest overall grooming rates, whereas the smallest male spent the most time grooming others. This is probably because large males are more effective at physically intimidating subordinates. To achieve alpha status, a small male may need to compensate for reduced size by investing more time and energy in grooming, thereby ensuring coalitionary support from others. Rates of contact aggression and charging displays conformed to this prediction, suggesting that each male exhibited a different dominance “style.” Am. J. Primatol. 71:136–144, 2009. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Zur „Genauigkeit”︁ bei J. G. Mendel

When taking into account J. G. MENDEL's observed frequencies and comparing them with those noted down by BATESON, CORRENS and DARBISHIRE no ?striking”? preciseness in accordance with the statement made by F. WELLING is to be noticed statistically. By means of the four-field table measure K speculations as to a ?too precise”? indication of frequencies are to be refuted in an easy way.     

Mort ou persistance du darwinisme ? Regard d’un épistémologue

The article examines why evolutionary biologists have been haunted by the question whether they are “Darwinian” or “non-Darwinian” ever since Darwin's Origin of species. Modern criticisms addressed to Darwinism are classified into two categories: those concerning Darwin's hypothesis of “descent with modification” and those addressed to the hypothesis of natural selection. In both cases, although the particular models that Darwin proposed for these two hypotheses have been significantly revised and expanded, Darwin's general framework has constrained and canalized evolutionary research, in the sense that it has settled an array of possible theoretical choices. Gould's changing attitudes regarding Darwinism is taken as a striking illustration of this interpretation.     

Evaluating the “dual selection” hypothesis of canine reduction

A recently proposed model for canine reduction in hominid evolution (the “dual selection” model) suggests that canine reduction occurs as a result for incorporation of the canines into a functional incisal field. Among the evidence used to support this model are patterns of wear and occlusion of the canine teeth, particularly in female anthropoid primates. We examined wear and occlusal patterns of the canine teeth of 311 male and female anthropoid primates. We find no evidence that the canines are typically occluded tip-to-tip, or that they show wear patterns indicating a “gripping and pulling” function during food ingestion and processing. Furthermore, we do not find compelling evidence that the development of the mesial cristid is associated with canine reduction. While we agree that the mechanisms of selective pressures underlying canine reduction need to be investigated, the “dual selection” hypothesis is unsupported by comparative data. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Walking back the cat: Unsupervised classification as an aid in “remote” fossil prospecting

Counterintelligence analysts use a technique called “walking back the cat'' to reveal “moles” or others passing on disinformation in which they compare what they now know as fact against what their agents or informers had told them to expect about certain persons or events. 1 Thus, “walking back the cat” is a perfect metaphor for working backwards; that is, retracing the complex development of an event and examining the “run up” to it in order to gain useful insights about how that event unfolded. Perhaps paleoanthropology can profit from such an approach.     

“Uncovering” Industrial Symbiosis

Since 1989, efforts to understand the nature of interfirm resource sharing in the form of industrial symbiosis and to replicate in a deliberate way what was largely self‐organizing in Kalundborg, Denmark have followed many paths, some with much success and some with very little. This article provides a historical view of the motivations and means for pursuing industrial symbiosis—defined to include physical exchanges of materials, energy, water, and by‐products among diversified clusters of firms. It finds that “uncovering” existing symbioses has led to more sustainable industrial development than attempts to design and build eco‐industrial parks incorporating physical exchanges. By examining 15 proposed projects brought to national and international attention by the U.S. President's Council on Sustainable Development beginning in the early 1990s, and contrasting these with another 12 projects observed to share more elements of self‐organization, recommendations are offered to stimulate the identification and uncovering of already existing “kernels” of symbiosis. In addition, policies and practices are suggested to identify early‐stage precursors of potentially larger symbioses that can be nurtured and developed further. The article concludes that environmentally and economically desirable symbiotic exchanges are all around us and now we must shift our gaze to find and foster them.