俄罗斯远东地区特罗伊茨基靺鞨墓地人骨的稳定同位素分析

稳定同位素分析技术近年来发展为复原古代民族饮食结构、社会经济模式的有效手段。本文应用该技术首次对俄罗斯远东地区特罗伊茨基靺鞨墓地出土人骨中的C、N同位素比值进行了测定。结果显示,特罗伊茨基墓地古代靺鞨居民日常饮食习惯中保持着较高比例的动物性食物摄入,植物类食物的摄入中C3类植物的比重较高。结合其他相关资料,初步推测该组靺鞨居民已经有一定农业,渔猎业和饲养业在经济生活中占据重要地位,黑水靺鞨和粟末靺鞨的经济类型有所差别。本文的研究结果可以为复原古代民族的经济模式研究提供有益的线索。     

内蒙古和林格尔县将军沟墓地人骨研究

本文对内蒙古和林格尔县将军沟墓地出土的14例战国中晚期的颅骨(男性11例,女性3例)进行了人类学的观察和测量,认为该组颅骨在种族特征上可归入现代亚洲蒙古人种中的东亚人种范围。在若干古代和现代对比组中,将军沟组古代居民的体质特征与毛饮合并A组、近代华北组最为接近。     

内蒙古宁城山嘴子辽墓契丹族颅骨的人类学特征

本文对内蒙古自治区赤峰市宁城县山嘴子辽代墓地出土的古代契丹族颅骨的人类学特征进行了研究。9例男性颅骨和3例女性颅骨中的大多数标本在种族特征上均可归入现代亚洲蒙古人种中的西伯利亚(北亚)人种范畴,少数标本中的个别特征则显示出某种程度上的东亚人种或北极(东北亚)人种的影响。在若干古代和近代对比组中,山嘴子辽代契丹族的体质特征分别与汉代鲜卑族和近代蒙古族最为接近。     

内蒙古林西县井沟子遗址西区墓地人骨研究

本文对内蒙古林西县井沟子遗址西区墓地出土的春秋—战国时期的颅骨进行了人类学的考察,该组颅骨在种族特征上可归入现代亚洲蒙古人种中的北亚人种范围。在若干古代和现代对比组中,井沟子组古代居民的体质特征与汉代扎赉诺尔组、近代蒙古组最为接近。     

克什克腾旗龙头山青铜时代颅骨的人类学研究

本文对内蒙古自治区赤峰市克什克腾旗龙头山青铜时代遗址发掘出土的颅骨进行了人种学研究。１１例男性颅骨和３例女性颅骨的种族特征基本相似,均可归入现代亚洲蒙古人种的东亚人种范畴,某些特征则显示出北亚人种的影响。在若干古代和近代对比组中,龙头山青铜时代居民的体质特征分别与顺山屯青铜时代居民和近代华北居民最为接近。     

内蒙古清水河县姑姑庵汉代墓地人骨研究

本文对内蒙古清水河县姑姑庵墓地出土的13例汉代的颅骨(男性6例, 女性7例)进行了体质人类学的研究, 该组颅骨在种族特征上可归入现代亚洲蒙古人种中的东亚人种范围。在若干古代和现代对比组中,姑姑庵汉代居民的体质特征与将军沟组、近代华北组最为接近,很可能是来自中原地区的移民或是当地早期中原移民的后裔。     

黑龙江省尼尔基库区的清代达斡尔人骨

2002年至2004年,为配合尼尔基水库的建设,黑龙江省文物考古研究所在库区内发掘了团结、全发、铁古拉三处清代达斡尔人墓葬,为研究清代嫩江流域少数民族的生活习俗、生产经济状况、社会历史等提供了重要的实物依据。本文对三处墓葬所出土的6例(男性4例,女性2例)清代达斡尔人颅骨进行体质人类学研究。该组颅骨在种族特征上可归入现代亚洲蒙古人种中的北亚人种范围,同时又与现代亚洲蒙古人种东亚类型存在着若干相似之处。在若干古代对比组中,该组达斡尔人颅骨的形态特征与山嘴子组和萧氏后族组所代表的辽代契丹人体质特征最为接近,对于研究达斡尔族族源具有一定的参考价值。     

零口战国墓颅骨的人类学特征

本文对陕西省临潼县零口村遗址发掘出土的战国秦墓颅骨的人类学特征进行了研究。该组颅骨的种族特征可归入现代亚洲蒙古人种的东亚人种范畴。在若干近代和古代对比组中 ,零口组的基本体质类型与近代华北组、新石器时代的宝鸡组和关中合并组、青铜时代的上马组和殷墟中小墓②组最为接近。     

吉林省白城市双塔遗址东周时期人骨研究

双塔遗址是近年来松嫩平原先秦时期最为重要的考古发现,该遗址为建立白城西部乃至科尔沁沙地东部地区汉以前考古学文化的编年序列,廓清相关诸考古学文化的谱系关系,奠定了重要基础;为判断同类遗存年代提供了重要标尺,特别是东周时期人骨标本的发现,是迄今在科尔沁沙地东部地区发现的唯一一份保存较为完整的人骨资料。本文对出土9例东周时期的颅骨(男性6例,女性3例)进行了体质人类学的研究,该组颅骨在种族特征上可归入现代亚洲蒙古人种中的北亚人种范围。在若干古代和现代对比组中,双塔组东周时期居民的体质特征与井沟子东周时期居民、近代蒙古人最为接近,属于先秦时期我国北方地区的"古蒙古高原类型",佐证了这一时期该地区的人口流动。     

扎赉诺尔汉代墓葬第三次发掘出土颅骨的初步研究

本文对内蒙古自治区呼伦贝尔盟新巴尔虎右旗扎赉诺尔汉代游牧民6族墓葬第三次发掘出土的颅骨进行了人种学研究。五例男性颅骨和三例女性颅骨的种族特征基本相似，均与现代亚洲蒙古人种中的西伯利亚（北亚）蒙古人种最为接近本文材料是对过去已恨表的扎赉诺尔汉代游牧民族颅骨资料的重要补充。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor