Humeral outlines in some hominoid primates and in Plio-Pleistocene hominids

A method of drawing outlines of the distal end of the humerus is presented and carried out on some pongids (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, Pongo pygmaeus), on modern man, and on some casts of Plio-Pleistocene hominids. It appears that these outlines are good indicators of the overall morphology and permit the distinguishing of the different hominoids. For example, the morphology of the pillars surrounding the fossa olecrani is useful for this purpose. In modern man, the lateral pillar is quadrangular, contrasting with the triangular medial one. In pongids, both of them are triangular; however, it is possible to note differences between Pongo and Pan. In the South Asian ape, there is a stronger anteroposterior flattening of the pillars as well as the diaphysis. The similarity of the shape of the pillars might be considered as a result of an adaptation to suspension. The differences might be due to different weights of the animals. Plio-Pleistocene hominids are variable with regard to the morphology of this region. For example, Gombore IB 7594 is similar to Homo. KNM ER 739 exhibits features intermediate between hominids and pongids. Finally, AL 288.1M is closer to pongids. These results confirm a previous anatomical work.     

Evolution of femur and tibia in higher primates: Adaptive morphological patterns and phylogenetic diversity

Seventy six metrical traits measured on the femur and tibia of three higher primate groups —Ceboidea, Cercopithecoidea, Hominoidea have been processed by various univariate and multivariate statistical methods to survey the process of evolution of the morphology of the femur and tibia in higher primates. Intragroup and intergroup variability, similarity and differences as well as various aspects of scaling and sexual dimorphism have been analyzed to study adaptive trends and phylogenetic diversity in higher primates, in individual superfamilies and to explore the adaptive morphological pattern of early hominids and basic differences between hominids and pongids. Two basic morphotypes of the femur and tibia in higher primates have been determined. They are (1) advanced hominoid morphotype (hominids and pongids) and (2) ancestral higher primate morphotype (platyrrhine and cattarrhine monkeys, early hominoids, and hylobatids). Cebid lower limb bones are adapted to arboreal quadrupedalism with antipronograde features while femur and tibia of cercopithecid monkeys are basically adapted to the semi-arboreal locomotion. Early hominoids (Proconsul) and hylobatids are morphologically different from pongids; some features are close toAteles or other monkey species. Pongids and hominids are taken as one major morphological group with different scaling and some functional and morphological similarities. Numerous analogous features were described on the lower limb skeleton ofPan andPongo showing analogous ecological parameters in their evolution. Major morphological and biomechanical trends are analyzed. It is argued that early advanced hominoid morphology is ancestral both to the pongids and to early hominids. The progressive morphological trend in early hominids has been found fromA. afarensis with ancestral hominid morphology, toH. habilis with an elongated femur and structural features similar to advanced hominids. A detailed phylogenetic analysis of higher primate femur and tibia is also presented.     

Brain endocast asymmetry in pongids and hominids: Some preliminary findings on the paleontology of cerebral dominance

Observations on petalial asymmetry for 190 hominoid endocasts are reported, and their statistical differences assessed. While all taxa of hominoids show asymmetries to various degrees, the patterns or combinations of petalial asymmetries are very different, with fossil hominids and modern Homo sapiens showing an identical pattern of left-occipital, right-frontal petalias, which contrasts with those found normally in pongids. Of the pongids, Gorilla shows the greater degree of asymmetry in left-occipital petalias. Only modern Homo and hominids (Australopithecus, Homo erectus, Neandertals) show a distinct left-occipital, right-frontal petalial pattern. Analysis by x² statistics shows the differences to be highly significant. Due to small sample size and incompleteness of endocasts, small-brained hominids, i.e., Australopithecus, are problematical. To the degree that gross petalial patterns are correlated with cognitive task specialization, we speculate that human cognitive patterns evolved early in hominid evolution and were related to selection pressures operating on both symbolic and spatiovisual integration, and that these faculties are corroborated in the archaeological record.     

Problems in the interpretation of Ramapithecus: with special reference to anterior tooth reduction

The dental proportions of Ramapithecus specimen FT 1271-2 (from Fort Ternan, Kenya) have been compared with undoubted fossil pongids from the Miocene of East Africa. Compared to its Miocene pongid contemporaries, Ramapithecus exhibits distinct anterior tooth reduction both in its incisor and canine dimensions. This distinction is most clearly seen in comparisons of Ramapithecus with pongids of similar cheek tooth size, i.e., Dryopithecus africanus and Pan paniscus. The differences in dental proportions between the phylogenetic lines of D. africanus to Pan and Ramapithecus to Homo are discussed in terms of various dietary hypotheses. The similarities in dental proportions of Gorilla and Ramapithecus illustrate their non-frugivorous dietary preferences, but have little or no value as far as the taxonomic assessment of Ramapithecus is concerned.     

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.     

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.     

Chimpanzee variation facilitates the interpretation of the incisive suture closure in South African Plio-Pleistocene hominids

For a better understanding of early hominid growth patterns, we need to compare skeletal maturation among humans and chimpanzees. This study provides new data on variation of the incisive suture closure in extant species to facilitate the understanding of growth patterns among South African Plio-Pleistocene hominids. The complete anterior closure of the incisive suture occurs early during human life, mostly before birth. In contrast, in chimpanzees a complete anterior closure occurs mostly after the eruption of either the first permanent molars (pygmy chimpanzees) or the third molars (common chimpanzees). The first aim of this study is to test whether the patterns of closure of both the anterior and palatal components of the incisive suture in chimpanzees accurately mirror their polytypism by investigating 720 museum specimens of known geographical origin. Then we use the data gleaned from the incisive suture closure in chimpanzees to determine whether there are different growth patterns among South African Plio-Pleistocene hominids and to interpret them. Results about the pattern of incisive suture closure are consistent with the differences among chimpanzees as revealed by molecular data. Thus, the variation in chimpanzee patterns of incisive suture closure facilitates the interpretation of morphology in South African fossil hominids. In Australopithecus (Paranthropus) robustus as compared to Australopithecus africanus, the complete anterior closure and, probably, the complete palatal closure of the incisive suture occurs during early life in the same way as they occur in humans. Moreover, the closure pattern observed on Stw 53, a supposed early Homo from Sterkfontein Member 5, is similar to that seen in A. africanus and in chimpanzees. Thus, with respect to the anterior component of the incisive suture, A. africanus and Stw 53 retain the primitive feature for which A. (P.) robustus and Homo share the derived character state. Finally, it is worth noting that the Taung child does not show the robust condition. Am J Phys Anthropol 105:121–135, 1998. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Longitudinal study of dental development in chimpanzees of known chronological age: Implications for understanding the age at death of Plio-Pleistocene hominids

Reconstruction of life history variables of fossil hominids on the basis of dental development requires understanding of and comparison with the pattern and timing of dental development among both living humans and pongids. Whether dental development among living apes or humans provides a better model for comparison with that of Plio-Pleistocene hominids of the genus Australopithecus remains a contentious point. This paper presents new data on chimpanzees documenting developmental differences in the dentitions of modern humans and apes and discusses their significance in light of recent controversies over the human or pongid nature of australopithecine dental development. Longitudinal analysis of 299 lateral head radiographs from 33 lab-reared chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) of known chronological age allows estimation of means and standard deviations for the age at first appearance of 8 developmental stages in the mandibular molar dentition. Results are compared with published studies of dental development among apes and with published standards for humans. Chimpanzees are distinctly different from humans in two important aspects of dental development. Relative to humans, chimpanzees show advanced molar development vis a vis anterior tooth development, and chimpanzees are characterized by temporal overlap in the calcification of adjacent molar crowns, while humans show moderate to long temporal gaps between the calcification of adjacent molar crowns. In combination with recent work on enamel incremental markers and CAT scans of developing dentitions of Plio-Pleistocene hominids, this evidence supports an interpretation of a rapid, essentially “apelike” ontogeny among australopithecines. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

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.     

Fossil primates and the evolution of some primate locomotor systems

Of Paleocene primates only Plesiadapis is complete enough to reconstruct locomotor patterns; it was an arboreal scrambler, perhaps functioning like a large squirrel. Eocene lemurs (adapids) show an array of locomotor types much like certain modern Malagasy lemurs. The European Eocene tarsiid Necrolemur and the American Hemiacodon show the beginning of saltatory specializations in possession of elongated calcaneum and astragalus. Although not a direct anthropoid ancestor Necrolemur seems one of the best models for representing the early locomotor type from which higher primates arose. The Oligocene primates of Egypt (among which are the earliest undoubted pongids) are preserved with a forest fauna. Structures of long bones suggest they were arboreal. A considerable number of Miocene ape bones are known and those of Pliopithecus and Dryopithecus indicate similar adaptations. Of African Miocene forms, Dryopithecus major was a large, gorilla-sized animal, and hence perhaps primarily terrestrial. D. africanus was somewhat more arboreally adapted and a partial brachiator. The Italian fossil Oreopithecus, a coal-swamp dweller, shows indications of bipedality in pelvic structure. Ramapithecus, which is presumably ancestral to Australopithecus, shows palatal and facial patterns much like these later hominids, and probably hence had locomotor patterns more like men than like living apes; its lack of the dental specializations of apes strongly supports this suggestion.     

Fractal analysis of the Orce skull sutures

Methods of fractal geometry (Mandelbrot, 1983) are used here to analyse the relative complexity of the sagittal and lambdoid sutures visible in the skull fragment formed by parts of an occipital squame and parietals found in a sealed deposit at the early Lower Pleistocene site of Venta Micena (Orce, Granada, Spain), generally regarded as human bone but occasionally suggested as belonging to an equid. For comparison with the fossil, corresponding sutures of various primates (hominids, pongids and cercopithecids) and two other groups of mammals (equids and ruminants) were analysed using the computer program FRACTAL-D (Slice, 1989) in order to determine their fractal dimensions as a measure of differential sutural design complexity. The results show that the fractal dimension of the Venta Micena skull sutures lies within the range of variation for infant specimens of both modern and Plio-Pleistocene hominids. Sutural complexity in young pongids and cercopithecids overlaps the range of fractal dimensions found in hominids, whereas values obtained from equids and ruminants are significantly greater than those for all the primates analysed here. Therefore, in terms of fractal dimension measures of relative complexity, the sutures preserved in the Venta Micena fossil could not have belonged to an equid (pace Agusti & Moyà-Sola, 1987); rather, its fractal dimension is consistent with the attribution of the fossil to an infant of Homo sp.     

Basicranial flexion,relative brain size,and facial kyphosis in Homo sapiens and some fossil hominids

Comparative work among nonhominid primates has demonstrated that the basicranium becomes more flexed with increasing brain size relative to basicranial length and as the -upper and lower face become more ventrally deflected (Ross and Ravosa [1993] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 91:305–324). In order to determine whether modern humans and fossil hominids follow these trends, the cranial base angle (measure of basicranial flexion), angle of facial kyphosis, and angle of orbital axis orientation were measured from computed tomography (CT) scans of fossil hominids (Sts 5, MLD 37/38, OH9, Kabwe) and lateral radiographs of 99 extant humans. Brain size relative to basicranial length was calculated from measures of neurocranial volume and basicranial length taken from original skulls, radiographs, CT scans, and the literature. Results of bivariate correlation analyses revealed that among modern humans basicranial flexion and brain size/basicranial length are not significantly correlated, nor are the angles of orbital axis orientation and facial kyphosis. However, basicranial flexion and orbit orientation are significantly positively correlated among the humans sampled, as are basicranial flexion and the angle of facial kyphosis. Relative to the comparative sample from Ross and Ravosa (1993), all hominids have more flexed basicrania than other primates: Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, and Australopithecus africanus do not differ significantly from Modern Homo sapiens in their degree of basicranial flexion, although they differ widely in their relative brain size. Comparison of the hominid values with those predicted by the nonhominid reduced major-axis equations reveal that, for their brain size/basicranial length, Archaic and Modern Homo sapiens have less flexed basicrania than predicted. H. erectus and A. africanus have the degree of basicranial flexion predicted by the nonhominid reduced major-axis equation. Modern humans have more ventrally deflected orbits than all other primates and, for their degree of basicranial flexion, have more ventrally deflected orbits than predicted by the regression equations for hominoids. All hominoids have more ventrally deflected orbital axes relative to their palate orientation than other primates. It is argued that hominids do not strictly obey the trend for basicranial flexion to increase with increasing relative brain size because of constraints on the amount of flexion that do not allow it to decrease much below 90°. Therefore, if basicranial flexion is a mechanism for accommodating an expanding brain among non-hominid primates, other mechanisms must be at work among hominids. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Skeletal evidence for precision gripping inCebus apella

We compared the thumb morphology ofCebus apella to that of several other primate species in order to determine whether robust thumbs are associated with tool-use. We found that thumb robusticity was greater forCebus apella than for all other represented nonhuman species exceptGorilla gorilla. Further, thumb robusticity inCebus apella was similar to that ofAustralopithecus afarensis but lesser than that of other represented hominids, including modern humans. We propose that precision gripping similar to that which occurs in tool-using context amongCebus probably occurred among Australopithecines prior to the emergence of sophisticated tool behavior amongHomo andParanthropus.     

A comment on relative molar breadth in Ramapithecus

The evidence for broad molars in Ramapithecus is reviewed in this study. Extensive comparisons are made with living and fossil pongids and the earliest undoubted hominids, the australopithecines. These comparisons suggest that Ramapithecus is like its closely related Indian relatives, D. indicus and D. sivalensis. Trends in molar shape are discussed as well as some problems in the interpretation of the adaptive meaning of relative molar breadth in hominoids.     

Morphometric variation in Plio-Pleistocene hominid distal humeri

The magnitude and meaning of morphological variation among Plio-Pleistocene hominid distal humeri have been recurrent points of disagreement among paleoanthropologists. Some researchers have found noteworthy differences among fossil humeri that they believe merit taxonomic separation, while others question the possiblity of accurately sorting these fossils into different species and/or functional groups. Size and shape differences among fossil distal humeri are evaluated here to determine whether the magnitude and patterns of these differences can be observed within large-bodied, living hominoids. Specimens analyzed in this study have been assigned to various taxa (Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, A. anamensis, Paranthropus, and early Homo) and include AL 288-1m, AL 288-1s, AL 137-48a, AL 322-1, Gomboré IB 7594, TM 1517, KNM-ER 739, KNM-ER 1504, KMN-KP 271 (Kanapoi), and Stw 431. Five extant hominoid populations are sampled to provide a standard by which to consider differences found between the fossils, including two modern human groups (Native American and African American), one group of Pan troglodytes, and two subspecies of Gorilla gorilla (G. g. beringei, G. g. gorilla). All possible pairwise d values (average Euclidean distances) are calculated within each of the reference populations using an exact randomization procedure. This is done using both raw linear measurements as well as scale-free shape data created as ratios of each measurement to the geometric mean. Differences between each pair of fossil humeri are evaluated by comparing their d values to the distribution of d values found within each of the reference populations. Principal coordinate analysis and an unweighted pair group method with arithmetic averages (UPGMA) cluster analysis are utilized to further assess similarities and differences among the fossils. Finally, canonical variates analysis and discriminant analysis are employed using all hominoid samples in order to control for correlations among variables and to identify those variables that discriminate among groups; possible affinities of individual fossils with specific extant species are also examined. The largest size differences, those between the small Hadar specimens and the two largest fossils (KNM-ER 739, IB 7594), can be accommodated easily within the ranges of variation of the two Gorilla samples, but are extreme relative to the other reference samples. The d values between most of the fossils based on shape data, with the notable exception of those associated with KNM-ER 739 and KNM-ER 1504, can be sampled safely within all five reference samples. Subsequent analyses further support the inference that KNM-ER 739 and KNM-ER 1504 are different from the other hominid humeri and possess a unique total morphometric pattern. In overall shape, the distal humeri of the other fossils (non-Koobi Fora) are most similar to living chimpanzees. The distal humerus of Paranthropus from Kromdraai (TM 1517e) is most similar to one of the Hadar specimens of A. afarensis (AL 137-48a), whereas the first specimen of A. africanus from Sterkfontein (Stw 431) is not closely linked to any of the other australopithecines. The A. anamensis humerus from Kanapoi exhibits no special affinities to A. afarensis or to modern humans. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Palato-facial comparison ofDryopithecus (Proconsul) with extant catarrhines

Multivariate shape analysis of 15 palato-facial measurements of the RusingaD. africanus and MorotoD. major specimens in comparison with apes and monkeys fails to support the hypothesis of special relationship between the dryopithecine species and extant African pongids. TheD. africanus shares with gibbons and cercopithecoids the primitive catarrhine metrical pattern, while chimpanzees and gorillas show a different, derived pattern. TheD. major shows partial convergence on the shape pattern typifying gorillas.     

The biological and chronological maturation of early hominids

Recent studies on the rate and pattern of dental development indicate that the growth and maturation of early hominids were more similar to the extant apes than to modern humans. This contrasts with the previously held opinion derived from combined dental development, pattern and attrition studies claiming that early hominids were more hominine in their development (Mann, 1975). This paper explores the origin of this difference of opinion and reviews immature hominid dentitions with the benefit of improved radiographs and new data on the pattern and rate of pongid dental development. Paranthropus and Australopithecus specimens are shown to possess an ape-like development pattern but incisor development is specialized in the former and superficially human-like in pattern. The present and recent studies on dental development rate and pattern justify the position that early hominids were more ape-like in their growth and development. Therefore, ages at death calculated from pongid dental development schedules are provided for most immature early hominids. More detailed studies of early hominid developmental biology are now possible. It is suggested that divergent heterochronic processes characterize changes in brain/body proportions during hominid evolution. Relative rates of bone remodeling processes can now be identified on early hominid skeletons. The paleodemographic analysis of early hominids is little changed by the developmental model one chooses.     

The postcranium of Miocene hominoids: Were dryopithecines merely “dental apes”?

This paper reviews the non-dental morphological configuration of Miocene hominoids with special reference to the hypothesis of linear relationships between certain fossil species and living analogues. Metrical analysis of the wrist shows thatDryopithecus africanus andPliopithecus vindobonensis are unequivocally affiliated with the morphological pattern of quadrupedal monkeys. Similar analyses of the fossil hominoid elbow shows that they are more cercopithecoid-like than hominoid-like. Multivariate analysis of theP. vindobonensis shoulder in the matrix of extant Anthropoidea indicate that this putative hylobatine fossil shows no indication of even the initial development of hominoid features. The total morphological pattern of theD. africanus forelimb as assessed by principal coordinates analysis of allometrically adjusted shape variables has little resemblance toPan. Likewise, the feet and proximal femora of the Miocene fossils are unlike any living hominoid species. Even theD. africanus skull is similar to extant cercopithecoids in several features. Although ancestors cannot be expected to resemble descendants in every way, the striking dissimilarity between Miocene and extant hominoids seems to eliminate the consideration of a direct ancestor-descendant relationship between specific Miocene and modern forms.     

Affinity,hominid evolution and Creationism. New computer methods weaken the Creationists' position

Using samples of skulls of early and modern hominids and modern pongids we compare the plausibility of Evolutionist and Creationist viewpoints. Multivariate methods are used to assess the corollary of Creationism that all fossil specimens which Evolutionists consider to be hominids are either apes or humans. We conclude that the results of this study cannot easily be accommodated within a Creationist framework, and, therefore, contribute substantial evidence for the Evolutionist viewpoint.     

Functional anatomy of the hand of Australopithecus africanus

The Sterkfontein hand bones, attributed to Australopithecus africanus, were analysed to determine potential hand function of the power grip type of this species. The metacarpus is as stable as that of modern humans, as indicated by the depth of the groove on the base of metacarpal 2, the styloid process of metacarpal 3, the base articular surface areas, and the ligament markings on the bases of the metacarpals. The flexion and rotation of metacarpal 5 might have been less than that of modern humans, due to a more marked ventral articular lip on the base. The metacarpus acts as a lever, acting in various planes. The extensor carpi ulnaris and extensor carpi radialis longus muscles were probably better developed than in modern humans. The extensor carpi radialis brevis and flexor carpi radialis muscles would probably have been as well developed as in modern humans. None of the long tendons have a mechanical disadvantage as compared to modern humans. The metacarpals have a high robusticity index. The proximal phalanges show some midshaft swelling, slightly greater curvature than in modern humans, and some side to side bowing: pongid features. The fibrous flexor sheath markings are well developed, but resemble those of modern humans rather than those of the pongids. A single middle phalanx resembles that of modern humans, and has well developed ridges for insertion of the flexor digitorum superficialis muscle. The distal phalanx of the thumb has a well developed region for insertion of the flexor pollicis longus muscle, and has a mechanical advantage over modern humans for action of this muscle at the interphalangeal joint. The features indicate that the hand of A. africanus was well adapted to powerful hand use, as in hammering, striking, chopping, scraping, and gouging actions, as well as for throwing and climbing activities.