A rediagnosis of the genus Australopithecus

A rediagnosis of the genus Australopithecus has become desirable because of the recent increase of both cranial and post cranial specimens, and new analyses of functional morphology. The diagnosis proposed here builds on previous diagnoses through the addition of new criteria and the reemphasis of certain features already known to characterize the genus.     

Variation in the Habiline Crania – Must it be Taxonomic?

The problem of whether the hominid fossil sample of habiline specimens is comprised of more than one species has received much attention in paleoanthropology. The core of this debate has significant implications about when and how variation must be explained by taxonomy. In this paper, we examine the problem of whether the observed variation in habiline sample must be interpreted to reflect species differences. We test the null hypothesis of no difference by examining the degree of variability in habiline sample in comparison with other single-species early hominid fossil samples from Sterkfontein and Swartkrans (Sterkfontein is earlier than the habiline sample; Swartkrans may be within the habiline time span). We use the standard error test for this analysis, a sampling statistic based on the standard error of the slope of regressions between pairs of specimens that relates all of the homologous measurements each pair shares. We show that the null hypothesis for the habiline sample cannot be rejected. The similarities of specimen pairs within the habiline sample are not more than those observed between the specimens in the two australopithecine samples we analyzed.