The nature and affinities of the “robust” Australopithecines: a review

The fossil evidence of the “robust” australopithecines is reviewed with an emphasis on the taxonomic divisions and evolutionary relationships among this group of hominids. The hypodigms of A. robustus, A. crassidens and A. boisei are described, and the significance of morphological variation within and between these species is assessed. Phylogenetic relationships among the “robust” australopithecines are examined using maximum parsimony analysis, and evolutionary scenarios are evaluated in the light of recent discoveries in East Africa.     

Was “Lucy” more human than her “child”? Observations on early hominid postcranial skeletons

Fully adult partial skeletons attributed to Australopithecus afarensis (AL 288-1, “Lucy”) and to Homo habilis (OH 62, “Lucy's child”), respectively, both include remains from upper and lower limbs. Relationships between various limb bone dimensions of these skeletons are compared to those of modern African apes and humans. Surprisingly, it emerges that OH 62 displays closer similarities to African apes than does AL 288-1. Yet A. afarensis, whose skeleton is dated more than 1 million years earlier, is commonly supposed to be the ancestor of Homo habilis. If OH 62, classified as Homo habilis by its discoverers, does indeed represent a stage intermediate between A. afarensis and later Homo, a revised interpretation of the course of human evolution would be necessary.     

Proximal femur articulation in Pliocene hominids

The supposed "nonhuman anthropoid"-type femur head articular surface described for the Pliocene hominid specimen A.L.288-1 ("Lucy") by Stern and Susman in 1983 is present in significant numbers of modern human femora. This nonmetric skeletal trait was also found to be sex-related in modern human samples examined.     

Functional morphology of the asterionic region in extant hominoids and fossil hominids

Asterionic sutural patterns in Plio-Pleistocene hominid crania have never been examined in detail. We present an analysis of this anatomical region in Australopithecus and Homo and relate different sutural patterns to functional changes in the masticatory apparatus. The great apes and A. afarensis share the common adult higher primate sutural pattern referred to as the "asterionic notch," which develops in response to the hypertrophy of posterior temporalis muscle fibers and the consequent formation of compound temporal/nuchal crests. This sutural configuration also appears to be present on the early Homo cranium KNM-ER 1805. In contrast, adult male A. boisei crania exhibit a unique pattern where the temporal squama overlaps the parietal which, in turn, overlaps the par mastoidea and the upper scale of the occipital bone. We relate this arrangement to the need to reinforce the rear of a thin-walled braincase against the net tensile forces exerted by the temporalis and nuchal muscles. The common juvenile hominoid edge-to-edge asterionic articulation is maintained in adult A. africanus, A. robustus, female A. boisei, and most Homo crania. We discuss the latter pattern in regard to anterior temporalis hypertrophy in A. africanus, A. robustus, and A. boisei and to craniofacial paedomorphosis in Homo.     

The taxonomic status ofpraeanthropus africanus (primates: Pongidae) from the late pliocene of Eastern Africa

The taxonPraeanthropus africanus (Weinert, 1950), represented by the Garusi maxilla, is valid and reinstated. The morphological pattern of the Garusi maxilla is not that of a primitive hominid, but of a relatively generalized pongid. Since the apelike lectotype L.H.-4 and paralectotype A.L.200-1a ofAustralopithecus afarensis Johanson et al. 1978 are conspecific withP. africanus, and originate from the same formation, they are reassigned toPraeanthropus africanus.     

Four-million-year-Old hominids from East Lake Turkana,Kenya

A piece of mandible and several isolated teeth are reported from fluviatile sediments older than 4 million years at East Lake Turkana. They most closely resemble hominids from Laetoli, Tanzania and Hadar, Ethiopia which have been assigned to Australopithecus afarensis. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Brief communication: Possible third molar impactions in the hominid fossil record

Impacted third molars affect 15%–20% of modern Americans and Western Europeans. In contrast, third molar impactions have not been reported in the early hominid fossil record. It is uncertain whether the lack of reports reflects an absence of impactions or a failure to recognize them. This communication is intended to raise awareness of the possibility of impactions by describing the appearance of impacted teeth and by noting two possible instances of impaction in early hominids. Specifically, the mandibular third molars of the Sterkfontein specimen, STS52b (Australopithecus africanus), and the left maxillary third molar of the Lake Turkana specimen, KNM-WT17400 (Australopithecus boisei), are positioned in a manner which suggests that they would not have erupted normally. Both specimens also exhibit strong crowding of the anterior dentition, providing further support for the view that these individuals lacked sufficient space for normal eruption of the third molars. Other published reports of dental crowding in the hominid fossil record are noted, and it is suggested that more attention be paid to dental impaction and dental crowding in hominid evolution. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

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.     

Paleopediatrics: Or when did human infants really become human?

Modern human children take about twice as long as their closest biological relative, the chimpanzee, to mature. One standard explanation for the evolution of “delayed maturation” at an early stage of human evolution is that it provided the time necessary for immature individuals to learn complex skills, most notably those relating to tool-making abilities. However, after comparing dental maturational profiles of early hominids from South Africa (who apparently did make and use stone tools) (Susman [1994] Science 265:1570–1573) to those of extant humans and chimpanzees, we find no evidence to document an association between “delayed maturation” and tool-making abilities in the early stages of human evolution. This also suggests that the assumed association between prolonged childhood dependency and other behaviors often associated with the advent of tool-making such as cooperative hunting, food sharing, home bases, sexual division of labor, etc., is also suspect. Instead, we must look for other, or additional, selective pressures for the evolution of “delayed maturation,” which may postdate the australopithecine radiation. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.