Human evolution: taxonomy and paleobiology

Ludus Vitalis, 2000

American Journal of Primatology, 2008

We report here on the results of a new cladistic analysis of early hominid relationships. Ingroup taxa included Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster and Homo sapiens. Outgroup taxa included Pan troglodytes and Gorilla gorilla. Sixty craniodental characters were selected for analysis. These were drawn from the trait lists of other studies and our own observations. Eight parsimony analyses were performed that differed with respect to the number of characters examined and the manner in which the characters were treated. Seven employed ordered characters, and included analyses in which (1) taxa that were variable with respect to a character were coded as having an intermediate state, (2) characters with variable states in any taxon were excluded; (3) a variable taxon was coded as having the state exhibited by the majority of its hypodigm, (4) variable taxa were coded as missing data for that character, (5) some characters were considered irreversible, (6) masticatory characters were excluded, and (7) characters whose states were unknown in some taxa were excluded. In the final analysis, (8) all characters were unordered. All analyses were performed using PAUP 3.0s. Despite the fact that the eight analyses differed with respect to methodology, they produced several consistent results. All agreed that the ''robust'' australopithecines form a clade, A. afarensis is the sister taxon of all other hominids, and the genus Australopithecus, as conventionally defined, is paraphyletic. All eight also supported trees in which A. africanus is the sister taxon of a joint Homo+ ''robust'' clade, although in one analysis an equally parsimonious topology found A. africanus to be the sister of the ''robust'' species. In most analyses, the relationships of A. africanus and H. habilis were unstable, in the sense that their positions vary in trees that are marginally less parsimonious than the favored one. Trees in which ''robust'' australopithecines are paraphyletic were found to be extremely unparsimonious.

Singapore medical journal, 2009

This paper surveys the opinions expressed in the recent literature on the origins of the anatomically- modern Homo sapiens, and reviews the evidence from cranial and dental morphology argued by proponents of opposing views to support their case. It also critically analyses problems facing the interpretation of the evidence in arriving at a definitive conclusion to the debate.

Who were the earliest humans?” After the chimp-hominid split (dated ~6 million years ago), the biped lineage leading to us is characterized by tool making and by brain expansion. The earliest tools may date back to Australopithecus afarensis having anatomical characters conforming very closely for a early stage of human evolution. The earliest Homo is a fossil upper jaw from Hadar (Ethiopia). Dated to 2.3 myr ago, the palate and dental anatomy, similar to H. habilis (~2.0 to 1.5 myr ago), is intermediate between earlier australopiths and later Homo.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2003

Human fossils dated between 3.5 and nearly 7 million years old discovered during the last 8 years have been assigned to as many as four new genera of the family Hominidae: Ardipithecus, Orrorin, Kenyanthropus, and Sahelanthropus. These specimens are described as having morphological traits that justify placing them in the family Hominidae while creating a new genus for the classification of each. The discovery of these fossils pushed backward by >2 million years the date of the oldest hominids known. Only two or three hominid genera, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Homo, had been previously accepted, with Paranthropus considered a subgenus of Australopithecus by some authors. Two questions arise from the classification of the newly discovered fossils: (i) Should each one of these specimens be placed in the family Hominidae? (ii) Are these specimens sufficiently distinct to justify the creation of four new genera? The answers depend, in turn, on the concepts of what is a hominid and how the genus category is defined. These specimens seem to possess a sufficient number of morphological traits to be placed in the Hominidae. However, the nature of the morphological evidence and the adaptation-rooted concept of what a genus is do not justify the establishment of four new genera. We propose a classification that includes four well defined genera: Praeanthropus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and Homo, plus one tentative incertae sedis genus: Sahelanthropus.

2013

Annals of Human Biology 41(4): 312–322, 2014

Diagnosing Homo sapiens is a critical question in the study of human evolution. Although what constitutes living members of our own species is straightforward, in the fossil record this is still a matter of much debate. The issue is complicated by questions of species diagnoses and ideas about the mode by which a new species is born, by the arguments surrounding the behavioural and cognitive separateness of the species, by the increasing appreciation of variation in the early African H. sapiens record and by new DNA evidence of hybridization with extinct species. This study synthesizes thinking on the fossils, archaeology and underlying evolutionary models of the last several decades with recent DNA results from both H. sapiens and fossil species. It is concluded that, although it may not be possible, or even desirable, to cleanly partition out a homogenous morphological description of recent H. sapiens in the fossil record, there are key, distinguishing morphological traits in the cranium, dentition and pelvis that can be usefully employed to diagnose the H. sapiens lineage. Increasing advances in retrieving and understanding relevant genetic data provide a complementary and perhaps potentially even more fruitful means of characterizing the differences between H. sapiens and its close relatives.