Taxonomic differences in deciduous upper second molar crown outlines of Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus

2014 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shara E. Bailey ◽  
Stefano Benazzi ◽  
Caroline Souday ◽  
Claudia Astorino ◽  
Kathleen Paul ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Rainer Kühne

I argue that the evidence of the Out-of-Africa hypothesis and the evidence of multiregional evolution of prehistorical humans can be understood if there has been interbreeding between Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens at least during the preceding 700,000 years. These interbreedings require descendants who are capable of reproduction and therefore parents who belong to the same species. I suggest that a number of prehistorical humans who are at present regarded as belonging to different species belong in fact to one single species.  


Author(s):  
Jan Zalasiewicz ◽  
Mark Williams

It is just the latest of many climate phases of the Quaternary Period. The 103rd major shift in climate-driven global oxygen isotope values, to be precise, since the official-designated beginning of the Quaternary Period, 2.58 million years ago. And, many of those major phases, as we have seen, include dozens of climate oscillations far greater in scale than humans have witnessed since written records began. Nevertheless, it is our warm phase, that within which our civilization has grown, and hence it has been separated as a distinct epoch, the Holocene, a little over 0.01 of a million years long. Its counterpart is the Pleistocene Epoch, in which reside those other 2.57 million years of Quaternary time, and those other 102 major climate oscillations. Thus, we live—at least as far as formal geological nomenclature goes—in a privileged time. When this epoch began, Homo sapiens had already existed for some 150,000 years. As a species its prospects might not have seemed bright: this creature lacked anything terribly impressive in the way of claws or teeth or thick fur or armour. But by being ingenious at developing what one might describe as artificial claws and teeth—axes and spears and arrows—it could kill and eat mammals considerably larger than itself. In those early days, it might not have prospered, exactly, but it clung to existence, seemingly weathering at least one very bad patch, several tens of thousands of years ago, when its numbers dropped almost to extinction levels. It survived the climate oscillations of the late Pleistocene—the droughts and floods and episodes of bitter cold and killing heat—by adapting its behaviour or migrating as best it could. Its migrations from its place of origin, Africa, were on an epic scale. The many thousands of individual and collective stories of hope, fear, endurance, courage, tragedy, and (less commonly) triumph are all lost. What remains is the evidence that humans, by the beginning of the Holocene, had spread widely over Europe and Asia, ousting (it seems) their kindred hominin species, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus.


2005 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 221-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harald Haarmann

Since the earliest manifestations of symbolic activity in modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) in the Upper Palaeolithic, there is evidence for two independent cognitive procedures, for the production of representational images (naturalistic pictures or sculptures) and of abstract signs. The use of signs and symbols is attested for archaic humans (Homo neanderthalensis) and for Homo erectus while art in naturalistic style is an innovation among modern humans. The symbiotic interaction of the two symbolic capacities is illustrated for the visual heritage of Palaeolithic cave paintings in Southwestern Europe, for rock engravings in the Italian Alps (Val Camonica) and for the vivid use of signs and symbols in Southeastern Europe during the Neolithic. Around 5500 BC, sign use in Southeastern Europe reached a sophisticated stage of organization as to produce the earliest writing system of mankind. Since abstractness is the main theme in the visual heritage of the region, this script, not surprisingly, is composed of predominantly abstract signs.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arturo Tozzi

ABSTRACTWe display a detailed description of mimetic muscles in extinct human species, framed in comparative and phylogenetic contexts. Using known facial landmarks, we assessed the arrangement of muscles of facial expression in Homo sapiens, neanderthalensis, erectus, heidelbergensis and ergaster. In modern humans, several perioral muscles are proportionally smaller in size (levator labii superioris, zygomaticus minor, zygomaticus major and triangularis) and/or located more medially (levator labii superioris, zygomaticus minor and quadratus labii inferioris) than in other human species. As mimetic musculature is examined in the most ancient specimens up to the most recent, there is a general trend towards an increase in size of corrugator supercillii and triangularis. Homo ergaster’s mimetic musculature closely resembles modern Homo, both in size and in location; furthermore, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis share many muscular features. The extinct human species had an elaborate and highly graded facial communication system, but it remained qualitatively different from that reported in modern Homo. Compared with other human species, Homo sapiens clearly exhibits a lower degree of facial expression, possibly correlated with more sophisticated social behaviours and with enhanced speech capabilities. The presence of anatomical variation among species of the genus Homo raises important questions about the possible taxonomic value of mimetic muscles.


2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 118-131
Author(s):  
L. Albessard ◽  
D. Grimaud-Hervé ◽  
A. Balzeau

Cranial anatomical features play a prominent part in the definition of extinctHomotaxa and in species identification in fossils. Thus, knowledge of cranial morphology considered within its geochronological framework is essential to the understanding of the evolution, chronology, and dispersal of the genusHomo. The brain is also a valuable object of study for research on human evolution, because of features such as its large size and a high encephalization quotient in someHomospecies, as well as the complexity of human cognition. However, the joint evolution of endo- and ectocranial anatomies is still little studied, and landmarks representing cerebral anatomy rather than inner cranial bone anatomy are still rarely used. This exploratory piece of research examines endo- and ectocranial profiles in samples representing 3Homotaxa:Homo sapiens(fossil and recent specimens),Homo erectus, andHomo neanderthalensis. We used 2D geometric morphometrics to analyze the shape of the endo- and ectocranial vaults, as well as the relationships between selected anatomical features such as the extension of lobes and bones. The shapes of the vaults were computed using both fixed landmarks and sliding semi-landmarks. The fixed landmarks used for the endocranium were chosen in order to represent cerebral anatomy, in that they are defined by the imprints left by brain structures on the inner bone surface of the skull, and not by bony structures such as the inferior side of cranial sutures. Among other results, we have shown or confirmed specific features in the shape of the endocranium inHomo sapiens, as well as a few differences in the patterns of interplay between lobes and bones. These data, and any further results obtained with larger samples, may provide new insights into the development of the endocranial anatomical pattern inHomo sapiensand of its variability.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rainer Walter Kühne

I argue that the evidence of the Out-of-Africa hypothesis and the evidence of multiregional evolution of prehistorical humans can be understood if there has been interbreeding between Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens at least during the preceding 700,000 years. These interbreedings require descendants who are capable of reproduction and therefore parents who belong to the same species. I suggest that a number of prehistorical humans who are at present regarded as belonging to different species belong in fact to one single species.


2019 ◽  
Vol 115 (9/10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bontle Mataboge ◽  
Amélie Beaudet ◽  
Jason L. Heaton ◽  
Travis R. Pickering ◽  
Dominic Stratford

The site of the Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa, is one of the richest early hominin fossil-bearing sites in Africa. Recent excavations in the Milner Hall locality have contributed to the discovery of new hominin specimens, including StW 669, a right permanent maxillary first molar (M1). StW 669 was excavated from the T1 deposits, which consist of a mixture of sediments from Members 2 and 5 of the Sterkfontein Formation. Accordingly, the deposits have the potential to contain remains of Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo. In this study, we employed micro-focus X-ray tomography in order to assess dental tissue proportions, enamel thickness distribution and enamel-dentine junction morphology as approaches to investigate the taxonomy of StW 669. We compare our results to those generated on the teeth of Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. Our results suggest that StW 669 shares quantitative and qualitative affinities with M1s of Homo in terms of tissue proportions (i.e. two- and three-dimensional average and relative enamel thickness of 1.2–1.3 mm and 18.4, respectively) and enamel thickness distribution (i.e. thickest enamel on the lingual aspect of the protocone). However, data on the enamel-dentine junction morphology of StW 669 are inconclusive as to the tooth’s taxonomic affinities. Pending additional morphometric analyses, our studies of inner morphology of the crown of StW 669 support its attribution to Homo.


1970 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-202
Author(s):  
Jolanta Koszteyn

Within the historical times, which roughly corresponds with the Holocene epoch, the whole of mankind is believed to be a single species. Homo sapiens. But the human genealogical tree (phylogeny) is populated by a really astounding number of paleontological species and paleontological genera: Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus, Paranthropus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus. Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens. (cf. Gyula 2002). In fact there are many more (Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus) but Foley (2002), quite reasonably, states that the evidence for their existence is, at present, insufficient. The existence of these multiple forms is beyond any doubt. The doubt, however arises concerning the human or „prehuman" status of them. Were they really true specific forms, half-way between the apes and Holocene man? Is it possible that they constitute a number of different ecotypes (or paleoraces) within the same natural species of Homo sapiens?


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 8-16
Author(s):  
Sofwan Noerwidi ◽  
Rusyad Adi Suriyanto ◽  
Ashwin Prayudi ◽  
Harry Widianto

Recently, Banjarejo became an important prehistoric site for Quaternary research because of its significant faunal and hominin remains. This study aims to describe a new finding of the hominin femur specimen from the site and its taxonomical position in human evolution. The specimen was identified by morphological and metric descriptions of the external feature of the femur. Then, comparative study to Homo erectus (n=2), Homo neanderthalensis (n=8), Homo heidelbergensis (n=1), prehistoric Homo sapiens (n=44), Australopithecus africanus (n=1), Paranthropus robustus (n=2), also non-human primate including Pongo (n=1), Macaca (n=1) and Gibbon (n=1) using bivariate and multivariate statistical analysis presented the specimen in the evolutionary perspective. This study shows the morphological and metric character of Banjarejo specimen located between Homo erectus and prehistoric Homo sapiens population sample. Further study should be addressed to investigate the cultural and chronological context of the hominin specimen.


Author(s):  
Francisco J. Ayala ◽  
Camilo J. Cela-Conde

This chapter deals with the similarities and differences between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, by considering genetic, brain, and cognitive evidence. The genetic differentiation emerges from fossil genetic evidence obtained first from mtDNA and later from nuclear DNA. With high throughput whole genome sequencing, sequences have been obtained from the Denisova Cave (Siberia) fossils. Nuclear DNA of a third species (“Denisovans”) has been obtained from the same cave and used to define the phylogenetic relationships among the three species during the Upper Palaeolithic. Archaeological comparisons make it possible to advance a four-mode model of the evolution of symbolism. Neanderthals and modern humans would share a “modern mind” as defined up to Symbolic Mode 3. Whether the Neanderthals reached symbolic Mode 4 remains unsettled.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document