Class Note for ANT 270 at UA-Intro To Physical Anthropology(3)
Class Note for ANT 270 at UA-Intro To Physical Anthropology(3)
Popular in Course
Popular in Department
This 7 page Class Notes was uploaded by an elite notetaker on Friday February 6, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to a course at University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 44 views.
Reviews for Class Note for ANT 270 at UA-Intro To Physical Anthropology(3)
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/06/15
Australopithecus robustus Body similar to A africanus but larger and more robust skull jaws and teeth Found primarily in cave deposits estimated at 112 2 mya from Swartkrans and Kromdraai in South Africa Massive face is at or dished with no forehead and large brow ridges Relatively small frontteeth but massive grinding teeth molars and premolars in a large lower jaw Aml39rzjly J mem quotM it Furl 1mm Australopithecus rob ustus 3 0 Most specimens have sagittal crests 0 Diet would have been mostly coarse tough food that needed a lot of chewing 0 Average brain size is about 530 cc 0 Animala bones excavated withA robustus skeletons suggestto some workers that the australopithecines may have used bones as digging tools A uslralopithecus b oisei 0 A boisei eXistedbetween 21 and 11 million years ago 0 Similar to A robustus but the face and cheek teeth even more massive Cranial capacity averages about 530 cc 0 Some experts consider A boisei andA robustus to be variants of the same species 7 Others place them in a separate genus Paranthropus 3 David Brill Gracile vs Robust Australopithecus afarensis and A africanus are known as gracile australopithecines because of their relatively lighter build especially in the face and teeth 7 Gracile means slender and in paleontologyis used as an antonym to robust 7 Despite this A afarensis and A africanus were still more dentally robust than modern humans Gracile vs Robust 2 Australopithecus aethiopicus A robustus and A boisei are known as robust australopithecines because their skulls are more heavily built 7 Thejaws cheekteeth and face are the most heavily built aspects of these fossil hominids 7 The canine teeth are quite small in all ofthese species Homo habilis Fossils named handy man because ofthe suggestion of evidence of tools found in contemporary deposits Lived between about 24 and 15 million years ago Similar to australopithecines in many ways Face is primitive butprojecm less than inA africanus Homo habilis 2 0 Back teeth are smaller than those ofthe australopithecines but still considerably larger than modern humans 0 Average cranial capacity at 650 cc is larger than in australopithecines 7 Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc overlapping the australopithecines at the low end andH erectus at the high end Homo habilis 3 0 Brain shape is more humanlike 7 Bulge ofBroca s area essential for speech is visible in one H habilis brain cast indicating it may have beencapable ofrudimentary speech 0 H habilis was about 127 cm 5390quot tall and about 45 kg 100 lb in weight although females may have been smaller Homo habill39s 4 Habilis has been a controversial species 7 Some scientists have not accepted it believing that all H habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus 7 Many now believe that Homo habilis combines specimens from two or three different species 0 Homo habilis Homo rudo ensis Homo ergaSIer lMu Homo rudolfens1s 7 W The species designation ofHomo rudolfensis is much IIDJ UD ejo39 debated 7 Is it a separate species 7 Is it an australopithecine rather than a homonine One of the main problems with H rudolfensis species is that there are no postcranial remains 7 Large brains in conjunctionwith megadont postcanjnes 7 Some researchers see the larger brain and tooth size as indicative of allometric changes due to increasedbody sizerudolfemis and habilis are the same with the former the males and the later the females 7 Some see mdolfensis as the ancestor of habilis with a decrease in brain size occurring 7 Others see the two on completely different evolutionary lines Homo ergaster Homo ergoster is one of the more problematic of species designations 0 Each researcher that sees ergoster as valid sees different specimens as belonging or not belonging 0 Most researchers see too little difference between ergoster and erectus to form the basis of a species 0 As a general rule ofthumb one can consider most attributed ergoster specimens to be early erectus geographically confined to Africa H0m0 erectus Wolpoff claims that H erectus is an invalid taxon though few accept this interpretation at this point in time Others believe the material attributed to erectus should be split into several different taxons 7 Asian and later African material remaining as H erectusmot contributing to modern humans 7 Early African material as H ergaster 7 European material as H heide yergensis Homo erectus An increase in brain size to approximately 900 cc Reduction in postcanine dentition and a decrease in Jaw Slze Vertical shortening of the face Shortening arm bones especially forearms to very modern 11mb proportlons 7 Postcranial proportions are very similar to tropically adapted modern humans Development of a more barrelshaped chest The formation of an external nose Modern human size in terms of height H0m0 antecessar Securely dated at 780 kyr Approximate brain size of 1000 cc Marked doublearched bro vvridge 7 like later Neanderthals and Chinese H erectus Canine fossa but no expanded maxilla 7 be due to the individuals youngkage since others A 658 have anexpanded max1 Sharp nasal margin Shallow maxillary notch Reduced mandibular corpus thickness when compared to H ergaster or earlyH erectus Small postcanines that resemble those of the habilines M3 reduced relative to M1 Moderate taurodontism 7 Characteristic of H erectus andH heidelbergensis Large 12 dimensions that resemble H heidelbergensz s Homo antecessor An important feature that was discovered when the remains were examined were cut marks that were present on most of the material 7 12 parallel cut marks on a temporal fragment where the sternocleidomastoid muscle attaches 7 Cut marks on two foot phalanges where the exor muscle lies Dismemberment was the likely goal Faunal material shows the same cut marks as the hominid remains 7 Very few carnivore tooth marks indicates that hominids were mainly responsible for processing the bones This is the earliest welldocumented case of cannibalism in ahominid population and this information is important for deciphering the behavior of early hominids Homo heidlebergensis 0 An increase in brain size to approximately 1200cc 0 A shift in the widest part of the brain case from the cranial base to the parietal regions 0 The rear of the cranial vault becomes more vertical 0 A gradual reduction in cranial robusticity 0 A decline in postcranial robusticity Atendency for a shift from shorter more robust stature to taller leaner bodies 39f 4 down 441 Homo neanderthalensis An occipital bun A suprainiac fossa Position of the mastoid crest located behind the external auditory meatus Position of the juxtamastoid crest located behind the mastoid crest and often larger than the mastoid process Position of the mastoid process The supraorbital torus The supratoral sulcus A receding frontal Presence of lambdoidal attening Drawings by c David Kregu39 0 Another trait that is being looked at currently as a way of distinguishing Neanderthals in the inner ear morphology 0 Researchers are to determine ifthe Neanderthals had a unique inner ear morphology that can be used 0 When comparing the values of Sl humans generally have a value close to l chimpanzees have values greater than 1 and Neanderthals have values less than 1 Features of Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens References Leakey M F Spoor F Brown P Gathogo C Kiarie L Leakey andl McDougall 2001 New horninin genus from eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene lineages Nature 410 433 7 440 Lieberman D 2001 Another face in our family tree Nature 410 419 7 420 Kreger C D 2001 A look at modern human origins httpwww modernhumanorigins com Tattersall l and J Schwartz 2001 Extinct Humans New York Westview Possible evolutionary relationships ofthe hominids The five major genera with Kenyanthropus in red Homo in blue Paranthropus in green Australopithecus in black andArdipithecus in yellow 7 Question marks indicate hypothetical or con jectural relationship s horizontal bars indi cate un certainty in the sp ecies temp oral sp ans 0 Lieberman 2001 x 4 Jaime oi Vial Balms WE new 2 Luv Ham 7 I 14 new um Fabian i A quotI Lainquot I mar 39 km 391 r swamquot Aim x mnmwi 1 A nm d llu r35 x A I39l IVEHut A I mus quotmm m1 nunmm Ammo m lwll a r and an
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'