Earlier this year, researchers compared tooth gunk recovered from Belgium’s Spy Cave and Spain’s El Sidron site to shine light on the lost world of Neanderthals. Analysis of these ancient teeth revealed that the Belgian Neanderthals’ diet consisted heavily of meat from wild sheep and woolly rhinoceroses These hip-high hominids lived well into the period of modern man and may have been the last non-human hominid species to go the way of the dodo. 5 The Chompers Of Chaucer’s Children Teeth were extracted from 44 children between the ages of one and eight who had been buried within St. Gregory’s Priory and Cemetery in Canterbury According to the researchers, the teeth were too old for carbon dating, so calcite deposits around the finds were used to determine age.
Question: "Is carbon dating a reliable method for determining the age of things?" Answer: Carbon dating, or radiocarbon dating, like any other laboratory testing technique, can be extremely reliable, so long as all of the variables involved are controlled and understood.
Several factors affect radiocarbon test results, not all of which are easy to control objectively. For this reason, it’s preferable to date objects using multiple methods, rather than relying on one single test. Carbon dating is reliable within certain parameters but certainly not infallible. When testing an object using radiocarbon dating, several factors have to be considered: First, carbon dating only works on matter that was once alive, and it only determines the approximate date of death for that sample.
For example, a steel spearhead cannot be carbon dated, so archaeologists might perform testing on the wooden shaft it was attached to. This provides good information, but it only indicates how long ago that piece of wood was cut from a living tree. Radiocarbon dating can’t tell the difference between wood that was cut and immediately used for the spear, and wood that was cut years before being re-used for that purpose. Nor can it tell if a much older spearhead was attached to a brand-new shaft.
Most archaeological items can’t be directly carbon dated, so their dating is based on testing done on nearby objects or materials. This makes the results subject to the researchers’ assumptions about those objects.
If the spear head is dated using animal bones nearby, the accuracy of the results is entirely dependent on the assumed link between the spear head and the animal. This is perhaps the greatest point of potential error, as assumptions about dating can lead to circular reasoning, or choosing confirming results, rather than accepting a “wrong” date. Second, radiocarbon dating becomes more difficult, and less accurate, as the sample gets older.
The bodies of living things generally have concentrations of the isotope carbon-14, also known as radiocarbon, identical to concentrations in the atmosphere. When an organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon-14, and whatever is inside gradually decays into other elements.
Carbon-14 normally makes up about 1 trillionth (1/1,000,000,000,000) of the earth’s atmosphere. So even brand-new samples contain incredibly tiny quantities of radiocarbon. Eventually, the amount of carbon-14 remaining is so small that it’s all but undetectable.
Tiny variations within a particular sample become significant enough to skew results to the point of absurdity. Carbon dating therefore relies on enrichment and enhancement techniques to make smaller quantities easier to detect, but such enhancement can also skew the test results.
Normal errors in the test become magnified. As a result, carbon dating is only plausible for objects less than about 40,000 years old. The other major factor affecting the results of carbon dating is gauging the original proportion of carbon-14 itself. Carbon dating is based on the loss of carbon-14, so, even if the present amount in a specimen can be detected accurately, we must still know how much carbon-14 the organism started with.
Scientists must assume how much carbon-14 was in the organism when it died. Complicating matters is the fact that Earth’s carbon-14 concentrations change drastically based on various factors. As samples get older, errors are magnified, and assumptions can render carbon dating all but useless. For example, variations in greenhouse effects and solar radiation change how much carbon-14 a living organism is exposed to, which drastically changes the “starting point” from which a radiocarbon dating test is based.
Likewise, different living things absorb or reject carbon-14 at different rates. Two plants that died at the same moment, but which naturally contained different levels of radiocarbon, could be dated to drastically different times. Modern effects such as fossil fuel burning and nuclear testing have also changed atmospheric carbon-14 levels and in turn change the “starting point” for a radiocarbon test.
All in all, setting the parameters of the carbon-14 test is more of an art than a science. Contamination and repeatability are also factors that have to be considered with carbon dating. A tiny amount of carbon contamination will greatly skew test results, so sample preparation is critical.
Even then, a large proportion of radiocarbon dating tests return inconsistent, or even incoherent, results, even for tests done on the same sample. The explanation given for these outliers is usually “contamination.” Inconsistent results are another reason why multiple samples, multiples tests, and various parallel methods are used to date objects. Due to all these factors, it’s common for carbon dating results of a particular sample, or even a group of samples, to be rejected for the sole reason that they don’t align with the “expected” results.
That’s not unusual in science, so far as it goes, but the relationship between assumptions and interpretations must be kept in mind. At best, it needs to be acknowledged. At worst, it can make carbon dating circular and self-confirming, though there are other means of dating that can reduce this risk. In short, carbon dating is as useful as any other technique, so long as it’s done properly and the results are objectively interpreted.
It is not, however, an inherently error-free or black-and-white method for dating objects. Recommended Resource:
best carbon dating to determine age of early hominids - How Did Early Hominids Find Food During the Old Stone Age?
"Great apes" and "Hominid" redirect here. For other uses, see and . The Hominidae ( ), whose members are known as great apes or hominids, are a taxonomic of that includes eight species in four : , the , and ; , the and ; , the and the ; and , which includes and its extinct relatives (e.g., the ), and ancestors, such as . Hominidae Linnaeus, 1758 • • • † • † • Pongidae Elliot, 1913 • Panidae Ciochon, 1983 Several revisions in classifying the great apes have caused the use of the term "hominid" to vary over time.
Its original meaning referred only to humans ( Homo) and their closest extinct relatives. That restrictive meaning has now been largely assumed by the term "", which comprises all members of the human clade after the split from the chimpanzees ( Pan).
The current, 21st-century meaning of "hominid" includes all the great apes including humans. Usage still varies, however, and some scientists and laypersons still use "hominid" in the original restrictive sense; the scholarly literature generally shows the traditional usage until around the turn of the 21st century.
Within the taxon Hominidae, a number of extant and known extinct, that is, fossil, genera are grouped with the humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas in the subfamily ; others with orangutans in the subfamily (see below).
The of all Hominidae lived roughly 14 million years ago, when the ancestors of the orangutans speciated from the ancestral line of the other three genera. Those ancestors of the family Hominidae had already speciated from the family (the gibbons), perhaps 15 million to 20 million years ago. ( Pongo abelii) In the early , about 22 million years ago, there were many species of arboreally adapted primitive from East Africa; the variety suggests a long history of prior diversification.
Fossils at 20 million years ago include fragments attributed to , the earliest Old World monkey. Among the genera thought to be in the ape lineage leading up to 13 million years ago are , , , , , , , , Heliopithecus, and , all from East Africa. At sites far distant from East Africa, the presence of other generalized non-, that is, non-monkey primates, of middle Miocene age— from cave deposits in Namibia, and and from France, Spain and Austria—is further evidence of a wide diversity of ancestral ape forms across Africa and the Mediterranean basin during the relatively warm and equable climatic regimes of the early and middle Miocene.
The most recent of these far-flung Miocene apes () is , from the fossil-rich coal beds in northern Italy and dated to 9 million years ago. Molecular evidence indicates that the lineage of (family ), the , diverged from that of the great apes some 18–12 million years ago, and that of (subfamily Ponginae) diverged from the other great apes at about 12 million years.
There are no fossils that clearly document the ancestry of gibbons, which may have originated in a still-unknown South East Asian hominoid population; but fossil proto-orangutans, dated to around 10 million years ago, may be represented by from India and from Turkey. A reconstruction of a female () Species close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by fossils found in Kenya and found in .
Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas (genus Gorilla), and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans. Human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms (see ). The fossil record, however, of gorillas and chimpanzees is limited; both poor preservation—rain forest soils tend to be acidic and dissolve bone—and probably contribute most to this problem.
Other probably adapted to the drier environments outside the African equatorial belt; and there they encountered antelope, hyenas, elephants and other forms becoming adapted to surviving in the East African , particularly the regions of the and the . The wet equatorial belt contracted after about 8 million years ago, and there is very little fossil evidence for the divergence of the hominin lineage from that of gorillas and chimpanzees—which split was thought to have occurred around that time.
The earliest fossils argued by some to belong to the human lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma), followed by Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), with species Ar.
kadabba and Ar. ramidus. Taxonomic history are one of the four hominid genera. The classification of the great apes has been in the last few decades; these revisions have led to a varied use of the word " hominid" over time.
The original meaning of the term referred to only humans and their closest relatives—what is now the modern meaning of the term "". The meaning of the Hominidae changed gradually, leading to a different (modern) usage of "hominid" that today includes all the great apes including humans. The term hominid is easily confused with a number of very similar words: • A hominoid, commonly called an ape, is a member of the superfamily : extant members are the (lesser apes, family ) and the hominids.
• A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, the great apes: , gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. • A hominine is a member of the subfamily : gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans (excludes ). • A hominin is a member of the tribe : chimpanzees and humans. • A homininan, following a suggestion by Wood and Richmond (2000), would be a member of the subtribe of the tribe : that is, modern humans and their closest relatives, including , but excluding chimpanzees.
• A human is a member of the genus , of which is the only , and within that is the only surviving . A cladogram indicating common names (c.f.
): (hominoids, apes) (gibbons) Hominidae (hominids, great apes) Pongo (orangutans) (hominines) Gorilla (gorillas) (hominins) Pan (chimpanzees) (homininans) (humans) Extant and fossil relatives of humans A hominid exhibit at , , Oklahoma As mentioned, Hominidae was originally the name given to the family of humans and their (extinct) close relatives, with the other (that is, the orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees) all being placed in a separate family, the .
However, that definition eventually made Pongidae because at least one great ape species (the chimpanzees) proved to be more closely related to humans than to other great apes. Most taxonomists today encourage groups—this would require, in this case, the use of Pongidae to be restricted to just one closely related grouping. Thus, many now assign Pongo (as the subfamily ) to the family Hominidae. The taxonomy shown here follows the monophyletic groupings according to the modern understanding of human and great ape relationships.
Humans and close relatives including the tribes and form the subfamily (see classification graphic below). (A few researchers go so far as to refer the and the gorillas to the genus Homo along with humans.) But, it is those fossil relatives more closely related to humans than the chimpanzees that represent the especially close members of the human family, and without necessarily assigning subfamily or tribal categories.
Many extinct hominids have been studied to help understand the relationship between modern humans and the other extant hominids. Some of the extinct members of this family include , , , , and the and .
The exact criteria for membership in the tribe Hominini under the current understanding of human origins are not clear, but the taxon generally includes those that share more than 97% of their with the modern human , and exhibit a capacity for or for simple beyond their 'local family' or band. The concept—including such faculties as empathy, attribution of mental state, and even empathetic deception—is a controversial criterion; it distinguishes the adult human alone among the hominids.
Humans acquire this capacity after about four years of age, whereas it has not been proven (nor has it been disproven) that gorillas or chimpanzees ever develop a theory of mind.
This is also the case for some outside the family of great apes, as, for example, the . However, even without the ability to test whether early members of the Hominini (such as , , or even the australopithecines) had a theory of mind, it is difficult to ignore similarities seen in their living cousins. Orangutans have shown the development of culture comparable to that of chimpanzees, and some [ ] say the orangutan may also satisfy those criteria for the concept.
These scientific debates take on political significance for advocates of . Phylogeny Below is a cladogram with extinct species. It is indicated approximately how many million years ago (Mya) the clades diverged into newer clades.
Hominidae (18) (14) (†13 Mya) (†9) (†9) (†0.1) (†7) (13) (12) (†11) (†10) (†7) (†8) (10) (7) Pan (†) (†10) (†9) Extant There are eight living species of great ape which are classified in four .
The following classification is commonly accepted: • Family Hominidae: humans and other great apes; extinct genera and species excluded • Subfamily • Tribe • Genus • , Pongo pygmaeus • Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus • Pongo pygmaeus morio • Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii • , Pongo abelii • , Pongo tapanuliensis • Subfamily • Tribe • Genus • , Gorilla gorilla • , Gorilla gorilla gorilla • , Gorilla gorilla diehli • , Gorilla beringei • , Gorilla beringei beringei • , Gorilla beringei graueri • Tribe • Subtribe • Genus • (common chimpanzee), Pan troglodytes • , Pan troglodytes troglodytes • , Pan troglodytes verus • , Pan troglodytes ellioti • , Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii • (pygmy chimpanzee), Pan paniscus • Subtribe • Genus • , Homo sapiens • , Homo sapiens sapiens Fossil Replica of , found by .
In addition to the extant species and subspecies, , , and have discovered and classified numerous extinct great ape species as below, based on the taxonomy shown. Family Hominidae • • Ouranopithecus macedoniensis • • Otavipithecus namibiensis • • Morotopithecus bishopi • Subfamily • Tribe • • Lufengpithecus lufengensis • Lufengpithecus keiyuanensis • Lufengpithecus hudienensis • Tribe Sivapithecini • • Ankarapithecus meteai • • Sivapithecus brevirostris • Sivapithecus punjabicus • Sivapithecus parvada • Sivapithecus sivalensis • Sivapithecus indicus • • Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis • Gigantopithecus blacki • Gigantopithecus giganteus • Tribe Pongini • • • • • (orangutans) • • Subfamily • • Pierolapithecus catalaunicus • • Udabnopithecus garedziensis • Tribe • (placement disputed) • Oreopithecus bambolii • • Nakalipithecus nakayamai • • Anoiapithecus brevirostris • • Hispanopithecus laietanus • Hispanopithecus crusafonti • • • • • Dryopithecus laietanus • Dryopithecus crusafonti • • Rudapithecus hungaricus • • Samburupithecus kiptalami • Tribe • (placement debated) • Chororapithecus abyssinicus • Tribe • • Graecopithecus freybergi • • Sahelanthropus tchadensis • • Orrorin tugenensis • Subtribe • • Ardipithecus ramidus • Ardipithecus kadabba • • Kenyanthropus platyops • • • • • • • • • • • • • • – close relatives of modern • • • • • (thought by some to be an early subspecies of Homo erectus) • • • (considered by some to be an early subspecies of Homo erectus) • • (sometimes called Archaic Homo sapiens) • • • • • (scientific name not yet assigned) • (sometimes called Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) • • • • • (scientific name has not yet been assigned; perhaps a race of modern humans or a hybrid of modern humans and Denisovans ) The great apes are large, tailless primates, with the smallest living species being the at 30–40 kilograms in weight, and the largest being the eastern gorillas, with males weighing 140–180 kilograms.
In all great apes, the males are, on average, larger and stronger than the females, although the degree of varies greatly among species. Although most living species are predominantly , they are all able to use their hands for gathering food or nesting materials, and, in some cases, for tool use. Most species are , [ ] but fruit is the preferred food among all but some human groups. Chimpanzees and orangutans primarily eat fruit. When gorillas run short of fruit at certain times of the year or in certain regions, they resort to eating shoots and leaves, often of , a type of grass.
Gorillas have extreme adaptations for chewing and digesting such low-quality forage, but they still prefer fruit when it is available, often going miles out of their way to find especially preferred fruits. Humans, since the , consume mostly and other foods, including increasingly highly , as well as many other (including fruits) and . Hominid teeth are similar to those of the and , although they are especially large in gorillas. The is 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52.
Human teeth and jaws are markedly smaller for their size than those of other apes, which may be an adaptation to eating cooked food since the end of the . in great apes lasts 8–9 months, and results in the birth of a single offspring, or, rarely, twins. The young are born helpless, and require care for long periods of time. Compared with most other mammals, great apes have a remarkably long adolescence, not being for several years, and not becoming fully mature for eight to thirteen years in most species (longer in humans).
As a result, females typically give birth only once every few years. There is no distinct breeding season. The gorillas and the common chimpanzee live in family groups of around five to ten individuals, although much larger groups are sometimes noted. Chimpanzees live in larger groups that break up into smaller groups when fruit becomes less available. When small groups of female chimpanzees go off in separate directions to forage for fruit, the dominant males can no longer control them and the females often mate with other subordinate males.
In contrast, groups of gorillas stay together regardless of the availability of fruit. When fruit is hard to find, they resort to eating leaves and shoots. Because gorilla groups stay together, the male is able to monopolize the females in his group.
This fact is related to gorillas' greater sexual dimorphism relative to that of chimpanzees; that is, the difference in size between male and female gorillas is much larger than that of male and female chimpanzees. This enables gorilla males to physically dominate female gorillas more easily. In both chimpanzees and gorillas, the groups include at least one dominant male, and females leave the group at maturity.
Due to the close genetic relationship between humans and other great apes, certain organizations, such as the , argue that nonhuman and should be given basic .
Some countries have instituted a to protect great apes from any kind of scientific testing. On June 25, 2008, the Spanish parliament supported a new law that would make "keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming" illegal. On September 8, 2010, the . • "Great ape" is a common name rather than a taxonomic label, and there are differences in usage, even by the same author. The term may or may not include humans, as when Dawkins writes "Long before people thought in terms of evolution ...
great apes were often confused with humans" and "gibbons are faithfully monogamous, unlike the great apes which are our closer relatives." • ^ (2005). ; Reeder, D.M., eds. (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 181–184. . . • Dawkins, R.
(2005). The Ancestor's Tale (p/b ed.). London: Phoenix (Orion Books). p. 114. . • , p. 126. • Morton, Mary. . Earth Magazine . Retrieved 17 July 2017. • Andrew Hill; Steven Ward (1988). "Origin of the Hominidae: The Record of African Large Hominoid Evolution Between 14 My and 4 My".
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. 31 (59): 49–83. :. • ^ Dawkins R (2004) The Ancestor's Tale. • . . . 2015 . Retrieved 28 December 2017. • Srivastava (2009). . PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. p. 87. . Retrieved 6 November 2011. • Chen, Feng-Chi; Li, Wen-Hsiung (2001-01-15).
. American Journal of Human Genetics. 68 (2): 444–456. :. . . . • Wood and Richmond; Richmond, BG (2000). . Journal of Anatomy. 197 (Pt 1): 19–60. :. . . . In this suggestion, the new subtribe of Hominina was to be designated as including the genus Homo exclusively, so that Hominini would have two subtribes, Australopithecina and Hominina, with the only known genus in Hominina being Homo.
(2001) has been proposed as a possible ancestor of Hominina but not Australopithecina. Reynolds, Sally C; Gallagher, Andrew (2012-03-29). . . . Designations alternative to Hominina have been proposed: Australopithecinae (Gregory & Hellman 1939) and Preanthropinae (Cela-Conde & Altaba 2002); Brunet, M.; et al. (2002). "A new hominid from the upper Miocene of Chad, central Africa". Nature. 418: 145–151. :. . Cela-Conde, C.J.; Ayala, F.J. (2003). . PNAS. 100 (13): 7684–7689. :. . . Wood, B.; Lonergan, N.
(2008). (PDF). J. Anat. 212: 354–376. :. . . • Pickrell, John (20 May 2003). . . Retrieved 4 August 2007. • . • Watson, E. E.; et al. (2001). "Homo genus: a review of the classification of humans and the great apes". In Tobias, P. V.; et al. Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millennia. Florence: Firenze Univ. Press. pp. 311–323. • Schwartz, J.H.
(1986) Primate systematics and a classification of the order. Comparative primate biology volume 1: Systematics, evolution, and anatomy (ed. by D.R. Swindler, and J. Erwin), pp. 1-41, Alan R. Liss, New York. • Schwartz, J.H. (2004b) Issues in hominid systematics. Zona Arqueología 4, 360–371. • Heyes, C. M. (1998). . Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 21 (1): 101–14. :. . bbs00000546. Archived from on 4 December 2007. • Van Schaik C.P.; Ancrenaz, M; Borgen, G; Galdikas, B; Knott, CD; Singleton, I; Suzuki, A; Utami, SS; Merrill, M (2003).
"Orangutan cultures and the evolution of material culture". Science. 299 (5603): 102–105. :. . • Nengo, Isaiah; Tafforeau, Paul; Gilbert, Christopher C.; Fleagle, John G.; Miller, Ellen R.; Feibel, Craig; Fox, David L.; Feinberg, Josh; Pugh, Kelsey D.
(2017). . Nature. 548 (7666): 169–174. :. • Malukiewicz, Joanna; Hepp, Crystal M.; Guschanski, Katerina; Stone, Anne C. (2017-01-01).
. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 162 (1): 157–169. :. . Fig 2: "Divergence time estimates for the jacchus marmoset group based on the BEAST4 (Di Fiore et al., 2015) calibration scheme for alignment A.[...] Numbers at each node indicate the median divergence time estimate." • Nater, Alexander; Mattle-Greminger, Maja P.; Nurcahyo, Anton; et al. (2017-11-02). "Morphometric, Behavioral, and Genomic Evidence for a New Orangutan Species".
. 27: 3487–3498.e10. :. • Haaramo, Mikko (14 January 2005). . Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. • Haaramo, Mikko (4 February 2004). . Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. • Haaramo, Mikko (14 January 2005). . Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. • Haaramo, Mikko (10 November 2007). . Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. • Fuss, J; Spassov, N; Begun, DR; Böhme, M (2017). "Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from the Late Miocene of Europe".
PLoS ONE. 12: 5. :. • • Barras, Colin (14 March 2012). . New Scientist . Retrieved 15 March 2012. • . . Retrieved 25 July 2009.
• ^ Harcourt, A.H., MacKinnon, J. & Wrangham, R.W. (1984). Macdonald, D., ed. The Encyclopedia of Mammals. New York: Facts on File. pp. 422–439. . CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list () • ; Mahler, Paul Emil (1971). . . 34 (2): 191–203. :. . • Richard Wrangham (2007). "Chapter 12: The Cooking Enigma". In Charles Pasternak. What Makes Us Human?. Oxford: Oneworld Press.
. • . Reuters. 25 June 2008 . Retrieved 11 July 2008. • . 12 September 2010. • ^ An estimate of the number of wild in 2004: (PDF) (in Indonesian). . 2007. p. 5 . Retrieved 1 May 2010. • Davis, Nicola (2017-11-02). . The Guardian. . Retrieved 2017-11-03. • ^ . . 15 January 2009. Archived from on 18 May 2016 . Retrieved 19 May 2010. • ^ Linda Vigilant (2004).
. . 14 (10): R369–R371. :. . • . United States Census Bureau . Retrieved 29 November 2018.
Foramen magnum - bottom of skull (human head on top of body) S-shaped spine (more stability) Ilium short (pelvis bowl shaped-not elongated) Legs longer (increased stride) Knees angled inward (place feet beneath center of gravity) Longitudinal foot arch (leverage and shock absorbing) Big toe not opposable (support body - not grasping) Human origins and bipedalism is related to the greater efficiency in moving on two limbs rather than four.
Bipedalism arose in areas where forests were fragmented and food resources also became scattered. As forest fragmented, bipedalism freed the hands to pick up food allowing for both tree and ground food resources to be exploited. Freeing the hands was important in allowing males to assist females more efficiently in procuring food "Provisioning" form of sexual competition among males for females.
Birth spacing would also be reduced, since females would have to move around less and would have access to greater food resources. Hypothesis makes the argument for monogamous fathers.
Generea of pre-australopithecines that existed 5.8 to 4.4 million years ago in east Africa at Aramis Ethiopia. Partial skeleton, other bones, and teeth. Variation in tooth wear; possessed thin enamel. Lived in a forest. Time spent on ground and in trees. Huge assemblage of fossils means this species is well understood, comparatively. Existed 4 to 1 million years ago.
Hundred of fossils have been found, with nine or more species from one genus. Variation mostly in size and robusticity. Small and gracile to large and robust.
Small brains. Small canines and large premolars and molars. Later australopithecines have very large face, jaws, and teeth.
Genera of Australopithecus that existed 3.6 to 3 million years ago in East Africa. Best known australopithecine. Lucy (type of specimen).
Hadar (Ethiopia). Very complete... 40% of her skeleton recovered. Lucy stoold slightly more than one meter or 3.5 feet. Males stand about 5-5.5 feet. Bipedal, may have had stride similar to modern humans. Long arms, curved finger bones, suggesting tree use. Cranial capacity of 430 cc. Laetoli. East Africa, Ethiopia. A. Aferensis fossils. Includes footprints of three hominids in volcanic ash. Afarensis lived in varied habitats.
Forest, woodlands, and open country. Successfully adapting to and exploiting new habitats. More diverse diet than predecessors. Two lineages of hominid evolution emerge from the first earlier more primitive australopithecines and reflect multiple adaptions.
One adaptive pattern associated with (leads to) origin and evolution of genus Homo. Other adaptive patterns leads to several later australopithecine lineages in East and South Africa which are evolutionary ____ ___ Existed 2.5 million years ago in East Africa, Ethiopia. Bones, teeth, partial skeleton, and a skull. Cranial capacity of 450 cc. More humanlike humerus-to-femur ratio. Longer legs (femur), less arboreal than earlier australopithecines.
Lived on lakeshore, probable ancestor of Homo. Based on features and chronological position. mammal bones with cutmarks, leading to conclusion that A. garhi used stone tools earlier to process food. Cut meat off bone and get at marrow. Stone tools were long associated with meat consumption. Bone tools were also used for digging in the ground. Australopithecus were the first hominids to make stone tools. Found in South Africa and dated back 2 million years ago.
Found in cave sites in South Africa (unlike rift valley of East Africa). Large premolars and molars, large face and well-developed sagittal crest. Similar to East African robust forms. Indicates widespread adaption to chewing hard foods and eating significant amounts of low-quality foods. Found in Cave site Malapa, South Africa and existed 2 o 1.5 million years ago.
Had relatively small face, jaws, and teeth. Had small body and long arms like those of australopithecines. Broad pelvis and overall shape are more Homo-like. Presence of Homo-like features suggest a place in the ancestry of genus Homo. Went extinct in East Africa and South Africa by 1.0 million years ago.
Lineage leading to Homo had increasing flexible and generalized diet. Later robust australopithecines had increasing focus on narrower range of food. Diet had role in extinction. Australopithecine brains show very little increase in size.
Determining the Age of a Fossil Using Carbon-14