Australopithecines

11/27/2017
Assignment 3
}  Available later today

}  Due on December 6th

}  Basic understanding of the skeleton

}  Get familiar with some fossils outside of lecture
Discussion
}  Remember way back to the beginning of this class…
what is a paradigm shift?

}  What did we discuss last lecture that could be considered

a paradigm shift for understanding the last common
ancestor between humans and chimpanzees?
Australopithecus
}  over 4 million years old, was an obligate biped,
unambiguous on hominid line and shown below in red
Genus Australopithecus
}  Members of the genus Australopithecus are the earliest
unambiguous members of the hominid line

}  The term “australopithecine” refers to the members of

this genus, whether agreed upon by everyone, or not
}  The “robust australopithecines” are put in their own genus
Paranthropus by some
}  Australopithecus sediba is considered to be Homo by some

}  Although these individuals are undoubtedly hominids, the

next line of debate is which one gave rise to the genus
Homo..
The key players..

Au. sediba Au. robustus Au. boisei

Au. africanus Au. aethiopicus

Au. afarensis

Au. anamensis

? Ardipithecus
The key players..

Au. sediba Au. robustus Au. boisei

Au. africanus Au. aethiopicus

East Africa
South Africa

Au. afarensis

Au. anamensis

? Ardipithecus
The key players..

Au. sediba Au. robustus Au. boisei

Au. africanus Au. aethiopicus

In this version, robust

Au. afarensis australopithecines are
monophyletic and thus
considered their own genus,
Paranthropus, by some
Au. anamensis

? Ardipithecus
East Africa
}  Rift Valley exposures
}  Open-air sites
}  Lots of volcanic ash allows for precise dating of sites
Starting at the bottom.. Au. anamensis
Au. sediba Au. robustus Au. boisei

Au. africanus Au. aethiopicus

Au. afarensis

Au. anamensis

? Ardipithecus
 Starting at the bottom.. Au. anamensis
}  The oldest and most primitive of
australopithecines, appearing around 4.2 to
3.9 mya in Kenya

}  The oldest is just 200,000 years younger

than Ardipithecus ramidus, leaving precious
little time for anatomical changes to occur if
Ardipithecus is indeed the ancestor

}  Au. anamensis is an incontrovertible biped

}  Tibia (lower leg bone) shows increased forces
going through the ankle and a larger articulation
area at the knee
Au. anamensis

}  Still retains primitive “ape-like” traits

}  The jaw is more U shaped

}  There is still a CP3 cutting complex
Au. sediba Au. robustus Au. boisei

Au. africanus Au. aethiopicus

Au. afarensis

Au. anamensis

? Ardipithecus
 Au. afarensis - Lucy’s species – 3.9-2.9 mya
}  The species Au. afarensis is one of the best known
hominid species, thanks largely in part to one of
the most complete fossil human skeletons known
to date – A.L. 288-1, nicknamed Lucy

}  Her anatomy provided the benchmark to which

all other hominids are compared
}  Revealed the pattern mosaic of primitive and derived
features we see on the hominid line
 Au. afarensis - Lucy’s species – 3.9-2.9 mya
}  The species Au. afarensis is one of the best known
hominid species, thanks largely in part to one of
the most complete fossil human skeletons known
to date – A.L. 288-1, nicknamed Lucy

}  Her anatomy provided the benchmark to which

all other hominids are compared
}  Revealed the pattern mosaic of primitive and derived
features we see on the hominid line

The site of Hadar in Ethiopia has provided a large

number of fossils, including the skeleton of Lucy
Au. afarensis features
}  Like Au. anamensis, the cranial and dental
features are intermediate between apes and
modern humans

}  The afarensis face was prognathic, but to a

lesser degree than modern apes

}  The dental arcade is U-shaped, with large

anterior teeth and parallel tooth rows

}  The canine teeth are smaller than Au.

anamensis, with no CP3 honing complex.
Some P3s have 2 cusps
Au. afarensis features
}  Postcranially, Au afarensis is clearly an accomplished biped

}  Short, broad,

lateraly flaring
Au. afarensis
iliac blades

}  Angled femur

}  Enlarged condyles

Laetoli, Tanzania
}  Indirect evidence of bipedalism in
afarensis comes from footprints
preserved in ashfall from a volcano
}  The pelvis of afarensis was actually relatively broader than
in modern humans

}  The “funnel-shaped” rib

cage suggests that the
gut was larger for
digesting lower quality
plant matter
}  Longer arms relative to leg length, but they are not used
on knuckle-walking

}  Evidence of some

maintenance of
arboreality in the longer,
more curved phalanges
of both the fingers and
toes

}  As well as possibly more

flexible ankles and hips
South Africa
}  Sink hole caves
}  Breccia is a cement-like matrix of
fossilized bone and rock
}  Problematic stratigraphy
}  No volcanic ash for dating
}  Hominids did not live in the caves, their remains fell/
washed in
Au. sediba Au. robustus Au. boisei

Au. africanus Au. aethiopicus

Au. afarensis

Au. anamensis

? Ardipithecus
 Au. africanus - 3.5-2 mya - South Africa
}  The first australopithecine ever
discovered (1924) – The Taung Child
}  Australopithecus = ‘southern ape-man’

}  Tiny partial skull and a fossilized

impression of the interior braincase –
endocast

}  The position of the foramen magnum

features of the brain suggested this was
not an ape, but instead was a bipedal
human ancestor
First, the Piltdown hoax
}  Because of the Piltdown Hoax, it was not until 1950 that
Australopithecus was accepted as a human ancestor

}  Fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said

to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at
Piltdown, East Sussex, England

}  Determined to be human cranium and orangutan jaw

(suggesting human brain size increase happened first)

}  Relative amounts of Fluorine different in cranium and jaw

finalized the find as a hoax
}  Meanwhile, many other discoveries of fossils of the same
species were being made

}  The site of Sterkfontein, where the famous “Mrs. Ples”

was found, has yielded the most Au africanus specimens..
Undoubtedly bipedal, thus squashing the controversy
surrounding the Taung Child
Au. africanus features
}  More derived than Au. afarensis in several aspects of the
cranial skeleton
}  Larger braincase (450-550cc opposed to 350-550cc)
}  Rounded vault lacking crests
}  Less prognathic face
}  Small anterior teeth, especially canines
}  Larger molars

“Littlefoot” from Sterkfontein

Au. africanus
}  The oldest hominid in South
Africa

}  Thought to have evolved from an

east Africa species that then
migrated south
}  Au afarensis?

}  Au africanus sites, like afarensis

sites, also appear to be woodland
and open woodland environments
which may have provided some
protection from predators
Au. sediba Au. robustus Au. boisei

Au. africanus Au. aethiopicus

Au. afarensis

Au. anamensis

? Ardipithecus
Au. Sediba – 1.97-1.78 mya

}  A newly discovered South African hominid was just

announced in 2010

}  The site has yielded reliable dates using the half-life of
Uranium isotopes

}  Small brain size (420-435cc), small body size, long arms

}  But this australopithecine seems to show more

characteristics similar to Homo than do the others
Au. sediba
}  Smaller jaw and teeth
(australopithecines
have big molars for
grinding that then
reduce in size with
Homo)

}  Less prognathic face

}  Many researchers want to say that this is ancestral to

the genus Homo, but more specimens will need to be
found and analyzed to know for sure
Robust australopithecines

Au. sediba Au. robustus Au. boisei

Au. africanus Au. aethiopicus

Au. afarensis

Au. anamensis

? Ardipithecus
Robust Australopithecines
}  Robust australopithecines
are united by a suite of
features related to their
feeding adaptations that
allowed great force to be
put through the molars

}  Often thought as Robust australopithecine on the left

representing “hard object
feeding”

}  Likely ate tough to chew

foods as “fallback” foods
Robust Australopithecines
}  Muscles of mastication (chewing) are
maximized in size and placement for
mechanical efficiency

}  Sagittal crest

}  Big, flared/forward-facing cheeks

}  Post-orbital constriction

}  Dished face

Sagittal Crest
}  Evidence of cranial cresting, such as the sagittal crest,
suggesting more emphasis on chewing
}  Shown here on a gorilla
}  More prominent in robust australopiths

Large brain case and smaller temporalis muscle

results in no cresting in humans
Robust Australopithecines
}  The posterior dentition of robust australopithecines is
enormous – larger than even the large molars of other
australopithecines
}  The anterior teeth are tiny – smaller than even the
reduced anterior dentition of other australopithecines
}  The premolars are “molarized” – big, low rounded cusps
Robusts co-exist with australopithecines and even early Homo before going extinct
Niche separation
}  The very different morphology between robust species and
“gracile” species living at the same time demonstrates that
they were utilizing different niches

}  Similar to chimpanzees and gorillas who live in the same

forests – although they both prefer fruit when it is available,
gorillas will eat leaves before competing with others for fruit
Au. robustus – 2.0-1.5 mya – South Africa
}  From sites practically next door to Au
africanus sites in South Africa

}  Sinkhole caves, but biostratigraphy

provides a relatively narrow date range

}  Cranial capacity about 500-550cc,

bigger than gracile australopithecines SK 48
Au. boisei – 2.3-1.2 mya – East Africa
}  Many remains, both cranial and
postcranial, of Au boisei have been
found in East Africa

}  They were around for a long time,

co-existing with early Homo

}  Nasal bones and browridge different

than the robust form in S.A.

OH 5 - “Zinj”
Au. aethiopicus – 2.7-2.5 mya – East Africa
}  Known from one skull

}  Considered the ancestor to Au boisei,

and possibly to Au robustus

}  Shares the robust masticatory traits

but also has primitive, more Au
afarensis-like features such as small
brain size, projecting face, and large “The black skull”
anterior teeth
Au. sediba Au. robustus Au. boisei
?
Au. africanus Au. aethiopicus
Au. garhi

Au. afarensis

K. platyops Au. bahrelghazali

Au. anamensis

? Ardipithecus
Lumpers vs. Splitters
}  Kenyanthropus platyops – 3.5 mya – Kenya – nearly
complete, but crushed cranium with a very flat
face
}  Some say Au platyops, others just lump it in with Au
afarensis

}  Au. bahrelgahzali - 3.5-3.0 mya – Chad, West Africa

– partial mandibe, seven teeth
}  Most consider it to be a member of Au afarensis
}  Too fragmentery

}  Au. garhi – 2.5 mya – Ethiopia – multiple fossils

}  Some say it is a late surviving Au afarensis
}  Notable site for the presence of the earliest tools and
the evidence of butchering (cutmarks on bone)
Remaining Questions
}  How many species were there?
}  Understanding the variation of one species is difficult..
}  Many more may still be found
}  How large was their geographic distribution?
}  With Sahelanthropus and Au bahrelgahzali in West Africa, we are
reminded that the hominids were not isolated to East Africa
}  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
}  Did only one lineage emerge from the ancestral ape stock?
}  There are two ways to look at this – that one lineage evolved into
hominids or that natural selection experimented with bipedal
posture and locomotion and increased brain size in multiple lineages,
and eventually only one survived becoming our ancestor.
}  We will never know exactly how diverse it was back then..
Summary
}  Australopithecine species are often described as
belonging to one of two groups – gracile or robust

}  Robust species may share traits associated with heavy

mastication because they share a common ancestor with
those traits, and would thus be best explained as their
own monophyletic group, Paranthropus

}  OR robust species may have acquired those traits

independently due to similar environmental pressures in
both east and south Africa