2 results
5 - Craniometric variation in early Homo compared to modern gorillas: a population-thinking approach
-
- By Joseph M. A. Miller, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA, Gene H. Albrecht, Department of Cell and Neurobiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA, Bruce R. Gelvin, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330, USA
- Edited by Fred Anapol, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Rebecca Z. German, University of Cincinnati, Nina G. Jablonski, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco
-
- Book:
- Shaping Primate Evolution
- Published online:
- 10 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 20 May 2004, pp 66-96
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Controversy has surrounded Homo habilis since its inception. Leakey et al. (1964) first described the taxon based on fossils discovered at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, East Africa (e.g., OH 7, OH 13, and OH 16). The first major debate concerned whether the fossils were representative of previously known taxa such as Australopithecus africanus and Homo erectus (e.g., Robinson, 1966; Brace et al., 1973). With the discovery of additional specimens in the 1970s from Tanzania (e.g., OH 24), Kenya (e.g., ER 1470 and ER 1813), and South Africa (e.g., Stw 53), H. habilis gained general acceptance as a valid taxon (Tobias, 1991).
In the 1980s and 1990s, however, a new controversy arose. Some workers concluded that the craniometric variation among early Homo crania is too great in degree or too different in pattern for a single species (Wood, 1985; Stringer, 1986; Lieberman et al., 1988; Wood, 1991, 1993; Kramer et al., 1995; Grine et al., 1996). Others (Tobias, 1991; Miller, 1991, 2000) concluded that the available data provide no basis for rejecting the single-species hypothesis.
The present study uses a population-thinking approach to compare craniometric variation among the most complete early Homo crania (KNM-ER 1470, KNM-ER 1813, OH 24, and Stw 53) to intraspecific variation in gorillas (see Fig. 5.1 for geographic distribution of fossils and gorillas). Our approach, first introduced in Albrecht et al. (2003), differs from previous, traditional studies in two fundamental ways.
4 - The hierarchy of intraspecific craniometric variation in gorillas: A population-thinking approach with implications for fossil species recognition studies
-
- By Gene H. Albrecht, Department of Cell and Neurobiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, U.S.A., Bruce R. Gelvin, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330, U.S.A., Joseph M. A. Miller, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, U.S.A.
- Edited by Andrea B. Taylor, Duke University, North Carolina, Michele L. Goldsmith, Tufts University, Massachusetts
-
- Book:
- Gorilla Biology
- Published online:
- 11 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 05 December 2002, pp 62-103
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Understanding the nature of intraspecific craniometric variation in Gorilla gorilla is of major importance in paleoanthropology since gorillas are often used to model what variation might have looked like in a fossil hominid species. The use of modern species analogs, like gorillas, is a critical factor in fossil species recognition studies that seek to determine whether a sample of fossils represents one or more species. In such studies, a decision must be made as to whether the variation in the fossil sample is representative of intraspecific or interspecific variation. Consequently, accurately characterizing intraspecific variation in modern taxa is the foundation upon which such decisions rest.
The concept of “population thinking” should have a central role in fossil species recognition studies. Mayr (1963:5–6) states: “the replacement of typological thinking by population thinking is perhaps the greatest conceptual revolution that has taken place in biology” (see also, among many others: Mayr, 1942, 1969, 1976, 1999; Mayr et al., 1953; Simpson, 1953, 1961; Mayr & Ashlock, 1991). By population thinking, we mean the theory and practice of population systematics in which biological species are thought of as aggregates of interbreeding natural populations comprising individuals that vary genetically and phenetically. Questions have been raised about the extent to which biological anthropologists have embraced population thinking (e.g., Fuller & Caspari, 2001). While paleoanthropologists may be familiar with the theory, fossil species recognition studies have not fully incorporated population thinking into their practical design or interpretation of results.