Sexual Size Dimorphism in Australopithecus: Postcranial Dimorphism Differs Significantly Among Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, and Modern Humans Despite Low-Power Resampling Analyses

IF 1.7 2区 生物学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Adam D. Gordon
{"title":"Sexual Size Dimorphism in Australopithecus: Postcranial Dimorphism Differs Significantly Among Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, and Modern Humans Despite Low-Power Resampling Analyses","authors":"Adam D. Gordon","doi":"10.1002/ajpa.70093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Dimorphism estimates are used to infer competition levels, social structure, and mating system in fossil hominins. However, previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions about the degree of postcranial dimorphism present in <i>Australopithecus afarensis</i>, and statistical comparisons of postcranial size dimorphism between <i>A. afarensis</i> and other early hominins are lacking. This study addresses reasons for differences in published studies and directly compares dimorphism in <i>A. afarensis</i>, <i>A. africanus</i>, and extant hominids.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Eight postcranial variables represent size for three extant hominids (gorillas, humans, and chimpanzees) and two extinct hominins (<i>Australopithecus afarensis</i> and <i>A. africanus</i>). A modified version of Gordon et al.'s (2008) geometric mean method is used to perform significance tests for direct comparisons of estimated sexual size dimorphism in two fossil samples with different patterns of missing data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Both <i>Australopithecus</i> species are highly dimorphic—significantly more dimorphic than chimpanzees and modern humans. <i>A. afarensis</i> is also significantly more dimorphic than <i>A. africanus</i>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Previous studies (and this analysis) are typically too low-powered to find significant differences between humans and extant African apes when sampled in the same manner as fossils, rendering negative results for fossil comparisons noninformative. In this study, effect sizes for differences in dimorphism between fossils and other species are large enough to be significant, even at low power. Results suggest intense sexual selection maintained high dimorphism in both fossil species, but also that different species-specific suites of selection pressure produced diversity in the degree of dimorphism present across <i>Australopithecus</i> species.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":29759,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Biological Anthropology","volume":"187 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Biological Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.70093","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Dimorphism estimates are used to infer competition levels, social structure, and mating system in fossil hominins. However, previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions about the degree of postcranial dimorphism present in Australopithecus afarensis, and statistical comparisons of postcranial size dimorphism between A. afarensis and other early hominins are lacking. This study addresses reasons for differences in published studies and directly compares dimorphism in A. afarensis, A. africanus, and extant hominids.

Materials and Methods

Eight postcranial variables represent size for three extant hominids (gorillas, humans, and chimpanzees) and two extinct hominins (Australopithecus afarensis and A. africanus). A modified version of Gordon et al.'s (2008) geometric mean method is used to perform significance tests for direct comparisons of estimated sexual size dimorphism in two fossil samples with different patterns of missing data.

Results

Both Australopithecus species are highly dimorphic—significantly more dimorphic than chimpanzees and modern humans. A. afarensis is also significantly more dimorphic than A. africanus.

Discussion

Previous studies (and this analysis) are typically too low-powered to find significant differences between humans and extant African apes when sampled in the same manner as fossils, rendering negative results for fossil comparisons noninformative. In this study, effect sizes for differences in dimorphism between fossils and other species are large enough to be significant, even at low power. Results suggest intense sexual selection maintained high dimorphism in both fossil species, but also that different species-specific suites of selection pressure produced diversity in the degree of dimorphism present across Australopithecus species.

南方古猿性别大小的二型性:阿法种南方古猿、非洲古猿和现代人的颅骨后二型性差异显著,尽管低功率重采样分析
目的利用二态性估计来推断古人类化石的竞争水平、社会结构和交配系统。然而,以往的研究对阿法南方古猿颅骨后二型性的程度得出了相互矛盾的结论,并且缺乏对阿法南方古猿与其他早期人类颅骨后尺寸二型性的统计比较。本研究解决了已发表研究中差异的原因,并直接比较了南方古猿阿法种、非洲古猿和现存人科动物的二型性。材料与方法8个颅后变量代表了3种现存人科动物(大猩猩、人类和黑猩猩)和2种灭绝人科动物(阿法南猿和非洲古猿)的大小。使用Gordon等人(2008)的几何平均方法的改进版本,对两个具有不同缺失数据模式的化石样本中估计的性别大小二态性进行直接比较的显著性检验。结果两种南方古猿都具有高度的二态性,明显高于黑猩猩和现代人类。南方古猿阿法种也明显比非洲古猿更具二态性。以前的研究(和本分析)通常都是低功率的,无法发现人类和现存的非洲猿之间的显著差异,当以同样的方式取样作为化石时,导致化石比较的负面结果是非信息性的。在这项研究中,即使在低功率下,化石和其他物种之间二态性差异的效应量也足够大,以至于显著。结果表明,在这两个化石物种中,激烈的性选择维持了高度的二态性,但也表明,不同物种特异性的选择压力组在二态性程度上产生了多样性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信