来自Sterkfontein的部分骨架StW 431——是时候重新思考南非上新世-更新世人类的多样性了吗?

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Gabriele A Macho, Cinzia Fornai, Christine Tardieu, Philip Hopley, Martin Haeusler, Michel Toussaint
{"title":"来自Sterkfontein的部分骨架StW 431——是时候重新思考南非上新世-更新世人类的多样性了吗?","authors":"Gabriele A Macho,&nbsp;Cinzia Fornai,&nbsp;Christine Tardieu,&nbsp;Philip Hopley,&nbsp;Martin Haeusler,&nbsp;Michel Toussaint","doi":"10.4436/JASS.98020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The discovery of the nearly complete Plio-Pleistocene skeleton StW 573 Australopithecus prometheus from Sterkfontein Member 2, South Africa, has intensified debates as to whether Sterkfontein Member 4 contains a hominin species other than Australopithecus africanus. For example, it has recently been suggested that the partial skeleton StW 431 should be removed from the A. africanus hypodigm and be placed into A. prometheus. Here we re-evaluate this latter proposition, using published information and new comparative data. Although both StW 573 and StW 431 are apparently comparable in their arboreal (i.e., climbing) and bipedal adaptations, they also show significant morphological differences. Surprisingly, StW 431 cannot be unequivocally aligned with either StW 573 or other hominins from Sterkfontein commonly attributed to A. africanus (nor with Paranthropus robustus and Australopithecus sediba). This finding, together with considerations about the recent dating of Plio-Pleistocene hominin-bearing sites in South Africa and palaeoecological/palaeoclimatic conditions, raises questions whether it is justified to subsume hominins from Taung, Makapansgat and Sterkfontein (and Gladysvale) within a single taxon. Given the wealth of fossil material and analytical techniques now available, we call for a re-evaluation of the taxonomy of South African Plio-Pleistocene hominins. Such an endeavour should however go beyond the current (narrow) focus on establishing an A. africanus-A. prometheus dichotomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48668,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anthropological Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The partial skeleton StW 431 from Sterkfontein - Is it time to rethink the Plio-Pleistocene hominin diversity in South Africa?\",\"authors\":\"Gabriele A Macho,&nbsp;Cinzia Fornai,&nbsp;Christine Tardieu,&nbsp;Philip Hopley,&nbsp;Martin Haeusler,&nbsp;Michel Toussaint\",\"doi\":\"10.4436/JASS.98020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The discovery of the nearly complete Plio-Pleistocene skeleton StW 573 Australopithecus prometheus from Sterkfontein Member 2, South Africa, has intensified debates as to whether Sterkfontein Member 4 contains a hominin species other than Australopithecus africanus. For example, it has recently been suggested that the partial skeleton StW 431 should be removed from the A. africanus hypodigm and be placed into A. prometheus. Here we re-evaluate this latter proposition, using published information and new comparative data. Although both StW 573 and StW 431 are apparently comparable in their arboreal (i.e., climbing) and bipedal adaptations, they also show significant morphological differences. Surprisingly, StW 431 cannot be unequivocally aligned with either StW 573 or other hominins from Sterkfontein commonly attributed to A. africanus (nor with Paranthropus robustus and Australopithecus sediba). This finding, together with considerations about the recent dating of Plio-Pleistocene hominin-bearing sites in South Africa and palaeoecological/palaeoclimatic conditions, raises questions whether it is justified to subsume hominins from Taung, Makapansgat and Sterkfontein (and Gladysvale) within a single taxon. Given the wealth of fossil material and analytical techniques now available, we call for a re-evaluation of the taxonomy of South African Plio-Pleistocene hominins. Such an endeavour should however go beyond the current (narrow) focus on establishing an A. africanus-A. prometheus dichotomy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48668,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anthropological Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anthropological Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4436/JASS.98020\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anthropological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4436/JASS.98020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在南非Sterkfontein Member 2发现的几乎完整的上新世至更新世的StW 573南方古猿普罗米修斯骨架,加剧了关于Sterkfontein Member 4是否包含非洲南方古猿以外的人类物种的争论。例如,最近有人建议将非洲南方古猿的部分骨架StW 431从非洲南方古猿中移除,并将其放入普罗米修斯古猿中。在这里,我们重新评估后一个命题,使用已发表的信息和新的比较数据。虽然StW 573和StW 431在树栖(即攀爬)和两足适应方面具有明显的可比性,但它们也表现出显著的形态差异。令人惊讶的是,StW 431不能明确地与StW 573或其他来自Sterkfontein的古人类一致,这些古人类通常被认为是非洲古猿(也不能与傍人粗笨猿和南方古猿源泉种)。这一发现,再加上最近对南非上新世-更新世古人类遗址的年代测定和古生态/古气候条件的考虑,提出了一个问题,即把来自Taung、Makapansgat和Sterkfontein(以及Gladysvale)的古人类归为一个分类群是否合理。鉴于现有的丰富的化石材料和分析技术,我们呼吁对南非上新世-更新世人族的分类进行重新评估。然而,这样的努力应该超越目前(狭隘的)关注于建立一个非洲类群。普罗米修斯的二分法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The partial skeleton StW 431 from Sterkfontein - Is it time to rethink the Plio-Pleistocene hominin diversity in South Africa?

The discovery of the nearly complete Plio-Pleistocene skeleton StW 573 Australopithecus prometheus from Sterkfontein Member 2, South Africa, has intensified debates as to whether Sterkfontein Member 4 contains a hominin species other than Australopithecus africanus. For example, it has recently been suggested that the partial skeleton StW 431 should be removed from the A. africanus hypodigm and be placed into A. prometheus. Here we re-evaluate this latter proposition, using published information and new comparative data. Although both StW 573 and StW 431 are apparently comparable in their arboreal (i.e., climbing) and bipedal adaptations, they also show significant morphological differences. Surprisingly, StW 431 cannot be unequivocally aligned with either StW 573 or other hominins from Sterkfontein commonly attributed to A. africanus (nor with Paranthropus robustus and Australopithecus sediba). This finding, together with considerations about the recent dating of Plio-Pleistocene hominin-bearing sites in South Africa and palaeoecological/palaeoclimatic conditions, raises questions whether it is justified to subsume hominins from Taung, Makapansgat and Sterkfontein (and Gladysvale) within a single taxon. Given the wealth of fossil material and analytical techniques now available, we call for a re-evaluation of the taxonomy of South African Plio-Pleistocene hominins. Such an endeavour should however go beyond the current (narrow) focus on establishing an A. africanus-A. prometheus dichotomy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Anthropological Sciences
Journal of Anthropological Sciences Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anthropological Sciences (JASs) publishes reviews, original papers and notes concerning human paleontology, prehistory, biology and genetics of extinct and extant populations. Particular attention is paid to the significance of Anthropology as an interdisciplinary field of research. Only papers in English can be considered for publication. All contributions are revised by the editorial board together with the panel of referees.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信