Australopithecus sediba (UW88-50) of Malapa, South Africa Anthropol...

http://anthropology.net/2010/04/08/australopithecus-sediba-uw88-50-of-...

Beyond bones & stones

with 10 comments Lee Bergers son, Matthew, found the ~1.9 million year old hominin remains of female adult and a juvenile male in cave deposits at Malapa, South Africa. The remains have been analyzed and been published in Science today, and so far this finding is the big fossil hominid of 2010. The skull of the juvenile is the cover image for this weeks issue of Science.

Australopithecus sediba on the cover of Science Todays paleoanthropology new is what was eluded to by a commenter last month. I talked to some colleagues about what the commenter could have been referring to back then, and they told me Bergers gonna be releasing his findings on UW88-50. I didnt report on it then because of several reasons, one of which was time constraints but also because I really didnt have much information on the fossils. Theres a lot more press out today about it and while, I dont have much time to digest it all, I figured Ill at least share it with you in case youve been living under a rock. The remains have been given a new species classification, Australopithecus sediba and are probably descendants of Australopithecus africanus. Like every other new fossil hominin species, theres an array of archaic and modern features. The small teeth, projecting nose, very advanced pelvis, along with the long legs are the more modern features. The archaic features are the long arms and small brain case. What is special about Australopithecus sediba is that the hominin fossil record is pretty sparse around 1.9 million years ago and this fossil helps fill that gap. Check out the news coverage, BBC, ABC News

1 of 8

3/7/2012 11:28 PM

Australopithecus sediba (UW88-50) of Malapa, South Africa Anthropol...

http://anthropology.net/2010/04/08/australopithecus-sediba-uw88-50-of-...

Photo: Brett Eloff, courtesy of Lee Australopithecus sediba (specimen Berger and the University of the UW88-50) Witwatersrand

Australopithecus sediba on the cover of Science

Berger, L., de Ruiter, D., Churchill, S., Schmid, P., Carlson, K., Dirks, P., & Kibii, J. (2010). Australopithecus sediba: A New Species of Homo-Like Australopith from South Africa Science, 328 (5975), 195-204 DOI: 10.1126/science.1184944 Dirks, P., Kibii, J., Kuhn, B., Steininger, C., Churchill, S., Kramers, J., Pickering, R., Farber, D., Meriaux, A., Herries, A., King, G., & Berger, L. (2010). Geological Setting and Age of Australopithecus sediba from Southern Africa Science, 328 (5975), 205-208 DOI: 10.1126/science.1184950
Rate this: Share this: 2 Votes

Like this:

Be the first to like this post.

Written by Kambiz Kamrani April 8, 2010 at 7:09 pm Posted in Physical Anthropology Tagged with Australopithecus sediba, lee berger, paleoantropology, UW88-50 Unearthed finger bone points to the possible discovery of an unknown hominin 56 Family Portraits From East Asia

10 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS. 1. The a. sediba Is just another Australopithecus (1.78 1.9 million years ago ) that would have been contemporary with H.erectus. It may not even be a new species of Australopithecus. 3 2 Rate This

2 of 8

3/7/2012 11:28 PM

Australopithecus sediba (UW88-50) of Malapa, South Africa Anthropol...

http://anthropology.net/2010/04/08/australopithecus-sediba-uw88-50-of-...

Uill Frasiel
April 9, 2010 at 2:49 am

Reply There were many australopithicines;a.Bosei,A.Robustus,A.Aferensis,A.Aafricanus and Im thinking that the morphological differences were probably due to certain environmental stressors within the regions they occupied.So I presume that they are just Australopithicines.There were variations even among Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis as some of them were quite large and powerful and others somewhat smaller;they to existed in various regions of Europe and they,as probably all life forms,are subjected to stressors.These stressors may possibly be both external and internal-and I have no clue as to the time when early man could react by thinking.And,of course,being able to think is not an absolute solution to a species survival.Homo habilis was a handyman and I would guess that this would have to be,due to the use of hands and tools,just before H.Erectus,the fire bringer.The way scientists could make an educated guess concerning the new find would be to examine the shape and size of the frontal lobes within the frontal and parietal areas of the cranium.By the way,Stephen J. Gould,I Believe was a noted astrophycisist(not sure of spelling).This is off subject,but he was interveiwed about Einsteins relativity theory,and he stated,you know,I still cant figure how he thought of that. I hope our species survives(if we are a species).We are intelligent,and this does help,however,it as mentioned above,is not absolute.This is probably wrong in some areas,as Im not a paleoanthropologist.Im just an amateur astrophotographer and I think we are all special and possibly unique.I wonder, who was the first hominid to have just a ghost of a thought-Who am I,is there nothing more. 0 0 Rate This

mark
August 4, 2011 at 11:53 pm

Reply 2. Missing link or new species? There are few branches on the bush of apes and old world monkeys but there is a genealogical sequence of branching in the evolution of apes and humans. The late Stephen Jay Gould for one helped me to understand the proper metaphor is bush not ladder and this help me to understand why the search for a missing link between advanced apes and incipient human is so meaningless. A continuous chain may lack a crucial connection, but a branching bush bears no single link at a crucial threshold between no and yes. Rather, each branching point successively restricts the range of closest relatives, the ancestors of all apes being separate from monkeys, forebears of the orangutan from the chimp-gorilla-human- complex, finally precursors of chimps from the ancestors of humans. No branch point can have special status as the missing link and all represent lateral relationships of diversification, not vertical sequences of transformation. There is a common precuror to primates further down the branching bush. An interested in paleoentology can be rewarded with reference to S J Gould 1993, Eight Little Piggies.

3 of 8

3/7/2012 11:28 PM

Australopithecus sediba (UW88-50) of Malapa, South Africa Anthropol...

http://anthropology.net/2010/04/08/australopithecus-sediba-uw88-50-of-...

It is wonderful to be finding more hominids but I still dont quite understand why there are so few fossils maybe we just havent been here long enough in large numbers. 1 1 Rate This

Garry Prockter
April 9, 2010 at 7:59 pm

Reply 3. Harsh-Berger: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100408/full/news.2010.171.html 0 0 Rate This

Occam's Razor
April 10, 2010 at 5:29 am

Reply 4. Another species of human lineages? Australopithecines around 1.8 mya? How many species of human lineages did we have? Are they all really different species? I think this article raises more questions than answers for understanding human evolution. One thing that we know quite for sure is existence of a greater biological variation existed in the past than we have today. 0 2 Rate This

anthrogenetics
April 10, 2010 at 5:15 pm

Reply 5. Thanks for the link, Occams Razor. I think the following comment there sums it up: The new fossil has a suite of characters which confirm that there is no clear boundary between Australopithecus africanus and Homo. How many species of human lineages did we have? Are they all really different species? I doubt very much the new discovery is actually a different species. All species vary over their geographic range, and Id presume Australopithecus did too. Even today the inhabitants of South Africa differ in appearance from those of East Africa, and especially from those of West Africa in spite of the Bantu expansion. Rather, each branching point successively restricts the range of closest relatives The fact that various Australopithecus populations possess different aspects of the later Homo genus

4 of 8

3/7/2012 11:28 PM

Australopithecus sediba (UW88-50) of Malapa, South Africa Anthropol...

http://anthropology.net/2010/04/08/australopithecus-sediba-uw88-50-of-...

suggests to me that human evolution was more complicated even than a simple bush. It suggests mixing and (dare I say it?) hybridization. 0 1 Rate This

terryt
April 11, 2010 at 7:41 pm

Reply 6. it is my opinion early hominid lineage will show much more variation then late (and usually then later). simply because like with most animals the geographical distribution (or(..) habitat) would tend to be more limited and the environmental effects for the species therefore more pronounced. as such i miss any comparative indications about the paleo-environmental setting. it would be interesting to know if the claim of a new species is supported by indications of a different habitat from other australopitheci. as it stands i am sceptical. to mention one example, it is said that the pelvis is very advanced, yet only a rather small fraction of one is found and probably not intact. i am nevertheless very interested in what else will follow and be found, since we dont know much about austr. it occured to me also the specimen appears somewhat archaic for the apparent dating. almost suggesting a remnant population. of that however i am not to sure, the one or few habilis fossils are not much of a solid sample either. btw how i read the article the assumption that animal were drawn by the smell of water concerned other animal fossils then hominids found in the same eroded cave system. hominids could for example be drawn to close by the noise of trapped and wounded animals. 0 1 Rate This

onyx
April 12, 2010 at 3:39 am

Reply 7. [...] Anthropology.net. Australopithecus sediba (UW88-50) of Malapa, South Africa. (paleoanthropology) Okay.. the last one for A. sediba. I promise. But there are some cool photos and an slightly different perspective on the story. Nothing shocking just a different angle. [...] 0 1 Rate This

90th Edition of the Four Stone Hearth!

April 15, 2010 at 9:00 am

Reply 8. wonderful article. we did the interview in easy science between our character sibo and matthew 1 0 Rate This

5 of 8

3/7/2012 11:28 PM

Australopithecus sediba (UW88-50) of Malapa, South Africa Anthropol...

http://anthropology.net/2010/04/08/australopithecus-sediba-uw88-50-of-...

Sanderson Peter
July 1, 2010 at 2:00 am

Reply 9. alluded to, not eluded..eluded is to escape from ..sorry, grammar nerds read this too, not just anthropology ones! 1 0 Rate This

deirdre milks
September 9, 2010 at 12:23 am

Reply

Leave a Reply

Notify me of follow-up comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email.

Post Comment

Pages
About Archives Contact Links

6 of 8

3/7/2012 11:28 PM

Australopithecus sediba (UW88-50) of Malapa, South Africa Anthropol...

http://anthropology.net/2010/04/08/australopithecus-sediba-uw88-50-of-...

Recent Posts
The Iranian Genome Project Complete Denisova Genome Released Applying to Grad School in Anthropology- Where will we go? Are YOU a Neandertal? Microwear Analysis at Dmanisi

Recent Comments
Ancient Beekeeping | on Tel Rehov Reveals the First Be Hugh Man on Evolution of Women in Ant thereviewer on Complete Denisova Genome Complete Denisova Ge on Unearthed finger bone points t khorne on Genetic Relationships of Semit

Top Posts
"Anthropologists! Anthropologists!" Primordial Dwarfism tzi: Iceman's Tattoos Were Born In Fire The Indo-European Branches of the Language Tree Neuron Synapse

Email Subscription
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Join 484 other followers

Primatology.net
Ultrasonic vocalisations allow tiny Primates to talk in private Orangutans Cooling Off Simple Moral Test Clearly Displays Prosociality in Chimpanzees. Maternal Infanticide and Cannibalism in Moustached Tamarin New adapiform species discovered in West Texas

Meta
Register Log in

7 of 8

3/7/2012 11:28 PM

Australopithecus sediba (UW88-50) of Malapa, South Africa Anthropol...

http://anthropology.net/2010/04/08/australopithecus-sediba-uw88-50-of-...

Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.com

Blog Stats
3,437,563 hits Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: The Journalist v1.9 by Lucian E. Marin. Fonts on this blog.

8 of 8

3/7/2012 11:28 PM

Australopithecus africanus Raymond Dart's baby

http://www.macroevolution.net/australopithecus-africanus.html

Online Biology Dictionary

10

Human Evolution | Search | Dictionary

The material attributed to this hominid has been found in only four caves: Taung, Sterkfontein, Makapansgat, and Gladysvale, all in northwestern South Africa. The fossils are from two to three million years old. The first Australopithecus africanus specimen or australopithecine of any kind ever discovered was the Taung Child, (sometimes called the "Taung Baby" the individual in question was three-and-a-half years old) of which the facial portion of the skull is well-preserved (see figure below right). It was found in a box of rocks from the cave at Taung Dart with Taung skull by anatomist Raymond Dart of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. He at first could see only a brain cast protruding from a chunk of stone, but he saw immediately that a primate was in question, and painstakingly chipped the embedded face free of the rock matrix. Dart (1925) immediately claimed the specimen represented a very early human ancestor. The scientific establishment, however, long rejected his claim. Accepted wisdom at the time said humans had come into being in Asia. The most complete skull of an Australopithecus africanus adult ever found (dating to 2.15 mya), a specimen (STS 5) nicknamed "Mrs. Ples" (see figure at right), was discovered in 1947 by Dart's friend, Robert Broom and John T. Robinson at Sterkfontein (see figure below right). Ples is short for Plesianthropus, the defunct genus to "Mrs. Ples" (click to enlarge) Photo: Luna04 which the skull was originally assigned. Many additional Australopithecus africanus fossils continue to be found at Sterkfontein (see picture of excavation), but no others have ever been found at Taung, despite intensive "Mrs. Ples" Photo: Gurin Nicolas search. In a recent paper (Berger 2006), paleontologist Lee Berger provides strong evidence that marks in the eye sockets of the Taung Child are damage caused by birds of prey. The study shows it's likely that an eagle brought the child to the site where the skull was discovered, and that this is the reason for the absence of other australopithecine remains at Taung. The marks that have been interpreted as beak damage caused when eagles ripped out the unfortunate child's eyes are indicated in the figure at left.
Taung Child Beak gouges? (click to enlarge) Photo: Lee Berger

Australopithecus africanus The Taung Child specimen Photo: Gurin Nicolas

Similar to its northern precursor, Australopithecus afarensis, which is known from east Africa, Australopithecus africanus was bipedal with arms a bit longer than its legs. Both were gracile australopithecines with relatively slender builds.

1 of 3

3/7/2012 11:30 PM

Australopithecus africanus Raymond Dart's baby

http://www.macroevolution.net/australopithecus-africanus.html

Australopithecus africanus had a cranial capacity of about 450 cc, a brain size that puts it on a par with a rather brainy modern chimpanzee. Experts who argue Australopithecus africanus was an ancestor of modern humans say it was somewhat more human-like with respect to cranial characteristics than was Australopithecus afarensis. However, it also had apelike traits such as curved fingers suited for climbing trees. Such simian features suggest to some researchers that A. africanus evolved into Paranthropus robustus, one of the robust autralopithecines, not Homo. However whether the facts are consistent with the idea that australopithecines were direct ancestors of humans or not Raymond Dart's work, together with that of Robert Broom and the Leakeys, succeeded in convincing the scientific world that Darwin had been right in asserting humankind had its origins in Africa. The focus remains on that continent today, though the exact role of the australopithecines in human evolution has yet to be resolved.
More about Australopithecus africanus >> More about Raymond Dart >> Human Evolution Chart >> Human Evolution Timeline >> Biology Dictionary >>

A. africanus is known only from nw South Africa

Habitat: Savanna-forest mosaic. Synonym: Plesianthropus transvaalensis. Etymology: The name of this hominid is constructed from the Latin prefix australo-, the Greek suffix -pithecus, and the Latin word africanus meaning from or of Africa. Note: The skull of the Taung Child is strikingly similar to skulls attributed to the far more recent Homo floresiensis. Work cited: Dart, R. A. 1925. Australopithecus africanus: the man-ape of South Africa. Nature, 115: 195-199. (793 Kb download of Dart's first report of the discovery of the Taung skull)
Without your help, it simply isn't possible to keep this dictionary online. It's easy to use your credit card to make a small, secure donation. Please help keep us going! Just click here:

Interesting facts and information about other ancient hominids:

Ardipithecus ramidus
>> >> >> >>

Homo habilis

>> >>

Australopithecus afarensis

Homo rudolfensis Homo erectus

>>

Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus garhi

>> >> >> >>

Australopithecus bahrelghazali Australopithecus sediba

Homo ergaster

>> >> >>

Homo cepranensis

Homo heidelbergensis Homo rhodesiensis>> Homo floresiensis Homo georgicus

>> >>

Kenyanthropus platyops Paranthropus boisei Orrorin tugenensis

>>

Paranthropus aethiopicus Paranthropus robustus

>> >>

Homo neanderthalensis>>
>>

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Home | Biology Dictionary | Suffix Prefix Dictionary | Blog | Famous Biologists

2 of 3

3/7/2012 11:30 PM

Australopithecus africanus Raymond Dart's baby

http://www.macroevolution.net/australopithecus-africanus.html

2011 Macroevolution.net.

3 of 3

3/7/2012 11:30 PM

Evolution: Humans: Origins of Humankind

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/f.html

High-Bandwidth Version

Origins of Humankind
The Hominid Family Tree Australipithecus africanus Homo erectus Orrorin tugenensis (3 to 2 mya) (6 mya) (1.8 to 0.3 mya) Ardipithecus ramidus Australipithecus aethiopicus Australipithecus robustus (4.4 mya) (2.7 to 2.3 mya) (1.8 to 1.5 mya) Australipithecus anamensis Australipithecus garhi Homo heidelbergensis (4.2 to 3.9 mya) (2.5 mya) (600 to 100 tya) Australipithecus afarensis Australipithecus boisei Homo neanderthalensis (3.6 to 2.9 mya) (2.3 to 1.4 mya) (250 to 30 tya) Kenyanthropus platyops Homo habilis Homo sapiens (3.5 to 3.3 mya) (2.3 to 1.6 mya) (100 tya to present) mya = millions of years ago tya = thousands of years ago

Riddle of the Bones Piece together clues about our early ancestors. Deep Time Explore 4 billion years of life on Earth. Life's Grand Design Are nature's complex forms evidence of "intelligent design?" An Origin of Species Witness for yourself how a new species can evolve.

Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 million years ago)

Species Description: Australopithecus africanus was nearly identical in body and brain size to A. afarensis. Like A. afarensis, A. africanus also showed marked differences in size between males and females. Although the teeth and jaws of A. africanus were much larger than modern human teeth, they are still more similar to ours than to the teeth of apes. The upper and lower jaws of A. africanus were also fully rounded in front, like those of modern humans, and their canine teeth were smaller on average than those of A. afarensis. Australopithecus africanus individuals probably inhabited open woodlands, where they would have foraged for fruits, seeds, and roots. Fossil Finds: Taung Child Estimated age: 3 to 2 million years Date of discovery: 1924 Location: Taung, South Africa Collected by workers in a lime quarry, this was the first Australopithecus fossil ever discovered. The scientific community initially rejected the identification of this partial skull, saying that it was some sort of extinct ape species rather than an early form of hominid. Mrs. Ples Estimated age: 3 to 2 million years Date of discovery: 1947 Location: Sterkfontein, South Africa This adult cranium, most likely from a female A. africanus, is the best specimen of the species discovered so far. STS 14 Estimated age: 3 to 2 million years Date of discovery: 1947 Location: Sterkfontein, South Africa These remains of a small adult female include a nearly complete vertebral column, a pelvis, some rib fragments, and part of a femur. The pelvis is far more humanlike than apelike and is strong evidence that A. africanus was bipedal. -> Go to Australipithecus aethiopicus top of page Human Evolution Adaptation and Natural Selection Deep Time/History of Life

1 of 2

3/7/2012 11:43 PM

Evolution: Humans: Origins of Humankind

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/f.html

Videos

Web Activities

Site Guide

About the Project

FAQ

Glossary

Site Map |

Feedback

Help |

Shop

2001

WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. All rights reserved.

2 of 2

3/7/2012 11:43 PM

Australopithecus africanus

http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/africanus.html

Return to the Hominid Index.

This page was last updated on 6/17/00.

Introduction
The species of Australopithecus africanus was named in a February, 1925, issue of Nature by Raymond Dart. R. Dart was one of the pioneers of paleoanthropology, and created quite a furor over the naming of the fossil specimen (the Taung Child skull and endocast) as a hominid. The standard line at the time by some of the powerful figures in the field (e.g., A. Keith and O. Abel) was that the ancestors of humans should be found in Europe, and should have an enlarged brain and an apelike jaw (as was the case in the Piltdown Man hoax). The claim that the specimen was a hominid was rejected by those who saw the material as that of a young chimpanzee or gorilla. This view was not helped by the difficulty in acquiring casts, the material was distant from many in the field (few of which ever travelled to actually view the material), and most importantly, was that of a juvenile. Juveniles are often misrepresentative of adult states, and most researchers claimed that the Taung Child would have developed into a chimpanzee or gorilla ancestor. Due to the hostile or indifferent response of his peers, Dart never followed up the find with further excavations, and no other specimens of the species have been found at Taung. Dart dedicated himself to developing the anatomy department at the University of Witwatersrand, and it would be twenty years later when sites like Sterkfontein were found that corroborated Darts ideas. Though the genus designation mixed both Latin ("australo") and Greek ("pithecus"), the genus name has become accepted as the label by which the group of pre-Homo hominids in Africa have come to be known. Dart claimed that A. africanus was bipedal due to the position of the foramen magnum, and was vindicated by later finds, such as STS 14, which showed unequivocally that africanus was an obligate biped.

Diagnostic Features
The earliest africanus material comes from sites such as Sterkfontein, Makapansgat, Gladysvale, and Taung. This material dates to the end of the Early Pliocene, mostly between 2.9-2.4 myr, with the Sterkfontein Member 2 material (possibly afarensis or other species) being the earliest known possible africanus, dating to about 3.5 myr. The Sterkfontein material are problematic, as there may be intrusions from later strata, and there is a heterogenous mixture of earlier and more modern faunal species, and thus, this material may be as young as 1.0 myr. Most postcrania material attributed to africanus is well within the range of variation of the afarensis material, however, the limb proportions may be different. STS 14 is a 2.5 myr old specimen from Sterkfontein. This specimen is particularly important as it includes both os coxa, as well as many of the vertebrae. This find showed unequivocally that these hominids were bipedal, and were not simply apes, vindicating Raymond Dart. Features of STS 14 that align it with a more humanlike locomotor capacity include: The iliac blade is short and wide. There is a well-developed sciatic notch. There is a strong anterior inferior iliac spine.

1 of 4

3/7/2012 11:44 PM

Australopithecus africanus

http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/africanus.html

STS 14 has six lumbar vertebrae (whereas modern humans have five, and chimps usually have three). With an increased number of lumbar vertebrae (the ancestral condition, as in cercopithecoids), bipedalism may have been the ancestral condition (from a very small-bodied primate?). While it is ver similar in morphology (relative to its size), there are also differences. This specimen differs from modern human in that: There is a forward projecting anterior superior iliac spine. A very small articular surface for the sacrum. A marked outward flare of the iliac blades. There is a fairly large sample of africanus teeth known (though not as large a smaple as the afarensis material). The material shows several important differences when compared to afarensis that include: Postcanine teeth are larger, more bulbously cusped, and relatively broader (the size difference is greater in the later erupting teeth of each type), and may have somewhat thicker enamel, especially on the tooth walls. Dm1 is larger and more squared, with more equal sized cusps. The anterior lower premolars are always bicuspid, usually with equal or close to equal sized cusps, and wear more similarly to the other premolars. The anterior lower premolars have greater enamel thickness. Compared intrasex, the africanus central incisors show no reduction but the other anterior teeth are usually smaller. The ranges almost completely overlap, however, and there are very large canines and incisors in both samples. No canines wear to have cutting edges (canine-premolar diatemata are rare), even though a few are large enough to project beyond the level of the other teeth (this is much more common in the afarensis sample). Although the canines are reduced compared with the earlier Plocene samples, their roots - especially those of the maxilla teeth - are still long and robust. The canines also wear more rapidly than the afarensis material, with the wear almost always on the tips. There is significant sexual dimorphism in the canines, although not as much as any of the apes, while there is sexual dimorphism on the level of gorillas in the postcanine material. This pattern of big teeth seems to have been influenced by the africanus diet and chewing pattern. A. Walker and M. Wolpoff claim that the africanus chewing pattern is similar to modern hunter-gatherer groups, with the molars and premolars designed to last a lifetime of wear and tear (the oldest individuals dying at about the time they have no crowns left in their mouth - max age about 35). The diet of these South African hominids seems to have been seasonal, with emphasis on a frugivory diet, with much seeds and other hard objects being masticated. There is a good sized sample of africanus crania, allowing reasonably strong comments to be made on the materials affinities to other material. Some of the better-known specimens include STS 5 (Mrs. Ples), a 2.5 myr cranium of an adult male with a brain about 485 cc, STS 71, a 2.5 myr male partial cranium with an estimated 428 cc brain, STW 505, an indovidual with a brain esimated to have been 625 cc, and the type specimen of africanus, the Taung Child. The facial features of the africanus material are a mixture of more modern and archaic ones, with similarity to (and important differences between) the afarensis material. Some of these features (relative to afarensis include: Retraction of the palate from a position in front of the face to under it. Forward shift of the zygomatic processes of the maxilla, the zygomatic bone, and the front of the masseter muscle, creating the zygomatic prominence. Expansion of the anterior part of the temporalis muscle. A broader nasal aperture. Anterior pillars extending above the canine roots, of variable expression creating thickened lateral nasal margins.

2 of 4

3/7/2012 11:44 PM

Australopithecus africanus

http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/africanus.html

Structural changes in the jaw related to expanding premolars and molars, as well as incisor and (especially) canine reduction and decreased emphasis on anterior loading.

Conclusions
The africanus material is seen as different things by different people. Some see this as a regional variation or subspecies of afarensis, some see it as two completely different species, and some consider the africanus material to be the descendants of afarensis. Another important question that has been, is, and will probably always be debated is the question of whether the africanus material represents two or more species, a sexually dimorphic species, or a very variable species (especially with regards to inter-era speculation). The accepted view seems to be that they deserve separate species status due to both their differences from the afarensis material and their geographic separation from them. However, a very important question in debate is whether or not this species contributed to the modern human lineage.

Bibliography
This bibliography contains the sources of the information cited above, as well as any sources that could provide any other information on the subject. If you know of any other sources that are pertinent to A. africanus, please e-mail me the citation in the format used below, and I will add it to the list. Any problems with information I presented above can be sent to me here. I don't want to provide disinformation, and any corrections are gladly accepted (with proper documentation of what is wrong and why, with sources). Thanks! Abitbol, M.M. 1995. "Reconstruction of the STS 14 (Australopithcus africanus) pelvis" In American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 96, pp. 143-158. Aiello, L., and C. Dean. 1990. An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy. London: Academic Press. Berger, L.R., and R.J. Clarke. 1995. "Eagle involvement of the Taung child fauna." In Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 29, pp. 275-299. Broom, R. 1925. "Some notes on the Taungs skull." In Nature, vol. 115, pp. 569-571. Broom, R. 1947. "Discovery of a new skull of the South African ape-man, Plesianthropus." In Nature, vol. 159, pp. 672. Broom, R. and J.T. Robinson. 1949 "A new mandible of the ape-man Plesianthropus transvaalensis." In American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vo. 7, pp. 123-127. Broom, R., J.T. Robinson, and G.W.H. Schepers. 1950. "Sterkfontein Ape-man Plesianthropus" In Memoirs of the Transvaal Museum, no. 4. Clarke, R.J. 1996. "The genus Paranthropus: What's in a name?" In Contemporary Issues in Human Evolution., ed. by W.E. Meikle, F.C. Howell, and N.G. Jablonski, pp. ?-?. San Francisco: California Academy of Science. Dart, R. 1925. "Australopithecus africanus. The man-ape of South Africa." In Nature, vol. 115, pp. 195-199. Dart, R. 1967. Adventures with the Missing Link. Philidelphia: The Institutes Press. Johanson, D., and B. Edgar. 1996. From Lucy to Language. New York: Simon and Schuster Editions. Jones, S., R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, eds. 1992. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution.

3 of 4

3/7/2012 11:44 PM

Australopithecus africanus

http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/africanus.html

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McHenry, H. 1994. "Behavioral ecological implications of early hominid body size." In Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 27, pp. 77-87. McHenry, H. 1998. "Body proportions in Australopithecus afarensis and A. africanus and the origin of the genus Homo." In Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 35, pp. 1-22. Rak, Y. 1983. The Australopithecine face. New York: Academic Press. Robinson, J.T. 1956. The Dentition of the Australopithecinae. Transvaal Museum Memoir No. 9, pp. 1-179. Robinson, J.T. 1972. Early Hominid Posture and Locomotion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tobias, P.V. 1992. "New researches at Sterkfontein and Taung with a note on Piltdown and its relavence to the history of paleo-anthropology." In Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, vol. 48, pp. 1-14. Wolpoff, M. 1999. Paleoanthropology. second edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Go back to the main page.
Problems? Errors? Let me know.

4 of 4

3/7/2012 11:44 PM

Possible New Human Ancestor Discovered | Wired Science | Wired.com

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/australopithecus-sediba/

Previous post Next post 0

Tweet

1
Share

Possible New Human Ancestor Discovered

By Brandon Keim Email Author April 8, 2010 | 10:53 am | Categories: Miscellaneous
Like Send 581 people like this.

Two 1.9 million-year-old skeletons found in a South African cave have added a new and intriguing member to the primate family. Dubbed Australopithecus sediba, it has many features including long legs and a protruding nose common to Homo, the genus that eventually spawned humans. Other features, such as extra-long forearms and flexible feet, date from deep in our primate past.
1 of 13

3/7/2012 11:46 PM

Possible New Human Ancestor Discovered | Wired Science | Wired.com

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/australopithecus-sediba/

Paleontologists disagree over whether A. sediba is a direct human ancestor, or just looks like one. But whatever their lineage, the fossils provide rare insight into a period shrouded in paleontological mystery. We feel that A. sediba might be a Rosetta Stone for defining for the first time what the genus Homo is, said paleontologist Lee Berger of the University of Witwatersrand. Theyre going to be a remarkable window, a time machine. The skeletons, described April 8 in Science, were found with a bit of help from Google Earth two years ago in a South African cave, where they fell two million years ago. On one side of that date in the fossil timeline are the various species of Australopithecus, the first great apes to walk on two feet. On the timelines other side is the genus Homo, the first creatures one would recognize with all due respect to Lucys famous A. afarensis as close to human. In between is uncertainty. The fossil record is mostly bare. Some of the Australopithecus lineage split, with one branch becoming Homo. But the identity of that lineage, and the characteristics of early Homo, are unknown. According to Bergers team, A. sedibas combination of old and new features make it a likely descendant of A. africanus one of Lucys direct descendants and either a direct ancestor of early Homo and ultimately us, or what Berger calls a very close side branch. It sits at a very critical moment in time, said Berger. It fills a critical gap in the line.

Other paleontologists say Bergers fossils are a marvelous find. But as expected in a field where entire fossil records spanning millions of years could fit on a coffee table, and where the mostly missing A. sediba skeletons are considered remarkably complete, the new hominids taxonomical position is being interpreted in many different ways. While the Australopithecus designation is correct, the proposed link between A. sediba and early Homo is forced and tenuous at best, said William Jungers, a Stony Brook University paleoanthropologist. He doesnt consider a juvenile specimen the most complete of the two skeletons comes from the human equivalent of a teenager a reliable indicator of adult features. To this criticism, Berger said the teens brain had clearly reached about 95 to 98 percent of adult

2 of 13

3/7/2012 11:46 PM

Possible New Human Ancestor Discovered | Wired Science | Wired.com

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/australopithecus-sediba/

capacity. Few changes would be expected in its cranial size and shape, which are critical in characterizing a primate species. Jungers also noted that the first Homo fossils predate A. sediba by 500,000 years, while Homo ergaster had reached western Asia just 200,000 years after A. sedibas known date. Both these figures suggest that Homo was established well before A. sediba came along, said Rick Potts, curator of anthropology at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. The connection with the origin of Homo doesnt seem to hold much water, said Potts, and the confluence of some A. sediba traits with Homo is just coincidence. Evolution produces a universe of features that are combined and recombined, he said. According to Berger, however, A. sediba may have older roots than they think. The site we found is simply a point in time. It doesnt represent the first appearance of this species, he said. Meanwhile, Arizona State University paleoanthropologist William Kimbel argued that A. sediba should have been classified as Homo, though it may not have been a direct human ancestor. In my way of thinking, it belongs in Homo because of the brow ridge, the face, the pelvis, he said. Its true that it has the small brain and long upper limbs indicative of Australopithecus, but those are signs of its ancestry, not its future. These arguments may be settled as more A. sediba skeletons emerge. Berger is currently assembling at least two. However, taxonomic debates may ultimately prove less important than the questions A. sediba provokes. Already the fossils suggest that Australopithecus didnt morph suddenly into Homo, but adapted in gradual, piecemeal fashion. What pressures led to these adaptations and their relationship to tool use, cognitive developments, dietary shifts and climate changes have yet to be determined. The significance is in the patterns and insights it provides, said Kimbel. These specimens fall at the young end of a very puzzling million-year period in hominin evolution. Whether or not A. sediba is our ancestor, it could help us understand the dynamics that led to the split producing the lineage culminating ultimately in us, said Kimbel. Images: Lee Berger/Science See Also: Nov. 24, 1974: Humanity, Meet Lucy. Shes Your Mom Lucy 2.0: Famous Fossil Hominid Goes Digital Humanity Has New 4.4 Million-Year-Old Baby Mama Hobbits May Belong on New Branch of Our Family Tree Bone Crunching Debunks First Monkey Ida Fossil Hype Citations: Australopithecus sediba: A New Species of Homo-Like Australopith from South Africa. By Lee R. Berger, Darryl J. deRuiter, Steven E. Churchill, Peter Schmid, Kristian J. Carlson, Paul H. G. M. Dirks, Job M. Kibii. Science, Vol. 328 No. 5975, April 9, 2010. Geological Setting and Age of Australopithecus sediba from Southern Africa. By Paul H. G. M. Dirks, Job M. Kibii, Brian F. Kuhn, Christine Steininger, Steven E. Churchill, Jan D. Kramers, Robyn Pickering, Daniel L. Farber, Anne-Sophie Mriaux, Andy I. R. Herries, Geoffrey C. P. King, Lee R. Berger. Science, Vol. 328 No. 5975, April 9, 2010. Brandon Keims Twitter stream and reportorial outtakes; Wired Science on Twitter. Brandon is currently working on a book about ecological tipping points.

You Might Like Related Links by Contextly Halo 4 Developer Pledges 'Darker' Tone For Shooter Series China Spends Even More on Its Military While Pentagon Yawns

3 of 13

3/7/2012 11:46 PM

New Fossils Seem to Point Backward On the Human Evolutionary Trail

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/072898sci-fossil.html

July 28, 1998

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

n analysis of African fossils, including a few new specimens, has revealed a puzzling anatomical difference between two major species of the early human family, one from southern and the other from eastern Africa. The discoverers of the difference suggest that the evolution of the human body thus was more complicated than previously understood, possibly requiring some rearrangement of branches on the family tree. Writing in the current issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, two paleoanthropologists, Dr. Henry M. McHenry and Dr. Lee R. Berger, reported finding that Australopithecus africanus, which lived in southern Africa, had more archaic, apelike arms and legs than the earlier A. afarensis. That species, which lived between 3.9 and 3 million years ago in East Africa (mostly the nations of Tanzania, Kenya and Ethiopia today) and is best known from the skeleton popularly called Lucy, had more humanlike limbs. Both were capable of upright walking. "This is not what would be expected from progressive evolution," the scientists said of their findings. McHenry is a paleoanthropologist at the University of California at Davis, and Berger is at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. The australopithecines included several species of hominids transitional between apes and humans. Since the Lucy discovery in the early 1970's, most specialists in human origins have come to accept the afarensis as the likely ancestral species in the lineage leading to the human genus, Homo, about 2.5 million years ago. For Lucy and her kind to evolve into descendants with more apelike limbs, the scientists said, evolution would have to go backward, which rarely happens. One possible explanation for such an evolutionary reversal, they said, might have been to adapt to a more arboreal environment. In a popular account of the findings in the August issue of National Geographic magazine, Berger said it was more likely that africanus did not descend from afarensis but that the two species evolved separately. They were apparently "sister species that share a missing-link ancestor."

1 of 2

3/8/2012 12:03 AM

New Fossils Seem to Point Backward On the Human Evolutionary Trail

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/072898sci-fossil.html

Thus, only one of them could have been a direct ancestor of humans, Berger said, and africanus seemed more likely to have been that ancestor. It had developed a larger brain and somewhat more humanlike face and teeth than afarensis. Although the fossil evidence is scrappy, the first members of the Homo genus, Homo habilis, appeared to have had long arms and short legs, not unlike africanus. McHenry agreed that africanus appeared to be "close to the ancestor of Homo." Throwing down the gauntlet before paleontologists working in East Africa, Berger said, "That reinforces my own conviction that Homo emerged from africanus in southern Africa and migrated north." If africanus turned out to be on the main trunk of the family tree, then afarensis would be relegated to a dead-end branch, Berger said, culminating in A. boisei, which died out about a million years ago. The analysis was based on a comparison of more than 100 fossil bones from a limestone quarry at Sterkfontein, South Africa, and arid badlands at Hadar, Ethiopia, where Lucy was excavated. The bones included the skeletons of Lucy herself and a male africanus. McHenry's main contribution was the development of a technique of inferring body weight and the length and diameter of limb bones from an analysis of a tiny fragment of a joint. Like several other paleoanthropologists, Dr. Eric Delson of the American Museum of Natural History in New York said he found the research "a very intriguing piece of work and thought-provoking," but cautioned that it was too early to be redrawing the family tree. He said the fossil record for H. habilis was too scant to tie it to the A. africanus lineage. Dr. Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University, said the analysis of joints in determining limb sizes was "quite ingenious, but the results are not earth-shattering." He was not surprised, for instance, that the findings did not appear to fit neatly into a pattern of progressive and linear relationships in evolution. "My own view is that nature would have carried out many experiments," Wood said, referring to patterns of parallel evolution in which different lineages could arrive at different stages of development at different times. "We are still only scratching the surface of the complexity of human origins," he said, adding that it was unlikely the ancestor-descendant relationships would ever be reconstructed.

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Marketplace Quick News | Page One Plus | International | National/N.Y. | Business | Technology | Science | Sports | Weather | Editorial | Op-Ed | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Diversions | Job Market | Real Estate | Travel Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company

2 of 2

3/8/2012 12:03 AM

RESEARCH ARTICLES Australopithecus sediba: A New Species of Homo-Like Australopith from South Africa
Lee R. Berger,1,2* Darryl J. de Ruiter,3,1 Steven E. Churchill,4,1 Peter Schmid,5,1 Kristian J. Carlson,1,6 Paul H. G. M. Dirks,2,7 Job M. Kibii1 Despite a rich African Plio-Pleistocene hominin fossil record, the ancestry of Homo and its relation to earlier australopithecines remain unresolved. Here we report on two partial skeletons with an age of 1.95 to 1.78 million years. The fossils were encased in cave deposits at the Malapa site in South Africa. The skeletons were found close together and are directly associated with craniodental remains. Together they represent a new species of Australopithecus that is probably descended from Australopithecus africanus. Combined craniodental and postcranial evidence demonstrates that this new species shares more derived features with early Homo than any other australopith species and thus might help reveal the ancestor of that genus. he origin of the genus Homo is widely debated, with several candidate ancestors being proposed in the genus Australopithecus (13) or perhaps Kenyanthropus (4). The earliest occurrence of fossils attributed to Homo (H. aff. H. habilis) at 2.33 million years ago (Ma) in Ethiopia (5) makes it temporally antecedent to all other known species of the genus Homo. Within early Homo, the hypodigms and phylogenetic relationships between H. habilis and another early species, H. rudolfensis, remain unresolved (68), and the placement of these species within Homo has been challenged (9). H. habilis is generally thought to be the ancestor of H. erectus (1013), although this might be questioned on the basis of the considerable temporal overlap that existed between them (14). The identity of the direct ancestor of the genus Homo, and thus its link to earlier Australopithecus, remains controversial. Here we describe two recently discovered, directly associated, partially articulated Australopithecus skeletons from the Malapa site in South Africa, which allow us to investigate several competing hypotheses regarding the ancestry of Homo. These skeletons cannot be accommodated within any existing fossil taxon; thus, we establish a new species, Australopithecus sediba, on the basis of a comEtymology. The word sediba means fountain or wellspring in the seSotho language. Holotype and paratype. Malapa Hominin 1 (MH1) is a juvenile individual represented by a partial cranium, fragmented mandible, and partial postcranial skeleton that we designate as the species holotype [Figs. 1 and 2, supporting online material (SOM) text S1, figs. S1 and S2, and table S1]. The first hominin specimen recovered from Malapa was the right clavicle of MH1 (UW88-1), discovered by Matthew Berger on 15 August 2008. MH2 is an adult individual represented by isolated maxillary teeth, a partial mandible, and partial postcranial skeleton that we designate as the species paratype. Although MH1 is a juvenile, the second molars are already erupted and in occlusion. Using either a human or an ape model, this indicates that MH1 had probably attained at least 95% of adult brain size (15). Although additional growth would have occurred in the skull and skeleton of this individual, we judge that it would not have appreciably altered the morphology on which this diagnosis is based. Locality. The two Au. sediba type skeletons were recovered from the Malapa site (meaning homestead in seSotho), situated roughly 15 km NNE of the well-known sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, and Kromdraai in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Detailed information regarding geology and dating of the site is in (16).

bination of primitive and derived characters of the cranium and postcranium. The following is a description of Au. sediba: Order Primates Linnaeus 1758; suborder Anthropoidea Mivart 1864; superfamily Hominoidea Gray 1825; family Hominidae Gray 1825; genus Australopithecus DART 1925; species Australopithecus sediba sp. nov.

1 Institute for Human Evolution, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050, South Africa. 2School of Geosciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050, South Africa. 3Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA. 4Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Box 90383, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. 5Anthropological Institute and Museum, University of Zrich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zrich, Switzerland. 6 Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. 7School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

Fig. 1. Craniodental elements of Au. sediba. UW88-50 (MH1) juvenile cranium in (A) superior, (B) frontal, and (C) left lateral views. (D) UW88-8 (MH1) juvenile mandible in right lateral view, (E) UW88-54 (MH2) adult mandible in right lateral view, (F) UW88-8 mandible in occlusal view, (G) UW 88-54 mandible in occlusal view, and (H) UW 88-50 right maxilla in occlusal view (scale bars are in centimeters). SCIENCE VOL 328 9 APRIL 2010

www.sciencemag.org

195

RESEARCH ARTICLES
Diagnosis. Au. sediba can be distinguished from other species of Australopithecus by a combination of characters presented in Table 1; comparative cranial measures are presented in Table 2. A number of derived characters separate Au. sediba from the older chronospecies Au. anamensis and Au. afarensis. Au. sediba exhibits neither the extreme megadontia, extensive cranial cresting, nor facial prognathism of Au. garhi. The suite of derived features characterizing Au. aethiopicus, Au. boisei, and Au. robustus, in particular the pronounced cranial muscle markings, derived facial morphology, mandibular corpus robusticity, and postcanine megadontia, are absent in Au. sediba. The closest morphological comparison for Au. sediba is Au. africanus, as these taxa share numerous similarities in the cranial vault, facial skeleton, mandible, and teeth (Table 1). Nevertheless, Au. sediba can be readily differentiated from Au. africanus on both craniodental and postcranial evidence. Among the more notable differences, we observe that although the cranium is small, the vault is relatively transversely expanded with vertically oriented parietal walls and widely spaced temporal lines; the face lacks the pronounced, flaring zygomatics of Au. africanus; the arrangement of the supraorbital torus, nasoalveolar region, infraorbital region, and zygomatics result in a derived facial mask; the mandibular symphysis is vertically oriented with a slight bony chin and a weak post-incisive planum; and the teeth are differentiated by the weakly defined buccal grooves of the maxillary premolars, the weakly developed median lingual ridge of the mandibular canine, and the small absolute size of the postcanine dentition. These exact differences also align Au. sediba with the genus Homo (see SOM text S2 for hypodigms used in this study). However, we consider Au. sediba to be more appropriately positioned within Australopithecus, based on the following craniodental features: small cranial capacity, pronounced glabelar region, patent premaxillary suture, moderate canine jugum with canine fossa, small anterior nasal spine, steeply inclined zygomaticoalveolar crest, high masseter origin, moderate development of the mesial marginal ridge of the maxillary central incisor, and relatively closely spaced premolar and molar cusps. Postcranially, Au. sediba is similar to other australopiths in its small body size, its relatively long upper limbs with large joint surfaces, and the retention of apparently primitive characteristics in the upper and lower limbs (table S2). Au. sediba differs from other australopiths, but shares with Homo a number of derived features of the os coxa, including increased buttressing of the ilium and expansion of its posterior portion, relative reduction in the distance between the sacroiliac and hip joints, and reduction of distance from the acetabulum to the ischial tuberosity. These synapomorphies with Homo anticipate the reorganization of the pelvis and lower limb in H. erectus and possibly the emergence of more energetically efficient walking and running in that taxon (17). As with the associated cranial remains, the postcranium of Au. sediba is defined not by the presence of autapomorphic features but by a unique combination of primitive and derived traits. Cranium. The cranium is fragmented and slightly distorted. The minimum cranial capacity of MH1 is estimated at 420 cm3 (SOM text S4). The vault is ovoid, with transversely expanded, vertically oriented parietal walls. The widely spaced temporal lines do not approach the midline. Postorbital constriction is slight. The weakly arched supraorbital torus is moderately developed and laterally extended, with sharply angled lateral corners and a weakly defined supratoral sulcus. A robust glabelar region is evident, with only a faint depression of the supraorbital torus at the midline. The frontal process of the zygomatic faces primarily laterally and is expanded medially but not laterally. The zygomatic prominence does not show anterolateral expansion. The zygomatics are weakly flared laterally, resulting in an uninterrupted frontal profile of the facial mask that is squared superiorly and tapered inferiorly. The zygomaticoalveolar crests are long, straight, and steeply inclined, resulting in a high masseter origin. The root of the zygomatic begins at the anterior margin of M1. The nasal bones are widened superiorly, become narrowest about one-third of the way down, and flare to their widest extent at their inferior margin. The nasal bones are elevated as a prominent ridge at the internasal suture, with an increasingly anterior projection inferiorly. The bone surface of the maxilla retreats gently away from the nasal aperture laterally, resulting in an everted margin of the superolateral portion of the aperture relative to the infraorbital region. The inferolateral portion of the nasal aperture becomes bluntly rounded. The infraorbital region is slightly convex (18) and is oriented at an approximately right angle to the alveolar plane. There is a trace of a premaxillary suture near the superolateral margin of the nasal aperture. Prominent canine juga delineate moderately developed canine fossae. Anterior pillars are absent. The inferior margin of the nasal aperture is marked by a stepped nasal sill and a small but distinct anterior nasal spine. The subnasal region is straight in the coronal plane and only weakly projecting relative

Fig. 2. Associated skeletal elements of MH1 (left) and MH2 (right), in approximate anatomical position, superimposed over an illustration of an idealized Au. africanus skeleton (with some adjustment for differences in body proportions). The proximal right tibia of MH1 has been reconstructed from a natural cast of the proximal metaphysis.

196

9 APRIL 2010

VOL 328

SCIENCE

www.sciencemag.org

Table 1. List of characters used to diagnose Au. sediba. These characters are commonly used in hominin phylogenetic studies (11, 3840) or have been recorded as diagnostic for various hominin taxa in the past (3, 10, 36). Recognizing the potential pitfalls of performing a cladistic analysis on possibly interdependent characters of uncertain valence, we produced a cladogram from the data in this table as a test of the phylogenetic position of Au. sediba (fig. S3). Our most parsimonious cladogram places Au. sediba at the stem of the Homo clade.
Au. afarensis Small Strong Small Moderate Small Moderate Small Weak Intermed. Weak Large Weak Large Weak Small Strong Small Strong Au. garhi Au. africanus Au. sediba H. habilis H. rudolfensis H. erectus Au. aethiopicus Au. boisei Au. robustus Small Strong

Numbers in parentheses in the first column refer to measures presented in Table 2; descriptions of these character states are provided in SOM text S3. Abbreviations are as follows: A-M, anteromedial; costa supr., costa supraorbitalis; intermed., intermediate; lat., lateral; med., medial; mesognath., mesognathic; mod., moderately; MMR, mesial marginal ridge; orthogn., orthognathic; procumb., procumbent; proj., projecting; TMJ, temperomandibular joint.

Characters

Crest Extensive Marked Extensive Low Present Narrow Long Low Present ? ? Low Absent Narrow Long Low Absent Narrow Short Low Absent Narrow Short Low Absent Narrow Long ? Extensive Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Low Absent Narrow Short Moderate Moderate Slight Moderate Moderate Slight ? Absent Absent Variable Absent Absent

Crest

Variable

Wide

Variable

Wide

Wide

Crest Extensive Marked Extensive High Present Wide Long

Crest Variable Marked Variable High Present Wide Long

Crest Absent Marked Reduced High Present Wide Long

www.sciencemag.org
Absent Absent Absent Present Present Present Present Costa supr. Less arched No No ? No No Costa supr. Less arched No Intermed. Variable Variable Torus Arched Yes Torus Arched No No Intermed. Arched Variable No Torus Arched No No Above ? Expanded ? ? Convex Variable ? Level Level Convex No Level Concave No ? Concave No Level Convex No Wide High ? ? Variable Variable Wide High Variable High Narrow ? Wide High

SCIENCE

VOL 328

Absent

Absent

Absent

Costa supr. Less arched No Yes

Costa supr. Variable Yes No

Costa supr. Arched Yes Yes

9 APRIL 2010

Above Concave Tapered

Above Concave Expanded

Above Concave Expanded

Not proj. Low

Not proj. Low

Not proj. Low

Vault Cranial capacity (1) A-M incursion of temporal lines on frontal bone (9) Position of temporal lines on parietal bones Compound temporal nuchal crest (males) Postorbital constriction (5) Pneumatization of temporal squama Facial hafting Frontal trigon Supraglenoid gutter width Horizontal distance between TMJ and M2/M3 (6) Parietal transverse expansion/tuber Facial skeleton Supraorbital expression Supraorbital contour Glabellar region forms as prominent block Lat. half of infraorbital margin blunt and protruding Zygomatic arch relative to inferior orbital margin Convexity/concavity of infraorbital region Nasal bone projection above frontomaxillary suture Inferior width of projecting nasal bone (25) Infraorbital foramen height (32)

RESEARCH ARTICLES

continued on next page

197

198
Au. afarensis Prominent Prominent Variable Prominent Variable Weak Weak Weak Weak Pillars Au. garhi Au. africanus Au. sediba H. habilis H. rudolfensis H. erectus Au. aethiopicus Au. boisei Au. robustus

Characters

RESEARCH ARTICLES

Obliterated Sharp ? Triangular Stepped Convex Marked Present Absent Procumb. Absent Med. and lat. ? Prominent Marked Tapered Straight Obtuse No Low Thin Posterior Prognathic Anterior Bipartite ? Bipartite Prognathic ? Posterior Low High Thin Variable Variable Posterior Variable ? No ? Obtuse Right No High Thin Posterior Mesognath. Posterior Straight ? Straight Straight ? Tapered Squared ? Marked Slight Slight Squared Notch Right No Low Thin Posterior Mesognath. Posterior Variable ? Prominent Slight Slight ? Indented Curved Curved Curved ? Slight Squared Notch Right No Low ? Level Mesognath. ? Straight ? Med. and lat. Medial Medial Medial Medial Curved Slight Slight Squared Notch Right No Low Thin Posterior Orthogn. Posterior Straight Marked Present Absent Procumb. ? Variable Present Absent Variable Anterior Weak Present Absent Vertical Anterior Variable Present Absent Variable Anterior Weak Absent Absent Vertical ? Weak Absent Absent Vertical Enlarged Stepped Convex Stepped Straight Stepped Straight Variable Straight Stepped Straight Stepped Straight Smooth Concave Marked Absent Absent Vertical Posterior Med. and lat. ? Prominent Marked Tapered Straight Obtuse No High Thick Anterior Prognathic Anterior Straight ? Triangular Triangular Triangular Triangular Triangular Gutter ? None Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Sharp Variable Blunt Variable Sharp Blunt Blunt Variable Variable Gutter Smooth Concave Moderate Absent Absent Vertical Posterior Med. and lat. Curved Prominent Marked Tapered Straight Obtuse No High Thick Anterior Mesognath. Anterior Straight

Occasional

Trace

Obliterated

Obliterated

Obliterated

Obliterated

Obliterated

Occasional Blunt None Gutter Smooth Concave Moderate Absent Present Vertical Posterior Med. and lat. Curved Prominent Marked Tapered Straight Obtuse Yes High Thick Anterior Mesognath. Anterior Straight

9 APRIL 2010

VOL 328

SCIENCE

www.sciencemag.org

Canine juga prominence/anterior pillars Patency of premaxillary suture Inferolateral nasal aperture margin Eversion of superior nasal aperture margin Nasoalveolar triangular frame/gutter Nasal cavity entrance Nasoalveolar clivus contour in coronal plane Subnasal projection (38) Canine fossa Maxillary fossula Incisor procumbency Anterior nasal spine rel. to nasal aperture Expansion of frontal process of zygomatic bone Angular indentation of lateral orbital margin Zygomatic prominence development Lateral flaring of zygomatic arches Outline of superior facial mask Zygomaticoalveolar crest/malar notch Infraorbital plate angle relative to alveolar plane Zygomaticomaxillary steps and fossae present Height of masseter origin (35) Malar thickness (31) Projection of zygomatics relative to nasal bones Facial prognathism (7) (sellion-prosthion angle) Masseteric position relative to sellion Lateral anterior facial contour

Characters

Au. afarensis Yes Shallow Rectangle Present Receding Absent Variable Prominent Prominent Small ? Small Small Small Variable Small ? ? Prominent Moderate Weak Moderate Prominent Moderate Weak Prominent Weak Prominent ? Variable Lateral Lateral Lateral Lateral Lateral Prominent ? Large ? Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight ? Receding Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Slight Lateral Prominent Prominent Large Shallow Rectangle Present Deep Variable Absent Deep Parabolic Absent Variable Parabolic Variable Deep Parabolic Absent Variable Parabolic Absent Shallow Rectangle Absent Deep Parabolic Absent Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Shallow Parabolic Absent Vertical Slight Lateral Prominent Prominent Large

Au. garhi

Au. africanus

Au. sediba

H. habilis

H. rudolfensis

H. erectus

Au. aethiopicus

Au. boisei

Au. robustus

www.sciencemag.org
Large Large Moderate Moderate Marked None Marked Prom. 2 Equal No Thick LC at margin, BC slightly lingual Thick LC at margin, BC slightly lingual ? Yes Thick LC slightly buccal, BC moderately lingual ? ? 2 Equal ? Prom. Marked Marked Weak Weak 2 Protoconid Yes Thick LC slightly buccal, BC moderately lingual Minor Minor None Marked Marked Weak ? Moderate Moderate Weak Weak Minor Weak Weak 1 Protoconid No Thick LC at margin, BC slightly lingual Large Large Moderate Moderate Large Large Large Large Large Large Weak Marked Minor Marked Weak 2 Protoconid No Thick LC at margin, BC slightly lingual Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Large Large Small Weak Marked None Weak Weak 1 Protoconid No Thick LC at margin, BC slightly lingual ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Small Small Large Large Moderate Marked Marked Marked Weak Weak 2 Equal No Hyper LC mod. buccal, BC strongly lingual Hyper LC mod. buccal, BC strongly lingual

Small Small Large Moderate Weak Marked Weak Weak 2 Equal Yes Hyper LC mod. buccal, BC strongly lingual

SCIENCE

VOL 328

9 APRIL 2010

Palate Protrustion of incisors beyond bi-canine line Anterior palatal depth Dental arcade shape Maxillary I2/C diastema Mandible Orientation of mandibular symphysis Bony chin (mentum osseum) Direction of mental foramen opening Post-incisive planum Torus marginalis and marginal tubercles Mandibular corpus cross-sectional area at M1 (50) Teeth Incisor-to-postcanine ratio (maxillary) (60) Canine-to-postcanine ratio (maxillary/mandibular) (61, 62) Postcanine crown area (maxillary/mandibular) (57, 59) Maxillary I1: MMR development, lingual face Maxillary C: development of lingual ridges Maxillary premolar molarization Maxillary premolars: buccal grooves Median lingual ridge of mandibular canine Mandibular P3 root number Protoconid/metaconid more mesial cusp (molars) Peak of enamel forms between roots of molars Relative enamel thickness Positions of apices of lingual (LC) and buccal (BC) cusps of premolars and molars relative to occlusal margin

RESEARCH ARTICLES

199

200
otherwise indicated. Descriptions of character states presented in Table 1 that are based on measurements from this table are provided in SOM text S3. Abbreviations are as follows: br, bregma; ek, ectoconchion; ekm, ectomolare; fmt, frontomolare temporale; ft, frontotemporale; g, glabella; mf, maxillofrontale; n, nasion; ns, nasospinale; or, orbitale; po, porion; pr, prosthion; rhi, rhinion; zm, zygomaxillare; zy, zygion; zyo, zygoorbitale.
Au. africanus Au. sediba H. habilis H. rudolfensis H. erectus Au. aethiopicus Au. boisei Au. robustus

Table 2. Craniodental measurements for early hominins in Africa. Au. sediba is represented by MH1. Unless otherwise defined, measurements are based on (6). Some measures were unavailable for specimens of Au. afarensis and Au. garhi, in which case the character states in Table 1 were estimated. Several character states in Table 1 are recorded as variable, although only species average values are presented here. Measurements are in millimeters unless
Measurement Au. afarensis

RESEARCH ARTICLES

Item

Measurement description in (6)

9 11

9 APRIL 2010

75 8 17

VOL 328

62 43 49 50 52

SCIENCE

53 55 56 57 71 73

www.sciencemag.org

74

69 70 68

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 415 90 126 77 66 83 63 40 101 87 117 89 157 75 18 38 34 58 29 23 55 14 28 15 187 442 99 99 69 71 61 61 31 54 80 84 8 78 97 84 126 74 103 19 36 32 27 5 11 11 4 50 26 23 53 13 12 67 60 112 23 21 108 13 15 420 100 104 73 85 45 65 21 70 75 74 8 68 86 78 102 84 84 20 31 31 26 8 5 13 9 49 22 26 44 13 15 57 50 104 13 17 76 16 18 631 103 104 76 70 51 65 27 66 83 80 8 68 100 89 117 85 97 27 33 31 18 8 10 11 8 45 28 25 47 8 15 55 57 96 19 18 106 15 16 751 114 127 85 72 58 68 72 86 93 10 90 117 100 113 24 39 33 20 8 10 57 39 27 59 14 69 75 92 17 30 57 14 16 900 126 121 89 80 57 72 37 76 103 99 12 76 107 99 135 84 105 25 39 36 18 13 24 18 9 52 30 32 51 12 16 67 70 96 16 21 79 16 13

47 48

94 96

Cranial capacity (cm3) Maximum parietal breadth Bi-porionic breadth (po-po) Postorbital constriction (narrowest point behind the orbits) Postorbital constriction index (4/14 100) Horizontal distance between TMJ and M2/M3 Facial prognathism (sellion-prosthion angle) Infratemporal fossa depth Minimum frontal breadth (ft-ft) Glabella to bregma (g-br) Frontal chord (n-br) Supraorbital torus vertical thickness Superior facial height (n-pr) Superior facial breadth (fmt-fmt) Bi-orbital breadth (ek-ek) Bizygomatic breadth (zy-zy) Zygomatic breadth index (14/16 100) Bimaxillary breadth (zm-zm) Interorbital breadth (mf-mf) Orbital breadth (mf-ek) Orbital height (perpendicular to 20) Nasal bridge length (n-rhi) Nasal bridge breadth superior Nasal bridge breadth at anterior lacrimal crests Nasal bridge breadth inferior Nasal bridge height (nasion subtense at anterior lacrimal crests) Nasal height (n-ns) Nasal aperture height (rhi-ns) Maximum nasal aperture width Orbitoalveolar height (or-alveolar plane) Malar thickness Infraorbital foramen height (to inferior orbital margin) Prosthion to zygomaxillare (pr-zm) Prosthion to zygoorbitale (pr-zyo) Masseter origin height index (33/34 100) Subnasale to prosthion (horizontal projection) Subnasal to prosthion (vertical projection) Subnasale projection index (36/37 100) Incisor alveolar length Premolar alveolar length

419 94 125 65 65 94 41 51 33 10 99 100 101 153 126 23 36 41 35 12 19 11 4 72 38 30 53 20 30 80 73 110 23 12 192 15 21

515 99 116 64 61 82 66 50 36 87 84 12 100 108 93 165 65 119 24 37 33 30 14 11 7 5 64 35 31 69 18 25 82 81 101 27 25 108 15 22

530 100 73 68 81 69 36 35 9 80 107 82 143 74 106 24 33 30 28 11 8 54 24 25 57 18 26 71 69 103 26 22 122 13 17

continued on next page

RESEARCH ARTICLES
to the facial plane. The face is mesognathic. The palate is consistently deep along its entire extent, with a parabolic dental arcade. Mandible. Descriptions apply to the more complete juvenile (MH1) mandible unless otherwise stated. The nearly vertical mandibular symphysis presents a weak lateral tubercle, resulting in a slight mental trigone, and a weak mandibular incurvation results in a slight mentum osseum. The post-incisive planum is weakly developed and almost vertical. Both mandibular corpora are relatively gracile, with a low height along the alveolar margin. The extramolar sulcus is relatively narrow in both mandibles. In MH1, a moderate lateral prominence displays its greatest protrusion at the mesial extent of M2, with a marked decrease in robusticity to P4; in MH2 the moderate lateral prominence shows its greatest protrusion at M3, with a marked decrease in robusticity to M2. The alveolar prominence is moderately deep with a notable medial projection posteriorly. The anterior and posterior subalveolar fossae are continuous. The ramus of MH1 is tall and narrow, with nearly parallel, vertically oriented anterior and posterior borders; the ramus of MH2 is relatively broader, with nonparallel anterior and posterior borders (fig. S2). The mandibular notch is relatively deep and narrow in MH1 and more open in MH2. The coronoid extends farther superiorly than the condyle. The condyle is mediolaterally broad and anteroposteriorly narrow. The endocondyloid buttress is absent in MH1, whereas in MH2 a weak endocondyloid buttress approaches the condyle without reaching it. Dental size and proportions. The dentition of the juvenile (MH1) is relatively small, whereas preserved molars of the adult (MH2) are even smaller (Fig. 3 and fig. S4). For MH1, the maxillary central incisor is distinguishable only from the reduced incisors of Au. robustus. The maxillary canine is narrower than all canines of Au. africanus except TM 1512, whereas the mandibular canine falls well below the range of Au. africanus. Premolars and molars are at the lower end of the Au. africanus range and within that of H. habilisH. rudolfensis and H. erectus. Molar dimensions of the adult individual (MH2) are smaller than those of Au. africanus, are at or below the range of those of H. habilis H. rudolfensis, and are within the range of those of H. erectus. Au. sediba mirrors the Au. africanus pattern of maxillary molars that increase slightly in size posteriorly, though it differs in that the molars tend to be considerably larger in the latter taxon. Conversely, the Au. sediba pattern varies slightly from that seen in specimens KNM-ER 1813, OH 13, and OH 65 and H. erectus, wherein the molars increase from M1 to M2 but then decrease to M3. In broad terms, the teeth of Au. sediba are similar in size to teeth of specimens assigned to Homo but share the closely spaced cusp apices seen in Australopithecus. Postcranium. Preserved postcranial remains of Au. sediba (table S1) denote small-bodied 9 APRIL 2010
Au. robustus Au. boisei Au. aethiopicus H. erectus H. rudolfensis H. habilis Au. sediba Au. africanus Au. afarensis Measurement description in (6) Item Measurement 27 67 42 25 38 24 709 37 26 759 35 28 770 20 109 79 941 61 678 11.6 8.4 9.0 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 98 88 141 142 147 148 149 150 151 152 154 155 156 162 Intercanine distance Palate breadth (ekm-ekm) Mandibular symphysis height Mandibular symphysis depth Mandibular corpus height at P4 Mandibular corpus depth at P4 Cross-sectional area at P4 (calculated as an ellipse) Mandibular corpus height at M1 Mandibular corpus depth at M1 Cross-sectional area at M1 (calculated as an ellipse) Mandibular corpus height at M2 Mandibular corpus depth at M2 Cross-sectional area at M2 (calculated as an ellipse) Height of mental foramen relative to alveolar margin Maxillary incisor crown area (I1+I2) Maxillary canine crown area Maxillary postcanine crown area Mandibular canine crown area Mandibular molar crown area Maxillary incisor to postcanine ratio Maxillary canine to postcanine ratio Mandibular canine to molar ratio 26 68 39 60 34 19 511 33 19 488 31 22 536 20 143 107 713 87 550 20.0 15.0 15.8 30 64 38 20 33 21 558 32 21 532 31 25 612 19 135 104 868 95 651 15.6 11.9 14.6 30 63 32 19 28 18 382 28 18 396 25 22 436 13 109 79 731 68 536 14.9 10.8 12.7 30 70 27 19 30 20 427 29 20 421 31 23 537 13 132 95 755 83 565 17.4 12.6 14.6 33 80 36 24 38 22 653 36 23 667 36 26 745 17 137 118 829 668 16.6 14.2 31 66 34 19 30 19 458 30 20 469 30 21 504 13 136 96 617 79 466 22.1 15.5 16.7 83 35 26 715 29 82 47 28 42 28 910 41 28 913 41 31 980 20 117 76 1012 72 781 11.5 7.5 9.2

www.sciencemag.org

SCIENCE

VOL 328

201

RESEARCH ARTICLES
hominins that retain an australopith pattern of long upper limbs, a high brachial index, and relatively large upper limb joint surfaces (table S2). In addition to these aspects of limb and joint proportions, numerous other features in the upper limb are shared with sibling species of Australopithecus (to the exclusion of later Homo), including a scapula with a cranially oriented glenoid fossa and a strongly developed axillary border; a prominent conoid tubercle on the clavicle, with a pronounced angular margin; low proximal-to-distal humeral articular proportions; a distal humerus with a marked crest for the brachioradialis muscle, a large and deep olecranon fossa with a septal aperture, and a marked trochlear/capitular keel (19); an ulna with a pronounced flexor carpi ulnaris tubercle; and long, robust, and curved manual phalanges that preserve strong attachment sites for the flexor digitorum superficialis muscle. Numerous features of the hip, knee, and ankle indicate that Au. sediba was a habitual biped. In terms of size and morphology, the proximal and distal articular ends of the femur and tibia fall within the range of variation of specimens attributed to Au. africanus. However, several derived features in the pelvis link the Malapa specimens with later Homo. In the os coxa (Fig. 4), Au. sediba shares with Homo a pronounced acetabulocristal buttress; a more posterior position of the cristal tubercle; a superoinferiorly extended posterior iliac blade, with an expanded retroauricular area; a sigmoid-shaped anterior inferior iliac spine; a reduced lever arm for weight transfer between the auricular surface and the acetabulum; an enlarged and rugose iliofemoral ligament attachment area; a tall and thin pubic symphyseal face; and a relatively short ischium with a deep and narrow tuberoacetabular sulcus. These features are present in taxonomically unassigned postcranial remains from Koobi Fora (KNM-ER 3228) and Olduvai Gorge (OH 28), which have been argued to represent early Homo (20), as well as in early Homo erectus (21). An os coxa from Swartkrans (SK 3155) has been considered by some to also represent early Homo (22) but can be seen to possess the australopith pattern in most of these features. In addition, Au. sediba shares with later Homo the humanlike pattern of low humeral-to-femoral diaphyseal strength ratios, in contrast to the ape-like pattern seen in the H. habilis specimen OH 62 (table S2). Although aspects of the pelvis are derived, the foot skeleton is more primitive overall, sharing with other australopiths a flat talar trochlea articular surface with medial and lateral margins with equal radii of curvature, and a short, stout, and medially twisted talar neck with a high horizontal angle and a low neck torsion angle

Fig. 3. Dental size of a selection of Au. sediba teeth compared to other early hominin taxa; see fig. S4 for additional teeth. Dental measurements were taken as described by Wood (6). Owing to small sample sizes, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis were combined. (A) Upper central incisor mesiodistal (MD) length. (B) Upper canine MD length. (C) Lower canine MD length. (D) Square root of calculated [MD BL (BL, buccolingual)] upper third premolar area. (E) Square root of calculated (MD BL) upper second molar area. (F) Square root of calculated (MD BL) lower second molar area. Measures were taken on original specimens by D.J.D. for Au. africanus, Au. robustus,

and Au. sediba. Measurements for Au. afarensis, H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, and H. erectus are from (6). P4 is not fully erupted on the right side of MH1, therefore measures of the maxillary postcanine dentition are presented for the left side only. Dental metrics for Au. sediba are as follows (MD, BL, in millimeters): Maxillary: MH1: RI1 10.1, 6.9; LI2 7.7 (damaged), 5.1; RC 9.0, 8.8; LP3 9.0, 11.2; LP4 9.2, 12.1; LM1 12.9, 12.0; LM2 12.9, 13.7; LM3 13.3, 14.1; MH2: RM3 11.3, 12.9. Mandibular: MH1: LC 8.0, 8.5; RM1 12.5, 11.6; RM2 14.4, 12.9; RM3 14.9, 13.8; MH2: RM1 11.8, 11.1; RM2 14.1, 12.2; RM3 14.2, 12.7; LM3 14.1, 12.5. www.sciencemag.org

202

9 APRIL 2010

VOL 328

SCIENCE

RESEARCH ARTICLES

Fig. 4. Representative ossa coxae, in lateral view, from left to right, of Au. afarensis (AL 288-1), Au. africanus (Sts 14), Au. sediba (MH1), and H. erectus (KNM-WT 15000). The specimens are oriented so that the iliac blades all lie in the plane of the photograph (which thus leads to differences between specimens in the orientation of the acetabula and ischial tuberosities). MH1 possesses derived, Homo-like morphology compared to other australopithecines, including a relative reduction in the weight transfer distance from the sacroiliac (yellow) to hip (circle) (table S2 and fig. S5). The calcaneus is markedly primitive in its overall morphology: the bone is strongly angled along the proximodistal axis, with the point of maximum inflexion occurring at an enlarged peroneal trochlea; the lateral plantar tubercle is lacking; the calcaneal axis is set about 45 to the transverse plane; and the calcaneocuboid facet is vertically set and lacks an expanded posterior projection for the beak of the cuboid (23). Discussion. The age and overall morphology of Au. sediba imply that it is most likely descended from Au. africanus, and appears more derived toward Homo than do Au. afarensis, Au. garhi, and Au. africanus. Elsewhere in South Africa, the Sterkfontein cranium Stw 53, dated to 2.0 to 1.5 Ma, is generally considered to represent either H. habilis (10, 24, 25) or perhaps an undiagnosed form of early Homo (26). It played an important role in the assignment of OH 62 to H. habilis (27). However, the derived craniodental morphology of Au. sediba casts doubt on the attribution of Stw 53 to early Homo [see also (28)]: Stw 53 appears to be more primitive than MH1 in retaining closely spaced temporal lines; marked postorbital constriction; a weakly developed supraorbital torus; narrow, nonprojecting nasal bones; anterior pillars; marked nasoalveolar prognathism; medial and lateral expansion of the frontal process of the zygomatic bone; and laterally flared zygomatics. If Stw 53 instead represents Au. africanus, the assignment of OH 62 to H. habilis becomes tenuous. Attribution of the partial skeleton KNM-ER 3735 to H. habilis was tentatively based, in part, on a favorable comparison with OH 62 and on the hypothesis that there were no other contemporaneous non-

joints; expansion of the retroauricular surface of the ilium (blue arrows) (determined by striking a line from the center of the sphere representing the femoral head to the most distant point on the posterior ilium; the superior arrow marks the terminus of this line, and the inferior arrow marks the intersection of this line with the most anterior point on the auricular face); narrowing of the tuberoacetabular sulcus (delimited by yellow arrows); and pronouncement of the acetabulocristal (green arrows) and acetabulosacral buttresses. high masseter origin, and the moderate canine juga, all features aligning MH1 with Australopithecus. It is thus not possible to establish the precise phylogenetic position of Au. sediba in relation to the various species assigned to early Homo. We can conclude that combined craniodental and postcranial evidence demonstrates that this new species shares more derived features with early Homo than does any other known australopith species (Table 1 and table S2) and thus represents a candidate ancestor for the genus, or a sister group to a close ancestor that persisted for some time after the first appearance of Homo. The discovery of a <1.95-million-year-old (16) australopith that is potentially ancestral to Homo is seemingly at odds with the recovery of older fossils attributed to the latter genus (5) or of approximately contemporaneous fossils attributable to H. erectus (6, 30). However, it is unlikely that Malapa represents either the earliest or the latest temporal appearance of Au. sediba, nor does it encompass the geographical expanse that the species once occupied. We hypothesize that Au. sediba was derived via cladogenesis from Au. africanus (3.0 to 2.4 Ma), a taxon whose first and last appearance dates are also uncertain (31). The possibility that Au. sediba split from Au. africanus before the earliest appearance of Homo cannot be discounted. Although the skull and skeleton of Au. sediba do evince derived features shared with early Homo, the overall body plan is that of a hominin at an australopith adaptive grade. This supports the argument, based on endocranial volume and craniodental morphology, that this species is most parsimoniously attributed to the genus Australopithecus. The Malapa specimens dem-

robust australopith species to which it could be assigned in East Africa (29). As a result, the interpretation of KNM-ER 3735 as H. habilis also becomes uncertain. The phylogenetic significance of the cooccurrence of derived postcranial features in Au. sediba, H. erectus, and a sample of isolated fossils generally referred to Homo sp. indet. (table S2) is not clear: The latter might represent early H. erectus, it might sample the postcranium of H. rudolfensis (which would then imply an evolutionary pathway from Au. sediba to H. rudolfensis to H. erectus), or it might represent the postcranium of H. habilis [which would suggest that OH 62 and KNM-ER 3735 (two specimens with ostensibly more primitive postcranial skeletons) do not belong in this taxon]. If the latter possibility holds, it could suggest a phylogenetic sequence from Au. sediba to H. habilis to H. erectus. Conversely, although the overall postcranial morphology of Au. sediba is similar to that of other australopiths, a number of derived features of the os coxa align the Malapa hominins with later Homo (H. erectus) to the exclusion of other australopiths. Additionally, Au. sediba shares a small number of cranial traits with H. erectus that are not exhibited in the H. habilisH. rudolfensis hypodigm, including slight postorbital constriction and convexity of the infraorbital region (18). Following on this, MH1 compares favorably with SK 847 (H. erectus) in the development of the supraorbital torus, nasal bones, infraorbital region, frontal process of the zygomatic, and subnasal projection. However, MH1 differs from SK 847 in its relatively smaller size, the robust glabelar region, the weakly developed supratoral sulcus, the steeply inclined zygomaticoalveolar crests with a SCIENCE VOL 328

www.sciencemag.org

9 APRIL 2010

203

RESEARCH ARTICLES
onstrate that the evolutionary transition from a small-bodied and perhaps more arboreal-adapted hominin (such as Au. africanus) to a largerbodied, possibly full-striding terrestrial biped (such as H. erectus) occurred in a mosaic fashion. Changes in functionally important aspects of pelvic morphology, including a reduction of the sacroacetabular weight-bearing load arm and enhanced acetabulosacral buttressing (reflecting enhancement of the hip extensor mechanism), enlargement of the iliofemoral ligament attachment (reflecting a shift in position of the line of transfer of weight to behind the center of rotation of the hip joint), enlargement of the acetabulocristal buttress (denoting enhancement of an alternating pelvic tilt mechanism), and reduction of the distance from the acetabulum to the ischial tuberosity (reflecting a reduction in the moment arm of the hamstring muscles) (20, 32) occurred within the context of an otherwise australopith body plan, and seemingly before an increase in hominin encephalization [in contrast to the argument in (33)]. Relative humeral and femoral diaphyseal strength measures (table S2) also suggest that habitual locomotor patterns in Au. sediba involved a more modern human-like mechanical load-sharing than that seen in the H. habilis specimen OH 62 (34, 35). Mosaic evolutionary changes are mirrored in craniodental morphology, because the increasingly wide spacing of the temporal lines and reduction in postorbital constriction that characterize Homo first appeared in an australopith and before significant cranial expansion. Moreover, dental reduction, particularly in the postcanine dentition, preceded the cuspal rearrangement (wide spacing of postcanine tooth cusps) that marks early Homo. The pattern of dental eruption and epiphyseal fusion exhibited by MH1 indicates that its age at death was 12 to 13 years by human standards, whereas in MH2 the advanced degree of occlusal attrition and epiphyseal closure indicates that it had reached full adulthood (SOM text S1). Although juvenile, MH1 exhibits pronounced development of the supraorbital region and canine juga, eversion of the gonial angle of the mandible, and large rugose muscle scars in the skeleton, all indicating that this was a male individual. And, although fully adult, the mandible and skeleton of MH2 are smaller than in MH1, which, combined with the less rugose muscle scars and the shape of the pubic body of the os coxa, suggests that MH2 was a female. In terms of dental dimensions, MH1 has mandibular molar occlusal surface areas that are 10.7% (M1) and 8.1% (M2) larger than those of MH2. Dimorphism in the postcranial skeleton likewise is not great, though the juvenile status of MH1 tends to confound efforts to assess adult body size. The diameter of the proximal epiphysis for the femoral head of MH1 (29.8 mm) is approximately 9.1% smaller than the superoinferior diameter of MH2's femoral head (32.7 mm). It is likely that MH1 would have experienced some appositional increase in joint size before maturity, thus this disparity would probably have decreased somewhat. The distal humeral epiphysis of MH1 is fully fused and its articular breadth (35.3 mm) is only marginally larger than that of MH2 (35.2 mm). Thus, although the dentition and postcranial skeleton are at odds in the degree of apparent size differences, the overall level of dimorphism, if these sex attributions are correct, appears slight in the Malapa hominins and was probably similar to that evinced by modern humans.
References and Notes
1. R. A. Dart, Nature 115, 195 (1925). 2. D. C. Johanson, T. D. White, Science 203, 321 (1979). 3. B. Asfaw et al., Science 284, 629 (1999). 4. M. G. Leakey et al., Nature 410, 433 (2001). 5. W. H. Kimbel, D. C. Johanson, Y. Rak, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 103, 235 (1997). 6. B. Wood, Koobi Fora Research Project, Volume 4: Hominid Cranial Remains (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991). 7. G. P. Rightmire, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 90, 1 (1993). 8. R. J. Blumenschine et al., Science 299, 1217 (2003). 9. B. Wood, M. Collard, Science 284, 65 (1999). 10. P. V. Tobias, Olduvai Gorge Volume 4: The Skulls, Endocasts and Teeth of Homo habilis (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1991). 11. D. S. Strait, F. E. Grine, J. Hum. Evol. 47, 399 (2004). 12. D. E. Lieberman, Nature 410, 419 (2001). 13. The H. erectus hypodigm includes African specimens that are referred to the taxon H. ergaster by some. Unless otherwise stated, we collectively refer to H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. erectus, and H. ergaster materials as early Homo. 14. F. Spoor et al., Nature 448, 688 (2007). 15. P. V. Tobias, The Brain in Hominid Evolution (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1971). 16. P. H. G. M. Dirks et al., Science 328, 205 (2010). 17. D. M. Bramble, D. E. Lieberman, Nature 432, 345 (2004). 18. Rak (36) describes a feature in the infraorbital region of Au. boisei that he refers to as a nasomaxillary basin: a concave depression that is surrounded by a more elevated topography. We see a similar concavity in the infraorbital region of specimens of H. habilisH. rudolfensis (KNM-ER 1470, KNM-ER 1805, KNM-ER 1813, and OH 24), although it is not clear whether they represent homologous structures. In specimens of Au. africanus, Au. sediba, and H. erectus, we recognize a slight convexity in this area. 19. Some humeri that are probably best attributed to Australopithecus lack marked development of the trochlear/capitular keel [or lateral crest: see (37)], and thus the absence of a marked crest does not reliably differentiate Australopithecus from Homo. However, although some specimens of early Homo (such as KNM-WT 15000) have crests that are more strongly developed than those of modern humans, none exhibit the marked crests of the australopiths. Thus, the marked crest seen in the Malapa humeri can be seen to be shared with Australopithecus rather than Homo. 20. M. D. Rose, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 63, 371 (1984). 21. A. Walker, C. B. Ruff, in The Nariokotome Homo erectus Skeleton, A. Walker, R. E. F. Leakey, Eds. (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993), pp. 221233. 22. C. K. Brain, E. S. Vrba, J. T. Robinson, Ann. Transv. Mus. 29, 55 (1974). 23. L. C. Aiello, C. Dean, An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy (Academic Press, London, 1990). 24. A. R. Hughes, P. V. Tobias, Nature 265, 310 (1977). 25. D. Curnoe, P. V. Tobias, J. Hum. Evol. 50, 36 (2006). 26. F. E. Grine, W. L. Jungers, J. Schultz, J. Hum. Evol. 30, 189 (1996). 27. D. C. Johanson et al., Nature 327, 205 (1987). 28. R. J. Clarke, S. Afr. J. Sci. 104, 443 (2008). 29. R. E. F. Leakey, A. Walker, C. V. Ward, H. M. Grausz, in Hominidae, G. Giacobini, Ed. (Jaca Books, Milano, Italy, 1989), pp. 167173. 30. L. Gabunia, A. Vekua, Nature 373, 509 (1995). 31. T. D. White, in Paleoclimate and Evolution with Emphasis on Human Origins, E. S. Vrba, G. H. Denton, T. C. Partridge, L. H. Burckle, Eds. (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT, 1995), pp. 369384. 32. J. T. Stern Jr., R. L. Susman, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 60, 279 (1983). 33. C. O. Lovejoy, Gait Posture 21, 113 (2005). 34. C. Ruff, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 138, 90 (2009). 35. It is possible that the more Homo-like humeral-to-femoral diaphyseal strength ratios in Au. sediba reflect a relative reinforcement of the femoral diaphysis in the context of femoral elongation (resulting in longer bending-moment arms) without a change in locomotor behavior. At present, we are unable to directly assess the absolute and relative length of the femur in Au. sediba. 36. Y. Rak, The Australopithecine Face (Academic Press, New York, 1983). 37. M. R. Lague, W. L. Jungers, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 101, 401 (1996). 38. R. R. Skelton, H. M. McHenry, J. Hum. Evol. 23, 309 (1992). 39. M. Collard, B. Wood, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 5003 (2000). 40. H. F. Smith, F. E. Grine, J. Hum. Evol. 54, 684 (2008). 41. We thank the South African Heritage Resources Agency for the permits to work at the Malapa site; the Nash family for granting access to the Malapa site and continued support of research on their reserve; the South African Department of Science and Technology, the South African National Research Foundation, the Institute for Human Evolution, the Palaeontological Scientific Trust, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the AfricaArray Program, the U.S. Diplomatic Mission to South Africa, and Sir Richard Branson for funding; the University of the Witwatersrands Schools of Geosciences and Anatomical Sciences and the Bernard Price Institute for Palaeontology for support and facilities; the Gauteng Government, Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment and the Cradle of Humankind Management Authority; E. Mbua, P. Kiura, V. Iminjili, and the National Museums of Kenya for access to comparative specimens; Optech and Optron; Duke University; the Ray A. Rothrock Fellowship of Texas A&M University; and the University of Zurich 2009 Field School. Numerous individuals have been involved in the ongoing preparation and excavation of these fossils, including C. Dube, B. Eloff, C. Kemp, M. Kgasi, M. Languza, J. Malaza, G. Mokoma, P. Mukanela, T. Nemvhundi, M. Ngcamphalala, S. Jirah, S. Tshabalala, and C. Yates. Other individuals who have given significant support to this project include B. de Klerk, C. Steininger, B. Kuhn, L. Pollarolo, B. Zipfel, J. Kretzen, D. Conforti, J. McCaffery, C. Dlamini, H. Visser, R. McCrae-Samuel, B. Nkosi, B. Louw, L. Backwell, F. Thackeray, and M. Peltier. T. Stidham helped construct the cladogram in fig. S3. J. Smilg facilitated computed tomography scanning of the specimens. R. Clarke and F. Kirera provided valuable discussions on these and other hominin fossils in Africa.

Supporting Online Material

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5975/195/DC1 SOM Text 1 to 4 Figs. S1 to S5 Tables S1 and S2 References 19 November 2009; accepted 26 February 2010 10.1126/science.1184944

204

9 APRIL 2010

VOL 328

SCIENCE

www.sciencemag.org