The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt?
- 1 December 1975
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in Nature
- Vol. 258 (5534) , 389-395
- https://doi.org/10.1038/258389a0
Abstract
Although most studies emphasise the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore, that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (Australopithecus africanus--"Homo habilis", "Homo africanus") was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions. Their locomotion may not have been like that of modern man, and may, though including a form or forms of bipedality, have been different enough to allow marked abilities for climbing. Bipedality may have arisen more than once, the Australopithecinae displaying one or more experiments in bipedality that failed. The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to parallel entirely the genus Australopithecus thus denying the latter a direct place in the human lineage.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- The gait ofAustralopithecusAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1973
- Some African fossil foot bones: A note on the interpolation of fossils into a matrix of extant speciesAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1972
- Functional Affinities of the Olduvai Hominid 8 TalusMan, 1968
- A note on the fragmentary sterkfontein scapulaAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1968
- The leaping of langurs: A problem in the study of locomotor adaptationAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1967
- The Olduvai Bed I Hominine with Special Reference to its Cranial CapacityNature, 1964
- Hominid Fossils from Bed I, Olduvai Gorge, Tanganyika: Fossil Foot BonesNature, 1964
- LOCOMOTOR PATTERNS IN PRIMATESJournal of Zoology, 1964
- Fossil Hand Bones from Olduvai GorgeNature, 1962
- The Shoulder Musculature of the Platyrrhine MonkeysJournal of Mammalogy, 1937