Mandibular ramus shape of Australopithecus sediba suggests a single variable species

An updated analysis of hominin phylogeny with an emphasis on re-evaluating the phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus sediba

The discovery and description of Australopithecus sediba has reignited the debate over the evolutionary history of the australopiths and the genus Homo. It has been suggested that A. sediba may be an ancestor of Homo because it possesses a mosaic of derived Homo-like and primitive australopith-like traits. However, an alternative hypothesis proposes that the majority of the purported Homo-like craniodental characters can be attributed to the juvenile status of the type specimen, MH1. We conducted an independent character assessment of the craniodental morphology of A. sediba, with particular emphasis on evaluating whether the ontogenetic status of MH1 may have affected its purported Homo-like characteristics. In doing so, we have also expanded fossil hypodigms to incorporate the new Australopithecus anamensis cranium from Woranso-Mille (MRD-VP-1/1), as well as recently described Paranthropus robustus cranial remains from Drimolen (DNH 7, DNH 155). Morphological character data were analyzed using both standard parsimony and Bayesian techniques. In addition, we conducted a series of Bayesian analyses constrained to evaluate the hypothesis that Australopithecus africanus and A. sediba are sister taxa. Based on the results of the parsimony and Bayesian analyses, we could not reject the hypothesis that A. sediba shares its closest phylogenetic affinities with the genus Homo. Therefore, based on currently available craniodental evidence, we conclude that A. sediba is plausibly the terminal end of a lineage that shared a common ancestor with the earliest representatives of Homo. We caution, however, that the discovery of new A. sediba fossils preserving adult cranial morphology or the inclusion of postcranial characters may ultimately necessitate a re-evaluation of this hypothesis.

Mandibular ramus morphology and species identification in Australopithecus sediba

The site of Malapa, South Africa, has produced fossil evidence from multiple individuals of Australopithecus sediba including the partial skeletons designated as MH1 (holotype) and MH2 (paratype). A recent article in this Journal presented the hypothesis that MH1 and MH2 are not one species but instead represent two different genera: Australopithecus and Homo, respectively. Here we briefly evaluate this claim. We review the evidence from across the skeleton that demonstrates that MH1 and MH2 represent a single species, and we highlight other fossil samples that show the same pattern of mandibular ramus variation as observed in MH1 and MH2. The evidence shows that there is no reason to separate MH1 and MH2 into different species or genera based upon mandibular ramus morphology. This case illustrates how misleading small fragments of anatomy can be, why researchers should not use such fragments particularly for species and genus-level diagnoses, and why it is essential to use all available evidence.

3D geometric morphometrics analysis of mandibular fragments of Ouranopithecus macedoniensis from the late Miocene deposits of Central Macedonia, Greece

OBJECTIVES

To explore mandibular shape differences between Ouranopithecus macedoniensis and a comparative sample of extant great apes using three-dimensional (3D) geometrics morphometrics. Other objectives are to assess mandibular shape variation and homogeneity within Ouranopithecus, explore the effects of size on mandibular shape, and explore the degree of mandibular sexual size dimorphism in Ouranopithecus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The comparative sample comprises digitized mandibles from adult extant great apes. The 3D analysis includes three datasets: one with landmarks registered on the mandibular corpus and symphysis of mandibles preserving both sides, one on hemimandibles only, and one focused on the ramus and gonial area. Multivariate statistical analyses were conducted, such as ordination analyses (PCA), intra-specific Procrustes distances pairs, pairwise male-female centroid size differences, and correlation analyses.

RESULTS

The male and female specimens of Ouranopithecus have mandibular shapes that are quite similar, although differences exist. The Procrustes distances results suggest more shape variation in Ouranopithecus than in the extant great apes. Ouranopithecus shows some similarities in mandibular shape to the larger great apes, Gorilla and Pongo. Moreover, the degree of sexual dimorphism in the small Ouranopithecus sample is greater than any of the great apes. Based on our correlation analyses of principal components (PC) with size, some PCs are significantly correlated with size, with correlation varying from moderate to substantial.

DISCUSSION

This study attempted to understand better the variation within the mandibles of O. macedoniensis and the expression of sexual dimorphism in this taxon in more detail than has been done previously. The overall mandibular morphology of Ouranopithecus shows some similarities to those of the larger great apes, which likely reflects similarities in size. Compared to Gorilla and Pongo, O. macedoniensis shows an elevated degree of morphological variation, although limitations relating to sample size apply. Sexual dimorphism in the mandibles of O. macedoniensis appears to be relatively high, seemingly greater than in Gorilla and high even in comparison to Pongo, but this again is possibly in part an artifact of a small sample size.

One hominin taxon or two at Malapa Cave? Implications for the origins of Homo

A report on the skeletons of two individuals from the Malapa cave site in South Africa attributes them both to a new hominin species, Australopithecus sediba. However, our analysis of the specimens’ mandibles indicates that Australopithecus sediba is not a ‘Homo-like australopith’, a transitional species between Australopithecus africanus and Homo. According to our results, the specimens represent two separate genera: Australopithecus and Homo. These genera are known to have jointly occupied sites, as seen in several early South African caves, so one cannot rule out the possibility that Malapa also contains remains of the two taxa. Our results lead us to additionally conclude that all the Australopithecus species on which the relevant mandibular anatomy is preserved (not only the ‘robust’ australopiths but also the ‘gracile’ – more generalised – ones) are too specialised to constitute an evolutionary ancestor of Homo sapiens. Furthermore, given that the Malapa site contains representatives of two hominin branches, one of which appears to be Homo, we must seek evidence of our origins much earlier than the date assigned to Malapa, approximately 2 million years before present. Support for this claim can be found in Ethiopian fossils attributed to the genus Homo and dated at 2.4 and 2.8 million years before present.

Efficacy of diffeomorphic surface matching and 3D geometric morphometrics for taxonomic discrimination of Early Pleistocene hominin mandibular molars

Morphometric assessments of the dentition have played significant roles in hypotheses relating to taxonomic diversity among extinct hominins. In this regard, emphasis has been placed on the statistical appraisal of intraspecific variation to identify morphological criteria that convey maximum discriminatory power. Three-dimensional geometric morphometric (3D GM) approaches that utilize landmarks and semi-landmarks to quantify shape variation have enjoyed increasingly popular use over the past twenty-five years in assessments of the outer enamel surface (OES) and enamel-dentine junction (EDJ) of fossil molars. Recently developed diffeomorphic surface matching (DSM) methods that model the deformation between shapes have drastically reduced if not altogether eliminated potential methodological inconsistencies associated with the a priori identification of landmarks and delineation of semi-landmarks. As such, DSM has the potential to better capture the geometric details that describe tooth shape by accounting for both homologous and non-homologous (i.e., discrete) features, and permitting the statistical determination of geometric correspondence. We compare the discriminatory power of 3D GM and DSM in the evaluation of the OES and EDJ of mandibular permanent molars attributed to Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus and early Homo sp. from the sites of Sterkfontein and Swartkrans. For all three molars, classification and clustering scores demonstrate that DSM performs better at separating the A. africanus and P. robustus samples than does 3D GM. The EDJ provided the best results. P. robustus evinces greater morphological variability than A. africanus. The DSM assessment of the early Homo molar from Swartkrans reveals its distinctiveness from either australopith sample, and the "unknown" specimen from Sterkfontein (Stw 151) is notably more similar to Homo than to A. africanus.

Morphological trends in arcade shape and size in Middle Pleistocene Homo

OBJECTIVES

Middle Pleistocene fossil hominins, often summarized as Homo heidelbergensis sensu lato, are difficult to interpret due to a fragmentary fossil record and ambiguous combinations of primitive and derived characters. Here, we focus on one aspect of facial shape and analyze shape variation of the dental arcades of these fossils together with other Homo individuals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three-dimensional landmark data were collected on computed tomographic scans and surface scans of Middle Pleistocene fossil hominins (n = 8), Homo erectus s.l. (n = 4), Homo antecessor (n = 1), Homo neanderthalensis (n = 13), recent (n = 52) and fossil (n = 19) Homo sapiens. To increase sample size, we used multiple multivariate regression to reconstruct complementary arches for isolated mandibles, and explored size and shape differences among maxillary arcades.

RESULTS

The shape of the dental arcade in H. erectus s.l. and H. antecessor differs markedly from both Neanderthals and H. sapiens. The latter two show subtle but consistent differences in arcade length and width. Shape variation among Middle Pleistocene fossil hominins does not exceed the amount of variation of other species, but includes individuals with more primitive and more derived morphology, all more similar to Neanderthals and H. sapiens than to H. erectus s.l.

DISCUSSION

Although our results cannot reject the hypothesis that the Middle Pleistocene fossil hominins belong to a single species, their shape variation comprises a more primitive morph that represents a likely candidate for the shape of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and H. sapiens, and a more derived morph resembling Neanderthals. The arcade shape difference between Neanderthals and H. sapiens might be related to different ways to withstand mechanical stress.