Making meaning from fragmentary fossils: Early Homo in the Early to early Middle Pleistocene

Naming Homo erectus: A review

Following the discovery of hominin fossils at Trinil (Java, Indonesia) in 1891 and 1892, Eugène Dubois named a new species, now known as Homo erectus. Although the main historical events are well-known, there appears to be no consensus regarding two important aspects of the naming of the species, including what constitutes the original publication of the name, and what is the name-bearing type specimen. These issues are addressed in this paper with reference to original sources and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Our review confirms earlier studies that cite the published quarterly fieldwork report covering the 3rd quarter of 1892 as the original publication naming the species erectus. However, until recently, the correct publication year of 1893 has consistently been cited as 1892, and it has rarely been recognized that the author of the publication was anonymous, even though the author of the species is specifically named. Importantly, Dubois assigns all three hominin fossils found at Trinil up to that moment to the new species, explicitly stating that they belong to a single individual. The three fossils, a molar, a calotte, and a femur, therefore jointly constitute the original holotype. However, the femur most likely derives from younger strata than the other hominins and shows fully modern human-like morphology, unlike subsequently discovered H. erectus femora. Moreover, there is no consensus over the affinities of the molar, and if it is H. erectus rather than an extinct ape, there is no evidence that it belongs to the same individual as the calotte. Excluding these two fossils from the holotype, the calotte is the appropriate fossil to retain the role as name-bearing specimen.

Dental morphology in Homo habilis and its implications for the evolution of early Homo

The phylogenetic position of Homo habilis is central to debates over the origin and early evolution of the genus Homo. A large portion of the species hypodigm consists of dental remains, but they have only been studied at the often worn enamel surface. We investigate the morphology of the H. habilis enamel-dentine junction (EDJ), which is preserved in cases of moderate tooth wear and known to carry a strong taxonomic signal. Geometric morphometrics is used to characterise dentine crown shape and size across the entire mandibular and maxillary tooth rows, compared with a broad comparative sample (n = 712). We find that EDJ morphology in H. habilis is for the most part remarkably primitive, supporting the hypothesis that the H. habilis hypodigm has more in common with Australopithecus than later Homo. Additionally, the chronologically younger specimen OH 16 displays a suite of derived features; its inclusion in H. habilis leads to excessive levels of variation.

Biomechanical and taxonomic diversity in the Early Pleistocene in East Africa: Structural analysis of a recently discovered femur shaft from Olduvai Gorge (bed I)

Recent Plio-Pleistocene hominin findings have revealed the complexity of human evolutionary history and the difficulties involved in its interpretation. Moreover, the study of hominin long bone remains is particularly problematic, since it commonly depends on the analysis of fragmentary skeletal elements that in many cases are merely represented by small diaphyseal portions and appear in an isolated fashion in the fossil record. Nevertheless, the study of the postcranial skeleton is particularly important to ascertain locomotor patterns. Here we report on the discovery of a robust hominin femoral fragment (OH 84) at the site of Amin Mturi Korongo dated to 1.84 Ma (Olduvai Bed I). External anatomy and internal bone structure of OH 84 were analyzed and compared with previously published data for modern humans and chimpanzees, as well as for Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo specimens ranging from the Late Pliocene to Late Pleistocene. Biomechanical analyses based on transverse cross-sections and the comparison of OH 84 with another robust Olduvai specimen (OH 80) suggest that OH 84 might be tentatively allocated to Paranthropus boisei. More importantly, the identification of a unique combination of traits in OH 84 could indicate both terrestrial bipedalism and an arboreal component in the locomotor repertoire of this individual. If interpreted correctly, OH 84 could thus add to the already mounting evidence of substantial locomotor diversity among Early Pleistocene hominins. Likewise, our results also highlight the difficulties in accurately interpreting the link between form and function in the human fossil record based on fragmentary remains, and ultimately in distinguishing between coeval hominin groups due to the heterogeneous pattern of inter- and intraspecific morphological variability detected among fossil femora.