TY - JOUR
T1 - Variation in early hominin temporal bone morphology and its implications for species diversity
AU - Lockwood, Charles A.
AU - Kimbel, William
AU - Lynch, John M.
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank Phillip Tobias, to whom this volume is dedicated, for setting a standard of anatomical description, explanation, and breadth of interest that has inspired us. We also thank John Skinner for the invitation to contribute to the volume and for his editorial assistance. Financial support for the project was provided by US National Science Foundation grant BCS-9982022 and a faculty grant-in-aid from Arizona State University. Museums cited in Table 1 provided access to extant hominoid collections. For access to fossil hominin material, we are grateful to Phillip Tobias and Beverley Kramer at the University of the Witwatersrand, Jara Haile-Mariam at the Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Ethiopia, and Mamitu Yilma at the National Museum of Ethiopia, and Emma Mbua and Meave Leakey at the Kenyan National Museum.
PY - 2005/5/1
Y1 - 2005/5/1
N2 - Temporal bone morphology features prominently in discussions of fossil hominin taxonomy and phylogeny. However, the complex morphology has led to different ways of interpreting features and, as a result, different conclusions regarding systematics. Here we use temporal bone anatomy and geometric morphometric techniques to ask how much disparity exists among early hominin temporal bones and whether levels of intra- and interspecific variation among fossil hominins are consistent with those among modern apes and humans. Using 3D ectocranial landmarks, Euclidean distances based on Procrustes coordinates were determined for all pairwise comparisons among 15 fossil specimens representing Australopithecus species and early Homo. These were then compared to distributions of intraspecific pairwise comparisons for five great ape and human samples, and interspecific comparisons for ten species pairs. Overlap between intra- and interspecific differences is pronounced in the extant as well as the fossil sample. On the whole, differences between fossil specimens matched the central tendency of differences between extant ape species or genera. In some cases the differences among fossils can also be found within highly variable extant species, even when the fossils are commonly recognised as different species. We conclude that the overall level of disparity among hominin specimens supports arguments that the clade is relatively speciose, but the pronounced overlap between intra- and interspecific variation suggests that classifications based largely on morphometrics would be unreliable.
AB - Temporal bone morphology features prominently in discussions of fossil hominin taxonomy and phylogeny. However, the complex morphology has led to different ways of interpreting features and, as a result, different conclusions regarding systematics. Here we use temporal bone anatomy and geometric morphometric techniques to ask how much disparity exists among early hominin temporal bones and whether levels of intra- and interspecific variation among fossil hominins are consistent with those among modern apes and humans. Using 3D ectocranial landmarks, Euclidean distances based on Procrustes coordinates were determined for all pairwise comparisons among 15 fossil specimens representing Australopithecus species and early Homo. These were then compared to distributions of intraspecific pairwise comparisons for five great ape and human samples, and interspecific comparisons for ten species pairs. Overlap between intra- and interspecific differences is pronounced in the extant as well as the fossil sample. On the whole, differences between fossil specimens matched the central tendency of differences between extant ape species or genera. In some cases the differences among fossils can also be found within highly variable extant species, even when the fossils are commonly recognised as different species. We conclude that the overall level of disparity among hominin specimens supports arguments that the clade is relatively speciose, but the pronounced overlap between intra- and interspecific variation suggests that classifications based largely on morphometrics would be unreliable.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008756685&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008756685&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/00359190509520480
DO - 10.1080/00359190509520480
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85008756685
SN - 0035-919X
VL - 60
SP - 73
EP - 77
JO - Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa
JF - Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa
IS - 2
ER -