Aiello L C, Wood B, Key C, Lewis M
Department of Anthropology, University College London, UK.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1999 May;109(1):89-110. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199905)109:1<89::AID-AJPA8>3.0.CO;2-4.
The OH 36 ulna derives from Upper Bed II in the Olduvai Gorge, and is dated to circa 1.1-1.2 Myr. Multivariate analyses incorporating data from samples of modern humans, common and pygmy chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and two other early hominin ulnae, Omo L40-19 and KNM-BK 66, suggest that OH 36 belonged to an individual with powerful forearms consistent with a locomotor repertoire that included arboreal locomotion. However, there is no compelling evidence that it made regular use of its forelimbs as supports when travelling on the ground. When compared with levels of intra- and intertaxon size and shape variation in the comparative sample (humans, chimpanzees, gorillas), the differences between OH 36, KNM-BK 66, and Omo L40-19 are compatible with OH 36 differing from the other two fossil hominin ulnae to the extent that modern humans differ from modern great apes. KNM-BK 66 and Omo L40-19 differ from each other in overall size and shape only to the degree that would be expected within any of the individual modern comparative samples. Based on these analyses, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that OH 36 and Omo L40-19 belong to the same species of fossil hominin, or to two species that shared a similar forelimb locomotor repertoire. We suggest that OH 36 has the greater claim to be assigned to Paranthropus boisei, and we recommend that for the time being the latter be referred to the tribe Hominini gen. et sp. indet. The surprising result of these analyses is the overall size and shape similarity between Omo L40-19 and KNM-BK 66, two fossils that are separated in time by more than 1.5 million years, and which have traditionally been assumed to represent hominin species with quite different locomotor patterns.
OH 36尺骨来自奥杜威峡谷的上第二层，年代约为110万至120万年前。多变量分析纳入了现代人类、普通黑猩猩和倭黑猩猩、大猩猩、猩猩以及另外两块早期人类尺骨（奥莫L40 - 19和KNM - BK 66）样本的数据，结果表明OH 36属于一个前臂有力的个体，这与包括树栖运动在内的运动方式相一致。然而，没有确凿证据表明它在地面行走时经常以前肢作为支撑。与比较样本（人类、黑猩猩、大猩猩）中的类内和类间大小及形状变异水平相比，OH 36、KNM - BK 66和奥莫L40 - 19之间的差异与现代人类不同于现代大猩猩的程度相符，即OH 36与其他两块化石人类尺骨不同。KNM - BK 66和奥莫L40 - 19在整体大小和形状上的差异仅在任何单个现代比较样本所预期的程度之内。基于这些分析，没有证据支持OH 36和奥莫L40 - 19属于同一化石人类物种或具有相似前肢运动方式的两个物种这一假设。我们认为OH 36更有可能被归为鲍氏傍人，并且我们建议目前将后者暂归人族属及未定种。这些分析令人惊讶的结果是奥莫L40 - 19和KNM - BK 66在整体大小和形状上的相似性，这两块化石在时间上相隔超过150万年，传统上一直被认为代表具有截然不同运动模式的人类物种。
