Departments of Anthropology and History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010;143 Suppl 51:94-121. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21443.
Our species Homo sapiens has never received a satisfactory morphological definition. Deriving partly from Linnaeus's exhortation simply to "know thyself," and partly from the insistence by advocates of the Evolutionary Synthesis in the mid-20th Century that species are constantly transforming ephemera that by definition cannot be pinned down by morphology, this unfortunate situation has led to huge uncertainty over which hominid fossils ought to be included in H. sapiens, and even over which of them should be qualified as "archaic" or as "anatomically modern," a debate that is an oddity in the broader context of paleontology. Here, we propose a suite of features that seems to characterize all H. sapiens alive today, and we review the fossil evidence in light of those features, paying particular attention to the bipartite brow and the "chin" as examples of how, given the continuum from developmentally regulated genes to adult morphology, we might consider features preserved in fossil specimens in a comparative analysis that includes extant taxa. We also suggest that this perspective on the origination of novelty, which has gained a substantial foothold in the general field of evolutionary developmental biology, has an intellectual place in paleoanthropology and hominid systematics, including in defining our species, H. sapiens. Beginning solely with the distinctive living species reveals a startling variety in morphologies among late middle and late Pleistocene hominids, none of which can be plausibly attributed to H. sapiens/H. neanderthalensis admixture. Allowing for a slightly greater envelope of variation than exists today, basic "modern" morphology seems to have appeared significantly earlier in time than the first stirrings of the modern symbolic cognitive system.
我们人类物种从未得到过令人满意的形态定义。这部分源于林奈的告诫,即“认识你自己”,部分源于 20 世纪中期进化综合论的倡导者的坚持,即物种是不断变化的短暂存在,从定义上讲,它们无法通过形态学来确定。这种不幸的情况导致了巨大的不确定性,即哪些原始人化石应该被归入 H. sapiens,甚至哪些应该被视为“古老的”或“解剖学上现代的”,这种争论在古生物学的更广泛背景下是一种奇特的现象。在这里,我们提出了一套似乎可以描述当今所有 H. sapiens 的特征,我们根据这些特征回顾了化石证据,特别关注二分眉和“下巴”,作为如何考虑从发育调节基因到成年形态的连续体的例子,我们可以在包括现存分类群的比较分析中考虑保存在化石标本中的特征。我们还建议,这种关于新颖性起源的观点,在进化发育生物学的一般领域已经获得了相当大的立足点,在古人类学和原始人类系统学中也有一席之地,包括在定义我们的物种 H. sapiens 时。仅从独特的现存物种开始,揭示了中更新世晚期和晚更新世人类之间形态的惊人多样性,其中没有一种可以合理归因于 H. sapiens/H. neanderthalensis 混合。允许存在比今天稍大的变异范围,基本的“现代”形态似乎在时间上比现代象征性认知系统的最初出现早得多。