Trinkaus E, Long J C
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albaquerque, 87131.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1990 Dec;83(4):419-24. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330830403.
Susman (Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 75:277-278, 79:451-474; Science 240:781-784; In FE Grine (ed): Evolutionary History of the "Robust" Australopithecines. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 149-172) has attributed the morphologically similar SK 84 and SKX 5020 hominid first metacarpals to Homo erectus and Australopithecus robustus, respectively, and has inferred that both species exhibited derived pollical morphologies, indicating refined precision grips. Consideration of the structure of his taphonomic arguments indicates that there are no adequate nonmorphological reasons to attribute these specimens securely to one or the other of the craniodentally represented species at Swartkrans. His morphological arguments fail to note any significant differences between the two specimens. Only the contrast in size between the small SK 84 and large SKX 5020 bones might warrant a species distinction; yet comparison of their length ratio to distributions of modern human first metacarpal length ratios indicates that it is not possible to reject conclusively the null hypothesis that they are conspecific. Therefore, early hominid adaptive scenarios based on a derived Homo-like manual functional morphology in A. robustus remain without a secure paleontological basis.
苏斯曼（《美国体质人类学杂志》75:277 - 278，79:451 - 474；《科学》240:781 - 784；见FE·格林编：《粗壮南方古猿的进化史》。纽约：奥尔丁·德·格鲁伊特出版社，第149 - 172页）将形态相似的SK 84和SKX 5020人科动物的第一掌骨分别归属于直立人和粗壮南方古猿，并推断这两个物种都呈现出衍生的拇指形态，表明具有精细的精确抓握能力。对他的埋藏学论证结构的考量表明，没有充分的非形态学理由将这些标本确凿地归属于斯瓦特克朗斯颅骨 - 牙齿所代表的这两个物种中的某一个。他的形态学论证没有注意到这两个标本之间的任何显著差异。只有小的SK 84和大的SKX 5020骨骼在大小上的差异可能支持物种区分；然而，将它们的长度比与现代人类第一掌骨长度比的分布进行比较表明，无法确凿地拒绝它们同种的零假设。因此，基于粗壮南方古猿具有类似人类的衍生手部功能形态的早期人科动物适应性情景仍然缺乏可靠的古生物学基础。
