Ritzman Terrence B, Terhune Claire E, Gunz Philipp, Robinson Chris A
Department of Neuroscience, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave., St. Louis, MO, USA; Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7701, South Africa; Human Evolution Research Institute, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7701, South Africa; School of Human Evolution, Arizona State University, School of Human Evolution and Social Change Building, P.O. Box 872402, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA.
Department of Anthropology, 330 Old Main, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 72701, USA.
J Hum Evol. 2016 Nov;100:54-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.09.002.
The fossils from Malapa cave, South Africa, attributed to Australopithecus sediba, include two partial skeletons-MH1, a subadult, and MH2, an adult. Previous research noted differences in the mandibular rami of these individuals. This study tests three hypotheses that could explain these differences. The first two state that the differences are due to ontogenetic variation and sexual dimorphism, respectively. The third hypothesis, which is relevant to arguments suggesting that MH1 belongs in the genus Australopithecus and MH2 in Homo, is that the differences are due to the two individuals representing more than one taxon. To test these hypotheses, we digitized two-dimensional sliding semilandmarks in samples of Gorilla, Pan, Pongo, and Homo, as well as MH1 and MH2. We document large amounts of shape variation within all extant species, which is related neither to ontogeny nor sexual dimorphism. Extant species nevertheless form clusters in shape space, albeit with some overlap. The shape differences in extant taxa between individuals in the relevant age categories are minimal, indicating that it is unlikely that ontogeny explains the differences between MH1 and MH2. Similarly, the pattern of differences between MH1 and MH2 is inconsistent with those found between males and females in the extant sample, suggesting that it is unlikely that sexual dimorphism explains these differences. While the difference between MH1 and MH2 is large relative to within-species comparisons, it does not generally fall outside of the confidence intervals for extant intraspecific variation. However, the MH1-MH2 distance also does not plot outside and below the between-species confidence intervals. Based on these results, as well as the contextual and depositional evidence, we conclude that MH1 and MH2 represent a single species and that the relatively large degree of variation in this species is due to neither ontogeny nor sexual dimorphism.
来自南非马勒帕洞穴、被归为南方古猿源泉种的化石,包括两具部分骨骼——亚成年个体MH1和成年个体MH2。此前的研究注意到了这些个体下颌支的差异。本研究检验了三种可以解释这些差异的假说。前两种假说分别认为差异是由于个体发育变异和两性异形。第三种假说与认为MH1属于南方古猿属而MH2属于人属的观点相关,即差异是由于这两个个体代表了不止一个分类单元。为了检验这些假说,我们对大猩猩、黑猩猩、猩猩和人以及MH1和MH2的样本中的二维滑动半地标进行了数字化处理。我们记录了所有现存物种中大量的形状变异,这与个体发育和两性异形均无关。然而现存物种在形状空间中形成了聚类,尽管存在一些重叠。相关年龄类别的现存分类单元中个体之间的形状差异极小,这表明个体发育不太可能解释MH1和MH2之间的差异。同样,MH1和MH2之间的差异模式与现存样本中雄性和雌性之间的差异模式不一致,这表明两性异形不太可能解释这些差异。虽然相对于种内比较,MH1和MH2之间的差异很大,但它通常并未超出现存种内变异的置信区间。然而,MH1与MH2之间的距离也并未落在种间置信区间之外或之下。基于这些结果以及背景和沉积证据,我们得出结论,MH1和MH2代表单一物种,且该物种中相对较大程度的变异既不是由于个体发育也不是由于两性异形。