Paleoanthropology, Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment (HEP), Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72070, Germany; Division of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, 10024, USA; Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, 0316 Oslo, Norway; Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA.
Department of Biology, Chatham University, Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA; Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA.
J Hum Evol. 2018 Sep;122:84-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2018.05.001. Epub 2018 Jun 15.
Many hypotheses regarding the paleobiology of the earliest possible hominins, Orrorin tugenensis and Ardipithecus ramidus, are dependent upon accurate body mass estimates for these taxa. While we have previously published body mass predictions for Orrorin and Ardipithecus, the accuracies of those estimates depend on the assumption that the postcranial skeletal dimensions and body masses of these taxa followed scaling patterns that were similar to those observed in modern humans. This assumption may not be correct because certain aspects of postcranial morphology in Orrorin and Ardipithecus differ from modern humans, and suggest that their overall body plans might be unique but more similar to modern non-human great apes than to modern humans. Here we present individual body mass predictions for O. tugenensis and Ar. ramidus assuming that they followed postcranial scaling patterns similar to those of chimpanzees. All estimates include individual prediction intervals as measures of uncertainty. In addition, we provide equations for predicting body mass from univariate postcranial measurements based on the largest sample (n = 25) yet compiled of common chimpanzee skeletons with known body masses, which is vital for calculating prediction intervals for individual fossils. Our results show that estimated body masses in Orrorin and Ardipithecus are generally larger when derived from a chimpanzee-like scaling pattern compared to estimates that assume a human-like pattern, though the prediction intervals of the two sets of estimates overlap. In addition, the more complete of the two known Orrorin femora has an overall scaling pattern that is more similar to common chimpanzees than to modern humans, supporting the application of a non-human great ape comparative model. Our new estimates fall near the male (Ardipithecus) average and in between the male and female averages (Orrorin) for wild-caught common chimpanzees. If a chimpanzee-like pattern of scaling between postcranial dimensions and body mass did exist in these earliest hominins, our results suggest the large body masses found in some early australopiths were already present in taxa near the origins of our lineage, and perhaps also in the Pan-Homo last common ancestor.
许多关于最早的可能原始人类——地猿始祖种和始祖地猿——古生物学的假说都依赖于对这些分类单元的体质量的准确估计。虽然我们之前已经发表了关于地猿和始祖地猿的体质量预测,但这些估计的准确性取决于一个假设,即这些分类单元的后肢骨骼尺寸和体质量遵循与现代人相似的比例模式。这种假设可能不正确,因为地猿和始祖地猿的后肢形态的某些方面与现代人不同,这表明它们的整体身体结构可能是独特的,但与现代非人类大猿类更为相似,而不是与现代人相似。在这里,我们假设地猿和始祖地猿遵循类似于黑猩猩的后肢比例模式,给出了它们的个体体质量预测。所有的估计都包括个体预测区间,作为不确定性的度量。此外,我们还提供了基于已知体质量的最大的普通黑猩猩骨骼样本(n=25)编写的、从单变量后肢测量值预测体质量的方程,这对于计算单个化石的预测区间至关重要。我们的结果表明,当从类似于黑猩猩的比例模式中得出估计时,地猿和始祖地猿的体质量通常会比从类似于人类的模式中得出的估计更大,尽管这两种估计的预测区间有重叠。此外,已知的两个地猿股骨中更完整的一个,其整体比例模式与普通黑猩猩更相似,而不是与现代人相似,这支持了非人类大猿类比较模型的应用。我们的新估计值接近野生捕获的普通黑猩猩的雄性(始祖地猿)平均值,并且在雄性和雌性平均值(地猿)之间。如果在后肢尺寸和体质量之间确实存在类似于黑猩猩的比例模式,那么我们的结果表明,在一些早期南方古猿中发现的大型体质量已经存在于我们谱系起源附近的分类单元中,也许也存在于 Pan-Homo 最后的共同祖先中。