Department of Biology, Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL, 35254, USA; Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa; Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin Madison, 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
J Hum Evol. 2019 Aug;133:167-197. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.05.015. Epub 2019 Jul 4.
Due to its completeness, the A.L. 288-1 ('Lucy') skeleton has long served as the archetypal bipedal Australopithecus. However, there remains considerable debate about its limb proportions. There are three competing, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, explanations for the high humerofemoral index of A.L. 288-1: (1) a retention of proportions from an Ardipithecus-like chimp/human last common ancestor (CLCA); (2) indication of some degree of climbing ability; (3) allometry. Recent discoveries of other partial skeletons of Australopithecus, such as those of Australopithecus sediba (MH1 and MH2) and Australopithecus afarensis (KSD-VP-1/1 and DIK-1/1), have provided new opportunities to test hypotheses of early hominin body size and limb proportions. Yet, no early hominin is as complete (>90%), as is the ∼3.67 Ma 'Little Foot' (StW 573) skeleton from Sterkfontein Member 2. Here, we provide the first descriptions of its upper and lower long limb bones, as well as a comparative context of its limb proportions. We found that StW 573 possesses absolutely longer limb lengths than A.L. 288-1, but both skeletons show similar limb proportions. This finding seems to argue against a purely allometric explanation for A.L. 288-1 limb proportions. In fact, our multivariate allometric analysis suggests that limb lengths of Australopithecus, as represented by StW 573 and A.L. 288-1, exhibit a significantly different (p < 0.001) allometric pattern than that which typifies modern humans and African apes. Like some previous analyses, our results also suggest that hominin limb evolution occurred in two stages with: first, a modest increase in lower limb length and a concurrent shortening of the antebrachium between Ardipithecus and Australopithecus, followed by a considerable lengthening of the lower limb along with a decrease of both upper limb elements occurring between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens.
由于其完整性,A.L. 288-1(“露西”)骨骼长期以来一直是典型的两足南方古猿。然而,关于其肢体比例仍存在相当大的争议。对于 A.L. 288-1 较高的肱骨股骨指数,有三种相互竞争的解释,但不一定相互排斥:(1)保留了类似于阿法南方古猿的黑猩猩/人类最近共同祖先(CLCA)的比例;(2)表明具有一定程度的攀爬能力;(3)生长比例。最近发现的其他南方古猿部分骨骼,如南方古猿 sediba(MH1 和 MH2)和南方古猿 afarensis(KSD-VP-1/1 和 DIK-1/1),为测试早期人类体型和肢体比例的假设提供了新的机会。然而,没有一种早期人类像约 367 万年前斯特克方丹成员 2 出土的“小脚”(StW 573)骨骼那样完整(>90%)。在这里,我们首次描述了其上肢和下肢长骨,并提供了其肢体比例的比较背景。我们发现,StW 573 的肢体长度绝对比 A.L. 288-1 长,但这两个骨骼显示出相似的肢体比例。这一发现似乎排除了 A.L. 288-1 肢体比例纯粹是生长比例的解释。事实上,我们的多元生长比例分析表明,代表南方古猿的 StW 573 和 A.L. 288-1 的肢体长度表现出明显不同的(p<0.001)生长比例模式,与现代人类和非洲猿类典型的模式不同。与之前的一些分析一样,我们的结果还表明,人类肢体进化经历了两个阶段:首先,在阿法南方古猿和南方古猿之间,下肢长度适度增加,前臂同时缩短,然后在南方古猿和智人之间,下肢显著延长,同时上肢两个元素都缩短。