Oxnard C E, Lisowski F P
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1980 Jan;52(1):107-17. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330520114.
Previous observations on twelve fossil foot bones (Olduvai 8: Day and Napier, '64) together with multivariate morphometric studies of one of them, the talus (Day and Wood, '68) suggested human-like bipedality for this foot. Subsequent studies showed the conclusions on the talus to be wrong: The fossil talus, as defined by eight measures, does not resemble that of man but is reminiscent of those of creatures known (extant--orangutans) or believed (extinct--some fossil apes and monkeys) to be arboreal in habitus (Oxnard '72; Lisowski, et al., '74, '76). A reassessment of the entire Olduvai 8 foot is therefore necessary to answer the problem posed by a foot that has a non-human talus with, apparently, a human arched pattern of the remaining tarsal and metatarsal bones. The dry bones of a series of feet of extant hominoids have been rearticulated and are found to be close to the actual relationships presented by dissected specimens in which ligaments, articular cartilages and soft tissues are present. Similar rearticulation applied to casts of the individual Olduvai foot bones produces a structure that is not arched in the same manner as the human foot; it displays features that ally it more closely with the feet of various apes. Sections of casts of the already rearticulated Olduvai foot (from both the Wenner Gren Foundation and the Kenya National Museums) show that the human-like appearance of the original rearticulation is due to a series of incorrect osteological alignments. Although casts do not permit study of surface features, the dimensions of the casts are sufficiently accurate to permit rearticulation in this manner. It is thus clear, a) that the Olduvai foot is not adated for bipedality in the manner of man, and b) that it displays features in which it resembles the feet of arboreal creatures. Such anatomical characters as relate to bipedality in the fossil suggest usage as in an arboreal species that also walks bipedally with flattened arches (like a chimpanzee or gorilla) rather than with the high arches of man.
先前对12块化石足骨的观察（奥杜威8号：戴伊和内皮尔，1964年），以及对其中一块距骨的多变量形态测量研究（戴伊和伍德，1968年）表明，这只脚具有类似人类的双足行走特征。随后的研究表明，关于距骨的结论是错误的：根据八项测量指标定义的化石距骨与人类的距骨并不相似，而是让人联想到已知（现存的——猩猩）或被认为（已灭绝的——一些化石猿类和猴子）具有树栖习性的生物的距骨（奥克斯纳德，1972年；利索夫斯基等人，1974年、1976年）。因此，有必要对整个奥杜威8号足进行重新评估，以解决这样一个问题：一只脚的距骨并非人类特征，而其余跗骨和跖骨却明显具有人类的弓形模式。一系列现存类人猿足部的干燥骨骼已被重新连接起来，发现它们与带有韧带、关节软骨和软组织的解剖标本所呈现的实际关系相近。将类似的重新连接方法应用于奥杜威足骨的各个铸型上，得到的结构并不像人类足部那样呈弓形；它显示出的特征使其与各种猿类的足部更为相似。对已经重新连接的奥杜威足（来自温纳·格林基金会和肯尼亚国家博物馆）的铸型切片显示，最初重新连接时呈现出的类似人类的外观是由于一系列不正确的骨骼排列造成的。虽然铸型不允许研究表面特征，但铸型的尺寸足够精确，能够以这种方式进行重新连接。因此很明显，a）奥杜威足并非以人类的方式适应双足行走，b）它显示出与树栖生物足部相似的特征。化石中与双足行走相关的此类解剖特征表明，其使用方式类似于一种树栖物种，该物种也以扁平足弓双足行走（如黑猩猩或大猩猩），而不是像人类那样具有高足弓。
