Suppr超能文献

来自奥杜威峡谷和科比福拉地区的早期人属颅骨之间的差异。

Variation among early Homo crania from Olduvai Gorge and the Koobi Fora region.

作者信息

Rightmire G P

机构信息

Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Binghamton 13902-6000.

出版信息

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1993 Jan;90(1):1-33. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330900102.

Abstract

Fossils recognized as early Homo were discovered first at Olduvai Gorge in 1959 and 1960. Teeth, skull parts and hand bones representing three individuals were found in Bed I, and more material followed from Bed I and lower Bed II. By 1964, L.S.B. Leakey, P.V. Tobias, and J.R. Napier were ready to name Homo habilis. But almost as soon as they had, there was confusion over the hypodigm of the new species. Tobias himself suggested that OH 13 resembles Homo erectus from Java, and he noted that OH 16 has teeth as large as those of Australopithecus. By the early 1970s, however, Tobias had put these thoughts behind him and returned to the opinion that all of the Olduvai remains are Homo habilis. At about this time, important discoveries began to flow from the Koobi Fora region in Kenya. To most observers, crania such as KNM-ER 1470 confirmed the presence of Homo in East Africa at an early date. Some of the other specimens were problematical. A.C. Walker and R.E. Leakey raised the possibility that larger skulls including KNM-ER 1470 differ significantly from smaller-brained, small-toothed individuals such as KNM-ER 1813. Other workers emphasized that there are differences of shape as well as size among the hominids from Koobi Fora. There is now substantial support for the view that in the Turkana and perhaps also in the Olduvai assemblages, there is more variation than would be expected among male and female conspecifics. One way to approach this question of sorting would be to compare all of the new fossils against the original material from Olduvai which was used to characterize Homo habilis in 1964. A problem is that the Olduvai remains are fragmentary, and none of them provides much information about vault form or facial structure. An alternative is to work first with the better crania, even if these are from other sites. I have elected to treat KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813 as key individuals. Comparisons are based on discrete anatomy and measurements. Metric results are displayed with ratio diagrams, by which similarity in proportions for several skulls can be assessed in respect to a single specimen selected as a standard. Crania from Olduvai examined in this way are generally smaller than KNM-ER 1470, although OH 7 has a relatively long parietal. In the Koobi Fora assemblage, there is variation in brow thickness, frontal flattening and parietal shape relative to KNM-ER 1470.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

摘要

1959年和1960年,最早被认定为早期人类的化石在奥杜威峡谷被发现。在第I层发现了代表三个个体的牙齿、头骨碎片和手部骨骼,随后在第I层和较低的第II层又发现了更多化石。到1964年,L.S.B.利基、P.V.托拜厄斯和J.R.内皮尔准备为能人命名。但几乎就在他们命名后不久,关于这个新物种的模式标本就出现了混乱。托拜厄斯本人认为OH 13与爪哇直立人相似,他还指出OH 16的牙齿与南方古猿的一样大。然而,到了20世纪70年代初,托拜厄斯摒弃了这些想法,又回到了认为奥杜威所有遗迹都是能人的观点。大约在这个时候,肯尼亚的科比福拉地区开始有重要发现。对大多数观察者来说,诸如KNM-ER 1470这样的颅骨证实了东非早期就存在人类。其他一些标本则存在问题。A.C.沃克和R.E.利基提出,包括KNM-ER 1470在内的较大颅骨与脑容量较小、牙齿较小的个体(如KNM-ER 1813)有显著差异。其他研究者强调,科比福拉的原始人类在形状和大小上都存在差异。现在有大量证据支持这样一种观点,即在图尔卡纳以及或许在奥杜威的化石组合中,同一物种的雄性和雌性之间的差异比预期的要大。解决分类问题的一个方法是将所有新化石与1964年用于界定能人的奥杜威原始材料进行比较。问题在于奥杜威的遗迹是零碎的,而且没有一个能提供关于脑壳形状或面部结构的太多信息。另一种方法是先从较好的颅骨入手,即使这些颅骨来自其他地点。我选择将KNM-ER 1470和KNM-ER 1813作为关键个体。比较基于离散解剖结构和测量数据。测量结果用比率图展示,通过比率图可以根据选定为标准的单个标本评估几个颅骨在比例上的相似性。以这种方式检查的奥杜威颅骨通常比KNM-ER 1470小,不过OH 7的顶骨相对较长。在科比福拉化石组合中,相对于KNM-ER 1470,眉骨厚度、额部扁平程度和顶骨形状存在差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验