In European Middle Pleistocene hominids, this pattern probably was facilitated by the extra space available in the mandible and maxilla for developing teeth. This latter feature seems to be common in Pleistocene hominids, and suggests that the pattern of dental development evolved in the genus Homo during the Pleistocene. In contrast, the relative advanced development of the lower second molars and, especially, the upper and lower third molars is noteworthy. A delay of development of the lower and upper canines was observed. As expected, this pattern is similar to that of modern humans. We describe the pattern of dental development of Hominid XVIII from the Middle Pleistocene Sima de los Huesos (SH) site of the Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain). Pattern of dental development in Hominid XVIII from the Middle Pleistocene Atapuerca-Sima de los Huesos site (Spain). The present evidence suggests that it is inappropriate to refer to this fossil as "Neandertal-like" or as a North African "neandertaloid." Thus, the Tangier maxilla should not be cited as evidence for the presence of Neandertal facial features in North Africa during the Upper Pleistocene. The probable lack of a canine fossa in Mugharet el-'Aliya 1, the primary criterion used previously to align it with Neandertals, cannot be accurately extrapolated to its adult form from this juvenile. No unambiguous criteria for aligning the maxilla with Neandertals were found, although one character, the degree of maxillary flexion on the zygoma, strongly suggests that this child could be a representative of H.s. Metric and qualitative comparisons were made with 17 immature Upper Pleistocene maxillae, and with a recent Homo sapiens sapiens sample. Reexamination of the immature Upper Pleistocene hominid maxilla from Mugharet el-'Aliya (Tangier), Morocco is undertaken in light of new evidence on the growth and development of Upper Pleistocene hominids. Reexamination of the immature hominid maxilla from Tangier, Morocco. These results refute the view that the genus Homo migrated into eastern Asia in the late Pliocene or the earliest Pleistocene. Magnetochronological assessments confirm that the Lantian calotte which has been dated to about 1.2 m.y.a., is the oldest reliable evidence for the emergence of Homo in eastern Asia as well as China, and that hominid fossils from Sangiran and Mojokerto, Java, do not exceed 1.1 Ma in age. Recent age refinements of geomagnetic short reversal events and excursions permit assigning the Yuanmou hominid-bearing bed to the early Brunhes chron (about 0.7 m.y.a.). The Yuanmou hominid remains are alleged to be coeval with or older than African specimens dated at about 1.8 m.y.a. Two hominid upper central incisors found in the Yuanmou Basin in southwest China in 1965 have affinities with Homo erectus fossils from Zhoukoudian, but exhibit primitive features.
Hyodo, Masayuki Nakaya, Hideo Urabe, Atsushi Saegusa, Haruo Shunrong, Xue Jiyun, Yin Xuepin, Ji Paleomagnetic dates of hominid remains from Yuanmou, China, and other Asian sites. Although all known hominid tarsals demonstrate clear bipedal features, the tarsal features noted below suggest that biomechanical changes did occur over time, and that certain features are associated with different hominid lineages (especially the robust australopithecines). Although the Omo tarsals are a million years younger than the oldest known foot bones from Hadar, both localities demonstrate anatomical differences representing two distinct morphological patterns.
The more modern-like tarsal morphology of these Omo foot bones makes them very similar to a talus from Koobi Fora (KNM-ER 813), a specimen attributed to Homo rudolfensis or Homo erectus. We attribute these foot bones to early Homo on the basis of their morphology. Although both specimens occur at different localities and times, both tarsals articulate well together, suggesting a single taxon on the basis of size and function. We reanalyze a hominid talus and calcaneus from Omo dating to 2.2 mya and 2.36 mya, respectively. Foot bones from Omo: implications for hominid evolution.
0 kommentar(er)
