Australopithecus africanus' brain size are similar to apes (435-530 cm³), they have projecting faces, some postorbital constriction, small canine teeth no diastema, their lower premolar has two cusps, thick tooth enamel, fairly parallel tooth rows, relatively long arms, somewhat curved finger bones thumbs/finger length ratio similar to humans, lumbar curve of spine, lliac blade short and wide, lliac blade twisted towards the side, shaft of femur angles in, and placing knee over foot.
Australopithecus robustus' brain size are similar to apes (530 cm³), sagittal crest on top of skull, robust chewing muscles, heavy buttressing on skull due to chewing forces, wide flat to concave face, marked postorbital constriction, small incisor and canine teeth, large premolar and molar teeth, lower premolar has two cusps, thick tooth enamel, robust parabolic jaw, lumbar curve of spine, lliac blade short and wide, lliac blade twisted towards the side, shaft of femur angles in, and placing knee
…show more content…
Australopithecus africanus are 3.0-2.3 million years old, their diet consisted of (fruits, nuts, seeds, and tubers), their environment is mixed habitat of bush woodland, body sizes of females were 115 cm/3'9", 30 kg/67 lbs, body sizes of males were 138 cn/4'6", 41 kg/91 lbs, and their key sites were (Makapansgat, South Africa), (Sterkfontein, South Africa), and (Taung, South Africa). Whereas, Australopithecus robustus are 2.0-1.0 million years old, their diet consisted of hard gritty foods such as nuts and tubers; might have consumed some meat, their environment is mixed habitat of savanna woodland, body sizes of females were 110 cm/3'7", 32 kg/71lbs, body sizes of males were 132 cm /4"4", 42 kg/92 lbs, and their key sites were (Drimolen, South Africa), (Kromdraai, South Africa), and (Swartkrans, South
Chinese and Malaysian Homo Sapiens have very close features to the Neanderthal. The skull analysis of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are usually considered more accurate if the entire skull is examined, rather than certain ...
...he Keystone Megaherbivore theory uses evidence from extant African large herbivores to suggest that the loss of a (352
5) What are Dryomomys and why are their important from a biological anthropology perspective? What do these fossils tell scientists about early primate evolution?
Australopithecus afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. The distinctive characteristics of A. afarensis were: a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, no chin, more humanlike teeth, pelvis and leg bones resembled those of modern man. Females were smaller than males. Their sexual dimorphism was males:females; 1.5. A. afarensis was not as sexually dimorphic as gorillas, but more sexually dimorphic than humans or chimpanzees. A lot of scientists think that Australopithecus afarensis was partially adapted to climbing the trees, because the fingers and toe bones of the species were curved and longer than the ones of the modern human.
Apes, like humans, are catarrhines and part of the superfamily hominoidea. Apes started to appear in the Miocene about 20 million years ago(lecture notes, week 10), under this category there are many primates that are distinguished as apes, such as, orangutans, gibbons, chimpanzees, and gorillas. These particular primates are from the old world and are native to Africa and Asia. Apes can be distinguished by the foramen magnum towards the back of the skull, having no tail, and having a hook nose (Larsen 2013, p. 150). Another characteristic of apes is that they have large brains for their body size, this is important because it shows they have a higher intelligence than other animals, and this can be connected to the relationship shared with humans.
The Paleolithic diet also known as caveman diet or Paleo diet is a nutritional diet based on a diet and food consumed during Paleolithic era.
Most of their evidence comes from the fossilized bones of Neanderthals and Cro- Magnons, or modern man’s ancestors (Shreeve, 150). There is a definite difference between their bone structures, and it may be a significant enough difference to divide them into species. There is a set of traits that distinguishes Neanderthals. Their general proportions are short, robust, and strong. Males and females of all ages have thick bones, and very pronounced muscle and ligament attachment sites. They also have distinct facial and cranial features. They have a large skull with no chin, a significant brow-ridge, and a large nasal opening (Shreeve, 49-150). They have large brains, around 1400cc, that protrude in the back, causing an occipital bun in the skull (Lecture, 4/19). Cro-Magnons on the other hand look more like humans do today. They are more slender and not as muscular, with chins and rounder skulls with slightly smaller brains among other traits.
Bindon, Jim 2004 Fossil Hominids. ANT 270 Notes. http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant270/lectures/ hominids1.pdf Delson, Eric 1981
Terra Nullius which is referred as “land belonging to no one” was an obstacle in order to achieve Native Title which is the right to land by the original inhabitants, as the Indigenous people had to prove that they were traditional owners of the land with an ongoing connection to it in order to claim native title, which was difficult as they had been forced off their land almost 200 years before. In order to achieve the native title, it had to be claimed by people with the ancestors that inhabited and associated with the land before the European settlement.
Modern-day genetic technology has granted mankind with the opportunity to bring back extinct species from the dead. If humans have come to possess the DNA from an extinct animal population, it is possible to create an identical clone of the animal in question, effectively “bringing it back from the dead”. Many ethical dilemmas surround the practice of de-extinction, and rightfully so. Recreating an extinct species could produce groundbreaking scientific breakthroughs, generating exciting opportunities for future genetics-based research. However, there could also be monumental consequences: the newly revived, once-extinct species might destroy the ecological equilibrium of modern Earth
Approximately two million years, exceedingly evolved Australopithecines made their priority to impact their environment. They made tools and started to use resources. The age of Homo Habilis has begun. They are the earliest known members of the Homo genus. They were found in Africa. Homo Habilis brains were 50% larger than Australopithecus, they were taller, hairless face, and flatter nostrils. They became omnivores. They were the first to discover that meat was edible. Scavenging for dead meat was added to their diets. This is known because of their teeth. Homo Habilis had developed mature incisors, which are used for shredding chunks of meat. Wisdom teeth were also developed for chewing meat. The most fundamental development in Homo Habilis is language. Containing larger cerebral cortex than their ancestors, they developed the abilities in thinking, reasoning, and memory. They also hunted, which was a group activity because it requires precision, accuracy, planning, and silence. As a result, they probably developed hand signals and facial expressions which granted meaning for use in hunting parties; this could have been the first symbolic communication. As the Homo Habilis grasped more of this communications the signals became more complex. As a result, hands signals were developed to represent abstract concepts like good or evil. Furthermore, the hand signals organized and unified with sounds to produce a simplistic form of language. This form of communication along with tools and resources have become the foundations of an advanced culture. Homo Habilis were unendingly bipedal, thus, losing their ability to climb. Their brow ridge and the beginnings of the chin were gone. Homo Habilis were about four feet fall on average. The most complex toll made by them was the chopper, which later advanced into the axe. Homo Habilis ruled over Africa until about 1.6 million years, when Homo Erectus surfaced,
Strait, David S. "The Feeding Biomechanics and Dietary Ecology of Australopithecus Africanus." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 12 Dec. 2008. Web. 19 Nov. 2015. .
Susan Lindee and Ricardo Santos’ goal was to understand the contexts of genesis and development of biological anthropology around the world from an international standpoint, focusing on engagement with living human populations. Their contributors, scholars in history of science, science studies, and anthropology, were guided by key questions about national histories, collections, and scientific field practice.
Great Apes are at the brink of extinction due to deforestation, hunting, and bushmeat trade. Our closest cousins are now viewed as economic commodities rather than valuable agents to the environment and humanity. In order to explore this issue, there must be an examinitation of why primate populations are dwindling, if these populations can replenish themselves, and what measures the international community is taking to alleviate the problem.
According to Britannica Encyclopædia, Australopithecus anamensis lived in Kenya between 4.2 million and 3.9 million years ago. A. afarensis lived in eastern Africa between 3 and 4 million years ago. This australopithecine had a brain size a little larger than chimpanzees. Some had canine teeth more sticking out than those of later hominines. No tools of any kind have been found with A. afarensis fossils.