Homo habilis

There's nothing especially surprising about the functional interpretations in Richmond and Jungers' paper about the Orrorin BAR 1002'00 femur. They conclude it was an australopithecine-like biped, because it shared several features with australopithecine femora: in particular, it has a long, narrow, anteroposteriorly flattened neck and a broad thick proximal shaft.

In this, they mirror the conclusions of the original description of the Lukeino fossils by Senut et al. (2001). Richmond and Jungers also reiterate the evidence for arboreality in the Lukeino fossils, including the well-developed musculature of the distal humerus and the chimpanzee-like curved finger bone. I wonder why their analysis could not have made something more out of the other two femoral fragments, one of which is fairly large (but lacking the head). Still, the paper reiterates the quite good evidence for bipedality in the most complete femoral specimen.

I wonder sometimes how closely people actually read the papers they comment on. The associated coverage, including Ann Gibbons' article, has made a lot out of a small point in the paper, but I think that the commenters have it wrong.

Here's the story: When the Orrorin materials were first published, Brigitte Senut and Martin Pickford put forward the argument that these may be more closely related to Homo than to known australopithecines. They based their argument mainly on Orrorin's relatively thick-enameled molars, which they viewed as different from the thin-enameled molars of Ardipithecus, but lacking the enlarged dentition of Australopithecus. So, they suggested that Orrorin might be a plesiomorphic ancestor of Homo, and that Ardipithecus and Australopithecus represent divergent lineages derived in their dental anatomy.

I don't find that suggestion very compelling, because it seems to put too much faith in the absence of evolutionary reversals. There's no reason why a large-molared australopithecine should not have given rise to small-molared Homo, particularly since smaller-toothed Homo habilis is apparently derived from earlier, larger-toothed "Homo" specimens like A. L. 666-1 and Omo 75-14. And Haile-Selassie, Suwa and White (2004) claimed that the Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, and Ardipithecus dentitions were so similar that they might represent one taxon. So the dental contrasts among these early hominids are probably not great enough to justify the idea that Orrorin is an exclusive Homo ancestor.

The femur also formed a part of this phylogenetic story, with Senut and Pickford having noted the lack of extreme australopithecine-like features in the femur. The Orrorin femur has a less exaggerated neck length than many australopithecine specimens, it is larger than many, and appears to have a higher neck-shaft angle. To the extent those features differ from later Australopithecus, they resemble the human anatomy.

Richmond and Jungers address this argument very briefly in their last paragraph, by noting that the functional elements of the Orrorin femoral anatomy are entirely consistent with the australopithecine pattern of bipedality:

The similarity between O. tugenensis and australopith femora weakens support for scenarios in which O. tugenesis is ancestral to Homo to the exclusion of A. afarensis (4). Instead, the overall primitive hominin morphology of the O. tugenensis femur, along with primitive dental anatomy, is consistent with the more parsimonious hypothesis that it is a basal member of the hominin clade.

I think that's fair, as far as it goes. The overall morphological pattern of this femur, with its long neck and broad shaft, is much like known australopithecine femora. But to go a bit further, their metric comparisons show BAR 1002'00 to be the most Homo-like of the early hominid femora they examined, and their phenetic cluster puts it basal to the other australopithecines. That's pretty much exactly what Senut et al. have consistently said. So I have a hard time understanding how those observations refute the idea that Orrorin has a more Homo-like femur than later australopithecines!

Again, I don't put much stock in the phylogenetic argument for an Orrorin-Homo link. I don't see any difficulty deriving Homo from Australopithecus, especially given the likely effects of body size evolution on the locomotor pattern. And at least one or two early Homo femoral specimens, like KNM-ER 1481, share most of the Australopithecus-like pattern of proximal femur anatomy. But this paper surely doesn't add anything new to the critique of Senut and Pickford's preferred phylogenetic hypothesis. The details simply don't detract from their story.

References:

Richmond BG, Jungers WL. 2008. Orrorin tugenensis femoral morphology and the evolution of hominin bipedalism. Science 319:1662-1665. doi:10.1126/science.1154197

Gibbons A. 2008. Millennium ancestor gets its walking papers. Science 319:1599-1601. doi:10.1126/science.319.5870.1599

Haile-Selassie Y, Suwa G, White T. 2004. Late Miocene teeth from Middle Awash, Ethiopia, and early hominid dental evolution. Science 303:1503-1505.

Senut B, Pickford M, Gommery D, Mein P, Cheboi K, Coppens Y. 2001. First hominid from the Miocene (Lukeino Formation, Kenya). C R Acad Sci Paris, Sciences de la Terre et des planètes 332:137-144.

I've been trying to spread the interviews across the field in various directions. I (virtually) talked with Mica Glantz about Neandertals, Adam Van Arsdale about early Homo, and Anne Weaver about human brain evolution, all the australopithephiles in the readership are probably feeling neglected.

So I wrote to Michelle Drapeau, who was very generous in answering questions about her work on the anatomy of early hominids and her recent field work in Ethiopia. Michelle is on the faculty of the Université de Montréal, in the Department of Anthropology. She serves as co-director of field operations in the Bala Paleoanthropological Research Area of southern Ethiopia.

Hawks: I will start out by asking about your dissertation work, which centered on the new partial skeleton from Hadar, A.L. 438-1. How did you get involved in that analysis?

Drapeau: It's a case of being at the right place at the right time. Bill Kimbel and Don Johanson had asked my advisor at the time, Carol Ward, to describe all the postcranial material recovered from the field in Hadar since 1990. Among those specimens was the partial skeleton of A.L. 438-1 which included associated fragments of the humerus, clavicle, radius, right ulna, mandible, and frontal as well as a complete left ulna, right and left second metacarpals and left third metacarpal. Considering the relatively numerous body parts from one individual, Carol thought the specimen deserved a more detailed analysis. I was Carol's Ph.D. student at the time and the 438-skeleton (as we started to call it) appeared like an ideal subject.

Hawks: What did you have to learn to be able to undertake the work?

Drapeau: I had to learn a lot! My master's thesis was in the history of science field, so all the functional anatomy, including the descriptive and comparative aspects were completely new to me. It was something I really wanted to do, however, so I really enjoyed immersing myself into it.

Hawks: A.L. 438-1 exhibits more curvature across its length than A.L. 288-1, an issue that you discussed in your analysis of the fossil. I have always been puzzled by the problem of ulna curvature -- mainly because I've always been puzzled by the comparison of later, larger, and more curved fossils like Omo L40-19 and OH 36 -- and then, of course, KNM-WT 15000 is a lot more like most recent humans. Do you have any insights about these contrasting morphologies?

Drapeau: Forearm bone curvature is an intriguing issue. Intuitively, it makes sense to assume that curvature reflects arboreality since the curvature of both the ulna and radius give greater area on the interosseous membrane for attachment of forearm muscle important for arboreal locomotion such as the finger flexors. However, orangutans and gibbons do not have the most curved forearm bones. It is an honor that goes to gorillas, definitely not the most arboreal animal of the bunch. If the area of muscle attachment is the variable that interests us, then it is important to take into account forearm length as well. When that is done, species generally sort by locomotor preference, with the most arboreal having the greater ‘area' for muscle attachment relative to body size and humans having the smallest (at least, when measured on the ulna). So gorillas appear to have very curved forearm bones because they also have relatively short forearms when compared to other apes.

The differences between A.L. 438-1 and A.L. 288-1 are fairly minor and probably reflect normal within-species variation. Neither is very curved and they may belong to a population with slightly more curved ulnae than modern humans but definitely less curved than any extant apes.

The KNM-WT 15000 specimen is pretty much what you would expect an ulna belonging to a completely terrestrial biped to look like, i.e., it is not particularly curved. Since it is a juvenile, it is difficult to compare it to other fossils, but there is nothing really surprising about it.

That said, what about the intriguing Omo L40-19 and OH 36? These specimens present combination of morphologies that are difficult to underscore in quantitative analyses. The former had a human-like proximal morphology but a really long and curved (ape-like) diaphysis. The latter, OH 36, has a general ape-like morphology with a pronounced curvature, but is unique in a few characters. The whole bone (proximal articulation and diaphysis) is very constricted medio-laterally, more comparable what is observed in monkeys (and it is not the result of distorsion). Despite its general ape-like morphology, it has an olecranon process that projects proximally like no other ape of its size. It is definitely much more human-like for that trait and it is generally agreed that it is a hominin. McHenry and colleagues argue in a recent article (AJPA, 134: 209-218) that these two fossils are very different and can hardly be accommodated into the same genus (Paranthropus) as it is usually done (probably by default). McHenry and colleagues argue that it may indicate Paranthropus is in fact a polyphyletic taxon. They also conclude, as I stated above, that OH 36 is unlike anything living today.

So, if curvature of the ulna reflects arboreality, does it mean that these fairly recent fossils were much more arboreal than A. afarensis? Remember that they are big ulnae, particularly L40-19, likely belonging to large individuals.... Maybe the Paranthropus clade (if indeed it is a clade) is more arboreal than A. afarensis? This would imply either reversal of behavior or that A. afarensis is not ancestral to Paranthropus. Or, alternatively, could the curvature in these individuals reflect forelimb muscularity but not necessarily related to arboreality? As you can see, I have many more questions than answers. All this variability suggests that the behaviors of fossil hominin species were much more variable than what we have been used to think and may have been (very?) different from the behaviors of extent species.

Hawks: Of course, the big debate about forelimb proportions is the idea that they may have been very different (and more apelike) in A. africanus compared to A. afarensis. (reviewed by Green, Gordon, and Richmond 2007) What do you think about the issue?

Drapeau: That idea first met with some resistance because it involved a reversal of proportions from A. afarensis to A. africanus and implied a more arboreal behavior in the latter than the former. Given that Homo habilis is often described has having more ape-like proportions than A. afarensis, it also implied that A. afarensis may not be the ancestor of the Homo lineage (an idea more recently suggested by Yoel Rak and colleagues based on mandibular data). Since I remain unconvinced of the primitive proportion of H. habilis, I am not so certain that the 'derived' proportions of A. afarensis exclude it from being an ancestor to the Homo lineage.

Back to the differences between the two australopithecine species. Despite original skepticism, the data appears to be robust and the differences in joint size between A. afarensis and A. africanus appear to be real. As observed in the previous question, this variability may reflect locomotor differences possibly related to differences in the environment. If A. afarensis was still occasionally arboreal, is it too hard to imagine that, if the environment is changed (more wooded, greater predator pressure, more resources found in trees, etc.), the percentage of arboreal behavior would increase and that the proportions would revert to being more chimp-like in A. africanus? Again, there is no reason to assume that all early hominins, because they were bipedal, were identical in their locomotor behaviors.

I want to underscore that these differences are in joint SIZE, not in limb length, and reflect relative loading of the limbs. Usually, the major source of loading of the limbs is related to locomotion, but it is an assumption that cannot be verified in early hominins. If, as stated above, OH 36 is unlike anything living today, maybe it did things that have no modern equivalent. And the same can be said of other hominin species including A. africanus with its 'apparent' primitive proportions.

Hawks: You have recently been involved in field research in the Bala-Weyto region of southern Ethiopia. Can you describe the site, and your role?

Drapeau: The Bala–Weyto basin is part of a series of small parallel rifts that link the northern limit of the East African Rift to the southern limit of the Main Ethiopian rift. These small rifts constitute today a string of many small basins. The Bala-Weyto basin is located east of the Omo river basin. It is a region more difficult to survey when compared to dryer region because of the vegetation coverage that limits exposures visibility and access. However, it is little-explored paleoanthropologically speaking. Work in the Konso, another small basin a few kilometers away, but at a higher altitude, has a fauna with a certain degree of endemism and an A. (P.) boisei specimen with unique morphological variations. Among other things, we want to know if this variation and the faunal endemism are due to the relative isolation of the basin or to its particular environment. These answers may be found in contiguous basins that vary in their physical characteristics, such as the Bala-Weyto basin.

I am co-director of that project with Elizabeth Harmon of the City University of New York. At this stage of the project, being co-director involves organizing the whole expedition, securing funding, and coordinating the work of other team members. I would say that the most time consuming aspect is coming up with money and getting everything moving in the field. As a director, I am responsible for the team's well-being and it is a pressure that can sometimes weigh heavily on my shoulders. It is nice to be able to share the burden with a co-director.

Hawks: Do you involve students in your work?

Drapeau: My funding is limited and field work in Ethiopia is not particularly cheap. However, I plan to bring one student in the field this summer. I look forward to share this experience with a highly motivated student!

Hawks: Many of us have heard about the difficulties of field research, particularly in East Africa. What are some of your biggest challenges?

Drapeau: Doing field work in Ethiopia can be a challenge for many reasons. As can be expected, there are numerous permissions, letters, official documents, etc., that are required and the bureaucracy is somewhat heavy. However, I find Ethiopians very helpful and professional and, usually, the quest for documents goes smoothly, particularly once you know what to do and in what order.

A second difficulty is the access to the sites. Ethiopia did not have one highway until relatively recently and road traveling remains an experience that can be frightening. A lot of work is being done on the roads, however, and I believe that things will keep improving. Access to the research area involves off-road traveling as well, with all the difficulties that it entails. When you leave for the field, you have to be a self-sufficient unit, relying on the local environment as little as possible. It is still necessary to get gasoline on a regular basis, but except that, we try to be as autonomous as possible. It is particularly important when you go to a new area and don't know what (if anything) will be available to you.

A third aspect of field work, particularly in Ethiopia, is the politics, the paleoanthropological politics that is. Although most scientists are polite and civilized to each other, I really feel that we had to walk on eggs when we were researching an area in which to conduct field work.

A final difficulty (and certainly not the least) in our situation, is to find an area that has fossiliferous exposures of a time period that interests us and in which we can work at least a few years. The numerous discoveries that are made in East Africa give the impression that finding hominin fossils is something easy to do, but it usually involves many years of surveying. We are still at the exploratory phase of our project, i.e., we are still actively looking for an area that could sustain scientific work for a few years. Hard work (and perhaps a little luck) is essential.

Hawks: You had a lot of field experience before going to Ethiopia. How did you get your start?

Drapeau: At the end of my undergraduate degree, I had the chance of getting a couple of paying jobs in prehistoric archaeology. It was the beginning of a series of jobs in field archaeology conducted in parallel to my studies. I used to think (and still do) that these were the best summer jobs an anthropology student could have. The pay check was very descent and it usually came with room and board. These jobs allowed me to see many regions of Quebec and Canada that I would otherwise have never visited and to do things I would probably have never done otherwise. I have flown in helicopters for hours (and even survived a major crash), piloted a hydroplane (just for a few minutes, but still!), hear wolves howl into the night while trying to sleep in a tent hundreds of miles from any road or civilization, dipped my foot in the arctic ocean (too chicken to swim), seen the midnight sun, and I could go on. This fieldwork experience, and a stint in the Caune de l'Arago in Tautavel, France, opened another door: to be invited to do field work in Hadar in 2000.

Hawks: Any interesting stories?

Drapeau: I have an anecdote that I find amusing, but mostly informative on the nature of humans. When we were doing field work in the Bala basin, our camp was set up about a 2-hour drive off the road. It was clear that the local people had seen very few foreign workers. For the whole time we were there, we had a constant group of people just sitting in the shade observing us like zoo animals, watching our every move, laughing when we did things unexpected, etc. We were quite the entertainment. The occupation of the local Mali people appeared to be tending their few sorghum fields, but mostly to take their sometime large herds of cows, goats and sheep a few miles down to the river for a drink every day. Even though it was not that hot, the men walk around wearing only colorful underwear (the Speedo-type) and it was sometimes literally falling apart. From our western perspective, they really seem to have almost nothing. Anyhow, after a few days in the field, some crew members were starting to crave fresh meat. We agreed to allow the cook to purchase one goat from a local herder. We didn't think it would be a problem given the large quantities of these animals around and our willingness to pay a fair price for it. It came as quite a surprise that no one was willing to sell us any! It turned out that goats, sheep and cows were not herded to be eaten or even milked, but were really just status items. One man from the village nearby apparently owned more than a hundred head of livestock but was still unwilling to sell. We were all quite shocked of the apparent frivolity of it all, particularly considering that food (for humans and beasts) did not appear to be particularly abundant in the region. But then, we couldn't miss seeing the connection to what we can observe in the western world: huge houses for one or two people, oversized and overpriced cars. These are just to show off. The same frivolities, although expressed slightly differently, can be found anywhere. I guess it really is in the human nature. We were finally able to convince someone to sell us a goat, but we paid a really high price.

Hawks: Congratulations! You seem to be a very busy person right now, both professionally and personally. What's next for you?

Drapeau: I just started one of the most challenging projects of my life, a project that will keep me busy for the rest of my life. His name is Henri and he is almost 8 months old. Professionally speaking, I am investigating manipulatory adaptations in the early hominin hands and the morphology of muscle markings. However, one of my main objectives in the next two years is to settle on a specific field research area with good scientific potential.

It's that time of year again -- the time when those boring ``Year in Review'' magazines are on newsstands, and when pundits make fools of themselves predicting what will happen in the next year.

Well, I'm not too proud to join the fools, as I've shown the last two years. In 2006, I got five predictions right out of ten. Not bad for my first outing, but you'll see that last year's predictions fared even better:

• 10. Sahelanthropus postcrania will be published. I'm frankly shocked that this didn't happen. I don't doubt the rumors, but I'm starting to wonder whether this story is more interesting than it looks....
• 9. Two words: Holocene evolution. OK, this was a little unfair, considering that my work was an important part of making this prediction come true. Still, Discover made ``recent human evolution'' one of its top 100 science stories of the year, even before our December paper came out -- mainly on the strength of the paper by Scott Williamson and colleagues from earlier this year. And "Human genetic variation" was Science's "Breakthrough of the Year" -- most of that variation representing recent evolution.
• 8. Despite (or because of) the success of the Neandertal genome project, there will be no genetics of any kind published on early modern skeletal material. Puzzling, isn't it? But then, considering the trouble with Neandertal contamination reported in August, maybe we're better off leaving the early Upper Paleolithic alone for a while.
• 7. The mitochondrial history of human dispersals will become more and more detailed, but no paper will test against other loci. D'oh! Reading this one a year later, it's pretty obvious that I should have included Y chromosome in this one, since those two get compared all the time! Proofread, Hawks!
• 6. Another (yes, another) paper about the chimpanzee-human divergence will peg it between 5 and 7 million years ago. Will they never tire of these? Hobolth et al. (2007, PLoS Genet 3:e7) pegged the divergence at 4.1 million years. That's too recent to fit my prediction. Instead, I have to turn to Ebersberger et al. (2007, Mol Biol Evol 24:2276), who placed the divergence at 5.7 million years ago. Both estimates are too recent for Sahelanthropus, which the geneticists have started to figure out....
• 5. Three papers with new Ethiopian fossils. The last few years, one annual Ethiopian find seemed to be predictable enough. So I figured, why not three? We got a not-nearly-noted-enough paper this summer by Gen Suwa and colleagues descringing the Konso Homo erectus remains. Then, Suwa brought us Chororapithecus -- hey, I didn't say "hominid!" That's two. But despite the long-ago announcement of the Woranso-Mille skeleton, its appearance in a meetings abstract and a mid-summer press release about further Mille fossils, all we got from the peer review system is a lousy faunal list. Well, the faunal list does include the hominids. Should it count as a "paper with new Ethiopian fossils?" I'll say yes -- hey, unlike Aramis, at least the Mille fossils are new!
• 4. Another early Upper Paleolithic specimen will emerge from a museum collection. The only bizarre thing about this one was the location: South Africa. Hoffmeyr may not be that convincing as a European early Upper Paleolithic skull, but it was sure sold that way. Weird.
• 3. A big year for Miocene apes, which will look increasingly important in the story of human brain evolution. No brains, but it sure was a big year for Miocene apes, with two significant East African discoveries claiming to push back the timeline of African ape divergence.
• 2. Maturation rate in early Homo becomes a dead issue, because of the variation in dental and skeletal maturation in living people. Wishful thinking. Still, did Tanya Smith (2007) breathe new life into perikymata? Let's just say that unresolved questions remain.
• 1. The year will end without a single new hominid species having been named. This one was like dodging a bullet, since new species riffle out of paleoanthropologists' minds all the time. From 2001 to 2006, there were six (six!). In 2007, none.
• BONUS: A dramatic development in the problem of pre-2.0-million-year-old Homo. Rats.

OK, that's seven out of ten. It's beyond belief that I did better in the top five than the bottom five -- I picked those because they were far out there. I mean, really -- a new Upper Paleolithic specimen from a museum collection? After Muierii, that's like calling lightning to strike twice. But there it is, and in January, no less.

I'm clearly going to have to pick stranger predictions this year. And I'll have to be careful about that "dramatic development" line -- I mean, it's appropriately Delphic, but what is it supposed to mean, really? I wonder whether "operatic development" might be better.

And do I dare call down my non-lightning strike for a third year? It's ruining my percentage! It's starting to reek of desperation -- I mean, it starts to look like the stopped watch effect even if it happens.

Oh, well. I mean, those are just the risks of predictions, right? Suppose in the preseason I had picked Kansas to win the Orange Bowl!

• 10. A dramatic development in the Sahelanthropus story.
• 9. Both major-party candidates for the 2008 U.S. Presidential election will accept evolution.
• 8. This year's featured piece of anatomy: the femur.
• 7. No new hobbits, at least, not from Flores.
• 6. An incisive example of introgression in East Asia.
• 5. A viral insertion in the human genome will tell us about a disease of the australopithecines.
• 4. Another language gene joins FoxP2. No word on whether Neandertals have the human version.
• 3. Homo habilis: an endangered species?
• 2. This year, something new from three A's: A. afarensis. A. africanus. Atapuerca.
• 1. Oh, and one more A. Ardipithecus.
• BONUS: A big, big year for Neandertals. I mean, besides the election.

There you have it. I'm not sure which of these is the riskiest, but I'm sure they're more out on a limb than last year!

This week, Johannes Krause and colleagues from the Max Planck Evolutionary Anthropology institute announced that they had tickled FoxP2 out of two Neandertal specimens from El Sidrón, Spain. The bones were excavated in sterile (clean-cave?) conditions, immediately frozen and then shipped to Leipzig, where extracts were taken in clean-room conditions.

Here's an FAQ about what they found.

Why is this paper really important?

Isn't it obvious? It's important because it demonstrates that more than one Neandertal is suitable for nuclear genome recovery. We will know about genetic variation in Neandertals, sooner rather than later. These two bones come from different individuals, because the Leipzig group found two different mtDNA sequences in them. Together with the Vindija Vi 33.16 specimen in the original Neandertal genome papers, this makes three nuclear genome Neandertals. There will be more.

It also shows the possibility of probing ancient skeletons for specific genes. Here, they went in looking for Y-DNA, X-DNA and particular sites on FoxP2, and they found them. That is definitely the way to go if you want to test a biologically significant hypothesis fast -- otherwise, you just have to wait until the sequence comes up in your genome project.

However, I question the value of probing for individual genetic variants in this way. Every probe takes a bit of sample, which might be more efficiently used in whole-genome sequencing. We have 25,000 genes, and every one is potentially interesting. Every small sample used to assay only one of those genes may destroy many sequences from the others. It would be one thing if samples were trivial and easily replaced, but they obviously aren't.

Still, we will certainly see additional probes for genes that are of particular interest. I wouldn't be surprised to see MC1R results soon, to probe whether there were pigmentation variants in Neandertals. The same has already been done for woolly mammoths.

So, Neandertals had the human-specific FoxP2 form. Did they talk?

I think the genetic observation leans toward that direction, but doesn't really change our understanding. Consider:

Neandertals have a hyoid bone with humanlike anatomy, as did the Atapuerca people at more than 300,000 years ago, even though A. afarensis did not. So something related to vocalization evolved in humans by the Middle Pleistocene. Although Neandertal vocal tracts may not have been identical to recent humans, there is nothing about them that would preclude speech. The only paleoneurological observation about language puts a developed Broca's area on the KNM-ER 1470 endocast, Homo habilis.

Like other Middle Paleolithic/MSA people, their technology required more information to learn than earlier, Lower Paleolithic industries, leading to regional differentiation and more task-specific facies. Late Neandertals made use of some technology otherwise used only by Upper Paleolithic modern humans. Their hunting methods must have required cooperation and may have been impossible without a more sophisticated communication strategy than used by other primates.

All of these things argue for some kind of Neandertal language irrespective of FoxP2.

Then again, most of the arguments against humanlike language facility in Neandertals also have nothing to do with FoxP2, either. The slow technological progress, limited collection strategies, the rarity of any artistic or symbolic expression, their high mortality rate, and -- of course -- the fact that they no longer exist have all been considered as evidence that Neandertals lacked some essential aspect of "behavioral modernity." If language is a prerequisite for the modern human pattern of behavior, then Neandertals may not have talked, at least not in the way we do.

I think the FoxP2 story has really confused people much more than necessary. But in this case, the confusion is the same that results from every other gene study: when the press says we've found a gene "for" something, what it ought to say is that we've found an allele that affects something.

No macromutation happened. Language did not spring full-formed into the mind of some ancient African. All members of Homo used communication systems including some (possibly minimal) elements of language, and the evolution of the human brain, along with technological changes throughout the Paleolithic, reflect the evolution of communication. Human language evolved -- like all things -- over a long time, and like all complex phenotypes it required a series of mutational changes. Many of these mutations became fixed during recent human evolution, some may still be changing in frequency today. Language evolution is probably a continuing process.

That means that it must have involved many more genes than FoxP2 -- which after all experienced only two amino acid substitutions in all of human evolution. I would imagine the number of genes involved in language evolution is more than 500, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were much more. In that context, it seems quite silly to say FoxP2 is the "critical" evolutionary change for anything.

Then you agree with Language Log. They told me that FoxP2 isn't a "language gene."

The case is strong that the two FoxP2 coding substitutions in humans were selected because of their role in language. The gene sequence is strongly conserved in most mammals, and shows similar changes in some other species with unusual vocal adaptations, such as echolocating bats (Li et al. 2007). Its expression pattern delineates areas related to vocalizations in both humans and birds, and the pattern itself differentiates between song-learning versus nonlearning bird species (Haesler et al. 2004, Teramitsu et al. 2004, Webb and Zhang 2005). And of course, mutations to FoxP2 can result in specific language impairment (SLI) in humans.

Still, that case is only circumstantial. We know that FoxP2 was under selection, that it became fixed in humans, probably during the Late Pleistocene, and that breaking the gene changes brain development and damages language skills. But we don't know what a human would be like with the chimpanzee form of the protein. We don't know whether both of the human-specific amino acid substitutions have a different effect than one. Most important, we don't know what other genetic changes may have been necessary backgrounds for selection on FoxP2.

This means Neandertals were really modern humans, right?

This study should put an end to the "sudden mutation" model of modern human origins.

There was not a single mutation that made the critical difference in the ancestry of today's people. There was no cognitive Rubicon leading to modern human evolution. I would analogize the process as a slow-motion avalanche: at first a few small sands began to tumble, and then selection on a large number of genes became inevitable. FoxP2 is one of those genes, and as yet we don't know whether it was near the beginning or near the end of the process.

But it is clear that the process began before the Neandertals were gone. Some aspects of behavioral complexity did begin to evolve rapidly sometime after 70,000 years ago. This rapid evolution was multiregional in context -- it was not limited to a single human population. In particular, it was not limited to Africans: the last Neandertals clearly manifested technological and behavioral strategies otherwise defined as "behaviorally modern" (d'Errico 2003). There's a reason why the Neandertal-produced Châtelperronian industry of France and Spain was historically considered the first Upper Paleolithic industry.

But we have undergone light-years of change since the last Neandertals lived. This is not a question of "modern human origins" anymore. We can now show that living people are much more different from early modern humans than any differences between Neandertals and other contemporary peoples. I think that "modern humans" is on its way to obsolescence. What matters is the pattern of change across all populations. Possibly that pattern was initiated by changes in one region but the subsequent changes were so vast that the beginning point hardly matters.

We all know that the Neandertal genome is riddled with contamination from modern humans. Isn't the null hypothesis that we have a modern human sequence here because it is a modern human?

Well, as you know, I'm not all that convinced that contamination explains the interpretive discrepancies between last year's genome papers. But still, this study has done some things to address the problem of contamination.

It is notable that Green et al. (2006) found 25% modern human mtDNA in one of the El Sidrón bones: this shows that even "sterile" excavation, immediate freezing and extraction under clean-room conditions cannot exclude contamination. There is at the moment nothing more that can be done. We will always have the problem of a contamination fraction in ancient Neandertal skeletons. So we have to judge each study by the extent to which we can exclude contaminants with statistical analysis.

For this study, Krause et al. (2007) developed a test of nuclear DNA contamination: they identified seven gene variants that differ between the recovered Vindija Vi 33.16 nuclear genome and all known living humans. In other words, these are human-derived mutations that are absent from the only known Neandertal nuclear genome. Then, they probed the El Sidrón bones for these sites. They found only the ancestral form in their extracts of both bones -- presumably because no human contaminants were present in their samples.

That seems like a pretty good indication that the other sites in their sample represent the true gene variants of the ancient Neandertals. I wouldn't go so far as to say that contamination is ruled out, but it seems like these are good results.

Did FoxP2 introgress into Neandertals?

It sure looks that way to me. Let's consider the evidence:

FoxP2 recently fixed in humans. According to Enard et al. (2002:871):

Under a model of a randomly mating population of constant size, the most likely date since the fixation of the beneficial allele is 0, with approximate 95% confidence intervals of 0 and 120,000 years.

Now, Enard et al. (2002) noted that human populations have grown over time, and that they are not randomly mating, so that this date estimate might be too recent. Allowing for population growth since "10,000--100,000 years ago," they asserted that fixation of FoxP2 must have happened "during the last 200,000 years of human history." But this is not quite accurate. Unlike genetic drift, positive selection can and often does fix genes rapidly in a growing population. It simply doesn't matter that the human population has been rapidly growing: FoxP2 may still have just become fixed yesterday.

Last year, Green and colleagues (2006) considered that the Neandertal-modern population divergence time might have been quite recent, depending on the ancestral population size. According to the estimates of Wall and Kim (2007), the Green et al. data are consistent with a Neandertal-modern population divergence time as recent as 30,000 years ago. Of course, that date would predict substantial admixture between contemporary Neandertal and non-European populations -- they would have been exchanging genes up to the very lifetimes of the last Neandertals. According to those data there would be nothing surprising about Neandertals and living people sharing the human-derived FoxP2 allele. But as mentioned above, Wall and Kim (2007) used the recent divergence estimate as evidence that the Neandertal genome data from Green et al. must be contaminated.

So, if we cannot trust the data, then we have to fall back on some other estimate of the divergence date. Noonan and colleagues (2006) estimated a divergence date between Neandertals and modern populations between 170,000 and 570,000 years ago. If we accept that, then the confidence intervals of the Neandertal-human divergence and the FoxP2 selective sweep might barely overlap. Might. But I will note that a minimal overlap between the 95% confidence intervals of two point estimates does not mean that they are not significantly different. Only if the expected value of one estimate falls within the 95% confidence interval of the other do they fail to be significantly different. It is pretty unlikely that the most recent FoxP2 sweep is older than 170,000 years ago and the Neandertal-modern population split is as recent as 170,000 years.

That is, unless the "split" time reflects widespread genetic introgression.

The current paper (Krause et al. 2007) goes to some contortions to try to establish that the FoxP2 sweep could really have been older than 300,000 years ago (where they place the lower confidence limit on the N-M split):

The third scenario is that the selective sweep started before the divergence of the ancestral populations of Neandertals and modern humans around 300,000-400,000 years ago

Let me just say that I was surprised to read this explanation in a paper from this group. One of the main arguments they have been posing as a scientific value of the Neandertal genome sequencing is that conventional methods don't detect selection at 300,000-400,000 years ago. But here, they consider such an ancient mutation to be the most likely hypothesis. This seems like quite a shift just to avoid the unpleasant idea of Neandertal introgression. Ooooh -- can't have those Neandercooties!

In reality, there is no reason to think the fixation of FoxP2 happened as early as 300,000 years ago, and indeed the very high frequencies of the linked derived alleles (over 97% for six of the linked alleles) suggest strongly that the sweep probably happened within the last 100,000 years -- otherwise, subsquent genetic drift should have caused these linked derived alleles to show more dispersion in their current frequencies. The same features that make the inference of selection so strong at FoxP2 -- it is far (>286 kilobases) from the nearest gene and it includes many high-frequency derived alleles in addition to reduced polymorphism -- make it very unlikely that the selective sweep was ancient.

So, considering that the El Sidrón samples both share the human-derived amino acid substitutions on the same haplotype as modern humans, complete with all the high-frequency derived SNPs, it seems almost certain that the gene introgressed into Neandertals from modern humans.

Or, there's one other option. One of the El Sidrón bones includes a relatively rare (in humans) ancestral SNP allele at one of those linked sites where the derived allele is at very high frequency in humans. One explanation: the selected mutation arose in Neandertals and introgressed into other humans. That would explain why this Neandertal didn't have a SNP variant on its FoxP2 haplotype that later became very common in humans: Neandertals had the new FoxP2 first.

What about that Y chromosome thing?

The El Sidrón bones both tested positive for the Y chromosome site assayed in the study. That means they were both male (duh!). But more important, the Y chromosomes of both individuals lacked the human-specific derived mutation that the researchers tested for. Since all human males yet surveyed have this human-derived mutation, this means that a Y chromosome variant has fixed in modern humans that Neandertals did not have. Since the entire nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome is completely linked, we can infer that the entire modern human Y chromosome has undergone at least one fixation not shared with the ancestors of these Neandertals.

Here's the text (from page 2):

Both Neandertals yielded products for Y chromosomal primer pairs, indicating that they were males. Strikingly, all 15 Y chromosomal products for the five assayed positions show the ancestral allele. This includes two polymorphisms that define the deepest split among current human Y chromosomes (Y2 and Y4, Figure S1) as well as two polymorphisms that cover less common African Y chromosomes (Y3 and Y5, Figure S1). These Y chromosome results must derive, then, either from Y chromosomes that fall outside the variation of modern humans or from the very rare African lineages not covered by the assay (Figure S1). For our purposes, this result shows that neither the maternally inherited mtDNA nor the paternally inherited Y chromosome shows evidence of gene flow from modern humans into Neandertals or of subsequent contamination of their mortal remains.

That's not such a big surprise. Already we knew that the fixation of the human Y chromosome was very recent -- probably within the last 70,000--100,000 years, and possibly even more recently. Every man on earth shares recent Y chromosome mutations that were completely absent in Middle Pleistocene humans. That is one radical recent evolutionary change.

The paper elsewhere suggests that this absence of the human-derived Y chromosome in Neandertals as evidence that they did not contribute other genes to us. I could not disagree more.

The very recent fixation of the Y chromosome in an expanding human population is extremely unlikely to have resulted from genetic drift. Drift does not eliminate rare variants as quickly in an expanding population. Instead, one or more Y chromosome mutations must have been positively selected, resulting in the fixation of the entire NRCY in recent humans.

In that context, the Neandertal result is quite expected: they had an earlier Y chromosome lacking one or more mutations later selected in the other ancestors of living people.

References:

Briggs AW, Stenzel U, Johnson PLF, Green RE, Kelso J, Prüfer K, Meyer M, Krause J, Ronan MT, Lachmann M, Pääbo S. 2007. Patterns of damage in genomic DNA sequences from a Neandertal. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA doi:10.1073/pnas.0704665104

d'Errico F. 2003. The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin of behavioral modernity. Evol Anthropol 12:188-202. doi:10.1002/evan.10113

Green RE, Krause J, Ptak SE, Briggs AW, Ronan MT, Simons JF, Du L, Egholm M, Rothberg JM, Paunovic M, Pääbo S. 2006. Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA. Nature 444:330-336. doi:10.1038/nature05336

Haesler S, Wada K, Nshdejan A, Morrisey EE, Lints T, Jarvis ED, Scharff C. 2004. FoxP2 expression in avian vocal learners and non-learners. J Neurosci 24:3164-3175. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4369-03.2004

Krause J, Lalueza-Fox C, Orlando L, Enard W, Green RE, Burbano HA, Hublin J-J, Bertranpetit J, Hänni C, Fortea J, de la Rasilla M, Rosas A, Pääbo S. 2007. The derived FoxP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neandertals. Curr Biol 17:1-5. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.008

Li G, Wang J, Rossiter SJ, Jones G, Zhang S. 2007. Accelerated FoxP2 Evolution in Echolocating Bats. PLoS ONE 2(9): e900. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000900

Noonan JP, Coop G, Kudaravalli S, Smith D, Krause J, Alessi J, Chen F, Platt D, Pääbo S, Pritchard JK, Rubin EM. 2006. Sequencing and analysis of Neanderthal genomic DNA. Science 314:1113-1118. doi:10.1126/science.1131412

Wall JD, Kim SK. 2007. Inconsistencies in Neanderthal genomic
DNA sequences. PLoS Genet 3:e175. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030175.eor

By now, the news of the Dmanisi hominids' small size has been out for years. There was a National Geographic feature on the story more than four years ago -- before my twins were born. If you think about early Homo, you've been incorporating the small body sizes represented by the Dmanisi postcrania into your thinking for some time now. The resulting conclusion has been repeated in lots of stories: "Early humans didn't need long legs to leave Africa."

So it came as no surprise when this week's report by Lordkipanidze and colleagues confirmed the short stature of the Dmanisi hominids:

Stature and body mass of the Dmanisi individuals calculated from various independent long bone measurements yield estimates between 145-166 cm and 40-50 kg, respectively (Table 1 and Supplementary Information 8). Their small stature might be interpreted in two different, but non-exclusive, ways. On the one hand, it might represent a plesiomorphic character shared with earliest Homo (cf. H. habilis) (125-157 cm and 32-52 kg), whereas the KNM-WT 15000 specimen appears to be derived in this respect (150.5-169.1 cm and 45.5-70.6 kg). On the other hand, differences in stature between the Dmanisi and KNM-WT 15000 hominins might reflect adaptation to different palaeoecological contexts (Lordkipanidze et al. 2007:308).

Except for one thing: They're not short.

Like too many papers these days, the details are hidden away in the supplements. Nobody's ever very interested in them, I guess. The supplements to this paper give most of the details about how the authors estimated mass and stature for the three individuals: the subadult represented by the D2680 humerus and D3160 femoral shaft fragment, the "large adult" reresented by the D4507 humerus, D4167 femur, and D3901 tibia, and the "small adult" represented by the D3442 first metatarsal.

Body mass estimates were calculated using the equations for femur, humerus, tibia, and metatarsal I [ref. 72, this is McHenry and Berger 1998]. The inferred body mass of the large adult individual is between 47.6 kg and 50.0 kg. The body mass of the small adult individual, calculated from the first metatarsal (D2671) is 40.2 kg. Based on humeral and femoral dimensions, the body mass of the subadult is between 40.0 kg and 42.5 kg.

Stature estimates for the subadult Dmanisi individual were obtained with prediction equations for juvenile samples; estimates based on humeral length (D2680) yield a value between 144.9 cm and 161.4 cm. Stature estimates for the large adult individual were obtained from humeral, femoral, and tibial dimensions, yielding a range of 146.6 cm - 166.2 cm. Stature estimates based on the length of the first metatarsal (D3442) yield a value of 143.0 cm (Lordkipanidze et al. 2007:S14).

Americans are handicapped to various extents because they lack an intuitive grasp of how long a meter is. The stature range for the subadult individual, 145 to 161 cm, is equivalent to a range from 4'9" to 5'3". For the "small adult", the single stature estimate of 143 cm is equivalent to 4'8" -- remembering that this is for a single foot bone. The "large adult" range of 147 to 166 cm is equivalent to a range from 4'10" to 5'5".

We can take a number of perspectives on these stature estimates. The Dmanisi adults were a bit shorter than the average American. According to the CDC, the average stature of American men aged 20 years is 176 cm (5'9"), with only 10 percent of men shorter than 167 cm at this age. Women aged 20 years have an average stature of 163 cm (5'4"), with 10 percent of women shorter than 155 cm at that age.

The Dmanisi subadult is a different story. American girls aged 12 years have an average stature of 151 cm (4'11"), and 95% of girls are taller than 139 cm. There's nothing very unusual about a 12-year-old who is 4'9" tall (145 cm), and the upper 95 percent confidence limit of 5'3" (161 cm) would have made this 12-year-old several inches taller than my wife Gretchen at that age. Twelve-year-old boys are not taller than girls -- they average around an inch shorter. The Dmanisi subadult skeleton is not short for a living human -- in fact, if the individual was a boy, he may have been a bit tall.

But living Americans are hardly the right comparative sample. Estimates of body size in early Homo have been framed around the question of whether the hunter-gatherer adaptation requires large bodies. For this question, we shouldn't compare the Dmanisi body sizes to fat Americans with their Flintstones childrens' vitamins, but instead to prehistoric hunter-gatherers.

Fortunately, there have been many analyses of stature in recent and prehistoric hunter-gatherer populations. Some of the comparisons in the current paper fit this criterion -- the North African Epipaleolithic sites of Afalou and Taforalt are in their comparative samples, which also include the bones of some early agriculturalists from Turkey. So to get an indication of the way the Dmanisi statures compared with these populations, we can look directly at Figure 3 of the paper. Here's the first panel, Figure 3a, which shows the Dmanisi tibia as a six-pointed star, and human tibiae as the letter "Z":

There, you can see the D3901 tibia is considerably shorter than the entire human sample. Except, oops! The figure is wrong. Table 1 reports a range of human tibia lengths from 290 mm to 374 mm; this figure shows a range from around 320 to over 440.

The correct range of tibia lengths is shown in Figure 3c, plotted as the y axis with femur length as the x axis:

There you can see the star for the D2901/D4167 individual, right in the middle of the recent human comparative sample. It's not short at all -- it's in the middle of the distribution.

The same thing goes for the D4507 humerus, illustrated along with the D4167 femur in Figure 3b:

A few comparisons with other hunter-gatherer samples confirm that the Dmanisi statures are typical of recent populations. Pretty and colleagues (1998) studied an archaeological sample of Aboriginal Australians from the Murray River region. Using stature estimation methods for the tibia, femur and humerus, they found that males in their sample (n=55) had an average stature of 166 cm and females (n=40) an average of around 153 cm. Wells (1952) reported a mean for !Khu (Northern Bushmen) males of 158 cm and females of 148 cm, both with standard deviations around 5 cm. Ruff (2000) puts the average stature of males at Pecos Pueblo at 161.2 cm with a range from 155 to 168 cm. In the KNM-WT 15000 monograph, Ruff and Walker (1993) report the average stature of African population samples, excluding Pygmies, as 162.3 cm. And although it is common knowledge that the Early Upper Paleolithic people of Europe were tall, the average male stature in the Late Upper Paleolithic was around 166 cm, and the average female stature around 153 cm (Formicola and Giannecchini 1999) -- virtually the same as Australians.

At their expected values, the statures of the Dmanisi adults were approximately the same as !Khu and Pecos Pueblo, and around four inches shorter than the averages (but taller than more than 10 percent) of these other groups. Compared to living people, they just weren't short.

That is all assuming that the "large adult" specimen is actually a male. Lordkipanidze et al. (2007) support this assignment based on the proximity of the remains to the D2600 mandible, which is clearly a large male. I don't have any reason to doubt the assignment, although the stratigraphic details in the paper don't clearly show the association -- the "large male" remains including D2600 appear clustered, but the specimens aren't labeled and don't all seem to be represented. If the skeleton turned out to be female, it would be an inch or two taller than average for the larger groups above.

I have focused on stature rather than mass, mainly because it is more reliably estimated from bone lengths than mass is from articular breadths, but also because it is more heritable. Still, the same basic observations apply: hunter-gatherer populations are not heavy people, and a mass estimate of 50 kg would not be exceptional for a male.

So why is everybody saying that these individuals are small? The real contrast is not between Dmanisi and living people, but between Dmanisi and the large East African "H. erectus" specimens, like KNM-WT 15000, KNM-ER 1808, KNM-ER 736, KNM-ER 739, and OH 28. And yet, these large specimens are hardly typical in East Africa: they are the upper end of a range of variation in postcrania extending down to Lucy's size, barely more than a meter tall. We have often assumed that these larger specimens belong to H. erectus, and I have argued for such an assignment in print (Hawks et al. 2000). But I think that the lower end of this range of variation is completely up for grabs -- especially considering the small size of the KNM-ER 42700 cranium.

There is one good argument for associating East African "Homo erectus" exclusively with the large-bodied specimens: KNM-ER 1808 and OH 28 are both apparently female (based on their pelves), but both have tall statures, based on their femora. McHenry (1991) puts KNM-ER 1808 at 180 cm and OH 28 at 171 cm. It is the large size of these female specimens that argues for a reduction in sexual dimorphism and average large body size in Homo erectus. It is that association -- low sexual dimorphism and large body size -- that argued for a significant increase in home range size and dispersal potential in this species. I'll call it the "long-legged colonists" hypothesis: the idea that hunter-gatherer ecology, large body size, and low sexual dimorphism were linked to each other, all enabling long-distance dispersal and the initial colonization of Eurasia. The Dmanisi body sizes refute this hypothesis.

But looking back, the "long legged colonists" hypothesis was half incorrect chronology and half wishful thinking. Why would early humans have needed statures near the extreme of modern human populations, if recent hunter-gatherers have relatively small bodies? Recent hunter-gatherers have maintained large home ranges, sexual division of labor, and large mammal hunting with statures no larger -- and often smaller -- than the current global average. The largest stature estimates for early Homo fossils are well above the average statures for any but the very tallest human populations.

Even the tallest modern human populations average substantially shorter than the tall East African fossil stature estimates. Ruff and Walker (1993:259) report the mean for living Africans "of tall stature" as 166.6 cm. That's a midsex average of 5'6" for tall populations. The tallest population in the world now is the Dutch, where 21-year-old males average 184 cm. That's virtually the same height as estimated for KNM-WT 15000 as an adult, but remember that the Dutch stature is an average; as it stands, KNM-WT 15000 is an extreme. Early East African Homo was not as tall as late-twentieth century Dutch; they must have averaged substantially less.

And as for chronology: all of the tall-stature early Homo specimens are now substantially later in time than Dmanisi. Only KNM-ER 1808 might approach Dmanisi in age. The rest of these tall stature specimens are at least 200,000 years younger.

We are left with a remaining question about variability: Were these early humans (Homo erectus) unusually variable in size? I don't think so. If anything, they appear to have exhibited less variation in stature than human populations today. No ancient population was as tall as the Dutch. It is not even clear that early Pleistocene East Africans were as tall as recent East Africans, although they may have been so. No fossils yet assigned to Homo erectus were as short as Pygmies; although some Homo habilis-associated postcrania were even shorter. If the species boundaries are drawn right, there may be no problem of variability in the postcrania.

That may be a big "if". The limited degree of variation is fairly remarkable considering that the fossils in question span over a half-million years of time, in East Africa and Eurasia. Maybe there ought to be more variation than anyone is now assigning to H. erectus, and the species boundaries are wrong after all...

References:

Formicola V, Giannecchini M. 1999. Evolutionary trends of stature in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe. J Hum Evol 36:319-333.

Fredriks AM, Van Buuren S, Burgmeijer RJF, Meulmeester JF, Beuker RJ, Brugman E, Roede MJ, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Wit, J-M. 2000. Continuing positive secular growth change in the Netherlands 1955-1997. Pediatric Res 47:317-323.

Lordkipanidze D and 17 others. 2007. Postcranial evidence from early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Nature 449:305-310. doi:10.1038/nature06134

Lieberman DE. 2007. Homing in on early Homo. Nature 449:291-292. doi:10.1038/449291a

Pretty GL, Henneberg M, Lambert KM, Prokopec M. 1998. Trends in stature in the South Australian Aboriginal Murraylands. Am J Phys Anthropol 106:505-514. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199808)106:4<505::AID-AJPA5>3.0.CO;2-H

McHenry HM. 1991. Femoral lengths and stature in Plio-Pleistocene hominids Am J Phys Anthropol 85:149-158.

Ruff CB, Walker A. 1993. Body size and body shape. Pp. 234-265 in The Nariokotome Homo erectus skeleton, Walker A, Leakey R, eds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

Ruff CB. 2000. Body size, body shape and long bone strength in modern humans. J Hum Evol 38:269-290. doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0322

Wells LH. 1952. Physical measurements of northern Bushmen. Man 52:53-56.

Just noticing, in this John Noble Wilford article:

A new report, to be published Thursday in Nature, will review more skeletal evidence of the transitional aspects of the Dmanisi specimens.

More later...

UPDATE(2007/09/18): Wilford doesn't directly state the article's theme but it clearly has one: Why the heck can't these people agree about these fossils that have been out of the ground for thirty years?

The first answer that everyone has given him is about the "million year gap" between 3 million and 2 million years ago. People can't agree about early Homo because they can't decide what its ancestors looked like. Without any ancestors, they don't know which of the traits of early Homo are derived.

For a good example, we can turn to a feature Wilford doesn't mention: limb proportions. Recently, a lot of ink has been spilled discussing the evolution of arm size in later australopithecines and early Homo. OH 62 (probably Homo habilis) and A. africanus have been argued to have large arms compared to their legs. A. afarensis and Nariokotome (KNM-WT 15000, probably Homo erectus) have relatively small arms compared to their legs. Did H. habilis and H. erectus have different ancestors? Did H. erectus evolve from H. habilis, reverting its limb proportions to earlier A. afarensis? Or are all these comparisons just batty, since only three specimens have arm and leg elements whose length can be compared? There's no clear answer; but one of the most important specimens in the question (with sort-of-intermediate limb proportions) is the Bouri skeleton, BOU-VP 12/1, which at 2.5 million years old is right in the middle of that "gap."

The more you look at the "gap," the less gap-like it looks. For one thing, we have a pretty good idea of what was going on behaviorally during that million year span. The first stone tools are 2.6 million years old. The technology of these toolmakers -- although simple -- included all the basic manufacturing methods used before 1.5 million years ago. The tools were used to butcher animals and break bones for marrow; so we know that the toolmakers were depending on meat.

Second, we actually have quite a lot of fossils from this time period. The entire South African A. africanus fossil record, with the exception of a few early specimens like STW 573, come from this "gap." A fairly extensive record of the appearance and evolution of early robust australopithecines comes from this time period in East Africa.

And, here and there, a few specimens look Homo-like. Wilford's article discusses AL 666-1. To this we can add the Uraha mandible, Omo 75-14, an additional series of teeth from Omo, and possibly the Bouri BOU-VP 35/1 skeleton.

Properly considered, the rarity of early Homo in these contexts is not a problem; it is information. Wilford quotes Philip Rightmire to this effect, and we can easily expand on the basic concept. Early toolmakers did not undergo an immediate geographic expansion upon their origin. They spread across a relatively narrow strip of East Africa and stayed there for more than a half-million years. They were initially rare. That means that their adaptation was not immediately a barnburner of a success -- the early toolmakers took a while to perfect the adaptation of later Homo.

The middle part of the article takes in another reason for disagreement: whether H. habilis and H. erectus were ancestor-descendant:

Several scientists, notably Dr. White of Berkeley, took issue with the interpretation seeming to imply that evidence for the two species overlapping in time and exhibiting variable sizes was new. That, he said, had been recognized for a couple of decades.

Dr. Kimbel, who was not involved in the new research, defended the authors, saying that they had not "meant to imply that habilis could not have been ancestral to erectus, presumably on the basis of their being contemporaneous at Turkana," the site in Kenya where the fossils were found.

Susan C. Anton, an anthropologist at New York University who was a member of the Spoor-Leakey team, said, "My money is still on habilis as the potential ancestor, but there is a lot of room for additional knowledge, given the dearth of fossils."

None of these statements really disagree with each other. If anything, this particular question may have gotten easier to resolve lately, not as a consequence of new fossils, but as a result of new dates for many of the old ones. Susan Anton is later quoted saying that anagenesis "is the only option that is no longer on the table," and it seems to me that this is the clearest statement most likely to invite some hypothesis testing. But it is fairly clear that this problem cannot be resolved in terms of earlier fossils: I don't think there's any compelling evidence of H. erectus before 1.6 million years ago.

There is one significant word that doesn't appear in the article -- an absence that is especially interesting considering the quoted scientists:

Kenyanthropus

Remember, the dominant theme is about complexity and bushiness. And yet, here's that forgotten branch of the family tree; the one that was supposed to clarify everything by providing a different ancestor for KNM-ER 1470 from other H. habilis specimens, the one that showed a distinct line leading to Homo originating in the Early Pliocene.

I think our bush may have been pruned.

In case you're following the debate about Homo habilis limb proportions, there's a new contribution by Martin Haeusler and Henry McHenry in the JHE holding pen. They examined the partial KNM-ER 3735 skeleton.

KNM-ER 3735 is often assigned to Homo habilis, but it's not exactly an easy diagnosis. There are a few pieces of the skull preserving anatomy, including the cheek, frontal and temporal. Here's what Bernard Wood (1991) had to say about the skeleton:

The form of the mandibular fossa and malar region virtually preclude this specimen from being attributed to A. boisei. Its general affinities are with Homo. Some features (e.g. vault thickness) ally it with a Homo erectus-like hominid, but in other areas (e.g. the frontal) it is more like crania such as KNM-ER 1813, a conclusion endorsed by Walker (1987) and by Leakey et al. (1989). Tobias (1989) includes KNM-ER 3735 within H. habilis.

Provisional taxonomic assessment: Homo sp. indet.

Well, that's not exactly a rousing endorsment. You can see the problem --- and it's a common tale for hominid fossils. It has a smaller brain than early H. erectus (that would be the "frontal looks like KNM-ER 1813 bit). But its cranial bones are thick. The most complete of the bones in the skeleton is a radius, but it's not complete. The best bone for estimating joint surface area is the sacrum; a femur shaft is there, but it falls short of the midshaft length.

And there's a problem: the radius seems pretty big, but the sacrum is little. If it were a human, the radius looks like it came from a body twice the size of the sacrum. There's something going on here. Previous work has assumed that the sacrum is more likely reflective of the size of the body, and the radius is therefore big compared to a small body mass. Maybe that means more climbing, leading to a greater role in weight support for the arms. Or maybe it means a retention of more apelike proportions.

This is a frustrating literature to follow, because pretty much every other early specimen except Lucy (AL 288-1) and the Nariokotome skeleton (KNM-WT 15000) present exactly the same problem. You can't estimate limb sizes very accurately from small pieces of bone. And you can't estimate proportions accurately at all without estimates of size. Plus, it's not clear that you can interpret limb proportions without a decent estimate of body mass. Two years ago, there was a huge go-around about the limb proportions of OH 62. Like KNM-ER 3735, it looks to have a relatively large arm compared to its body. Or maybe the legs are short. Or maybe the estimates are bad. You get the picture. So everybody has a different clever statistical transformation to try to make these fossils comparable to each other. I have no argument with any of the work; but it seems like the error involved in these assessments of proportions is pretty large relative to the information content of the bones.

Here's some of the conclusion from Haeusler and McHenry:

Our analyses suggest that the idea that KNM-ER 3735 had more primitive body proportions than A.L. 288-1 (e.g., Leakey et al., 1989) needs to be refined. We found a unique but distinct mosaic of modern and ape-like limb proportions in the two early hominid species. H. habilis shares a gracile humerus and radius and a small base of the hand phalanges with the earlier A.L. 288-1 and modern humans. In addition, other characteristics, including the relatively small size of the sacrum and a robust midshaft of the phalanges, are common to both early hominids and extant great apes. Surprisingly, however, those upper limb proportions that differ between the two fossil species, such as a robust scapula, a long radial neck, and a long forearm, are all more ape-like in H. habilis.

In KNM-ER 3735, the shoulder muscles that originate on the scapula (trapezius, deltoid, supraspinatus, and infraspinatus) as well as the biceps brachii were, therefore, probably not only more powerful than in modern humans, but also stronger than in A.L. 288-1. On the other hand, the extraordinarily short lever arm of A.L. 288-1's biceps muscle, the minute elbow size, and the small radial head may indicate a weaker arboreal component in its behavioral repertoire than in H. habilis. However, in the absence of modern correlates, caution is needed with respect to possible behavioral implications of the different forearm proportions in the two species.

They also note the Homo-like anatomy of the femur shaft, including a marked pilaster.

Seth Dobson (2005) claimed that that the sacrum of STW 431 (A. africanus) is also small -- it certainly yields a small mass estimate compared to other elements of the skeleton. Heck, all of the early hominid sacra yield small mass estimates. Well, you can see it's confusing.

References:

Haeusler M, McHenry HM. 2007. Evolutionary reversals of limb proportions in early hominids? Evidence from KNM-ER 3735. J Hum Evol (in press) doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.06.001

Dobson SD. 2005. Are the differences between Stw 431 (Australopithecus africanus) and A.L. 288-1 (A. afarensis) significant? J Hum Evol 49:143-154. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.04.001

Appropriate to yesterday's post about the hypothesis of a Eurasian-African clade distinction in early humans, is today's paper from Fred Spoor, Meave Leakey and others, describing the KNM-ER 42700 calvaria and the (unassociated) KNM-ER 42703 maxilla.

The cover photo from the issue is brilliant -- a juxtaposition of KNM-ER 42700 and OH 9 at the same scale:

Press photo, credit: Nature/National Museums of Kenya, F. Spoor and J. Reader

I wrote about KNM-ER 42700 a couple of years ago, when it was shown at the meetings. A few things have changed since then. Most important, the specimen is now accepted as an adult, so that it is assumed to have reached its full adult brain size. That also means that the supraorbital torus, angular torus, and other features reflecting robusticity were probably near their maximum development.

I have much to say about this and the other fossil, which the paper attributes to Homo habilis. The press accounts have all led with the (very) uninteresting and conventional. Here's the AP's Seth Borenstein:

The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Here's John Noble Wilford:

Two fossils found in Kenya have shaken the human family tree, possibly rearranging major branches thought to be in a straight ancestral line to Homo sapiens.

Scientists who dated and analyzed the specimens - a 1.44 million-year-old Homo habilis and a 1.55 million-year-old Homo erectus - said their findings challenged the conventional view that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, they apparently lived side by side in eastern Africa for almost half a million years.

Here's Robert Mitchum in the Chicago Tribune:

Two small fossils unearthed in Kenya - the top of a skull, and half of a jawbone - fill an important gap in the evolutionary story of how humans came to be, yet have created as many questions as they have answered.

The similar age and location of the fossils suggest that two early humanlike species, Homo habilis and Homo erectus, closely coexisted rather than coming one after the other on the evolutionary road to modern man, according to a paper published Thursday in the journal Nature.

I could go on. They write themselves, don't they?

But this idea of contemporaneity of H. habilis and H. erectus is neither interesting nor new. Recall yesterday's story about the African and Asian clade hypothesis? News stories had the same lede -- "hominid family tree more complex than thought." This is the ultimate paleontological "dog bites man": "Human Evolution A Bush, Not A Ladder." It's just not interesting anymore.

Why is it old news? Well, we could look back at Bernard Wood's 1991 Koobi Fora monograph, which went into long detail about the assignment of fossils to Homo aff. H. erectus -- fossils that in every case were older than the latest occurrence of Homo habilis at Olduvai.

At least, they thought they were older...

You see, there's some really interesting stories to be told about these fossils. Stories that hasn't appeared anywhere in the press.

Here's a question: Why does that small KNM-ER 42700 skull have all those cranial features from much later, larger, Asian Homo erectus skulls?

Here's what Spoor et al. wrote about it:

The presence of supposedly distinctive 'Asian' characters [18], such as cranial vault keeling and a well separated petrous crest and mastoid process in KNM-ER 42700, underscores the difficulty in separating the African and Asian hypodigms of H. erectus [19]. This difficulty is further accentuated by the observation that the more angulated occipitals and the thicker vaults and supraorbital tori seen in Asian H. erectus are allometric consequences of an increase in cranial size, rather than independent characters (Spoor et al. 2007:689).

Of course, the answer is that they aren't really Asian features. That much is evident from the fact that the later African skulls, OH 9, BOU-VP-2/66 (Daka), and Buia, also have many of them.

KNM-ER 42700 demonstrates that the traits were present in African H. erectus almost from its earliest occurrences. If these early Africans shared the same features as early Asian Homo erectus, then the hypothesis (promoted by many) that these early Africans are themselves an entirely different species, called Homo ergaster must be wrong.

At last, sinking one of those new-fangled bushy human species, and for good? Now, that sounds more like "man bites dog!"

But wait, there's more! Last year, Frank Brown's geochronology group redated many of the early Homo specimens from Koobi Fora, with the surprising result that early Homo erectus no longer included any cranial fossils that were demonstrably older than 1.65 million years. Here's what I wrote at the time:

Looking at what is left in the early part of the sequence is certainly interesting, but just as interesting is how all the H. erectus-like specimens are all bunched together between 1.65 and 1.45 Ma. This is the time interval that already held KNM-WT 15000, KNM-ER 3883, and KNM-ER 42700, and is just older than OH 9. Now we can add KNM-ER 3733, KNM-ER 730, KNM-ER 1808, and KNM-ER 1821. Isn't this an interesting sample? Don't you wish we knew about the other postcrania?

It seems to me that the hypothesis that H. erectus-like hominids first appeared in Africa around 1.65 Ma has interesting archaeological consequences. This isn't long before the appearance of the earliest Acheulean, and it plausibly makes the Developed Oldowan-Acheulean sequence a correlate of this evolution.

It is markedly not coincident with the earliest such evidence in Asia. But that raises the Dmanisi question again, doesn't it?

This is an amazing problem, now. The consensus that Homo habilis and Homo erectus overlapped in time was thrown completely open by the redating. This paper by Spoor and colleagues, by presenting both a new H. erectus specimen and a very late H. habilis specimen, was directed toward this problem. If they are right, it re-establishes the status quo: Homo habilis hung on after the evolution of early Homo erectus, the two species being radically different in their body size (and presumably life history) adaptation, but somehow both making tools and surviving on the same foods.

And yet, this "H. habilis" specimen, KNM-ER 42703, is nearly 200,000 years later than any other member of its species. Almost the only things that makes it H. habilis are its third molars. Are they enough? Or is it Homo erectus, too? Is the overlap completely gone, or will this fossil save it?

And what about that little, tiny, H. erectus skull? At 1.6 million years old, KNM-ER 42700 is a part of the earliest African sample. It's 200,000 years younger than Dmanisi. Did they originate in Asia? Did they evolve directly from their immediate predecessors in Africa, the larger habilines?

You see, this is interesting stuff! It's like a Plio-Pleistocene soap opera -- complete with twins separated at birth, old characters being killed in Amazonian plane crashes and mysteriously returning disguised as someone else.

More tomorrow...

You know I like the lizard analogies for human evolution -- I wrote about limb length and predation last time around -- and now we have another paper from Jonathan Losos' group looking at ecological differentiation and sexual dimorphism:

Sexual dimorphism is widespread and substantial throughout the animal world (1, 2). It is surprising, then, that such a pervasive source of biological diversity has not been integrated into studies of adaptive radiation, despite extensive and growing attention to both phenomena (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Rather, most studies of adaptive radiation either group individuals without regard to sex or focus solely on one sex. Here we show that sexual differences contribute substantially to the ecomorphological diversity produced by the adaptive radiations of West Indian Anolis lizards: within anole species, males and females occupy mostly non-overlapping parts of morphological space; the overall extent of sexual variation is large relative to interspecific variation; and the degree of variation depends on ecological type. Thus, when sexual dimorphism in ecologically relevant traits is substantial, ignoring its contribution may significantly underestimate the adaptive component of evolutionary radiation. Conversely, if sexual dimorphism and interspecific divergence are alternative means of ecological diversification, then the degree of sexual dimorphism may be negatively related to the extent of adaptive radiation.

These anoles have evolved into four different ecomorphs repeatedly on different islands of the Greater Antilles, and the sexes differentiate not only in their morphology but also their habitat use and diet.

Primates are generally group foragers, and because they forage together, males and females eat the same foods a lot of the time. The major components of sexual dimorphism across primates have mostly been considered in relation to body size and canine dimorphism, both of which have a strong social import, but less obvious ecological import. That is an apparent contrast to the anoles, whose dimorphism allows males and females to specialize to slightly different niches.

But even though body size and canine size are the main elements of dimorphism that can be compared across all primates, both these features and others may take on ecological importance within primate species. For one thing, sexual dimorphism leads to ecological differentiation even within foraging groups -- not necessarily because different sized individuals can exploit different foods, but because large individuals have preferential access. This has clear dietary and behavioral import -- for example, hunting is a social activity in chimpanzees; males hunt and females don't, and if a female did hunt (with males around), the males would probably take away the kill. That's not entirely because males are larger, but sexual dimorphism helps to determine the social ecology.

What about hominids? In the Plio-Pleistocene, there were at least three sympatric species of hominids in East Africa (and possibly more) and at least two in South Africa (and possibly more). These species were differentiated by body size, relative brain size, and masticatory adaptations. In other words, they occupied different ecologies involving different foods, and natural selection reinforced their ecological differences (even if the average diet involved much overlap, as I reviewed earlier).

The robust species in East Africa (A. boisei) appears to have had substantial body size dimorphism. The habiline species (H. habilis) was either substantially dimorphic, or was actually composed of two species. The large-bodied Homo may have had reduced dimorphism comparable to that in recent humans. Yet, many people have suggested that this least dimorphic species should have been the one where males and females had the greatest ecological differentiation. This is based on analogy with recent hunter-gatherers, assuming that the introduction of meat in substantial quantities requires a sexual division of labor.

Male and female lions have substantial body size dimorphism, and they are ecologically differentiated by prey size. Just thinking out loud...

References:

Butler MA, Sawyer SA, Losos JB. 2007. Sexual dimorphism and adaptive radiation in Anolis lizards. Nature 447:202-205. doi:10.1038/nature05774

The new Human Origins hall at the American Museum is the occasion for a big Newsweek story, with the tagline, "The New Science of Human Evolution". Author Sharon Begley isn't stingy with the prose:

Whether or not you believe the hand of God was guiding these changes, the discoveries are overturning longstanding ideas about how we became human.

Not that fossils are passé. New discoveries are pruning and reshaping humankind's family tree as radically as bonsai. The neat traditional model in which one species gave rise to another like Biblical "begats" has been replaced by a profusion of branches, representing species that lived at the same time as our direct ancestors but whose lines died out. It's like discovering that your great-great-grandfather was not an only child as you'd thought, but had a number of siblings who, for unknown reasons, left no descendants. New research also shows that "progress" and "human evolution" are only occasional partners. More than once in human prehistory, evolution created a modern trait such as a face without jutting, apelike brows and jaws, only to let it go extinct, before trying again a few million years later. Our species' travels through time proceeded in fits and starts, with long periods when "nothing much happened," punctuated by bursts of dizzying change, says paleontologist Ian Tattersall, co-curator of the American Museum's new hall.

It's a little sad to see the article organized around a 15-year-old storyline. No More Unilineal Evolution! Hey, if it's a "new science", why do we keep hearing from the same old people?

Still, there are some brain evolution subplots, and a few genes mentioned. Aside from the flowery analogies, Begley is a good writer and can capture the essence of most of these stories in a few lines. As an exercise, let's try to take those few lines and change one crucial word to find the weakness of each hypothesis. For each quote, I'll strike out a word in the article and add the correct word in brackets.

You dirty louse

For example, let's start where the article does, with the "body lice = no fur" story:

That fork in the louse's family tree, [Mark Stoneking] and colleagues at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology concluded, occurred no more than 114,000 years ago. Since new kinds of creatures tend to appear when [correct word: after] a new habitat does, that's when human ancestors must have lost their body hair for good - and made up for it with clothing that, besides keeping them warm, provided a home for the newly evolved louse.

You see how easy that is? Yes, new species adapt to new niches, but there is no reason to think this happens immediately. For that matter, there is no reason to think that hominids lost their fur instantaneously.

And hey, if the theme of the article is that human evolution has lots of extinct branches, then why doesn't that apply to louse evolution? We just saw last week how complex the louse phylogeny has been in hominoids. Who says that the current body louse was the first to fill that niche?

Oh, savanna, don't you cry for me!

Here's a short one:

The apes that stayed in the forests hardly changed; they are the ancestors of today's chimps. Those that ventured into the newly formed habitat of dry grasslands [correct phrase: open woodlands] had taken the first steps toward becoming human.

None of the earliest hominid sites are open savanna. All of them come from sites that preserve other woodland creatures.

By the way, my favorite quote in the whole thing comes here:

Instead, evolution played Mr. Potato Head, putting different combinations of features on ancient hominids then letting them vanish until a later species evolved them.

I just love that analogy! Forget "mosaic evolution". I'm calling it "Mr. Potato Head evolution" from now on.

My what small teeth you have

This part is a little confused:

And it helps explain why Lucy's kind were the way they were. Afarensis women and men stood three to five feet tall and weighed 60 to 100 pounds. They had small [correct: big] teeth good for fruits and nuts, but not meat. (The available prey was [correct: competing predators were] enough to make one a confirmed vegetarian: hyenas the size of bears, saber-toothed cats and other mega-reptiles and raptors.) That suggests that early humans were more often prey than predators, says anthropologist Robert Sussman of Washington University, coauthor of the 2005 book "Man the Hunted." The evidence is as stark as the many [correct: two] fossil skulls containing holes made by big cats and [correct: one containing] talon marks from raptors.

Well, that's taphonomy for you. There is plenty of evidence for predation on ancient hominid bones, and a National Geographic News article from 2002 details work showing the contribution of felids. But only two skulls have holes that may have come from ancient cats (those would be SK 54 from Swartkrans and D2280 from Dmanisi). Only Taung has evidence of raptor damage.

Splitting straws on habiline brains

Dmanisi has left people pretty confused about what explains hominid dispersal from Africa. Some are groping for other hypotheses. Just check out this paragraph:

Erectus shows that brain size is too crude a measure of a species' talents. At Dmanisi, the brains range from 600 to 770 cubic centimeters, comparable to the more primitive habilis. But while erectus did not distinguish themselves in brain size, brain structure is more telling [correct: nor does its brain structure provide any clues]. They were [correct: They were not] the first of our ancestors to have an asymmetric brain, as modern humans do; Australopithecus species do not [correct: did]. Asymmetry is a mark of increasing specialization and therefore complex cognitive ability [correct: of questionable value, since apes and australopithecines have asymmetries to varying extents]. Erectus used it to, among other things, discover and tame fire [add: apparently much later]. What they did not use it for is technology. Tools found with the Dmanisi fossils include cutting flakes, rock "cores" from which flakes were made and a chopper, all primitive even for their time [correct: like those made in Africa]. "The old idea that you needed a master's degree in stone tools to leave Africa is crazy," says Bernard Wood.

Wow, how confusing. The Dmanisi crania had H. habilis-sized brains. They're like KNM-ER 1470. So brain size isn't the key characteristic that allowed hominids to disperse from Africa. Nor is body size, since the Dmanisi hominids were relatively small. That's a genuinely interesting problem.

But asymmetry doesn't solve it. KNM-ER 1470, either Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis depending on your taste in hominids, has a well-defined Broca's area on the left hemisphere, which I would say is the main informative aspect of asymmetry in fossil endocasts. Chimpanzee brains are asymmetrical in some respects, so "asymmetry" itself is an irrelevant criterion without some specific anatomical feature in mind. The thing that people used to think might be important was petalial asymmetry -- one hemisphere of the cortex shifted forward compared to the other. Early Homo endocranial surfaces show fairly strong petalial asymmetries, including KNM-ER 2598 and KNM-WT 15000. But some Australopithecus endocasts share a similar pattern of asymmetry with later hominids (Holloway and De La Costelareymondie 1982). We don't know how to interpret petalial asymmetry in functional terms, by the way. There appears to be some correlation with handedness, but it's not clear that hand preferences and petalial asymmetries evolved at the same time or for the same reason.

Somebody could write a really interesting story just out of the material in this one paragraph. Just not this story!

Out of Africa

The bottleneck scenario always seems like a hard one for journalists to get right. This article is no better than usual:

Peter Underhill, a molecular anthropologist at Stanford University, tracked 160 such changes in the Y's of 1,062 men from 21 populations across the world. Applying the molecular-clock technique, he concludes that the most recent common ancestor of all men [correct: all Y chromosomes] alive today lived 89,000 years ago in Africa. The first modern humans-and therefore, unlike the earlier wave of Homo erectus into Asia a million years ago, the ancestors of everyone today-departed Africa about 66,000 years ago.

These pilgrims were strikingly few. From the amount of variation in Y chromosomes today, population geneticists infer how many individuals were in this "founder" population. The best estimate: 2,000 men. Assuming an equal number of women, only 4,000 brave souls ventured forth from Africa [correct: were isolated from other humans for thousands of years inside Africa]. We are their descendants.

Hard to get straight: genetic drift takes a long time to fix a gene. We don't necessarily know the number of founders of the out-of-Africa population; what we do know is how many individuals the ancient African population must have had under the hypothesis of genetic drift.

Other genes might well have more recent common ancestors, who would also have been more recent common ancestors of all men. This is especially true if any genes were under selection.

People who see my meetings talk will appreciate the irony of that last sentence...

References:

Holloway RL, De La Costelareymondie MC. 1982. Brain endocast asymmetry in pongids and hominids: some preliminary findings on the paleontology of cerebral dominance. Am J Phys Anthropol 58:101-110. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330580111

In case you haven't been paying attention, the chronology of early African Homo has been completely turned upside-down this year. Well, "upside-down" isn't precisely right; "displaced younger by a quarter-million years" is better.

The redating has come from Frank Brown's group, which in a series of papers has defined and dated stratigraphic units between the major tuffs of the Koobi Fora formation, between the KBS Tuff at 1.87 Ma and the Chari tuff at around 1.38 Ma. Gathogo and Brown (2006) outline the consequences of this redating for fossils of early Homo. Their paper focuses on the fossils from area 123 at Koobi Fora, but discusses the likely consequences of redating on other localities.

Fossils of Homo now estimated to be 1.65 +/- 0.15 myr in age in the Koobi Fora region are currently assigned to at least two taxa on the basis of both crania and mandibles. Homo habilis is represented by specimens KNM-ER 1501, 1502, 1805, and 1813, and H. ergaster is represented by specimens KNM-ER 730, 1812, and 3733 (for attributions, see Wood, 1991, 1992; Wood and Richmond, 2000). The ages of specimens KNM-ER 1501, 1502, 1812, and 1813 have been discussed above, and although not the main focus of this paper, a few notes are offered below on the others.

Specimen KNM-ER 730 derives from a level 5 m below the Koobi Fora Tuff Complex in Area 103 (Feibel et al., 1989), and is thus ca. 1.6 myr old. Feibel et al. (1989) gave an age of 1.85 myr for KNM-ER 1805, but this specimen lies "just below the base of the Okote Tuff" in Area 130 (Leakey et al., 1978), and is more likely closer in age to that of the base of the Okote Tuff Complex (ca. 1.6 myr) than it is to that of the KBS Tuff (1.87 myr). On the basis of mollusc-packed sandstones and algal horizons correlated from Area 102 to Area 104, Feibel et al. (1989) estimated that KNM-ER 3733 was 1.78 myr in age. Although the age of KNM-ER 3733 cannot be confirmed without additional fieldwork, the White Tuff, with an estimated age of 1.63 myr (Brown et al., 2006), is the nearest unequivocally identified unit in the local section in Area 104. This tuff is exposed <300 m from the location of KNM-ER 3733, and Tindall (1985) records only 8 m of section below the White Tuff nearby. Therefore KNM-ER 3733 should be approximately the same age as KNM-ER 1813. Indeed, all specimens from Koobi Fora assigned to H. aff. H. erectus by Wood (1991), many of which are now referred to H. ergaster (Wood and Richmond, 2000), are now estimated to be 1.45 to 1.65 myr old with the exception of KNM-ER 2598. The latter specimen, which is a partial occipital bone from Area 15, was placed 4 m below the KBS Tuff by Feibel et al. (1989) and estimated to be about 1.9 myr old. This age estimate is reasonable because strata do not extend more than 7 m above or below the KBS Tuff at the recorded location of KNM-ER 2598 (Gathogo and Brown 2006:7-8, emphasis added).

This raises a question: Just how much evidence is left for large-bodied H. erectus-like hominids earlier than 1.65 Ma?

Wood (1991) didn't diagnose postcrania, and Gathogo and Brown (2006) don't comment on them. At least KNM-ER 1808 would seem to fall under this umbrella, since Wood (1991) did diagnose that. But more important in bracketing the evolution of large body size is KNM-ER 3228, a hip bone previously dated to 1.95 Ma. It's pretty big for a human, let alone an australopithecine. On the other hand, McHenry and Coffing (2000) suggested that KNM-ER 3228 might belong to H. rudolfensis. To my eyes, this would make it a pretty big specimen compared with femora like KNM-ER 1472 and KNM-ER 1481, but who knows?

Another uncomforable fit in an H. rudolfensis would be KNM-ER 2598. It sure looks like a large-brained, thick-boned specimen. It doesn't look much like KNM-ER 1470. But then, maybe 1470 is the unusual specimen...

Gathogo and Brown (2006) take on directly the issue of KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813. The two were formerly considered contemporaries at around 1.89 Ma, but now KNM-ER 1813 is only 1.65 Ma.

KNM-ER 1813, lateral view

The real offshoot of this is that there are no longer any early small-skulled habilines. The question of whether KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813 were too different to belong to a single species has drawn a lot of ink, but it was always a non sequitur, because the two weren't the only crania to consider. The more interesting observation had been that Olduvai Gorge preserved only small-skulled habilines, while Koobi Fora had both small and large ones. This was not only a geographic problem but also a temporal one, since the Olduvai habilines were all relatively late (less than around 1.8 Ma) and the Turkana habilines were mostly earlier.

Now the situation has changed. The small Turkana habiline, KNM-ER 1813, is now contemporary with the Olduvai sample. There are no longer any small-skulled early Turkana habilines. KNM-ER 1805 makes sense as a male of the later, small-skulled sample because it is relatively small-brained but robustly built (e.g., with a sagittal crest). That leaves KNM-ER 1470, KNM-ER 1590, KNM-ER 3732, and KNM-ER 3735 as plausible habilines before 1.85 Ma.

This seems like a nice sample as a possible ancestor for both later large-bodied Homo and later habilines. Heck, Wood (1991) even wrote this in his description of KNM-ER 3735:

Some features (e.g. vault thickness) ally it with a Homo erectus-like hominid, but in other areas (e.g. the frontal) it is more like crania such as KNM-ER 1813, a conclusion endorsed by Walker (1987) and by Leakey et al. (1989). Tobias (1989) includes KNM-ER 3735 within H. habilis (Wood 1991:134-135).

What more could you ask of a common ancestor? But then if some of this ancestral population would be expected to resemble later H. erectus-like specimens, then why not KNM-ER 2598?

And what, exactly, would make such a population -- with its mixture of H. erectus-like and habiline-like features -- different from Dmanisi? The answer, of course, is KNM-ER 1470. It's still the odd one in this lineup. But then, it does have the largest brain in this set, which might help to explain the rounded occiput.

Looking at what is left in the early part of the sequence is certainly interesting, but just as interesting is how all the H. erectus-like specimens are all bunched together between 1.65 and 1.45 Ma. This is the time interval that already held KNM-WT 15000, KNM-ER 3883, and KNM-ER 42700, and is just older than OH 9. Now we can add KNM-ER 3733, KNM-ER 730, KNM-ER 1808, and KNM-ER 1821. Isn't this an interesting sample? Don't you wish we knew about the other postcrania?

It seems to me that the hypothesis that H. erectus-like hominids first appeared in Africa around 1.65 Ma has interesting archaeological consequences. This isn't long before the appearance of the earliest Acheulean, and it plausibly makes the Developed Oldowan-Acheulean sequence a correlate of this evolution.

It is markedly not coincident with the earliest such evidence in Asia. But that raises the Dmanisi question again, doesn't it?

References:

Brown FH, Haileab B, McDougall I. 2006. Sequence of tuffs between the KBS Tuff and the Chari Tuff in the Turkana Basin, Kenya and Ethiopia. J Geol Soc 163:185-204.

Gathogo PN, Brown FH. 2006. Revised stratigraphy of Area 123, Koobi Fora, Kenya, and new age estiamtes of its fossil mammals, including hominins. J Hum Evol (in press) DOI link

McDougall I, Brown FH. 2006. Precise ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar geochronology for the upper Koobi Fora Formation, northern Kenya. J Geol Soc 163:205-220.

Wood B. 1991. Koobi Fora Research Project, Volume 4, Hominid Cranial Remains. Clarendon Press, Oxford.