Diese Anwendung erfordert Java-Skript.

Bitte aktivieren Sie Java-Script in den Browser-Einstellungen.
Rethinking early hominid adaptive strategies
Strait, David; Wood, Bernard (2001)
Strait D., et al. "Rethinking early hominid adaptive strategies.", timms video, Universität Tübingen (2001): https://timms.uni-tuebingen.de:443/tp/UT_20010410_001_evolution_0001. Accessed 26 Sep 2020.
Strait, D. & Wood, B. (2001). Rethinking early hominid adaptive strategies. timms video: Universität Tübingen. Retrieved September 26, 2020 from the World Wide Web https://timms.uni-tuebingen.de:443/tp/UT_20010410_001_evolution_0001
Strait, D. and Wood, B. (2001). Rethinking early hominid adaptive strategies [Online video]. 10 April. Available at: https://timms.uni-tuebingen.de:443/tp/UT_20010410_001_evolution_0001 (Accessed: 26 September 2020).
file download bibtex   endnote
title: Rethinking early hominid adaptive strategies
alt. title: Advances in the Study of Human Evolution and Dispersal
creators: Strait, David (author), Wood, Bernard (author)
subjects: Palaeolithic archaeology, Geoarchaeology, Palaeoanthropology, Pleistocene, Evolution, Dispersal, Hominid, Paranthropus, Functional Morphology, Cladogenesis, Stenotope, Eurytope, David Strait
description: International symposium at the University of Tübingen, Germany, 8th-12th April 2001. This symposium explores the relationship between environmental change and the key events in the evolution and dispersal of the human clade, from its origin around 5-8 Myr to the expansion of Homo sapiens across the globe between 100 Kyr and 15 Kyr.
abstract: Debate and dispute about the basic 'shape' of human evolution is mainly focussed on whether hominin evolution should be interpreted as 'transformational' (i.e. dominated by anagenesis), or 'taxic' (i.e. dominated by cladogenesis). However, proponents on both sides of this debate concur that between three and two million years ago there was a major cladogenetic event that resulted in two adaptively distinct clades. Hominins immediately antedating this major cladogenesis are usually allocated to a single Australopithecus grade, while it is generally accepted that Australopithecus sensu lato is unlikely to be a clade, or monophyletic group. One of the two 'post-Australopithecus' clades includes the only extant hominin species, Homo sapiens, that provides the genus name for that clade. The other clade, which has no extant representative, includes hominin species some workers retain in Australopithecus, but which others have returned, or transferred, to the genus Paranthropus. Whatever the details of their taxonomy most researchers accept that these two genera comprise the best evidence we have for hominin clades. As a result, the Homo/Paranthropus dichotomy has been a consistent feature of representations of hominin phylogeny for nearly half a century. Since the acceptance and widespread recognition of the Homo/Paranthropus dichotomy, the dominant explanatory paradigm has been that Paranthropus was a 'specialist' and Homo a 'generalist'. This was explicitly expressed with respect to the dentition and to the type of mastication and diet inferred from it. Thus, for much of the past 40 years the contrasting fates of Paranthropus, the narrow-niched stenotope, and Homo, the more flexible eurytope; the former suffering extinction, the latter lineage surviving the climatic vicissitudes of the Plio-Pleistocene, have been significant influences on thinking about hominin evolution. However, for various reasons we examined afresh the evidence for Homo eurytopy and Paranthropus stenotopy. We concluded that equally convincing, if not more convincing, arguments can be put forward for Paranthropus to be the eurytope, and, perhaps, for Homo to be the stenotope. In this presentation we outline the background to this debate, review the criteria for stenotopy and eurytopy, and then apply these criteria to the relevant fossil, and other, evidence for Paranthropus and Homo. Of the twelve criteria we applied, one (Dispersal Pattern) indicated Paranthropus stenotopy; eight (Species Duration, Morphological Trends, Sympatry, Diet, Habitat, Population Density, Biogeography, and Apomorphy vs. Plesiomorphy) were inconsistent with Paranthropus stenotopy, one (Species Diversity) indicated Homo stenotopy, and another one (Range Continuity) was inconclusive. The twelfth criterion, Functional Morphology, was subdivided into 14 subcategories. Of these one (Occlusal Morphology) indicated Paranthropus stenotopy; one (Incisor Size) was inconsistent with Paranthropus eurytopy; one (Brain Size) was probably compatible with Homo eurytopy; six (Facial Buttressing, Mandibular Robusticity, Masticatory Musculature, Canine Size, Molar Size, Premolar Molarization, and Dentognathic Reduction) were inconsistent with Paranthropus stenotopy; one (Manual Dexterity) was consistent with both Homo and Paranthropus being eurytopes; one (Locomotion) indicated Homo stenotopy, and two (Bite Force Generation and Enamel Cap Morphology) were consistent with Paranthropus being either a stenotope or a eurytope.
publisher: ZDV Universität Tübingen
contributors: Zentrum für Datenverarbeitung Universität Tübingen (producer), Conard, Nicholas John (organizer), Collard, Mark (organizer)
creation date: 2001-04-10
dc type: image
localtype: video
identifier: UT_20010410_001_evolution_0001
language: eng
rights: Url: https://timmsstatic.uni-tuebingen.de/jtimms/TimmsDisclaimer.html?637367288762678144