Human Evolution

Home News Sport Radio TV Weather Languages
Menos gráficos Sólo texto Escríbanos Ayuda

Martes, 26 de julio de 2005 - 17:05 GMT
Portada
Internacional Envíe esta nota por e-mail Imprima esta nota
Mundo USA Encuentran falo antiquísimo

América Latina Jonathan Amos NOTAS RELACIONADAS
BBC, Ciencia Falos contra el mal de ojo
Economía
28 03 05 | De todo un poco
Ciencia y
Un falo de piedra El macho más antiguo del mundo
Tecnología
05 12 03 | Ciencia
Cultura y encontrado en una cueva de
De las cenizas a la mesa
Sociedad Alemania es una de las
19 07 05 | Ciencia
Deportes primeras representaciones
El sexo amenaza Pompeya
----------------- conocidas de la sexualidad 15 11 01 | Miscelánea
Participe masculina, aseguran
A fondo investigadores. VÍNCULOS
Video Gobierno de Bután (en inglés)
Aprenda inglés Se calcula que el objeto, de 20 El contenido de las páginas
Tiempo centímetros de largo por tres externas sugeridas no es
de ancho, tiene 28 mil años de responsabilidad de la BBC.
-----------------
Quiénes somos edad. Fue hallado en las EN ESTA SECCIÓN
Nuestros socios famosas cavernas de Hohle Posible causa de muerte de cuna
Fels, en Swabian Jura, en el Argentina: vuelven los dinosaurios
OTROS IDIOMAS
sur del país. Madrinas al rescate
| ¿Qué es RSS?
Esta "herramienta" prehistórica
fue ensamblada utilizando 14
fragmentos de roca.
Su tamaño natural, agregan los El falo de Hohle Fels pudo haber sido
científicos, indica que también utilizado como herramienta y también
como "ayuda sexual".
pudo ser utilizado como "ayuda
sexual" por quienes lo fabricaron en la Edad de Hielo.
"Además de ser una representación simbólica de los genitales
masculinos, también se utilizó para corta lajas de piedra",
dijo el profesor Nicholas Conard, del Departamento de
Prehistoria Temprana de la Universidad de Tübingen.
Los investigadores dicen que la forma del objeto no deja
dudas sobre su naturaleza simbólica. "Es muy pulido y
claramente reconocible", agrega Conard.
Capa de cenizas
El equipo de la Universidad de
Tübingen, que trabaja en la
caverna de Hohle Fels, ya
tenían trece de los fragmentos
que forman el falo, pero fue
sólo al encontrar el
decimocuarto trozo que
lograron ensamblar el
"rompecabezas".
Este pájaro es una de las miles de
Las diferentes partes fueron figuras encontradas en las cavernas de
encontradas en una capa de Hohle Fels.
cenizas (cuya antigüedad ha sido bien establecida) en el
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/science/newsid_4717000/4717827.stm
complejo de cuevas asociadas con los humanos modernos y
no con sus "primos" prehistóricos, los Neardentales, que
también habitaron en esas cavernas.
El sitio de excavación arqueológico es uno de los más
importantes de Europa Central, y en él se han encontrado
miles de objetos del Paleolítico Tardío.
Algunos de esos artefactos son realmente exquisitos en su
detalle y sofisticación, como una figura aviar de 30 mil años
de edad tallada en marfil de mamut y considerada una de las
primeras representaciones de pájaros que se conoce.
Rasgos exagerados
Aunque otros objetos fálicos
encontrados en Francia y
Marruecos son ligeramente
más antiguos, las
representaciones de genitales
masculinos de ese período
específico son bastante
escasas.
"Las representaciones
femeninas, con sus atributos
sexuales muy acentuados, son
muy bien documentadas en
diversos sitios arqueológicos,
pero las masculinas son muy,
muy raras",explicó el profesor
Conrad.
La evidencia de que se dispone
indica que la región de
Swabian Jura fue una región
Las figuras de forma femenina de la
clave para la innovación época son más conocidas, como la
cultural, luego de la llegada de famosa Venus de Willendorf, de más de
seres humanos modernos a 30 mil años de antigüedad.
Europa, hace unos 40 mil años.
El falo de Hohle Fels será exhibido en el museo prehistórico
de Blaubeuren, en una exposición cuyo título será Arte de la
Edad de Hielo: Claramente Masculino.
Envíe esta nota por e-mail Imprima esta nota

BBC MUNDO - PRODUCTOS Y SERVICIOS
Titulares por e-mail Celulares y PDA Podcasts Noticias a la carta (RSS) Salvapantalla
Arriba ^^
Ayuda Escríbanos Cláusula de privacidad
Portada | Internacional | América Latina | Economía | Ciencia y Tecnología | Cultura | Deportes |

Participe | A fondo | Multimedia | Aprenda inglés | Tiempo | Quiénes somos | Nuestros socios
Programación | En FM, AM, OC |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/science/newsid_4717000/4717827.stm
Alan Templeton
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alan Templeton is a United States geneticist and statistician from Washington University in St. Louis, known for his theories regarding the lack of
genetic differences between humans of different races.[1] According to Templeton's research, perceived differences in races are more related to cultural
perceptions and biases than any underlying genetic reality. For example, Templeton's statistical analysis of the human genome shows that much greater
genetic diversity exists between populations of chimpanzees than humans.
Palaeontologists in search for the fame associated with discovery have been too zealous in their efforts to distinguish between different classes of
primitive man, such as Cro-Magnon, Homo sapiens and Neandertal. Instead, modern humans are closer to primitive man than currently thought,
Templeton argues.
"I can find living humans whose DNA is more different from each other than a Neanderthal's is different from mine," Templeton asserts.
Templeton claims that Sapiens did not wipe out their evolutionary predecessors but instead bred with them.
"For my generation it was make love not war. That's what's really going on when people go into new areas, they interbreed, they don't wipe everybody
out." (quotes from The Age)
References
1. ^ http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Templeton_02.html "Out Of Africa" - A visual model of genetic Migration
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Templeton"

Categories: American geneticists
Hidden categories: Articles lacking sources from April 2007 | All articles lacking sources
 This page was last modified on 28 February 2008, at 13:11.

 All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Templeton
Ardipithecus
Make a donation to Wikipedia and give the gift of knowledge!
Ardipithecus is a very early hominin genus (subfamily Homininae) which lived about 4.4 million years ago during Ardipithecus
Fossil range: Pliocene
the early Pliocene.
Scientific classification
Because this genus shares several traits with the African great ape genera (genus Pan and genus Gorilla), it is Kingdom: Animalia
considered by some to be on the chimpanzee rather than human branch, but most consider it a proto-human because
of a likeness in teeth with Australopithecus. Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Contents Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
 1 Species Subfamily: Homininae
 1.1 Ardipithecus ramidus
Tribe: Hominini
 1.2 Ardipithecus kadabba
 2 Lifestyle Genus: Ardipithecus
 3 References White et al., 1995
 4 External links Species
†Ardipithecus kadabba
Species †Ardipithecus ramidus
Two species have been described, Ardipithecus ramidus and Ardipithecus kadabba, which was initially described as
a subspecies of A. ramidus, but on the basis of teeth recently discovered in Ethiopia has been raised to species rank. Remains from both species have
been found in the Middle Awash.
Ardipithecus ramidus
A. ramidus was named in September 1994. The first fossil find was dated to 4.4 million years ago based on its interval between two volcanic strata: the
basal Gaala Tuff Complex (GATC) and the Daam Aatu Basaltic Tuff (DABT). Subsequent fossil discoveries by Yohannes Haile-Selassie and Giday
WoldeGabriel—if identified as A. ramidus—would push the date back as far as 5.8 million years ago.[1]
In 1992-1993 a research team headed by Dr Timothy White discovered the first A. ramidus fossils—seventeen fragments including skull, mandible,
teeth and arm bones—from the Afar Depression in the Middle Awash river valley of Ethiopia. More fragments were recovered in 1994, amounting to
45 percent of the total skeleton. Features of the foramen magnum and leg fragments are indicative of bipedalism.[2][3]
Ardipithecus kadabba
A. kadabba is dated to have lived between 5.8 million to 5.2 million years ago. The canine teeth show primitive features that distinguish them from
those of more recent hominines. It has been suggested that A. kadabba is the most recent common ancestor of Homo and Pan. Anthropologists
Yohannes Haile-Selassie, Gen Suwa, and Tim D. White published an article suggesting that the presence of a "canine cutting complex" indicates a
need for relocation in hominid evolutionary history.[4] Since A. ramidus, Sahelanthropus, and Orrorin are lacking the canine cutting complex, the
authors argue, it is reasonable to infer the canine cutting complex, which is present in modern day chimpanzees, is a primitive trait which was lost
during hominin evolution. The specific name comes from the Afar word for "basal family ancestor".[5]
Lifestyle
On the basis of bone sizes, Ardipithecus species are believed to have been about the size of a modern chimpanzee.
The toe structure of A. ramidus suggests that the creature walked upright, and this poses problems for current theories of the origins of hominid
bipedalism: Ardipithecus is believed to have lived in shady forests rather than on the savannah, where the more energy efficient locomotion permitted
by bipedalism would have been an advantage.
References
1. ^ Perlman, David (2001-07-12). Fossils From Ethiopia May Be Earliest Human Ancestor. San Francisco Chronicle, as reported in National Geographic News.
2. ^ Ardipithecus ramidus. Retrieved on 2008-01-18.
3. ^ Hominid Species. Retrieved on 2008-01-18.
4. ^ Haile-Selassie, Yohannes; Suwa, Gen; White, Tim D. (2004). "Late Miocene Teeth from Middle Awash, Ethiopia, and Early Hominid Dental Evolution".
Science 303 (5663): 1503–1505. doi:10.1126/science.1092978. PMID 15001775.
5. ^ Ellis, Richard (2004). No Turning Back: The Life and Death of Animal Species. New York: Harper Perrenial, 92. ISBN 0-06-055804-0.
External links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
 BBC News: Amazing hominid haul in Ethiopia
 NY Times: Two Splits Between Human and Chimp Lines Suggested
 Minnesota State University
 Archaeology info
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus"

Categories: Early hominids | Pliocene mammals | Transitional fossil
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2008
 This page was last modified on 24 June 2008, at 09:47.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
Ardipithecus
(Redirected from Ardipithecus kadabba)

the early Pliocene.
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Ardipithecus
White et al., 1995
Species
Lifestyle
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus_kadabba
External links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus_kadabba
Ardipithecus
Ten things you may not know about images on Wikipedia.
(Redirected from Ardipithecus ramidus)

the early Pliocene.
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Ardipithecus
White et al., 1995
Species
Lifestyle
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus_ramidus
External links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus_ramidus
Australopithecus
Help us provide free content to the world by donating today!
The genus Australopithecus (Latin australis "of the south", Greek pithekos "ape") is a group of extinct Gracile australopithecine

hominids, the gracile australopithecines, closely related to humans.
Contents
 1 Evolution
 2 Morphology
 3 Species variations
 4 Evolutionary role
 5 Diet
 6 Notable Specimens
 7 References
 8 See also
 9 External links
Australopithecus africanus
Evolution
Kingdom: Animalia
Gracile australopithecines shared several traits with modern apes and humans, and were widespread Phylum: Chordata
throughout Eastern and Northern Africa by a time between 3.0 and 3.9 million years ago. The earliest Class: Mammalia
evidence of fundamentally bipedal hominids can be observed at the site of Laetoli in Tanzania. These
hominid footprints are remarkably similar to modern humans and have been dated as 3.7 million years old. Order: Primates
Until recently, the footprints have generally been classified as australopithecine because that had been the Family: Hominidae
only form of pre-human known to have existed in that region at that time; however, some scholars have Subfamily: Homininae
considered reassigning them to a yet unidentified very early species of the genus Homo. Tribe: Hominini
Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus are among the most Subtribe: Hominina
famous of the extinct hominids. A. africanus used to be regarded as ancestral to the genus Homo (in Genus: Australopithecus
particular Homo erectus). However, fossils assigned to the genus Homo have been found that are older than R.A. Dart, 1925
A. africanus. Thus, the genus Homo either split off from the genus Australopithecus at an earlier date (the Species
latest common ancestor being A. afarensis or an even earlier form, possibly Kenyanthropus platyops), or
both developed from a yet possibly unknown common ancestor independently. †A. afarensis ("Lucy")
†A. africanus
According to the Chimpanzee Genome Project, both human (Ardipithecus, Australopithecus and Homo) and †A. anamensis
chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus) lineages diverged from a common ancestor about 5 to 6 †A. bahrelghazali
million years ago, if we assume a constant rate of evolution. It is theoretically more likely for evolution to †A. garhi
happen slower, as opposed to quicker, from the date suggested by a gene clock (the result of which is given Formerly Australopithecus,
as an "youngest common ancestor", i.e., the latest possible date of diversion.) However, hominids now Paranthropus
discovered more recently are somewhat older than the molecular clock would theorize. Sahelanthropus †P. aethiopicus
tchadensis, commonly called "Toumai" is about 7 million years old and Orrorin tugenensis lived at least 6 †P. robustus
million years ago. Since little is known of them, they remain controversial among scientists since the †P. boisei
molecular clock in humans has determined that humans and chimpanzees had an evolutionary split at least a
million years later. One theory suggests that humans and chimpanzees diverged once, then interbred around one million years after diverging. [1]
Morphology
The brains of most species of Australopithecus were roughly 35% of the size of that of a modern human brain. Most species of Australopithecus were
diminutive and gracile, usually standing no more than 1.2 and 1.4 m (approx. 4 to 4.5 feet) tall. In several variations of australopithecine there is a
considerable degree of sexual dimorphism, meaning that males are larger than females. Modern hominids do not appear to display sexual dimorphism
to the same degree — particularly, modern humans display a low degree of sexual dimorphism, with males being only 15% larger than females, on
average. In australopithecines, however, males can be up to 50% larger than females. New research suggests that sexual dimorphism may be far less
pronounced than this, but there is still much debate on the subject.
Species variations
Although opinions differ as to whether the species aethiopicus, boisei and robustus should be included within the genus Australopithecus, the current
consensus in the scientific community is that they should be placed in a distinct genus, Paranthropus, which is believed to have developed from the
ancestral Australopithecus line. Up until the last half-decade, the majority of the scientific community included all the species shown in the box at the
top of this article in a single genus. However, Paranthropus was morphologically distinct from Australopithecus, and its specialized morphology also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
implies that its behavior was quite different from that of its ancestor.
Evolutionary role
The fossil record seems to indicate that Australopithecus is the common ancestor of the distinct group of hominids, now called Paranthropus (the
"robust australopithecines"), and most likely the genus Homo which includes modern humans. Although the intelligence of these early hominids was
likely no more sophisticated than modern apes, the bipedal stature is the key evidence which distinguishes the group from previous primates who are
quadrupeds. The morphology of Australopithecus upsets what scientists previously believed, namely, that large brains preceded bipedalism. If A.
afarensis was the definite hominid which left the footprints at Laetoli, it strengthens the notion that A. afarensis had a small brain but was a biped.
Fossil evidence such as this has made it clear that bipedalism far predated large brains. However, it remains a matter of controversy how bipedalism
first evolved millions of years ago (several concepts are still being studied). The advantages of bipedalism allowed hands to be free for grasping
objects (e.g. carrying food and young), and allowed the eyes to look over tall grasses for possible food sources or predators. However, many
anthropologists argue that these advantages were not large enough to cause bipedalism.
A recent study of primate evolution and morphology noted that all apes, both modern and fossil, show skeletal adaptations to upright posture of the
trunk, and that fossils such as Orrorin tugenensis indicate bipedalism around 6 million years ago, around the time of the split between humans and
chimpanzees indicated by genetic studies. This suggested that upright, straight-legged walking originally evolved as an adaptation to tree-dwelling.
Studies of modern orangutans in Sumatra showed that these apes use four legs when walking on large stable branches, swing underneath slightly
smaller branches, but are bipedal and keep their legs very straight when walking on multiple small flexible branches under 4 cm. diameter, while also
using their arms for balance and additional support. This enables them to get nearer to the edge of the tree canopy to get fruit or cross to another tree.
Climate changes around 11 to 12 million years ago affected forests in East and Central Africa so that there were periods when openings prevented
travel through the tree canopy, and at these times ancestral hominids could have adapted the upright walking behaviour for ground travel. It is
suggested that the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees became more specialised in climbing vertical tree trunks or lianas, using a bent hip and bent
knee posture which matches the knuckle-walking posture they use for ground travel. Humans are closely related to these apes, and share features
including wrist bones apparently strengthened for knuckle walking.[2][3]
Radical changes in morphology took place before gracile australopithecines evolved; the pelvis structure and feet are very similar to modern humans.
The teeth have small canines, but australopithecines generally evolved a larger post-canine dentition with thicker enamel. Australopithecines faced one
particular challenge while living on the savanna.
Most species of Australopithecus were not any more adept at tool use than modern non-human primates, yet modern African apes, chimpanzees, and
most recently gorillas, have been known to use simple tools (i.e. cracking open nuts with stones and using long sticks to dig for termites in mounds),
and chimpanzees have been observed using spears (not thrown) for hunting. However, some have argued that A. garhi used stone tools due to a loose
association of this species and butchered animal remains.
Diet
In a 1979 preliminary microwear study of Australopithecus fossil teeth, anthropologist Alan Walker theorized that robust australopithecines were
largely frugivorous.[4] However, newer methods of studying fossils have suggested the possibility that Australopithecus was omnivorous. In 1992,
trace element studies of the strontium/calcium ratios in robust australopithecine fossils suggested the possibility of animal consumption, as did a 1994
using stable carbon isotopic analysis.[5]
Notable Specimens
 Laetoli footprints
 AL 129-1
 Lucy
 STS 5 (Mrs. Ples)
 STS 14
 STS 71
 Taung Child
 Selam
References
 Barraclough, G. (1989). in Stone, N. (ed.): Atlas of World History, 3rd edition, Times Books Limited. ISBN 0-7230-0304-1.
 Leakey, Richard (1994). The Origins of Human Kind. ISBN 0-465-03135-8.
 White, Tim D., et al. "Asa Issie, Aramis and the Origin of Australopithecus." Nature 440 (April 13, 2006), 883-89.
1. ^ Bower, Bruce (May 20, 2006). "Hybrid-Driven Evolution: Genomes show complexity of human-chimp split" ( – Scholar search). Science News

169 (20): 308.
2. ^ BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man. Mother of man - 3.2 million years ago. Retrieved on 2007-11-01.
3. ^ Thorpe S.K.S.; Holder R.L., and Crompton R.H. (24 May 2007). PREMOG - Supplementary Info. Origin of Human Bipedalism As an
Adaptation for Locomotion on Flexible Branches. Primate Evolution & Morphology Group (PREMOG), the Department of Human Anatomy
and Cell Biology, the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Liverpool. Retrieved on 2007-11-01. “Based on computer simulations
of the mechanics of motion in fossil human ancestors such as the famous 'Lucy' skeleton, our research group has long argued that early human
ancestors would have walked upright, rather than semi-crouched, as the old 'up from the apes' view has suggested ... Now, research on the
orangutan, suggests that upright walking may have been a basic element of the lifestyle of the earliest ancestors of modern apes, including
humans, which would have been tree-dwelling specialists on ripe fruit, living among the fine branches of tropical forest trees.”
4. ^ Billings, Tom. Humanity's Evolutionary Prehistoric Diet and Ape Diets--continued, Part D).
5. ^ Billings, Tom. Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up to Date--continued, Part 3B).
See also
 Aramis, Ethiopia
 List of fossil sites (with link directory)
 List of hominina (hominid) fossils (with images)
External links
 Why australopithecines became bipedal
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus"
Categories: Early hominids | Pliocene mammals | Prehistoric Africa | Transitional fossil
Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links since June 2008 | Articles with unsourced statements | All
articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since May 2008
 This page was last modified on 2 July 2008, at 10:01.
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. In common Australopithecus afarensis

with the younger Australopithecus africanus, A. afarensis was slenderly built. From analysis it has been thought ("Lucy")
that A. afarensis was ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, which includes the
modern human species, Homo sapiens.[1][2].
Contents
 1 Localities
 2 Physical characteristics
 2.1 Craniodental features and Brain Size
 2.2 Bipedalism
 2.3 Social characteristics
 2.4 Lineage questions
 3 Notable Fossils
 3.1 Type specimen
 3.2 AL 129-1
 3.3 Lucy
 3.4 Site 333
 3.5 Selam
 3.6 Others
 4 Related work
 5 See also
 6 References
 7 External links Picture of Lucy remains replica, Museo
Nacional de Antropología, Mexico City
Localities Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Australopithecus afarensis fossils have only been discovered within eastern Africa. Despite Laetoli being the Phylum: Chordata
type locality for A. afarensis, the most extensive remains assigned to this species are found in Hadar, Ethiopia,
Class: Mammalia
including the famous "Lucy" partial skeleton and the "First Family" found at the A.L. 333 locality. Other
localities bearing A. afarensis remains include Omo, Maka, Fejej and Belohdelie in Ethiopia, and Koobi Fora Order: Primates
and Lothagam in Kenya. Family: Hominidae
Physical characteristics Genus: Australopithecus
Species: A. afarensis
Craniodental features and Brain Size
Binomial name
Compared to the modern and extinct great apes, A. afarensis has reduced †Australopithecus afarensis
canines and molars, although they are still relatively larger than in modern Johanson & White, 1978
humans. A. afarensis also had a relatively small brain size (~380-430cm³) and a
prognathic (i.e. projecting anteriorly) face.
The image of a bipedal hominin with a small brain and primitive face was quite a revelation to the
paleoanthropological world at the time. This was due to the earlier belief that an increase in brain size was the first
major hominin adaptive shift. Before the discoveries of A. afarensis in the 1970s, it was widely thought that an
increase in brain size preceded the shift to bipedal locomotion. This was mainly due to the fact that the oldest known
hominins at the time had relatively large brains (e.g KNM-ER 1470, Homo rudolfensis, which was found just a few
years before Lucy and had a cranial capacity of ~800cm³).
Bipedalism
Lucy skeleton reconstruction.
Cleveland Natural History There is considerable debate regarding the locomotor behaviour of A. afarensis.
Museum Some believe that A. afarensis was almost exclusively bipedal, while others
believe that the creatures were partly arboreal. The anatomy of the hands, feet and shoulder joints in many ways
favour the latter interpretation. The curvature of the finger and toe bones (Phalanges) approaches that of modern-day apes, and is most likely reflective
of their ability to efficiently grasp branches and climb. The presence of a wrist-locking mechanism might suggest that they were knuckle-walkers. The
shoulder joint is also oriented more cranially (i.e. towards the skull) than in modern humans. Combined with the relatively long arms A. afarensis are
thought to have had, this is thought by many to be reflective of a heightened ability to use the arm above the head in climbing behaviour. Furthermore,
scans of the skulls reveal a canal and bony labyrinth morphology, which some suggest is not conducive to proper bipedal locomotion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
However, there are also a number of traits in the A. afarensis skeleton which
strongly reflect bipedalism. In overall anatomy, the pelvis is far more human-like
than ape-like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and
positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong
attachment for the knee extensors. While the pelvis is not wholly human-like
(being markedly wide with flared with laterally orientated iliac blades), these
features point to a structure that can be considered radically remodeled to
accommodate a significant degree of bipedalism in the animals' locomotor
repertoire. Importantly, the femur also angles in toward the knee from the hip.
This trait would have allowed the foot to have fallen closer to the midline of the
body, and is a strong indication of habitual bipedal locomotion. Along with
Australopithecus afarensis skull humans, present day orangutans and spider monkeys possess this same feature.
reconstruction, displayed at The feet also feature adducted big toes, making it difficult if not impossible to
Museum of Man, San Diego, grasp branches with the hindlimbs. The loss of a grasping hindlimb also increases
California. the risk of an infant being dropped or falling, as primates typically hold onto their
mothers while the mother goes about her daily business. Without the second set
of grasping limbs, the infant cannot maintain as strong a grip, and likely had to be held with help from the mother. The problem of holding the infant
would be multiplied if the mother also had to climb trees. The ankle joint of A. afarensis is also markedly human-like.
Computer simulations using dynamic modelling of the skeleton's inertial properties and kinematics have indicated that A. afarensis was able to walk in
the same way modern humans walk, with a normal erect gait or with bent hips and knees, but could not walk in the same way as chimpanzees. The
upright gait would have been much more efficient than the bent knee and hip walking, which would have taken twice as much energy.[3][4] It appears
probable that A. afarensis was quite an efficient bipedal walker over short distances, and the spacing of the footprints at Laetoli indicates that they
were walking at 1.0 m/s or above, which matches human small-town walking speeds.[5]
It is commonly thought that upright bipedal walking evolved from knuckle-walking with bent legs, in the manner
used by chimpanzees and gorillas to move around on the ground, but fossils such as Orrorin tugenensis indicate
bipedalism around 5 to 8 million years ago, in the same general period where genetic studies suggest the lineage of
chimpanzees and humans diverged. Modern apes and their fossil ancestors show skeletal adaptations to an upright
posture used in tree climbing, and it has been proposed that that upright, straight-legged walking originally evolved as
an adaptation to tree-dwelling. Studies of modern orangutans in Sumatra have shown these apes using four legs when
walking on large stable branches and when swinging underneath slightly smaller branches, but are bipedal and
maintain their legs very straight when using multiple small flexible branches under 4 cm. in diameter while also using
their arms for balance and additional support. This enables them to get nearer to the edge of the tree canopy to grasp
fruit or cross to another tree.
Climate changes around 11 to 12 million years ago affected forests in East and Central Africa, establishing periods
where openings prevented travel through the tree canopy, and during these times ancestral hominids could have
adapted the upright walking behaviour for ground travel, while the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees became
more specialised in climbing vertical tree trunks or lianas with a bent hip and bent knee posture, ultimately leading
them to use the related knuckle-walking posture for ground travel. This would lead to A. afarensis usage of upright
bipedalism for ground travel, while still having arms well adapted for climbing smaller trees. However, chimpanzees
and gorillas are the closest living relatives to humans, and share anatomical features including a fused wrist bone
which may also suggest knuckle-walking by human ancestors.[6][7][8] Other studies suggest that an upright spine and
a primarily vertical body plan in primates dates back to Morotopithecus bishopi in the Early Miocene of 21.6 million
years ago[9][10] A reconstruction of
Australopithecus afarensis
Social characteristics
It is difficult to predict the social behaviour of extinct fossil species. However, the social structure of modern apes
and monkeys can be anticipated to some extent by the average range of body size between males and females
(known as sexual dimorphism). Although there is considerable debate over how large the degree of sexual dimorphism was between males and females
of A. afarensis, it is likely that males were relatively larger than females. If observations on the relationship between sexual dimorphism and social
group structure from modern great apes are applied to A. afarensis then these creatures most likely lived in small family groups containing a single
dominant male and a number of breeding females.[2]
There are no known stone-tools associated with A. afarensis, and the present archeological record of stone artifacts only dates back to approximately
2.5 million years ago.[2]
Lineage questions
In 1977 Donald Johanson and his colleague Tim White carried out detailed morphological studies on their finds to date, including both Lucy and the
"First Family" fossils. They compared the fossils to chimpanzee, gorilla and modern human specimens, and casts of extinct hominid fossils, with
particular attention to jaws and dental arcades, and found that their fossils were somewhere between humans and apes, possibly closer to apes, though
with essentially human bodies. They reached the conclusion that it could not be classified in the genus Homo and
should be in the genus Australopithecus as the new species Australopithecus afarensis. They believed that this
extinct hominid would prove to be ancestral to Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus robustus as well
as to the genus Homo which includes the modern human species, Homo sapiens,[11] and this conclusion was
widely accepted.[2] However, in 2006 scientists Yoel Rak, Avishag Ginzburg, and Eli Geffen carried out a
morphological analysis which found that the mandibular ramus (jawbone) of australopithecus afarensis specimen
A. L. 822-1 discovered in 2002 closely matches that of a gorilla, and from further studies they concluded that
"australopithecus afarensis" is more likely a member of the robust australopithecines branch of the hominid
evolutionary tree and so not a direct ancestor of man. They concluded that Ardipithecus ramidus discovered by
White and colleagues in the 1990s is a more likely ancestor of the human clade.[12][13]
Notable Fossils
Type specimen
The type specimen for A. afarensis is LH 4, an adult mandible from the site of Laetoli, Tanzania.
AL 129-1
The first A. afarensis knee joint was discovered in November 1973 by Donald Johanson as part of a team
involving Maurice Taieb, Yves Coppens and Tim White in the Middle Awash of Ethiopia's Afar Depression.
Lucy Full reconstruction of Lucy on
display at Museum of Man, San
Diego, California.
The first A. afarensis skeleton was discovered on November 24, 1974 near Hadar in Ethiopia by Tom Gray in the
company of Donald Johanson, as part of a team involving Maurice Taieb, Yves Coppens and Tim White in the
Middle Awash of Ethiopia's Afar Depression.
Site 333
Michael Bush, one of Don Johanson's students, made another major discovery in 1975: near Lucy, on the other side of the hill, he found the "First
Family", including 200 fragments of A. afarensis. The site of the findings is now known as "site 333", by a count of fossil fragments uncovered, such
as teeth and pieces of jaw. 13 individuals were uncovered and all were adults, with no injuries caused by carnivores. All 13 individuals seemed to have
died at the same time, thus Johanson concluded that they might have been killed instantly from a flash flood.
Selam
On September 20, 2006, Scientific American magazine presented the findings of a dig in Dikika, Ethiopia, a few miles from the place where Lucy was
found. The recovered skeleton of a 3-year-old A. afarensis girl comprises almost the entire skull and torso, and most parts of the limbs. The features of
the skeleton suggest adaptation to walking upright (bipedalism) as well as tree-climbing, features that match the skeletal features of Lucy and fall
midway between human and humanoid ape anatomy. "Baby Lucy" has officially been named "Selam" (meaning peace in most Ethiopian languages).
[1]
Others
 AL 200-1
 AL 129-1
 AL 444
Related work
Further findings at Afar, including the many hominin bones in site 333, produced more bones of concurrent date, and led to Johanson and White's
eventual argument that the Koobi Fora hominins were concurrent with the Afar hominins. In other words, Lucy was not unique in evolving bipedalism
and a flat face.
Recently, an entirely new species has been discovered, called Kenyanthropus platyops, however the cranium KNM WT 40000 has a much distorted
matrix making it hard to distinguish (however a flat face is present). This had many of the same characteristics as Lucy, but is possibly an entirely
different genus.
Another species, called Ardipithecus ramidus, was found by White and colleagues in the 1990s. This was fully bipedal, yet appears to have been
contemporaneous with a woodland environment, and, more importantly, contemporaneous with Australopithecus afarensis. Scientists have not yet
been able to draw an estimation of the cranial capacity of Ar. ramidus as only small jaw and leg fragments have been discovered thus far.
See also
 List of human fossils
References
1. ^ Johanson 1981, p. 283-297
2. ^ a b c d Jones, S. Martin; & R. Pilbeam (ed.) (2004). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (8th ed.).Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-
46786-1
3. ^ BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man. Mother of man - 3.2 million years ago. Retrieved on 2007-11-01.
4. ^ PREMOG - Research. How Lucy walked. Primate Evolution & Morphology Group (PREMOG), the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, the
School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Liverpool (18 May 2007). Retrieved on 2007-11-01.
5. ^ PREMOG - Supplementry Info. The Laetoli Footprint Trail: 3D reconstruction from texture; archiving, and reverse engineering of early hominin gait.
Primate Evolution & Morphology Group (PREMOG), the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, the School of Biomedical Sciences at the
University of Liverpool (18 May 2007). Retrieved on 2007-11-01.
6. ^ Ian Sample, science correspondent (June 1, 2007). New theory rejects popular view of man's evolution - Research - EducationGuardian.co.uk. Retrieved on
2007-11-05.
7. ^ BBC NEWS - Science/Nature - Upright walking 'began in trees' (31 May 2007). Retrieved on 2007-11-05.
8. ^ Thorpe S.K.S.; Holder R.L., and Crompton R.H. (24 May 2007). PREMOG - Supplementry Info. Origin of Human Bipedalism As an Adaptation for
Locomotion on Flexible Branches. Primate Evolution & Morphology Group (PREMOG), the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, the School of
Biomedical Sciences at the University of Liverpool. Retrieved on 2007-11-01.
9. ^ Aaron G. Filler (December 24, 2007). Redefining the word “Human” – Do Some Apes Have Human Ancestors? : OUPblog. Retrieved on 2007-12-27.
10. ^ Aaron G. Filler (October 10, 2007). PLoS ONE: Homeotic Evolution in the Mammalia: Diversification of Therian Axial Seriation and the Morphogenetic
Basis of Human Origins. Retrieved on 2007-12-27.
11. ^ Johanson 1981, p. 265-266, 278-279, 283-297
12. ^ Yoel Rak; Avishag Ginzburg and Eli Geffen (April 17, 2007). From the Cover: Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au.
afarensis link to robust australopiths -- Rak et al. 104 (16): 6568 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved on 2007-10-19.
13. ^ Yoel Rak; Avishag Ginzburg and Eli Geffen (April 17, 2007). From the Cover: Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au.
afarensis link to robust australopiths -- Rak et al. 104 (16): 6568 Data Supplement - HTML Page - index.htslp -- Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences. Retrieved on 2007-10-19.
 BBC - Dawn of Man (2000) by Robin Mckie| ISBN 0-7894-6262-1

 Barraclough, G. (1989). in Stone, N. (ed.): Atlas of World History, 3rd edition, Times Books Limited. ISBN 0-7230-0304-1.
 Australopithecus afarensis from The Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution
 (2000) in Delson, E., I. Tattersall, J.A. Van Couvering & A.S. Brooks (eds.): Encyclopedia of human evolution and prehistory, 2nd Edition,
Garland Publishing, New York. ISBN 0-8153-1696-8.
 Johanson, Donald & Maitland Edey (1981), Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind, Granada, ISBN 0-586-08437-1
External links
 Asa Issie, Aramis and the origin of Australopithecus
 Lucy at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan
 Lucy at the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University
 Asfarensis
 Anthropological skulls and reconstructions
 Becoming Human: Paleoanthropology, Evolution and Human Origins
 National Geographic "Dikika baby"
 MNSU
 Archaeology Info
 Smithsonian
 Washington State University : Australopithicus afarensis: The story of Lucy
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis"
Categories: Early hominids | Pliocene mammals
Hidden categories: Articles lacking in-text citations | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007
Australopithecus africanus
Help us improve Wikipedia by supporting it financially.
Australopithecus africanus was an early hominid, an australopithecine, who lived between 2-3 million Australopithecus africanus

years ago in the Pliocene.[2] In common with the older Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus was
slenderly built, or gracile, and was thought to have been a direct ancestor of modern humans. Fossil remains
indicate that A. africanus was significantly more like modern humans than A. afarensis, with a more human-
like cranium permitting a larger brain and more humanoid facial features. A. africanus has been found at
only four sites in southern Africa - Taung (1924), Sterkfontein (1935), Makapansgat (1948) and Gladysvale
(1992).[1]
Contents
 1 Famous fossils
 1.1 Taung Child
 1.2 Mrs. Ples
 2 Morphology and interpretations
 2.1 With regards to bipedalism
 3 See also
 4 References
Famous fossils
Taung Child STS 5 "Mrs. Ples"
Raymond Dart was at Taung near Kimberley, South Africa in 1924 when one of his colleagues spotted a Kingdom: Animalia
few bone fragments and the cranium on the desk of a lime worker.[3] The skull seemed like an odd ape Phylum: Chordata
creature sharing human traits such as eye orbits, teeth, and, most importantly, the hole at the base of the
skull over the spinal column (the foramen magnum) indicating a human-like posture. Dart assigned the Class: Mammalia
specimen the name Australopithecus africanus ("southern ape of Africa"). This was the first time the word Order: Primates
Australopithecus was assigned to any hominid. Dart claimed that the skull must have been an intermediate Family: Hominidae
species between ape and humans, but his claim about the Taung Child was rejected by the scientific
Genus: †Australopithecus
community at the time due to the belief that a large cranial capacity must precede bipedal locomotion,[1] this
was exacerbated by the widespread acceptance of the Piltdown Man. Sir Arthur Keith, a fellow anatomist Species: †A. africanus
and anthropologist, suggested that the skull belonged to a young ape, most likely from an infant gorilla. Binomial name
†Australopithecus africanus
Mrs. Ples Dart, 1925 [1]
Dart's theory was supported by Robert Broom.[4] In 1938 Broom classified an adult endocranial cast having a brain capacity of 485 cc, which had been
found by G. W. Barlow, as Plesianthropus transvaalensis. On April 17, 1947, Broom and John T. Robinson discovered a skull belonging to a middle-
aged female,[5] Sts 5, while blasting at Sterkfontein. Broom classified it also as Plesianthropus transvaalensis, and it was dubbed Mrs. Ples by the
press (though the skull is now thought to have belonged to a young male). The lack of facial projection in comparison to apes was noted by Raymond
Dart (including from Taung Child), a trait in common with more advanced hominines. Both fossils were later classified as A. africanus.
Morphology and interpretations

Like A. afarensis, A. africanus the South African counterpart was generally similar in many traits, a bipedal hominin with arms slightly larger than the
legs (a physical trait also found in chimpanzees). Despite its slightly more human-like cranial features, seen for example in the craniums Mr. Ples and
Sts 71, other more primitive features including ape-like curved fingers for tree climbing are also present.
Due to other more primitive features visible on A. africanus, some researchers believe the hominin, instead
of being a direct ancestor of more modern hominins, evolved into Paranthropus. The one particular robust
australopithecine seen as a descendent of A. africanus is Paranthropus robustus. Both P. robustus and A.
africanus craniums seem very alike despite the more heavily built features of P. robustus that are
adaptations for heavy chewing like a gorilla. A. africanus, on the other hand, had a cranium which quite
closely resembled that of a chimp, yet both their brains measure about 400 cc to 500 cc and probably had an
ape-like intelligence.[4] A. africanus had a pelvis that was built for slightly better bipedalism than that of A.
afarensis.
Charles Darwin suggested that humans had originally evolved from Africa, but during the early 20th
century most anthropologists and scientists supported the idea that Asia was the best candidate for human
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus
origins.[6] However, the famous Leakey family have argued in favor of the African descent since most
Raymond Dart with Taung skull
This image is a candidate for speedy hominid discoveries such as the Laetoli footprints were uncovered in Eastern Africa.[7]
deletion. It may be deleted after seven days
from the date of nomination. With regards to bipedalism
Recent evidence regarding modern human sexual dimorphism (physical differences between men and women) in the lumbar spine has been seen in
pre-modern primates such as A. africanus. This dimorphism has been seen as an evolutionary adaptation of females to better bear lumbar load during
pregnancy, an adaptation that non-bipedal primates would not need to make.[8][9]
See also
 Cranial capacity
 List of human fossils
 Human evolution
References
1. ^ a b c Australopithecus africanus
2. ^ Human Ancestors Hall: Tree
3. ^ Raymond Dart and our African origins
4. ^ a b Primate Origins
5. ^ John T. Robinson
6. ^ New Ideas About Human Migration From Asia To Americas
7. ^ Apologetics Press - Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”
8. ^ The Independent's article A pregnant woman's spine is her flexible friend, by Steve Connor from The Independent (Published: 13 December 2007) quoting
Shapiro, Liza, University of Texas at Austin Dept. of Anthropology about her article, Whitcome, et al., Nature advance online publication,
doi:10.1038/nature06342 (2007).
9. ^ Why Pregnant Women Don't Tip Over. Amitabh Avasthi for National Geographic News, December 12, 2007. This article has good pictures explaining the
differences between bipedal and non-bipedal pregnancy loads.
External links
 MNSU
 Smithsonian
 Handprint
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus"
Categories: African archaeology | Early hominids | Pliocene mammals | Prehistoric Africa
Hidden category: Articles that include images for deletion
 This page was last modified on 14 May 2008, at 09:04.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus anamensis is a fossil species of Australopithecus. The first fossilized specimen of the species, Australopithecus anamensis
though not recognized as such at the time, was a single arm bone found in Pliocene strata in the Kanapoi region of
East Lake Turkana by a Harvard University research team in 1965. The specimen was tentatively assigned at the Conservation status
time to Australopithecus and dated about four million years old. Little additional information was uncovered until Extinct
1987, when Canadian archaeologist Allan Morton (with Harvard University's Koobi Fora Field School) discovered Scientific classification
fragments of a specimen protruding from a partially eroded hillside east of Allia Bay, near Lake Turkana, Kenya.
Kingdom: Animalia
Six years later the London-born Kenyan paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey and archaeologist Alan Walker
excavated the Allia Bay site and uncovered several additional fragments of the hominid, including one complete Phylum: Chordata
lower jaw bone which closely resembles that of a common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) but whose teeth are much Class: Mammalia
more similar to those of a human. In 1995, Meave Leakey and her associates, taking note of differences between Order: Primates
Australopithecus afarensis and the new finds, assigned them to a new species, A. anamensis, deriving its name from
Family: Hominidae
the Turkana word anam, meaning "lake".[1]
Although the excavation team did not find hips, feet or legs, Meave Leakey believes that Australopithecus Genus: Australopithecus
anamensis often climbed trees. Tree climbing was one behavior retained by early hominins until the appearance of Species: A. anamensis
the first Homo species about 2.5 million years ago. A. anamensis shares many traits similar to Australopithecus
afarensis and may as well be its direct predecessor. A. anamensis is thought to have lived from 4.1 and 3.9 million Binomial name
years ago. The older specimens were found between two layers of volcanic ash, dated to 4.17 and 4.12 million years, Australopithecus anamensis
coincidentally when A. afarensis appears in the fossil record. Leakey et al., 1995
The fossils (twenty one in total) include upper and lower jaws, cranial fragments, and the upper and lower parts of a leg bone (tibia). In addition to this,
a fragment of humerus that was found thirty years ago at the same site at Kanapoi has now been assigned to this species.
In 2006, a new A. anamensis find was officially announced, extending the range of A. anamensis into north east Ethiopia. These new fossils, sampled
from a woodland context, include the largest hominid canine yet recovered and the earliest Australopithecus femur.[2] The find was in an area known
as Middle Awash, home to several other more modern Australopithecus finds and only six miles away from the discovery site of Ardipithecus ramidus,
the most modern species of Ardipithecus yet discovered. Ardipithecus was a more primitive hominid, considered the next known step below
Australopithecus on the evolutionary tree. The A. anamensis find is dated to about 4.2 million years ago, the Ar. ramidus find to 4.4 million years ago,
placing only 200,000 years between the two species and filling in yet another blank in the pre-Australopithecus hominid evolutionary timeline.[3]
References
1. ^ M. G. Leakey, C. S. Feibel, I. MacDougall & A. Walker (1995-08-17). "New four-million-year-old hominid species from Kanapoi and Allia
Bay, Kenya". Nature 376 (6541): 565–571. doi:10.1038/376565a0.
2. ^ White, Tim D., et al (2006-04-13). "Asa Issie, Aramis and the origin of Australopithecus". Nature 440 (7086): 883–889.
doi:10.1038/nature04629.
3. ^ Borenstein, Seth. New Fossil Links Up Human Evolution. The Associated Press. Retrieved on 2006-04-13.
See also
External links
 (ArchaeologyInfo.com) C. David Kreger, "Australopithecus anamensis"
 PBS Origins of Humankind
 Article about 2007 discovery (July 2007)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_anamensis"

Categories: Extinct species | Early hominids | Pliocene mammals
Hidden category: Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_anamensis
Australopithecus bahrelghazali
Australopithecus bahrelghazali is a fossil hominin that was first discovered in 1993 [1] by the paleontologist Australopithecus bahrelghazali
Michel Brunet in the Bahr el Ghazal valley near Koro Toro, in Chad, that Brunet named Abel. It was dated using Conservation status
Berylium based Radiometric dating as living circa. 3.6 million years ago[2]. Fossil
The find consists of a mandibular fragment, a lower second incisor, both lower canines, and all four of its
premolars, still affixed within the dental alveoli. The specimen's proper name is KT-12/H1; "Abel" is the Kingdom: Animalia
informal name, a dedication to Brunet's deceased colleague Abel (hominid) Brillanceau. The specimen located Phylum: Chordata
roughly 2,500 kilometers West from the East African Great Rift Valley. Class: Mammalia
The mandible KT-12/H1 discovered has similar features to the dentition of Australopithecus afarensis; this has Order: Primates
brought researchears like William Kimbel to argue that Abel is not an exemplar of a separate species, but "falls Family: Hominidae
within the range of variation" of the Australopithecus afarensis. By 1996, Brunet and his team classified KT Subfamily: Homininae
12/H1 as the holotype specimen for Australopithecus bahrelghazali [3]. This claim is difficult to substantiate,as Genus: Australopithecus
the describers have kept KT 12/H1 locked away from the general paleoanthropological community, contrary to
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 1999[4]. This species is a mystery to some as it is the only Species: A. bahrelghazali
australopithecine fossil found in Central Africa. It is also of great importance as it was the first fossil to show that Binomial name
geographically there is a "a third window" of early hominid evolution. †Australopithecus bahrelghazali
Brunet et al., 1995
References
1. ^ Brunet, Michel, Beauvilain, Alain, Coppens, Yves, Heintz, Emile, Moutaye, Aladji H.E., and David Pilbeam. 1995 The first australopithecine 2,500
kilometres west of the Rift Valley (Chad).Nature 378: 273-275.
2. ^ Cosmogenic nuclide dating of Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Australopithecus bahrelghazali: Mio-Pliocene hominids from Chad Anne-Elisabeth Lebatard,
Didier L. Bourlès, Philippe Duringer, Marc Jolivet, Régis Braucher†, Julien Carcaillet, Mathieu Schuster, Nicolas Arnaud, Patrick Monié, Fabrice Lihoreau,
Andossa Likius, Hassan Taisso Mackaye, Patrick Vignaud, and Michel Brunet
3. ^ Brunet, M., A. Beauvilain, Y. Coppens, E. Heintz, A.H.E. Moutaye, and D. Pilbeam. 1996. "Australopithecus bahrelghazali, une nouvelle espece d'Hominide
ancien de la region de Koro Toro (Tchad)." In Comptes Rendus des séances de l'Academie des Sciences, vol. 322, pp. 907-913.
4. ^ Schwartz, Jeffrey H., and Ian Tattersal. 2005 The Human Fossil Record, vol.4: Craniodental Morphology of Early Hominids (Genra Australopithecus,
Paranthropus, Orrorin) and Overview. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
See also
External links
 http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/bahrelghazali.htm
 http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/2002projects/web/australopithecus/austro.html
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_bahrelghazali"

Categories: Early hominids | African archaeology | Primate stubs | Archaeology stubs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_bahrelghazali
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus garhi is a gracile australopithecine species whose fossils were discovered in 1996 by a research team led Australopithecus garhi
by Ethiopian paleontologist Berhane Asfaw and Tim White, an American paleontologist researcher. The hominin remains
were initially believed to be a human ancestor species and the final missing link between the Australopithecus genus and Scientific classification
the human genus, Homo. However it is now believed that A. garhi, although more advanced than any other Kingdom: Animalia
australopithecine, was only a competitor species to the species ancestral to Homo and therefore not a human ancestor. The
Phylum: Chordata
remains are from the time when there are very few fossil records, between 2.0 and 3.0 million years ago. Tim White was
the scientist to find the first of the key A. garhi fossils in 1996 near the village of Bouri, located in the Middle Awash of Class: Mammalia
Ethiopia's Afar Depression. The species was confirmed and established as A. garhi on November 20, 1997 by the Ethiopian Order: Primates
paleoanthropologist Yohannes Haile-Selassie. The species epithet "garhi" means "surprise" in the local Afar language. Family: Hominidae
Genus: Australopithecus
Contents Species: A. garhi
 1 Morphology and interpretations Binomial name

 1.1 Earliest stone tools †Australopithecus garhi
 2 References Asfaw et al, 1997
 3 See also

The traits of A. garhi fossils such as BOU-VP-12/130 are somewhat distinctive from traits typically seen in Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus
africanus. An example of the distinction can be seen when comparing the Hadar maxilla (A. afarensis) to the Bouri specimen of A. gahri. The cranial
capacity of A. garhi measures 450cc, the same size as other australopithecines. The mandible classified as Asfaw et al. has a morphology generally believed
to be compatible with the same species, yet it is possible that another hominin species may have been found within the same deposits. Studies made on the
premolars and molar teeth have a few similarities with those of Paranthropus boisei since they are larger than any other gracile form of australopithecine. It
has been suggested that if A. garhi is ancestral to Homo (ie. Homo habilis) the maxillary morphology would have undergone a rapid evolutionary change in
roughly 200,000 and 300,000 years.
Earliest stone tools
Few primitive shaped stone tool artifacts closely resembling Olduwan technology were discovered with the A. garhi fossils, dating back roughly 2.5 and 2.6
million years old. The 23 April 1999 issue of Science mentions that the tools are older than those acquired by Homo habilis, which is thought to be a possible
direct descendant of more modern hominins. For a long time anthropologists assumed that only members of early genus Homo had the ability to produce
sophisticated tools. However, the crude ancient tools lack several techniques that are generally seen in later forms Olduwan and Acheulean such as strong
rock-outcroppings. In another site in Bouri, Ethiopia, roughly 3,000 stone artifacts had been found to be an estimated 2.5 million years old in age.
References
 http://home.hetnet.nl/mr_9/95/krocat/english/news/news9.htm
 http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_australopithecus_garhi.htm
See also
External links
 http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2001/nov/ancestor.htm
 http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusgarhi.htm
 http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/australopithecus_garhi.htm
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi"

Categories: Early hominids | African archaeology | Pliocene mammals
 This page was last modified on 16 March 2008, at 17:41.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi
Charles Darwin
Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist,[I] eminent as Charles Darwin

a collector and geologist, who proposed and provided scientific evidence that all species of life have
evolved over time from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection.[1] The fact
that evolution occurs became accepted by the scientific community and the general public in his
lifetime, while his theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of
the process of evolution in the 1930s,[1] and now forms the basis of modern evolutionary theory. In
modified form, Darwin’s scientific discovery remains the foundation of biology, as it provides a
unifying logical explanation for the diversity of life.[2]
Darwin developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine at Edinburgh
University, then theology at Cambridge.[3] His five-year voyage on the Beagle established him as a
geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian ideas, and
publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author. Puzzled by the
geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin investigated the
transmutation of species and conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838.[4] Although he
discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological
work had priority.[5] He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882). At the age of 51, Charles
essay which described a similar theory, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their Darwin had just published
On the Origin of Species.
theories.[6]
Born 12 February 1809
His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolution by common descent as the dominant Mount House, Shrewsbury,
scientific explanation of diversification in nature. He examined human evolution and sexual selection Shropshire, England
in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions Died 19 April 1882 (aged 73)
in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, Down House, Downe, Kent,
he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.[7] England
Residence England
In recognition of Darwin’s pre-eminence, he was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John
Herschel and Isaac Newton.[8] Nationality British
Fields Naturalist
Contents Institutions Royal Geographical Society
Alma mater University of Edinburgh
 1 Biography
University of Cambridge
 1.1 Early life
 1.2 Journey of the Beagle Academic Adam Sedgwick
 1.3 Inception of Darwin’s evolutionary theory
advisors John Stevens Henslow
 1.4 Overwork, illness, and marriage Known for The Voyage of the Beagle
 1.5 Preparing the theory of natural selection for publication
On The Origin of Species
 1.6 Publication of the theory of natural selection
Natural selection
 1.7 Reaction to the publication
 1.8 Descent of Man, sexual selection, and botany
Influences Charles Lyell
 2 Darwin’s children Influenced Thomas Henry Huxley
 3 Religious views George John Romanes
 4 Political interpretations
Notable Royal Medal (1853)
 4.1 Eugenics
awards Wollaston Medal (1859)
 4.2 Social Darwinism
 5 Commemoration Copley Medal (1864)
 6 Works Religious Church of England, though
 7 See also stance Unitarian family background,
 8 Notes Agnostic after 1851.
 9 Citations
Signature
 10 References
Biography Notes
He was a grandson of Erasmus Darwin and a
Early life grandson of Josiah Wedgwood.
For more details on this topic, see Charles Darwin's education.
Charles Robert Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England on 12 February 1809 at his family home, the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
Mount.[9] He was the fifth of six children of wealthy society doctor and financier Robert Darwin, and Susannah
Darwin (née Wedgwood). He was the grandson of Erasmus Darwin on his father’s side, and of Josiah Wedgwood
on his mother’s side. Both families were largely Unitarian, though the Wedgwoods were adopting Anglicanism.
Robert Darwin, himself quietly a freethinker, made a nod toward convention by having baby Charles baptised in the
Anglican Church. Nonetheless, Charles and his siblings attended the Unitarian chapel with their mother, and in
1817, Charles joined the day school, run by its preacher. In July of that year, when Charles was eight years old, his
mother died. From September 1818, he attended the nearby Anglican Shrewsbury School as a boarder.[10]
Darwin spent the summer of 1825 as an apprentice doctor, helping his father treat the poor of Shropshire. In the
autumn, he went to the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, to study medicine, but he was revolted by the brutality of
surgery and neglected his medical studies. He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who
told him exciting tales of the South American rainforest. Later, in The Descent of Man, he used this experience as
evidence that “Negroes and Europeans” were closely related despite superficial differences in appearance.[11]
In Darwin’s second year, he joined the Plinian Society, a student group interested in natural history.[12] He became a
keen pupil of Robert Edmund Grant, a proponent of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s theory of evolution by acquired
The seven-year-old Charles
characteristics, which Charles’s grandfather Erasmus had also advocated. On the shores of the Firth of Forth,
Darwin in 1816, one year before
his mother’s death. Darwin joined in Grant’s investigations of the life cycle of marine animals. These studies found evidence for
homology, the radical theory that all animals have similar organs which differ only in complexity, thus showing
common descent.[13] In March 1827, Darwin made a presentation to the Plinian of his own discovery that the black
spores often found in oyster shells were the eggs of a skate leech.[14] He also sat in on Robert Jameson’s natural history course, learning about
stratigraphic geology, receiving training in classifying plants, and assisting with work on the extensive collections of the University Museum, one of
the largest museums in Europe at the time.[15]
In 1827, his father, unhappy at his younger son’s lack of progress, shrewdly enrolled him in a Bachelor of Arts course at Christ’s College, Cambridge
to qualify as a clergyman, expecting him to get a good income as an Anglican parson.[16] However, Darwin preferred riding and shooting to studying.
[17] Along with his cousin William Darwin Fox, he became engrossed in the craze at the time for the competitive collecting of beetles.[18] Fox
introduced him to the Reverend John Stevens Henslow, professor of botany, for expert advice on beetles. Darwin subsequently joined Henslow’s
natural history course and became his favourite pupil, known to the dons as “the man who walks with Henslow”.[19][20] When exams drew near,
Darwin focused on his studies and received private instruction from Henslow. Darwin was particularly enthusiastic about the writings of William
Paley, including the argument for divine design in nature.[21] It has been argued that Darwin’s enthusiasm for Paley’s religious adaptationism
paradoxically played a role even later, when Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection.[22] In his finals in January 1831, he performed well in
theology and, having scraped through in classics, mathematics and physics, came tenth out of a pass list of 178.[23]
Residential requirements kept Darwin at Cambridge until June. Following Henslow’s example and advice, he was in no rush to take Holy Orders.
Inspired by Alexander von Humboldt’s Personal Narrative, he planned to visit Tenerife with some classmates after graduation to study natural history
in the tropics. To prepare himself, Darwin joined the geology course of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick and, in the summer, went with him to assist in
mapping strata in Wales.[24] After a fortnight with student friends at Barmouth, he returned home to find a letter from Henslow recommending Darwin
as a suitable (if unfinished) naturalist for the unpaid position of gentleman’s companion to Robert FitzRoy, the captain of HMS Beagle, which was to
leave in four weeks on an expedition to chart the coastline of South America. His father objected to the planned two-year voyage, regarding it as a
waste of time, but was persuaded by his brother-in-law, Josiah Wedgwood, to agree to his son’s participation.[25]
Journey of the Beagle
For more details on this topic, see Second voyage of HMS Beagle.
The Beagle survey took five years, two-thirds of which Darwin spent on land. He
carefully noted a rich variety of geological features, fossils and living organisms,
and methodically collected an enormous number of specimens, many of them new
to science.[1] At intervals during the voyage he sent specimens to Cambridge
together with letters about his findings, and these established his reputation as a
naturalist. His extensive detailed notes showed his gift for theorising and formed
the basis for his later work. The journal he originally wrote for his family,
published as The Voyage of the Beagle, summarises his findings and provides
social, political and anthropological insights into the wide range of people he met,
both native and colonial.[26]
While on board the ship, Darwin suffered badly from seasickness.[27] In October
1833 he caught a fever in Argentina, and in July 1834, while returning from the The voyage of the Beagle.
Andes down to Valparaíso, he fell ill and spent a month in bed.[28]
Before they set out, FitzRoy gave Darwin the first volume of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, which explained landforms as the outcome of
gradual processes over huge periods of time.[II] On their first stop ashore at St Jago, Darwin found that a white band high in the volcanic rock cliffs
consisted of baked coral fragments and shells. This matched Lyell’s concept of land slowly rising or falling, giving Darwin a new insight into the
geological history of the island which inspired him to think of writing a book on geology.[29] He went on to make many more discoveries, some of
them particularly dramatic.[1] He saw stepped plains of shingle and seashells in Patagonia as raised beaches, and after experiencing an earthquake in
Chile saw mussel-beds stranded above high tide showing that the land had just been raised. High in the Andes he saw several fossil trees that had
grown on a sand beach, with seashells nearby. He theorised that coral atolls form on sinking volcanic mountains, and confirmed this when the Beagle
surveyed the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.[30]
In South America, Darwin found and excavated rare fossils of gigantic extinct mammals in strata with modern seashells, indicating recent extinction
and no change in climate or signs of catastrophe. Though he correctly identified one as a Megatherium and fragments of armour reminded him of the
local armadillo, he assumed his finds were related to African or European species and it was a revelation to him after the voyage when Richard Owen
showed that they were closely related to living creatures exclusively found in the Americas.[31]
Lyell’s second volume, which argued against evolutionism and explained species distribution by “centres of
creation”, was sent out to Darwin. He puzzled over all he saw, and his ideas went beyond Lyell.[32] In
Argentina, he found that two types of rhea had separate but overlapping territories. On the Galápagos
Islands he collected birds, and noted that mockingbirds differed depending on which island they came from.
[33] He also heard that local Spaniards could tell from their appearance on which island tortoises originated,
but thought the creatures had been imported by buccaneers.[34] In Australia, the marsupial rat-kangaroo and
the platypus seemed so unusual that Darwin thought it was almost as though two distinct Creators had been
at work.[35]
In Cape Town he and FitzRoy met John Herschel, who had recently written to Lyell about that “mystery of
As HMS Beagle surveyed the coasts of mysteries”, the origin of species. When organising his notes on the return journey, Darwin wrote that if his
South America, Darwin began to theorise
about the wonders of nature around him. growing suspicions about the mockingbirds, the tortoises and the Falkland Island Fox were correct, “such
facts undermine the stability of Species”, then cautiously added “would” before “undermine”.[36] He later
wrote that such facts “seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species”.[37]
Three natives who had been taken from Tierra del Fuego on the Beagle’s previous voyage were taken back there to become missionaries. They had
become “civilised” in England over the previous two years, yet their relatives appeared to Darwin to be “miserable, degraded savages”.[38] A year on,
the mission had been abandoned and only Jemmy Button spoke with them to say he preferred his harsh previous way of life and did not want to return
to England. Because of this experience, Darwin came to think that humans were not as far removed from animals as his friends then believed, and saw
differences as relating to cultural advances towards civilisation rather than being racial. He detested the slavery he saw elsewhere in South America,
and was saddened by the effects of European settlement on Aborigines in Australia and Maori in New Zealand.[39]
Captain FitzRoy was committed to writing the official Narrative of the Beagle voyages, and near the end of the voyage, he read Darwin’s diary and
asked him to rewrite this Journal to provide the third volume, on natural history.[40]
Inception of Darwin’s evolutionary theory
For more details on this topic, see Inception of Darwin's theory.
While Darwin was still on the voyage, Henslow fostered his former pupil’s reputation by giving selected naturalists
access to the fossil specimens and a pamphlet of Darwin’s geological letters.[41] When the Beagle returned on 2
October 1836, Darwin was a celebrity in scientific circles. After visiting his home in Shrewsbury and seeing relatives,
Darwin hurried to Cambridge to see Henslow, who advised on finding naturalists available to describe and catalogue
the collections, and agreed to take on the botanical specimens. Darwin’s father organised investments, enabling his
son to be a self-funded gentleman scientist, and an excited Darwin went round the London institutions being fêted and
seeking experts to describe the collections. Zoologists had a huge backlog of work, and there was a danger of
specimens just being left in storage.[42]
An eager Charles Lyell met Darwin for the first time on 29 October and soon introduced him to the up-and-coming
anatomist Richard Owen, who had the facilities of the Royal College of Surgeons at his disposal to work on the fossil
bones collected by Darwin. Owen’s surprising results included gigantic sloths, a hippopotamus-like skull from the
extinct rodent Toxodon, and armour fragments from a huge extinct armadillo (Glyptodon), as Darwin had initially
surmised.[43] The fossil creatures were unrelated to African animals, but closely related to living species in South
America.[44]
While still a young man,
Charles Darwin joined the In mid-December, Darwin moved to Cambridge to organise work on his collections and rewrite his Journal.[45] He
scientific élite. wrote his first paper, showing that the South American landmass was slowly rising, and with Lyell’s enthusiastic
backing read it to the Geological Society of London on 4 January 1837. On the same day, he presented his mammal
and bird specimens to the Zoological Society. The ornithologist John Gould soon revealed that the Galapagos birds
that Darwin had thought a mixture of blackbirds, “gros-beaks” and finches, were, in fact, twelve separate species of finches. On 17 February 1837,
Darwin was elected to the Council of the Geographical Society, and in his presidential address, Lyell presented Owen’s findings on Darwin’s fossils,
stressing geographical continuity of species as supporting his uniformitarian ideas.[46]
On 6 March 1837, Darwin moved to London to be close to this work, and joined the social whirl around
scientists and savants such as Charles Babbage, who thought that God preordained life by natural laws
rather than ad hoc miraculous creations. Darwin lived near his freethinking brother Erasmus, who was part
of this Whig circle and whose close friend the writer Harriet Martineau promoted the ideas of Thomas
Malthus underlying the Whig “Poor Law reforms” aimed at discouraging the poor from breeding beyond
available food supplies. John Herschel’s question on the origin of species was widely discussed. Medical
men even joined Grant in endorsing transmutation of species, but to Darwin’s scientist friends such radical
heresy attacked the divine basis of the social order already under threat from recession and riots.[47]
Gould now revealed that the Galapagos mockingbirds from different islands were separate species, not just
varieties, and the “wrens” were yet another species of finches. Darwin had not kept track of which islands
the finch specimens were from, but found information from the notes of others on the Beagle, including
FitzRoy, who had more carefully recorded their own collections. The zoologist Thomas Bell showed that
the Galápagos tortoises were native to the islands. By mid-March, Darwin was convinced that creatures
arriving in the islands had become altered in some way to form new species on the different islands, and
investigated transmutation while noting his speculations in his “Red Notebook” which he had begun on the
Beagle. In mid-July, he began his secret “B” notebook on transmutation, and on page 36 wrote “I think”
above his first sketch of an evolutionary tree.[48]
Overwork, illness, and marriage
As well as launching into this intensive study of transmutation, Darwin became mired in more work. While
still rewriting his Journal, he took on editing and publishing the expert reports on his collections, and with
Henslow’s help obtained a Treasury grant of £1,000 to sponsor this multi-volume Zoology of the Voyage of
H.M.S. Beagle. He agreed to unrealistic dates for this and for a book on South American Geology
supporting Lyell’s ideas. Darwin finished writing his Journal around 20 June 1837 just as Queen Victoria
Darwin’s first sketch of an evolutionary
came to the throne, but then had its proofs to correct.[49] tree from his First Notebook on
Transmutation of Species (1837)
Darwin’s health suffered from the pressure. On 20 September 1837, he had “palpitations of the heart”. On
doctor’s advice that a month of recuperation was needed, he went to Shrewsbury then on to visit his
Wedgwood relatives at Maer Hall, but found them too eager for tales of his travels to give him much rest. His charming, intelligent, and cultured
cousin Emma Wedgwood, nine months older than Darwin, was nursing his invalid aunt. His uncle Jos pointed out an area of ground where cinders had
disappeared under loam and suggested that this might have been the work of earthworms. This inspired a talk which Darwin gave to the Geological
Society on 1 November, the first demonstration of the role of earthworms in soil formation.[50]
William Whewell pushed Darwin to take on the duties of Secretary of the Geological Society. After first declining this extra work, he accepted the post
in March 1838.[51] Despite the grind of writing and editing the Beagle reports, remarkable progress was made on transmutation. Darwin took every
opportunity to question expert naturalists and, unconventionally, people with practical experience such as farmers and pigeon fanciers.[1][52] Over time
his research drew on information from his relatives and children, the family butler, neighbours, colonists and former shipmates.[53] He included
mankind in his speculations from the outset, and on seeing an ape in the zoo on 28 March 1838 noted its child-like behaviour.[54]
The strain took its toll, and by June he was being laid up for days on end with stomach problems, headaches and heart symptoms.[55] For the rest of his
life, he was repeatedly incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, palpitations, trembling and other symptoms, particularly
during times of stress, such as when attending meetings or dealing with controversy over his theory. The cause of Darwin’s illness was unknown
during his lifetime, and attempts at treatment had little success. Recent attempts at diagnosis have suggested Chagas disease caught from insect bites in
South America, Ménière’s disease, or various psychological illnesses as possible causes, without any conclusive results.[56]
On 23 June 1838, he took a break from the pressure of work and went “geologising” in Scotland. He visited Glen Roy in glorious weather to see the
parallel “roads” cut into the hillsides at three heights. He thought that these were marine raised beaches: they were later shown to have been shorelines
of a proglacial lake.[57]
Fully recuperated, he returned to Shrewsbury in July. Used to jotting down daily notes on animal breeding, he
scrawled rambling thoughts about career and prospects on two scraps of paper, one with columns headed “Marry”
and “Not Marry”. Advantages included “constant companion and a friend in old age ... better than a dog anyhow”,
against points such as “less money for books” and “terrible loss of time.”[58] Having decided in favour, he discussed
it with his father, then went to visit Emma on 29 July 1838. He did not get around to proposing, but against his
father’s advice he mentioned his ideas on transmutation.[59]
Continuing his research in London, Darwin’s wide reading now included “for amusement” the 6th edition of
Malthus’s An Essay on the Principle of Population which calculates from the birth rate that human population could
double every 25 years, but in practice growth is kept in check by death, disease, wars and famine.[1][60] Darwin was
well prepared to see at once that this also applied to de Candolle’s “warring of the species” of plants and the struggle
for existence among wildlife, explaining how numbers of a species kept roughly stable. As species always breed
beyond available resources, favourable variations would make organisms better at surviving and passing the
Charles chose to marry his variations on to their offspring, while unfavourable variations would be lost. This would result in the formation of
cousin, Emma Wedgwood. new species.[61] On 28 September 1838 he noted this insight, describing it as a kind of wedging, forcing adapted
structures into gaps in the economy of nature as weaker structures were thrust out.[1] He now had a theory by which
to work, and over the following months compared farmers picking the best breeding stock to a Malthusian Nature
selecting from variants thrown up by “chance” so that “every part of [every] newly acquired structure is fully practised and perfected”, and thought this
analogy “the most beautiful part of my theory”.[62]
On 11 November, he returned to Maer and proposed to Emma, once more telling her his ideas. She accepted, then in exchanges of loving letters she
showed how she valued his openness, but her upbringing as a very devout Anglican led her to express fears that his lapses of faith could endanger her
hopes to meet in the afterlife.[63] While he was house-hunting in London, bouts of illness continued and Emma wrote urging him to get some rest,
almost prophetically remarking “So don’t be ill any more my dear Charley till I can be with you to nurse you.” He found what they called “Macaw
Cottage” (because of its gaudy interiors) in Gower Street, then moved his “museum” in over Christmas. The marriage was arranged for 24 January
1839, but the Wedgwoods set the date back. On the 24th, Darwin was honoured by being elected as Fellow of the Royal Society.[64]
On 29 January 1839, Darwin and Emma Wedgwood were married at Maer in an Anglican ceremony arranged to suit the Unitarians, then immediately
caught the train to London and their new home.[65]
Preparing the theory of natural selection for publication
For more details on this topic, see Development of Darwin's theory.
Darwin now had the framework of his theory of natural selection “by which to work”,[66] as his “prime hobby”.[67] His research subsequently included

animal husbandry and extensive experiments with plants,[1] investigating many detailed ideas and finding evidence that species were not fixed to
convince sceptical naturalists. For more than a decade this work was in the background to his main occupation, publication of the scientific results of
the Beagle voyage.[68]
When FitzRoy’s Narrative was published in May 1839, Darwin’s Journal and Remarks (The Voyage of the Beagle) as the third volume was such a
success that later that year it was published on its own.[69]
Early in 1842, Darwin sent a letter about his ideas to Lyell, who was dismayed that his ally now denied “seeing a beginning to each crop of species”.
In May, Darwin’s book on coral reefs was published after more than three years of work, and he then wrote a “pencil sketch” of his theory.[70] To
escape the pressures of London, the family moved to rural Down House in November.[71] On 11 January 1844 Darwin mentioned his theorising to the
botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker, writing with melodramatic humour “it is like confessing a murder”.[72][73] To his relief, Hooker replied “There may in
my opinion have been a series of productions on different spots, & also a gradual change of species. I shall be delighted to hear how you think that this
change may have taken place, as no presently conceived opinions satisfy me on the subject.”[74]
By July, Darwin had expanded his “sketch” into a 230-page “Essay”, to be expanded with his research results if he
died prematurely.[75] He was shocked in November to find many of his arguments anticipated in the anonymously
published Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, though it lacked any convincing explanation for transmutation.
The book was amateurish and he scorned its geology and anatomy, but as a best-seller it widened middle-class
interest in transmutation, paving the way for Darwin as well as reminding him of the need to counter all arguments.
[76] Darwin completed his third geological book in 1846, and turned in relief to dissecting and classifying the
barnacles he had collected, using his new ideas of common descent, and the anatomy he had learnt as Grant’s student.
[77] In 1847, Hooker read the “Essay” and sent notes that provided Darwin with the calm critical feedback that he
needed, but would not commit himself and questioned Darwin’s opposition to continuing acts of creation.[78] Darwin’s “Thinking Path”,
2007, Down House grounds.
In an attempt to improve his chronic ill health, Darwin went in 1849 to Dr. James Gully’s Malvern spa and was
surprised to find some benefit from hydrotherapy.[79] Then in 1851 his treasured daughter Annie fell ill, reawakening
his fears that his illness might be hereditary. After a long series of crises, she died and Darwin’s faith in Christianity dwindled away.[80]
In eight years of work on barnacles (Cirripedia), Darwin found “homologies” that supported his theory by showing that slightly changed body parts
could serve different functions to meet new conditions.[81] In 1853 it earned him the Royal Society’s Royal Medal, and it made his reputation as a
biologist.[82] He resumed work on his theory of species in 1854, and in November realised that divergence in the character of descendants could be
explained by them becoming adapted to “diversified places in the economy of nature”.[83]
Publication of the theory of natural selection
For more details on this topic, see Publication of Darwin's theory.
By the start of 1856, Darwin was investigating whether eggs and seeds could survive travel across seawater to spread
species across oceans. Hooker increasingly doubted the traditional view that species were fixed, but their young friend
Thomas Henry Huxley was firmly against evolution. Lyell was intrigued by Darwin’s speculations without realising their extent. When he read a paper
by Alfred Russel Wallace on the Introduction of species, he saw similarities with Darwin’s thoughts and urged him to publish to establish precedence.
Though Darwin saw no threat, he began work on a short paper. Finding answers to difficult questions held him up repeatedly, and he expanded his
plans to a “big book on species” titled Natural Selection. He continued his researches, obtaining information and specimens from naturalists worldwide
including Wallace who was working in Borneo. In December 1857, Darwin received a letter from Wallace asking if the book would examine human
origins. He responded that he would avoid that subject, “so surrounded with prejudices”, while encouraging Wallace’s theorising and adding that “I go
much further than you.”[84]
Darwin’s book was half way when, on 18 June 1858, he received a paper from Wallace describing natural selection.
Shocked that he had been “forestalled”, Darwin sent it on to Lyell, as requested, and, though Wallace had not asked for
publication, offered to send it to any journal that Wallace chose. His family was in crisis with children in the village dying
of scarlet fever, and he put matters in the hands of Lyell and Hooker. They agreed on a joint presentation at the Linnean
Society on 1 July of On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by
Natural Means of Selection; however, Darwin’s baby son died of the scarlet fever and he was too distraught to attend.[85]
There was little immediate attention to this announcement of the theory; the president of the Linnean remarked in May
1859 that the year had not been marked by any revolutionary discoveries.[86] Later, Darwin could only recall one review;
Professor Haughton of Dublin claimed that “all that was new in them was false, and what was true was old.”[87] Darwin
struggled for thirteen months to produce an abstract of his “big book”, suffering from ill health but getting constant
encouragement from his scientific friends. Lyell arranged to have it published by John Murray.[88]
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
(usually abbreviated to On the Origin of Species) proved unexpectedly popular, with the entire stock of 1,250 copies Darwin was forced into
swift publication of his
oversubscribed when it went on sale to booksellers on 22 November 1859.[89] In the book, Darwin set out “one long theory of natural
argument” of detailed observations, inferences and consideration of anticipated objections.[90] His only allusion to human selection.
evolution was the understatement that “light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history”.[91] His theory is simply
stated in the introduction:
As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for
existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying
conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety
will tend to propagate its new and modified form.[92]
He put a strong case for common descent, but avoided the then controversial term “evolution”, and at the end of the book concluded that;
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this
planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have
been, and are being, evolved.[93]
Reaction to the publication
For more details on this topic, see Reaction to Darwin's theory.
There was wide public interest in Charles Darwin’s book and a controversy which he monitored closely, keeping press
cuttings of reviews, articles, satires, parodies and caricatures.[95] Darwin had carefully said no more than "Light will be
thrown on the origin of man",[96] but the first review claimed it made a creed of the “men from monkeys” idea already
controversial from Vestiges.[97] Amongst favourable responses Huxley’s reviews included swipes at Richard Owen, leader
of the scientific establishment Huxley was trying to overthrow, and when Owen's review appeared it joined others
condemning the book.[98]
The Church of England scientific establishment, including Darwin’s old Cambridge tutors Sedgwick and Henslow, reacted As "Darwinism" became
against the book, though it was well received by a younger generation of professional naturalists. In 1860, the publication widely accepted in the
1870s, amusing
of Essays and Reviews by seven liberal Anglican theologians diverted clerical attention away from Darwin. An cariacatures of him with
explanation of higher criticism and other heresies, it included the argument that miracles broke God’s laws, so belief in an ape or monkey body
them was atheistic—and praise for “Mr Darwin’s masterly volume [supporting] the grand principle of the self-evolving symbolised evolution. [94]
powers of nature”.[99]
The most famous confrontation took place at the public 1860 Oxford evolution debate during a meeting of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science. Professor John William Draper delivered a long lecture about Darwin and social progress, then Samuel Wilberforce, the
Bishop of Oxford, argued against Darwin. In the ensuing debate Joseph Hooker argued strongly for Darwin and Thomas Huxley established himself as
“Darwin’s bulldog” – the fiercest defender of evolutionary theory on the Victorian stage. Both sides came away feeling victorious, but Huxley went on
to make much of his claim that on being asked by Wilberforce whether he was descended from monkeys on his grandfather’s side or his grandmother’s
side, Huxley muttered: “The Lord has delivered him into my hands” and replied that he “would rather be descended from an ape than from a cultivated
man who used his gifts of culture and eloquence in the service of prejudice and falsehood”.[100]
Darwin’s illness kept him away from the public debates, though he read eagerly about them and mustered support
through correspondence. Asa Gray persuaded a publisher in the United States to pay royalties, and Darwin imported
and distributed Gray’s pamphlet Natural Selection is not inconsistent with Natural Theology.[101] In Britain, friends
including Hooker[102] and Lyell[103] took part in the scientific debates which Huxley pugnaciously led to overturn the
dominance of clergymen and aristocratic amateurs under Owen in favour of a new generation of professional
scientists. Owen made the mistake of (wrongly) claiming certain anatomical differences between ape and human
brains, and accusing Huxley of advocating “Ape Origin of Man”. Huxley gladly did just that, and his campaign over
two years was devastatingly successful in ousting Owen and the “old guard”.[104] Darwin’s friends formed The X
Club and helped to gain him the honour of the Royal Society’s Copley Medal in 1864.[103]
Broader public interest had already been stimulated by Vestiges, and the Origin of Species was translated into many Down House Entrance.

languages and went through numerous reprints, becoming a staple scientific text accessible both to a newly curious
middle class and to “working men” who flocked to Huxley’s lectures.[105] Darwin’s theory also resonated with
various movements at the time[III] and became a key fixture of popular culture.[IV]
Descent of Man, sexual selection, and botany
More detailed articles cover Darwin’s life from Orchids to Variation, from Descent of Man to Emotions and from Insectivorous plants to Worms
Despite repeated bouts of illness during the last twenty-two years of his life, Darwin pressed on with his work. He
had published an abstract of his theory, but more controversial aspects of his “big book” were still incomplete,
including explicit evidence of humankind’s descent from earlier animals, and exploration of possible causes
underlying the development of society and of human mental abilities. He had yet to explain features with no
obvious utility other than decorative beauty. His experiments, research and writing continued.
When Darwin’s daughter fell ill, he set aside his experiments with seedlings and domestic animals to accompany
her to a seaside resort where he became interested in wild orchids. This developed into an innovative study of how
their beautiful flowers served to control insect pollination and ensure cross fertilisation. As with the barnacles,
homologous parts served different functions in different species. Back at home, he lay on his sickbed in a room
filled with experiments on climbing plants. A reverent Ernst Haeckel who had spread a version of Darwinismus in
Germany visited him.[106] Wallace remained supportive, though he increasingly turned to Spiritualism.[107]
Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication, the first part of Darwin’s planned “big book” (expanding
on his “abstract” published as The Origin of Species), grew to two huge volumes, forcing him to leave out human Julia Margaret Cameron’s portrait
evolution and sexual selection, and sold briskly despite its size.[108] A further book of evidence, dealing with of Darwin
natural selection in the same style, was largely written, but remained unpublished until transcribed in 1975.[109]
The question of human evolution had been taken up by his supporters (and detractors) shortly after the publication of
The Origin of Species,[110] but Darwin’s own contribution to the subject came more than ten years later with the two-
volume The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex published in 1871. In the second volume, Darwin
introduced in full his concept of sexual selection to explain the evolution of human culture, the differences between
the human sexes, and the differentiation of human races, as well as the beautiful (and seemingly non-adaptive)
plumage of birds.[111] A year later Darwin published his last major work, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and
Animals, which focused on the evolution of human psychology and its continuity with the behaviour of animals. He
developed his ideas that the human mind and cultures were developed by natural and sexual selection,[112] an
approach which has been revived in the last three decades with the emergence of evolutionary psychology.[113] As he
concluded in Descent of Man, Darwin felt that, despite all of humankind’s “noble qualities” and “exalted powers”:
“Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.”[114]
Punch's almanac for 1882,
published shortly before
His evolution-related experiments and investigations culminated in books on the movement of climbing plants,
Darwin’s death, depicts him insectivorous plants, the effects of cross and self fertilisation of plants, different forms of flowers on plants of the
amidst evolution from chaos to same species, and The Power of Movement in Plants. In his last book, he returned to the effect earthworms have on
Victorian gentleman with the soil formation.
title Man Is But A Worm.
He died in Downe, Kent, England, on 19 April 1882. He had expected to be buried in St Mary’s churchyard at
Downe, but at the request of Darwin’s colleagues, William Spottiswoode (President of the Royal Society) arranged for Darwin to be given a state
funeral and buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.[115]
Darwin’s children
The Darwins had ten children: two died in infancy, and Annie's death at the
age of ten had a devastating effect on her parents. Charles was a devoted
father and uncommonly attentive to his children.[3] Whenever they fell ill he
feared that they might have inherited weaknesses from inbreeding due to the
close family ties he shared with his wife and cousin, Emma Wedgwood. He
examined this topic in his writings, contrasting it with the advantages of
crossing amongst many organisms.[116] Despite his fears, most of the
surviving children went on to have distinguished careers as notable members
of the prominent Darwin-Wedgwood family.[117]
Of his surviving children, George, Francis and Horace became Fellows of the
Royal Society, distinguished as astronomer,[118] botanist and civil engineer,
respectively.[119] His son Leonard, on the other hand, went on to be a soldier,
politician, economist, eugenicist and mentor of the statistician and
evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher.[120]
Religious views
For more details on this topic, see Charles Darwin's views on religion.
Though Charles Darwin’s family background was Nonconformist, and his
father, grandfather and brother were Freethinkers,[121] at first he did not doubt Darwin and his eldest son William Erasmus Darwin in 1842.
the literal truth of the Bible.[122] He attended a Church of England school, Darwin’s Children
then at Cambridge studied Anglican theology to become a clergyman.[123] He
was convinced by William Paley’s teleological argument that design in nature William Erasmus Darwin (27 December 1839–1914)
proved the existence of God,[124] but during the Beagle voyage he questioned, Anne Elizabeth Darwin (2 March 1841–22 April 1851)

for example, why deep-ocean plankton had been created with so much beauty Mary Eleanor Darwin (23 September 1842–16 October 1842)
for little purpose as no one could see them,[125] or the problem of evil of how Henrietta Emma “Etty” Darwin (25 September 1843–1929)
the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs could be George Howard Darwin (9 July 1845–7 December 1912)
reconciled with Paley’s vision of beneficent design.[126] He was still quite Elizabeth “Bessy” Darwin (8 July 1847–1926)
orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality, but was
Francis Darwin (16 August 1848–19 September 1925)
critical of the history in the Old Testament.[127]
Leonard Darwin (15 January 1850–26 March 1943)
When investigating transmutation of species Horace Darwin (13 May 1851–29 September 1928)
he knew that his naturalist friends thought Charles Waring Darwin (6 December 1856–28 June 1858)
this a bestial heresy undermining miraculous
justifications for the social order, the kind of radical argument then being used by Dissenters and atheists to attack the
Church of England’s privileged position as the established church.[128] Though Darwin wrote of religion as a tribal
survival strategy, he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[129] His belief dwindled, and his grief at the
death of his daughter Annie in 1851 made him more certain in his scepticism.[130] He continued to help the local
church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.[131] He now thought
it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God.[132] When
asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a
God, and that generally “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”[133]
The “Lady Hope Story”, published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed.
The claims were refuted by Darwin’s children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[134] His daughter,
The 1851 death of Darwin’s Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity.[135] His last words were, in fact,
daughter, Annie, marked the directed at Emma: “Remember what a good wife you have been.”[136]
end of his dwindling faith in
Christianity.
Political interpretations
Darwin’s theories and writings, combined with Gregor Mendel’s genetics (the “modern synthesis”), form the basis of
all modern biology.[137] However, Darwin’s fame and popularity led to his name being associated with ideas and
movements which at times had only an indirect relation to his writings, and sometimes went directly against his express comments.
Eugenics
For more details on this topic, see Eugenics.
Following Darwin’s publication of the Origin, his cousin, Francis Galton, applied the concepts to human society, starting in 1865 with ideas to
promote “hereditary improvement” which he elaborated at length in 1869.[138] In The Descent of Man Darwin agreed that Galton had demonstrated the
probability that “talent” and “genius” in humans was inherited, but dismissed the social changes Galton proposed as too utopian.[139] Neither Galton
nor Darwin supported government intervention and thought that, at most, heredity should be taken into consideration by people seeking potential
mates.[140] In 1883, after Darwin’s death, Galton began calling his social philosophy Eugenics.[141] In the 20th century, eugenics movements gained
popularity in a number of countries and became associated with reproduction control programmes such as compulsory sterilisation laws,[142] then were
stigmatised after their usage in the rhetoric of Nazi Germany in its goals of genetic “purity”.[V]
Social Darwinism
For more details on this topic, see Social Darwinism.
The ideas of Thomas Malthus and Herbert Spencer which applied ideas of evolution and “survival of the fittest” to
societies, nations and businesses became popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, and were used to defend
various, sometimes contradictory, ideological perspectives including laissez-faire economics,[143] colonialism,[144]
racism and imperialism.[144] The term “Social Darwinism” originated around the 1890s, but became popular as a
derogatory term in the 1940s with Richard Hofstadter’s critique of laissez-faire conservatism.[145] The concepts
predate Darwin’s publication of the Origin in 1859:[144][146] Malthus died in 1834[147] and Spencer published his
books on economics in 1851 and on evolution in 1855.[148] Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not
simply be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature,[149] and that sympathy should be extended to all
races and nations.[150][VI]
Commemoration
Caricature from 1871 Vanity During Darwin’s lifetime, many species and geographical features were given his name.
Fair An expanse of water adjoining the Beagle Channel was named Darwin Sound by Robert
FitzRoy after Darwin’s prompt action, along with two or three of the men, saved them
from being marooned on a nearby shore when a collapsing glacier caused a large wave
that would have swept away their boats,[151] and the nearby Mount Darwin in the Andes was named in celebration of
Darwin’s 25th birthday.[152] When the Beagle was surveying Australia in 1839, Darwin’s friend John Lort Stokes
sighted a natural harbour which the ship’s captain Wickham named Port Darwin.[153] The settlement of Palmerston
founded there in 1869 was officially renamed Darwin in 1911. It became the capital city of Australia’s Northern
Territory,[153] which also boasts Charles Darwin University[154] and Charles Darwin National Park.[155] Darwin
College, Cambridge, founded in 1964, was named in honour of the Darwin family, partially because they owned some of
the land it was on.[156]
The 14 species of finches he collected in the Galápagos Islands are affectionately named “Darwin’s finches” in honour of
Darwin in 1880, still
his legacy.[157] In 1992, Darwin was ranked #16 on Michael H. Hart’s list of the most influential figures in history.[158]
working on his
Darwin came fourth in the 100 Greatest Britons poll sponsored by the BBC and voted for by the public.[159] In 2000 contributions to
Darwin’s image appeared on the Bank of England ten pound note, replacing Charles Dickens. His impressive, luxuriant evolutionary thought that
beard (which was reportedly difficult to forge) was said to be a contributory factor to the bank’s choice.[160] had had an enormous
effect on many fields of
As a humorous celebration of evolution, the annual Darwin Award is bestowed on individuals who “improve our gene science.
pool by removing themselves from it.”[161]
Numerous biographies of Darwin have been written, and the 1980 biographical novel The Origin by Irving Stone gives a closely researched fictional
account of Darwin’s life from the age of 22 onwards.
Darwin has been the subject of many exhibitions, including the “Darwin” exhibition, which opened at the American
Museum of Natural History in New York City in 2006, traveled to the Field Museum in Chicago, is currently being
hosted by The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto and will open in London in late 2009.[162] The exhibit is part of a
series of events celebrating the bicentenary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of the
Origin of Species. Other celebrations include a festival at the University of Cambridge in July 2009, and
"Darwin200," a series of events hosted by various British organizations under the auspices of London's Natural
History Museum.
Entrance to the exhibition at
Royal Ontario Museum.
Works
For more details on this topic, see List of works by Charles Darwin.
Darwin was a prolific author, and even without publication of his works on evolution would have had a considerable reputation as the author of The
Voyage of the Beagle, as a geologist who had published extensively on South America and had solved the puzzle of the formation of coral atolls, and
as a biologist who had published the definitive work on barnacles. While The Origin of Species dominates perceptions of his work, The Descent of
Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex and The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals had considerable impact, and his books on plants including
The Power of Movement in Plants were innovative studies of great importance, as was his final work on The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through
the Action of Worms.[163]
See also
 Darwin Among the Machines
 Darwin's Frog
 Down House
 Harriet
 List of coupled cousins
 List of independent discoveries
 Patrick Matthew
 Randal Keynes
Notes
I. ^ Darwin was eminent as a naturalist, geologist, biologist, and author; after working as a physician’s assistant and two years as a medical student was educated as a
clergyman; and was trained in taxidermy.
II. ^ Robert FitzRoy was to become known after the voyage for biblical literalism, but at this time he had considerable interest in Lyell’s ideas, and they met before the
voyage when Lyell asked for observations to be made in South America. FitzRoy’s diary during the ascent of the River Santa Cruz in Patagonia recorded his opinion
that the plains were raised beaches, but on return, newly married to a very religious lady, he recanted these ideas.[165]
III. ^ See, for example, WILLA volume 4, Charlotte Perkins Gilman and the Feminization of Education by Deborah M. De Simone: “Gilman shared many basic

educational ideas with the generation of thinkers who matured during the period of “intellectual chaos” caused by Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Marked by the belief
that individuals can direct human and social evolution, many progressives came to view education as the panacea for advancing social progress and for solving such
problems as urbanisation, poverty, or immigration.”
IV. ^ See, for example, the song “A lady fair of lineage high” from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Princess Ida, which describes the descent of man (but not woman!) from

apes.
V. ^ The Nazi eugenics policies are discussed in a number of sources. A few of the more definitive ones are Robert Proctor, Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) and Dieter Kuntz, ed., Deadly medicine: creating the master race (Washington, D.C.: United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum, 2004) (online exhibit). On the development of the racial hygiene movement before National Socialism, see Paul Weindling, Health, race and
German politics between national unification and Nazism, 1870–1945 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
VI. ^ See Darwin 1887, p. 23:
Early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, FitzRoy defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who
had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered “No.” I then asked him,
perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? This made him excessively angry, and he
said that as I doubted his word we could not live any longer together.
See also Darwin 1845, pp. 207–208 on the Fuegians:
It seems yet wonderful to me, when I think over all his many good qualities, that he should have been of the same race, and doubtless partaken of the same
character, with the miserable, degraded savages whom we first met here.
Citations
1. ^ a b c d e f g h van Wyhe 2006.
2. ^ The Complete Works of Darwin Online - Biography. darwin-online.org.uk. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
Dobzhansky 1973
3. ^ a b Leff 2000.
4. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 210, 263–274, 284–285.
5. ^ van Wyhe 2007, p. 184, 187
6. ^ Darwin - At last. American Museum of Natural History. Retrieved on 2007-03-21.
7. ^ Freeman 1977
8. ^ AboutDarwin.com - Darwin's Burial (2008-02-10). Retrieved on 2008-03-02.
9. ^ The Mount House, Shrewsbury, England (Charles Darwin), Baruch College - Darwin and Darwinism. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
10. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 12–15.
11. ^ Darwin 1871, p 232.
12. ^ Browne 1995, p. 72.
13. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 33–40.
14. ^ Browne 1995, p. 82.
15. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 42–43.
16. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 47–48
17. ^ Darwin 1887, pp. 10, 14, 15, 17.
18. ^ Darwin 1887, p. 18
19. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 80–81
20. ^ Darwin 1887, p. 19.
21. ^ Darwin 1887, p. 16
22. ^ von Sydow 2005
23. ^ Browne 1995, p. 97
24. ^ Browne 1995, pp. 133–141.
25. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 94–97.
26. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 189–192, 198.
27. ^ Browne 1995, pp. 177–178.
28. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 142, 157.
29. ^ Browne 1995, pp. 183–190
30. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 160–168, 182.
Darwin 1887, p. 260.
Darwin 1958, p 98–99
31. ^ Browne 1995, p. 224
Darwin 1835, p. 7
Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 210
32. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 131, 159.
33. ^ Eldredge 2006
34. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 145, 170–172.
35. ^ Darwin 1839, p. 526.
36. ^ Keynes 2000
Eldredge 2006
37. ^ Darwin 1859, p. 1
38. ^ Darwin 1845, pp. 207–208.
39. ^ Browne 1995, p. 244–250
40. ^ Browne 1995, p. 336
41. ^ Darwin 1835, editorial introduction.
42. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 195–198.
43. ^ Owen 1840, No. 1 p 16 No. 4 p 106
Eldredge 2006.
44. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 201–205.
Browne 1995, p. 349–350.
45. ^ Browne 1995, p. 345–347.
46. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 207–210.
Sulloway 1982, p. 57
47. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 196–201, 212–221.
48. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 220–229.
Eldredge 2006.
49. ^ Browne 1995, pp. 367–369.
50. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 233–234.
Arrhenius 1921, pp. 255–257
51. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 233–236.
52. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 241–244, 426.
53. ^ Browne 1995, p. xii
54. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 241–244.
55. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 252.
56. ^ Gordon 1999.
57. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 254.
Browne 1995, pp. 377–378.
Darwin 1887, p. 26
58. ^ Darwin 1958, pp. 232–233
59. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 256–259.
60. ^ Malthus 1826
Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 264–265.
Huxley 1897, pp. 162–3
61. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 264–265.
Browne 1995, p. 385–388
Darwin 1842, p. 7
Darwin 1887, p. 34
62. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 273–274.
63. ^ Browne 1995, p. 391–398.
Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 269–271.
64. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 272–279.
65. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 279.
66. ^ Darwin 1958, p. 120.
67. ^ Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 419 — Darwin, C. R. to Fox, W. D., [15 June 1838]. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
68. ^ van Wyhe 2007, p. 186–187.
69. ^ Darwin 1887, p. 32.
70. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 292.
71. ^ Darwin 1887, p. 31.
72. ^ van Wyhe 2007, p. 186–187.
73. ^ Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 729 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., [11 January 1844]. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
74. ^ Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 734 — Hooker, J. D. to Darwin, C. R., 29 January 1844. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
75. ^ van Wyhe 2007, p. 188.
76. ^ Browne 1995, p. 461-465.
77. ^ van Wyhe 2007, p. 190.
78. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 320–323, 339–348.
79. ^ Darwin 1887, p. 32
80. ^ Browne 1995, p. 503.
81. ^ Darwin 1887, pp. 32,33.
82. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 383–387.
83. ^ Darwin 1887, pp. 33, 34
Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 419–420.
84. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 412–441, 462–463.
85. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 466–470.
86. ^ Browne 2002, p. 40–42
87. ^ Darwin 1958, p. 122.
88. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 374–474.
89. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 477.
90. ^ Darwin 1859, p 459
91. ^ Darwin 1859, p 490
92. ^ Darwin 1859, p 5
93. ^ Darwin 1859, p 492
94. ^ Browne 2002, p. 376-379
95. ^ Browne 2002, p. 103–104, 379
96. ^ {{harvnb|Darwin|1859|p=488.
97. ^ Browne 2002, p. 87,
Leifchild 1859
98. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 477–491.
99. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 487–488, 500.
100. ^ Lucas 1979.
Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 493–499.
101. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 492, 502.
Miles 2001.
102. ^ Scott 2006.
103. ^ a b Bartholomew 1976
104. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 503–505.
105. ^ Huxley 1863
106. ^ Darwin Correspondence Project: Introduction to the Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Volume 14. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
107. ^ Smith 1999.
108. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 550.
109. ^ Freeman 1977, pp. 122–7
110. ^ See list of books at Nineteenth Century Books on Evolution and Creation: scientific and religious debates in the age of Darwin. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
111. ^ Darwin 1871
Moore & Desmond 2004
112. ^ Darwin 1872
113. ^ Ghiselin 1973
114. ^ Darwin 1871, p. 405
115. ^ Browne 2002, pp. 495–497.
116. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 447.
117. ^ The Children of Charles & Emma Darwin. AboutDarwin.com. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
118. ^ O'Connor, John J. & Robertson, Edmund F., “Charles Darwin”, MacTutor History of Mathematics archive
119. ^ Royal Society Fellows’ Directory (PDF). Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
120. ^ Edwards, A. W. F. 2004. Darwin, Leonard (1850–1943). In: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press.
121. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 9, 12.
122. ^ Darwin 1887, p. 15
123. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 12–15, 80–81.
124. ^ Darwin 1887, p. 16.
125. ^ Keynes 2001, p. 21-22
126. ^ Desmond 2004
Lamoureux 2004, p. 5
Darwin 1887, p. 312.
127. ^ Darwin 1958, p. 87.
128. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 217–219, 221
129. ^ Moore 2006
130. ^ Browne 1995, p. 503.
131. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 387, 402
132. ^ Darwin 1887, p. 64.
133. ^ Darwin 1887, p. 304.
134. ^ Padian n.d..
135. ^ Yates 2003
136. ^ Browne 2002, p. 495.
137. ^ Bowler 1989
Dobzhansky 1973
138. ^ Galton 1865 and Galton 1869
139. ^ Darwin 1871, ch. 5
140. ^ Galton 1869 p. 1 and Darwin 1871, ch. 5
141. ^ Galton 1883 p 17, fn1.
142. ^ Reilly 1991.
143. ^ Kotzin 2004
144. ^ a b c Social Darwinism. ThinkQuest.org. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
145. ^ Paul 2003
146. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 477.
Wilkins 1997.
147. ^ Anonymous 1935
148. ^ Sweet 2004
149. ^ Bannister 1989
150. ^ Browne 1995, p. 244–246
151. ^ FitzRoy 1839, pp. 216–8
152. ^ “Darwin’s Timeline”. AboutDarwin.com Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
153. ^ a b Territory origins. Northern Territory Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Australia. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
154. ^ Charles Darwin University Homepage.. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
155. ^ Charles Darwin National Park. Northern Territory, Australia Government. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
156. ^ Darwin College:About Darwin. Darwin College, Cambridge University website. Retrieved on 2006-12-10.
157. ^ Rothman 2000.
158. ^ Hart 2000, pp. 82ff.
159. ^ What’s on? BBC Great Britons. National Portrait Gallery. Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
160. ^ “How to join the noteworthy”. BBC News (7 November 2000). Retrieved on 2006-12-15.
161. ^ Darwin Awards. DarwinAwards.com. Retrieved on 2007-12-11.
162. ^ Darwin: A Life’s Work. American Museum of Natural History, Retrieved on 2006-12-01.
163. ^ Balfour 1882
van Wyhe 2006
Anonymous 1882
164. ^ Brummitt, R. K.; C. E. Powell (1992). Authors of Plant Names. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. ISBN 1-84246-085-4.
165. ^ Browne 1995, pp. 186, 414.
References
 Anonymous (1882), "Obituary: Death Of Chas. Darwin", The New York Times (no. April 21, 1882),
<http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0212.html> Retrieved on 2007-02-21
 Anonymous (1935), "Obituary: Thomas Robert Malthus: Died 29 December 1834", Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, (no. Vol. 98, No. 2):
2): 376–379., <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0952-8385%281935%2998%3A2%3C376%3AOTRMD2%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6> Retrieved on 2006-
12-15
 Anonymous (June 1960), "Darwin as a Traveller", The Geographical Journal (no. Vol. 126, No. 2.): 129–136, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?
sici=0016-7398%28196006%29126%3A2%3C129%3ADAAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Altholz, Josef L. (1976), "The Warfare of Conscience with Theology", The Mind and Art of Victorian England, American Public Media,
<http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/altholz/a2.html> Retrieved on 2007-11-06
 Arrhenius, O. (October 1921), "Influence of Soil Reaction on Earthworms", Ecology (no. Vol. 2, No. 4): 255–257, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?
sici=0012-9658%28192110%292%3A4%3C255%3AIOSROE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Balfour, J. B. (11 May 1882), "Obituary Notice of Charles Robert Darwin", Transactions & Proceedings of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh
(no. 14): 284–298 Retrieved on 2007-02-21
 Bannister, Robert C. (1989), Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought., Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
ISBN 0-87722-566-4
 Bartholomew, M. J. (1976), "The Award of the Copley Medal to Charles Darwin", Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (no. Vol.
30, No. 2 (January 1976)): 209–218, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0035-9149(197601)30%3A2%3C209%3ATAOTCM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6>
(Includes Lyell’s speech at the award ceremony which was his first public affiliation with Darwin’s theory.) Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Bowler, Peter J. (1989), The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0-485-11375-9
 Browne, E. Janet (1995), Charles Darwin: vol. 1 Voyaging, London: Jonathan Cape, ISBN 1-84413-314-1
 Browne, E. Janet (2002), Charles Darwin: vol. 2 The Power of Place, London: Jonathan Cape, ISBN 0-7126-6837-3
 Darwin, Charles (1835), Extracts from letters to Professor Henslow. Cambridge, [printed by the Cambridge University Press for private
distribution], <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Darwin, Charles (1839), Journal and Remarks (The Voyage of the Beagle), London: Henry Colburn, <http://darwin-
online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F20&viewtype=text&pageseq=1> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Darwin, Charles (1842 (published 1909)), "Pencil Sketch of 1842", in Darwin, Francis, The foundations of The origin of species: Two essays
written in 1842 and 1844., Cambridge University Press, <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?
itemID=F1556&viewtype=text&pageseq=1> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Darwin, Charles (1845), Journal of Researches (The Voyage of the Beagle) (Second ed.), London: John Murray, <http://darwin-
 Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Life, London: John Murray, <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1> (The Origin of Species)
Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Darwin, Charles (1868), The variation of animals and plants under domestication, London: John Murray, <http://darwin-
online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F880.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Darwin, Charles (1871), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, London: John Murray, <http://darwin-
online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1> (The Descent of Man) Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Darwin, Charles (1872), The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, London: John Murray, <http://darwin-
 Darwin, Charles (1887), Darwin, F, ed., The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter., London: John Murray,
<http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=39003&pageno=1> (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin) Retrieved on 2006-12-
15
 Darwin, Charles (1958), Barlow, N, ed., The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and
with appendix and notes by his grand-daughter Nora Barlow., London: Collins, <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?
itemID=F1497&viewtype=text&pageseq=1> (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin) Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Desmond, Adrian J. (2004), "Darwin", Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 DVD
 Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN 0-7181-3430-3
 Dobzhansky, Theodosius (March 1973), "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", The American Biology Teacher
35: 125–129, <http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Eldredge, Niles (2006), "Confessions of a Darwinist", The Virginia Quarterly Review (no. Spring 2006): 32–53,
<http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2006/spring/eldredge-confessions-darwinist/> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 FitzRoy, Robert (1839), Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle, Volume II, Henry Colburn, <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?
itemID=F10.2&viewtype=text&pageseq=1> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Freeman, R. B. (1977), The Works of Charles Darwin: An Annotated Bibliographical Handlist (Second ed.), Wm Dawson & Sons Ltd,
<http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Galton, Francis (1865), "Hereditary talent and character", Macmillan’s Magazine (no. 12): 157–166 and 318–327,
<http://www.mugu.com/galton/essays/1860-1869/galton-1865-hereditary-talent.pdf> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Galton, Francis (1869), Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences, Macmillan,
<http://www.mugu.com/galton/books/hereditary-genius/> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Galton, Francis (1883), Inquiries into human faculty and its development, Macmillan, <http://www.mugu.com/galton/books/human-faculty/>
Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Ghiselin, Michael T. (1973), "Darwin and Evolutionary Psychology", Science 179: 964–968,
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/179/4077/964> Access required.
 Gordon, Robert & Deborah Thomas (20 March-21 March 1999), "Circumnavigating Darwin", Darwin Undisciplined Conference, Sydney.,
<http://www.robertgordon.net/papers/four.html> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Hart, Michael (2000), The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, Citadel
 Huxley, Thomas (1863), Six Lectures to Working Men “On Our Knowledge of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature” (Republished
in Volume II of his Collected Essays, Darwiniana), <http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE2/Phen.html> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Huxley, Thomas (1897), Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays, New York, D. Appleton and Company,
<http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/index.html> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Keynes, Richard (ed.) (2000), "June – August 1836", Charles Darwin’s zoology notes & specimen lists from H.M.S. Beagle., Cambridge
University Press Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Keynes, Richard (ed.) (2001), "January 1832", Beagle Diary, Cambridge University Press Retrieved on 2008-05-08
 Kotzin, Daniel (2004), Point-Counterpoint: Social Darwinism, Columbia American History Online, <http://caho-
test.cc.columbia.edu/pcp/14008.html>
 Lamoureux, Denis O. (March 2004), "Theological Insights from Charles Darwin", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56 (1): 2–12,
<http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Leff, David (2000), About Charles Darwin, <http://www.aboutdarwin.com/darwin/WhoWas.html> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Leifchild (1859), "Review of `Origin'", Athenaeum (no. 1673, November 19, 1859), <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?
viewtype=image&itemID=CUL-DAR226.1.8&pageseq=1> Retrieved on 2008-06-15
 Lucas, J. R. (1979), "Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter", The Historical Journal 22 (2): 313–330,
<http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/legend.html> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Malthus, Thomas Robert (1826), An Essay on the Principle of Population: A View of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; with an
Inquiry into Our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal or Mitigation of the Evils which It Occasions (Sixth ed.), John Murray,
<http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPlong.html> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Miles, Sara Joan (2001), "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53: 196–
201, <http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Moore, James & Adrian Desmond (2004), “Introduction”, in Darwin’s The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, London: Penguin
Classics
 Moore, James (2006), "Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin", Speaking of Faith (Radio Program), American Public Media,
<http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Moore, James (2006), Darwin — A 'Devil’s Chaplain'?, American Public Media,
<http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/moore-devilschaplain.pdf> Retrieved on 2007-11-08
 Owen, Richard (1840), Darwin, C. R., ed., The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle., Fossil Mammalia Part 1, Smith Elder and Co
 Padian, Kevin (n.d.), The Darwin Legend, National Center for Science Education,
<http://web.archive.org/web/19980119234102/natcenscied.org/PADREV.HTM> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Paul, Diane B. (2003), "Darwin, social Darwinism and eugenics", in Hodge, Jonathan and Radick, Gregory, The Cambridge Companion to
Darwin, Cambridge University Press, 214–239, ISBN 0-521-77730-5
 Reilly, Philip (1991), The surgical solution: a history of involuntary sterilization in the United States, Johns Hopkins University Press
 Rothman, Robert (2000), Darwin’s finches, <http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Scott, Michon (2006), Joseph Hooker, <http://www.strangescience.net/jhooker.htm> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Smith, Charles H. (1999), Alfred Russel Wallace on Spiritualism, Man, and Evolution: An Analytical Essay,
<http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/essays/ARWPAMPH.htm> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Sulloway, Frank J. (1982), "The Beagle collections of Darwin’s finches (Geospizinae)", Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History)
Historical Series 43, No. 2: pp 49–94, The British Museum, <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?
itemID=A86&viewtype=image&pageseq=1> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 Sweet, William (2004), Herbert Spencer, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm> Retrieved on 2006-12-
15
 Wilkins, John S. (1997), Evolution and Philosophy: Does evolution make might right?, TalkOrigins,
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html> Retrieved on 2006-12-15
 van Wyhe, John (2006), Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist: A biographical sketch, <http://darwin-online.org.uk/darwin.html> Retrieved on
2006-12-15
 van Wyhe, John (27 March 2007), “Mind the gap: Did Darwin avoid publishing his theory for many years?”, Notes and Records of the Royal
Society 61: 177-205, doi:10.1098/rsnr.2006.0171, <http://darwin-
online.org.uk/people/van_Wyhe_2007_Mind_the_gap_did_Darwin_avoid_publishing_his_theory.pdf>. Retrieved on 7 February 2008.
 von Sydow, Momme (2005), "Darwin – A Christian Undermining Christianity? On Self-Undermining Dynamics of Ideas Between Belief and
Science (pp. 141-156)", in David M. Knight, Matthew D. Eddy, Science and Beliefs: From Natural Philosophy to Natural Science, 1700–1900,
Ashgate, 141–156, ISBN 0-7546-3996-7 Retrieved on 2007-09-10
 Yates, Simon (2003), The Lady Hope Story: A Widespread Falsehood, TalkOrigins, <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html> Retrieved on
2006-12-15
External links
 The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online; free, includes items not in public domain
 Works by Charles Darwin at Project Gutenberg; public domain
 A Pictorial Biography of Charles Darwin
 Darwin Correspondence Project Text and notes for most of his letters
 The Darwin Digital Library of Evolution
 Institut Charles Darwin International
 Twelve different portraits of Charles Darwin, National Portrait Gallery, U.K.
 Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist
 Listing of the significant places in Shrewsbury relevant to Darwin’s early life.
 Digitized titles by Charles Darwin in Botanicus.org
 Charles Darwin at the Open Directory Project
 Free LibriVox Audiobook: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
 Darwin Today - a joint initiative of Research Councils UK aimed at educating the public about evolution
 Works by or about Charles Darwin in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin"
Categories: Botanists with author abbreviations | 1809 births | 1882 deaths | Charles Darwin | English geologists | English naturalists | Evolutionary
biologists | Carcinologists | Coleopterists | Ethologists | English travel writers | Fellows of the Royal Entomological Society of London | Fellows of the
Royal Society | Fellows of the Zoological Society of London | Fellows of the Leopoldina | Recipients of the Pour le Mérite (civil class) | Old Salopians
| Alumni of the University of Edinburgh | Alumni of Christ's College, Cambridge | English agnostics | English Anglicans | Darwin-Wedgwood family |
People from Shrewsbury | Burials at Westminster Abbey | Gentleman scientists | English sceptics
Hidden categories: Semi-protected | Featured articles
Chris Stringer
Chris Stringer (born 1947) is a British anthropologist and one of the leading proponents of the recent single-origin hypothesis or "Out of Africa"
theory, which hypothesizes that modern humans originated in Africa over 100,000 years ago and replaced the world's archaic human species, such as
Homo erectus and Neanderthals, after migrating from Africa to the non-African world within the last 50,000 to 100,000 years. He is a Research Leader
in Human Origins at the Natural History Museum. He studied anthropology at University College London[1] and holds a PhD in Anatomical Science
and a DSc in Anatomical Science both from Bristol University.[2] He is also a Fellow of the Royal Society.
He has three children and lives in Sussex. His recent authored or co-authored books include African Exodus, The Complete World of Human Evolution
and Homo britannicus.
References
1. ^ Stringer, C. (2006), Homo britannicus, p183, London: Penguin Books, ISBN 978-0-141-01813-3
2. ^ University of Bristol Alumni
External links
 Natural History Museum Home Page
 Natural History Museum Homo britannicus news
 Natural History Museum Neanderthal news
 AHOB Home Page
 The Genetic Evidence for Human Evolution by Chris Stringer at Fathom.com
This article about an anthropologist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Stringer"
Categories: United Kingdom academic biography stubs | Anthropologist stubs | British anthropologists | Paleoanthropologists | 1947 births | Living
people | Alumni of University College London | Alumni of the University of Bristol | Recent single origin hypothesis | Fellows of the Royal Society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Stringer
Home Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Contact

Department of

Evolutionary Genetics
Home

Curriculum Vitae Curriculum Vitae

Publications

DNA from the Print version (pdf)

beginning
 Scholarships, Fellowships and Honors
 Scientific service
 Teaching

1955 Born in Stockholm, Sweden.
1975-1976 School of Interpreters, Swedish Defense Forces.
Studies at the Faculty of Humanities, University of Uppsala, including
1975-1981
History of Science, Egyptology, Russian.
1977-1980 Medical studies at the University of Uppsala, Sweden.
Part time research and teaching at the Department of Cell Biology, Uppsala,
1979-1980
and Roche Institute for Molecular Biology, Nutley, N.J. USA.
Full time research as PhD-student at the Department of Cell Research,
1981-1986
Uppsala.
1986 PhD degree at University of Uppsala, Sweden.
Postdoctoral research at the Institute for Molecular Biology II, University of
1986-1987
Zürich, Switzerland.
1987 Short period of work at Imperial Cancer Research Fund, London, UK.
Postdoctoral research at Department of Biochemistry, University of
1987-1990
California at Berkeley, USA.
1990 Docent (habilitation) in Medical Genetics, University of Uppsala, Sweden.
1990-1998 Full Professor (C4) of General Biology, University of Munich, Germany.
Director, Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig,
1997-
Germany.
Honorary Professor of Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, University of
1999-
Leipzig, Germany.
2003- Guest Professor of Comparative Genomics, University of Uppsala, Sweden.

Scholarships, Fellowships and Honors:

1984-1986 Training scholarship from the Swedish Cancer Society.
1986 EMBO short-term fellowship.
1987 FEBS fellowship.
1987-1989 EMBO long-term fellowship.
1992 Leibniz Prize of the German Science Foundation.
http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/files/cv.html
1993 Allan C. Wilson Memorial Lecture, UC Berkeley, USA.
1994 Honorary Doctorate, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
1996 EMBL Distinguished Visitor Lecture, Heidelberg, Germany.
Member, Academia Europaea.
1998
Max Delbrück Medal, Berlin, Germany.
Member, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
1999 Carus Medal and Prize, Halle and Schweinfurt,Germany.
Member, EMBO.
Honorary Doctorate, University of Helsinki, Finland.
2000 Rudbeck Prize, Uppsala, Sweden.
Member, Royal Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
Member, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Halle,
Germany.
2002
Foreign Member, Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters, Helsinki,
Finnland.
Leipzig Science Prize, Leipzig, Germany.
2003 Ernst Schering Prize, Berlin, Germany.
Member, Saxonian Academy of Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
2004 Foreign Member, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, USA.
Louis Jeantet Prize for Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
2005 C. Clark Cockerham Lecture, North Carolina State University, USA.
Virchow Medal, University of Würzburg, Germany.
Time Magazine 100 Most Influential People in the World.
2007 Emeritus Member, Academie Internationale de Philosophie des Sciences,
Brussels, Belgium.
Order of Terra Mariana, 3rd Class, Republic of Estonia.
Gorjanovic-Kramberger Medal, Zagreb, Croatia.
2008
Honorary Professor, Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Beijing, China.

Top

Scientific service:

1990-1993 Associate Editor, Journal of Human Evolution.
1991-2004 Editorial Board, Genome Research.
1991- Editorial Board, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution.
1991- HUGO Committee for Human Genetic Diversity.
Life Sciences Group, European Community Program "Human Capital and
1992-1993
Mobiliy".
Panel member, Ancient Biomolecules Initiative, Science & Engineering
1993-1996
Research Council, UK.
1995-2002 Editorial Board, Biological Chemistry.
1996- Editorial Board, BioTechniques.
1996- Advisor, Gene.
1996 EMBL Review Board, Biological Instrumentation Programme.
1997- Editorial Board, Human Heredity.
1997- Editorial Board, Ancient Biomolecules.
Main organizer, Annual Meeting of the Society for Molecular Biology and
1997
Evolution, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
Board of Directors, "Genome Research" and "Cell Factory for functional
1997-2005
Genomics" programs. Foundation for Strategic Research, Sweden.
1998 Organizer, Cold Spring Harbor Meeting on Human Evolution.
Advisory Board, Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
2000-
Organizer, Banbury Meeting, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
2000-2003 Scientific Advisory Board, Pyrosequencing AB, Sweden.
2001 Organizer, SNP Meeting, Stockholm, Sweden.
2001-2005 Kuratorium, Leipziger Stiftung für Innovation und Technologietransfer.
2002- Kuratorium, BioCity Leipzig.
2003- Editorial Board, PLoS Biology.
2004-2006 Organizer, Cold Spring Harbor Meeting “The Biology of Genomes”.
Scientific Advisory Board, Joint Genome Institute, Department of Energy,
2004-
Walnut Creak, California, USA.
Chair, Scientific Advisory Board, Uppsala Centre for Comparative
2005-
Genomics, Sweden.
Organizer, "International Workshop on Encoding Information in DNA
2005
Sequences", Okinawa, Japan.
Organizer, "Symposium on the Evolution of Brain, Behaviour &
Intelligence", Hinxton, UK.
2007
Organizer, "Linnaeus Classification of Humans Revisited", Uppsala,
Sweden.

Top

Teaching

1979-1980 Teaching assistant, Medical Cell Biology and Histology.
1981-1986 Lectures in Cell Biology and Genetics for medical students.
1980-1986 Lectures in History of Science for Egyptology students.
1987 Course in pedagogy for faculty, University of Uppsala.
Organization of theoretical and practical teaching in general biology and
1991-1998
evolution, University of Munich.
1999- Teaching in molecular evolutionary biology, University of Leipzig.

Top

Print version (pdf)


Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology - Department of Evolutionary Genetics, Leipzig 2007


Department of

Home

Curriculum Vitae Prof. Dr. Svante Pääbo
Publications
Director, Department of Genetics
DNA from the

beginning
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
04103 Leipzig

tel: +49 341 3550 501
tel secretary: +49 341 3550 500
fax: +49 341 3550 555
Email: paabo eva.mpg.de

Office: Level 3, Room U3.92
Department affiliation: Genetics


http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/
Erik Trinkaus
Erik Trinkaus, PhD, (December 24, 1948) is a prominent paleoanthropologist and expert on Neanderthal biology and human evolution. Trinkaus researches the
evolution of the genus Homo sapiens and recent human diversity, focusing on the paleoanthropology and emergence of late archaic and early modern humans, and the
subsequent evolution of 'anatomically modern' humanity. Trinkaus is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a contributor to publications including Natural
History and Scientific American, and is frequently quoted in the popular media. Trinkaus is the Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor of Physical Anthropology at
Washington University in St. Louis
Contents
 1 Education
 2 Scientific influence
 3 Research projects
Education
Trinkaus received his bachelor of arts degree in Art History and Physics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and his master's and PhD degrees in
anthropology from the University of Pennsylvania, the latter in 1975.
Scientific influence
Trinkaus' research findings and analyses of archaeological materials have made significant contributions to the understanding of early modern human biology,
particularly in the areas of Neanderthal extinction and intelligence, the mitochondrial Eve theory, and the contributions of Neanderthal DNA to the human gene pool.
Trinkaus' research emphasizes the biological implications of behavioural shifts that could have been caused by interactions between Neanderthals and anatomically
modern Pleistocene humans. His research addresses the 'origins of modern humans' debate, the interpretation of the archaeological record, and patterns of recent
human anatomical variation, principally through his analysis of human fossil remains. His research involves biomechanical analysis of crania and post-cranial
remains, respiratory and thermal adaptations, interpretations of ecogeographical patterning, evaluations of neuroanatomical evolution, life history parameters, and
differential levels and patterns of stress, and interrelationships between these anatomically-based patterns.
In 1999, Trinkaus and his colleagues documented that Neanderthals roamed central Europe as recently as 28,000 years ago, the latest date yet established for
Neandertal fossils worldwide.
As findings of potentially hybrid Neanderthal/modern fossils in places like Portugal have emerged in recent years, Trinkaus has broadened his research to include the
complex patterns of human evolutionary change through the Early and especially Middle Pleistocene, especially with regard to the diversity, paleobiology and
behaviour of early modern humans.
Research projects
Trinkaus' recent research has primarily focused on three projects. The first involved the early Upper Paleolithic (ca.25,000 B.P.) child's skeleton from the Abrigo do
Lagar Velho in Portugal, a specimen which indicates some degree of admixture between the Neandertals and early modern humans in Iberia. The second concerns the
largest known sample of early modern human remains, of the Paleolithic Gravettian culture, from the Dolni Vestonice and in the vicinity of Pavlov in southern
Moravia, Czech Republic, dated between 25,000 and 27,000 B.P. The third began in 2002 with the discovery in Romania of early modern human remains in the
Pestera cu Oase, dated to 35,000 B.P., which represent the earliest modern humans yet discovered in Europe.
External links
 www.artsci.wustl.edu - 'Erik Trinkaus, PhD', Washington University in St. Louis (faculty home page)
 BBC.co.uk - 'Neanderthals "mated with modern humans"', BBC (April 21, 1999)
 Eurekalert.org - 'Earliest European modern humans found' (September 22, 2003)
 Eurekalert.org - 'Neandertal femur suggests competition with hyenas and a shift in landscape use' (May 2, 2005)
 NIU.edu - 'Meaty discovery: Neandertal bone chemistry provides food for thought', Tom Parisi, Ann Nicholson, Northern Illinois University
 WUStL.edu - 'Erik Trinkaus: Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor of Physical Anthropology', Washington University in St. Louis
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Trinkaus"

Categories: 1948 births | Members of the National Academy of Sciences | Living people | American anthropologists | American archaeologists | Washington
University in St. Louis faculty | Paleoanthropologists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Trinkaus
Henry McHenry
Henry Malcolm McHenry (born May 19, 1944), PhD, is a professor of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, specializing in studies of human
evolution, the origins of bipedality, and paleoanthropology.
McHenry is known internationally for his scholarship on comparative relationships among primate fossils, and he is frequently asked to give talks globally.
His findings have been featured in numerous scholarly journals, and in major publications including Science, The New York Times, Discover and National
Geographic.
McHenry earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees at UC Davis before earning his Ph.D. at Harvard.
Contents
 1 Efficient Walker theory
 2 Study of African ancestors
 3 Family ventures
 4 Recognition
Efficient Walker theory

Attempting to explain the evolutionary advent of bipedalism among hominids, McHenry and Peter Rodman have advanced the Efficient Walker theory. The
scientists compared the efficiency of chimpanzees walking on two versus four legs, finding two legged locomotion was far more efficient. They concluded
bipedalism was selected simply because it allowed for a further range of travel for hominids. As Miocene forests decreased and hominids were forced into
the savannas, the scientists reason, bipedalism enabled greater access to resources.
Study of African ancestors

McHenry travels regularly to Africa to extend his knowledge of human origins, focusing his studies on the fossil remains of australopithecines. The best-
known of which are the 3.2 million year old remains of 'Lucy', discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson of the Institute for Human Origins. According to
McHenry, "The earlier species (Lucy) is more primitive in its skull and teeth, but has human-like body proportions," whereas "the later species, africanus,
with more human-like skull and teeth, has the more ape-like body proportions--big arms, small legs."
Family ventures
McHenry and his wife, Linda, have been members of the nonsectarian Shambhala Meditation Center in Davis since 1985 and co-directors since 1995. His
father, Dean E. McHenry, was a respected political scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles in the 1940s and 1950s, the founding Chancellor of
the University of California, Santa Cruz from 1961 to 1974, and a coauthor of California Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960.
Recognition
In 2000, the James H. Meyer Fellows of the UC Davis Foundation awarded McHenry the university's 'Prize for Undergraduate Teaching and Scholarly
Achievement'.
External links
 UCDavis.edu - Henry McHenry's UC Davis homepage
 UCDavis.edu - 'Origin of Bipedality', McHenry, H.M., Annual Review of Anthropology, vol 11, p 151-173 (1982)
 UCDavis.edu - 'Henry McHenry honored for highly evolved teaching', Lisa Klionsky (March 3, 2000)
 UCDavis.edu - 'The singing paleontologist: Back from his latest African visit, Henry McHenry has a bone to pick with an old theory about
human evolution', Trina Wood
 DavisShambhala.org - 'Davis Shambhala Meditation Center'
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_McHenry"

Categories: 1944 births | Living people | American anthropologists | California scholars | Primatologists | University of California, Davis |
Paleoanthropologists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_McHenry
Homo antecessor
Wikipedia is sustained by people like you. Please donate today.
Homo antecessor is an extinct hominin and a potential distinct species dating from 1.2 million to 800,000 years Homo antecessor
Fossil range: Early Pleistocene
ago, that was discovered by Eudald Carbonell, J. L. Arsuaga and J. M. Bermúdez de Castro. H. antecessor is one of
the earliest known hominins in Europe; only those individuals from the site of Dmanisi, Georgia, are older. Many
anthropologists believe that H. antecessor is either the same species or a direct antecedent to Homo heidelbergensis,
who inhabited Europe from 600,000 to 250,000 years ago in the Pleistocene. It is suggested that this is the last
common ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens.
The best-preserved fossil is a maxilla which belonged to a 10-year-old individual found in Spain. Based on
palaeomagnetic measurements, it is thought to be older than 780-857 ka (Falguères et al., 1999:351). The average
brain was 1000 cm³ in volume. In 1994 and 1995, 80 fossils of six individuals that may have belonged to the species
were found in Atapuerca. At the site were numerous examples of cuts where the flesh had been flensed from the
bones, which indicates that H. antecessor could have practised cannibalism.[1]
Contents Scientific classification

Kingdom: Animalia
 1 Physiology Phylum: Chordata
 2 Fossil sites
Class: Mammalia
 2.1 Gran Dolina
 2.2 Sima del Elefante Order: Primates
 3 References Family: Hominidae
Physiology Genus: Homo
Species: H. antecessor
Homo antecessor was about 1.6-1.8 m (5½-6) feet tall, and males weighed roughly 90 kg (200 pounds). Their brain
sizes were roughly 1000-1150 cm³, smaller than the 1350 cm³ average of modern humans. Due to its scarcity, very Binomial name
little more is known about the physiology of H. antecessor, yet it was likely to have been more robust than H. †Homo antecessor
heidelbergensis. According to Juan Luis Arsuaga, one of the co-directors of the excavation in Burgos, e H. Bermudez de Castro et al., 1997
antecessor might have been right-handed, a trait that makes him different from the rest of apes. The hypothesis is
based on tomography techniques. Arsuaga also claims that the frequency range of audition is similar to H. sapiens' which makes him believe that H.
antecessor used a symbolic language and was able to reason.[2] Arsuaga's team is currently pursuing a DNA map of H. antecessor after elucidating
that of a bear that lived in northern Spain some 500,000 years ago.
Basing on teeth eruption pattern, the researchers think that Homo antecessor had the same development stages as Homo sapiens, though probably at a
faster pace. Other features acquired by the species are a protruding occipital bun, a low forehead and a lack of a chin. Some of the remains are almost
indistinguishable from the fossil attributable to KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) belonging to Homo ergaster.
Fossil sites
The only known fossils of H. antecessor are from two sites in the Sierra de Atapuerca region of northern Spain (Gran Dolina and Sima del Elefante).
The sites in this area have been found during the construction of railway cuts (Gran Dolina, Galería, Elefante) and in a cave (Sima de los Huesos).
Sites in the area have also yielded stone artefacts.
Gran Dolina
Archaeologist Eudald Carbonell i Roura of the Universidad Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona, Spain and palaeoanthropologist Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras
of the Complutense University of Madrid discovered Homo antecessor remains at the Gran Dolina site in the Sierra de Atapuerca, east of Burgos. The
H. antecessor remains have been found in level 6 (TF6) of the Gran Dolina site . Over 80 bone fragments from six individuals were uncovered in 1994
and 1995. The site had also included roughly 200 stone tools and about 300 animal bones. Stone tools including a stone carved knife were found along
with the ancient hominin remains. All these remains were dated at least 780,000 years old. The best-preserved remains are a maxilla (upper jawbone)
and a frontal bone of an individual who died at 10-11 years old.
Sima del Elefante
On 2007-06-29, Spanish researchers working at the Sima del Elefante site announced that they had recovered a molar dated to 1.1–1.2 million years
ago. The molar was described as "well worn" and from an individual between 20 and 25 years of age. Additional findings announced on 2008-03-27
included the discovery of a mandible fragment, stone flakes, and evidence of animal bone processing.[3]
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor
1. ^ Fernández-Jalvo, Y.; Díez, J. C.; Cáceres, I. and Rosell, J. (September 1999). "Human cannibalism in the Early Pleistocene of Europe (Gran Dolina, Sierra de
Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain)". Journal of Human Evolution 37 (34): 591–622. Academic Press. doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0324. ISSN 0047-2484.
2. ^ El Mundo newspaper (in Spanish)
3. ^ Carbonell, Eudald; José M. Bermúdez de Castro et al (2008-03-27). "The first hominin of Europe". Nature 452: 465–469. doi:10.1038/nature06815. Retrieved
on 2008-03-26.
 BBC - Dawn of Man (2000) by Robin Mckie ISBN 0-7894-6262-1

 http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/antecessor.html
 http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor"

Categories: Early hominids | Pleistocene mammals | Pleistocene extinctions | Prehistoric Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor
Homo cepranensis
Homo cepranensis is a proposed name for a hominin species discovered in 1994 known from only one skull cap. The Homo cepranensis
Fossil range: Pleistocene
fossil was discovered by archeologist Italo Biddittu and was nick-named "Ceprano Man" after a nearby town in the
province of Frosinone, 89 kilometers Southeast of Rome, Italy. Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
The age of the fossil is estimated to be between 800,000 and 900,000 years old (younger than fossils attributable to
Homo antecessor from Spain). The cranial features on the bone seem to be a cross between those found on Homo Phylum: Chordata
erectus and those of later species such as Homo heidelbergensis which dominated Europe long before Homo Class: Mammalia
neanderthalensis. There is yet not enough material to make a complete analysis of the individual. Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
References Genus: Homo
Species: H. cepranensis
 Early Humans (Roy A. Gallant)/Copyright 2000| ISBN 0-7614-0960-2
 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=55569 Binomial name
†Homo cepranensis
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_cepranensis" Mallegni et al, 2003
Categories: Early hominids | Pleistocene mammals | Pleistocene extinctions | Anthropology stubs | Primate stubs
 This page was last modified on 4 April 2008, at 23:03.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_cepranensis
Homo erectus
Homo erectus (Latin: "upright man") is an extinct species of the genus Homo, believed to have been the first Homo erectus

hominin to leave Africa. The question of whether H. erectus is a direct ancestor of modern H. sapiens has not been
settled.
H. erectus originally migrated from Africa during the Early Pleistocene, possibly as a result of the operation of the
Saharan pump, around 2.0 million years ago, and dispersed throughout most of the Old World, reaching as far as
Southeast Asia. Fossilized remains 1.8 and 1.0 million years old have been found in Africa (e.g., Lake Turkana[1]
and Olduvai Gorge), Europe (Georgia, Spain), Indonesia (e.g., Sangiran and Trinil), Vietnam, and China (e.g.,
Shaanxi).
Calvaria Sangiran II
Contents Original, Collection Koenigswald,
Senckenberg Museum
 1 History of discoveries Scientific classification
 2 Description Kingdom: Animalia
 3 Usage of tools and general abilities
 4 Social aspects Phylum: Chordata
 5 Classification Class: Mammalia
 6 Descendants and subspecies Order: Primates
 7 Individual fossils
 8 See also Family: Hominidae
 9 References Genus: Homo
 10 External links Species: H. erectus
Binomial name
History of discoveries †Homo erectus
(Dubois, 1892)
Dutch anatomist Eugene Dubois (1890s) first described it as Pithecanthropus erectus ("Java Man"), based on a Synonyms
calotte (skullcap) and a modern-looking femur found from the bank of the Solo River at Trinil, in central Java.
However, thanks to Canadian anatomist Davidson Black's (1921) initial description of a lower molar, which was † Pithecanthropus erectus
dubbed Sinanthropus pekinensis, most of the early and spectacular discoveries of this taxon took place at † Sinanthropus pekinensis
Zhoukoudian in China. German anatomist Franz Weidenreich provided much of the detailed description of this † Javanthropus soloensis
material in several monographs published in the journal Palaeontologica Sinica (Series D). However, nearly all of † Meganthropus
the original specimens were lost during World War II. High quality Weidenreichian casts do exist and are paleojavanicus
considered to be reliable evidence; these are curated at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and
at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing.
Throughout much of the 20th century, anthropologists debated the role of H. erectus in human evolution. Early in the century, due to discoveries on
Java and at Zhoukoudian, it was believed that modern humans first evolved in Asia. This contradicted Charles Darwin's idea of African human origin.
However, during the 1950s and 1970s, numerous fossil finds from East Africa (Kenya) yielded evidence that the oldest hominins originated there. It is
now believed that H. erectus is a descendant of earlier hominins such as Australopithecus and early Homo species (e.g., H. habilis), although new
findings in 2007 suggest that H. habilis and H. erectus coexisted and may be separate lineages from a common ancestor.[2]
A homo erectus skull, Tchadanthropus uxoris, discovered in 1961, is the partial skull of the first early hominid till then discovered in Central Africa,
found in Chad during an expedition led by the anthropologist Yves Coppens.[3] While some then thought it was a variety of the Homo habilis,[4] the
Tchadanthropus uxoris is no longer considered to be a separate species, and scholars consider it to be Homo erectus,[3][5] and it is even argued that the
skull is just a modern human, Homo sapiens sapiens, weathered by the elements to look like an australopithecine skull.[6]
Description
Homo erectus has fairly derived morphological features and a larger cranial capacity than that of Homo habilis, although new finds from Dmanisi in
the Republic of Georgia show distinctively small crania. The forehead (frontal bone) is less sloping and the teeth are smaller (quantification of these
differences is difficult, however; see below). Homo erectus would bear a striking resemblance to modern humans, but had a brain size that expanded
with time (850 in the earliest to 1100 cm³ in the latest Javan examples)[7] the latter which overlaps with modern humans. These early hominines were
tall, on average standing about 1.79 m (5.87 ft), and much stronger than modern humans.[8] The sexual dimorphism between males and females was
slightly greater than seen in modern Homo sapiens with males being about 20-30% larger than females. The discovery of the skeleton KNM-WT
15000 (Turkana boy) made near Lake Turkana, Kenya by Richard Leakey and Kamoya Kimeu in 1984 was a breakthrough in interpreting the
physiological status of H. erectus.
Usage of tools and general abilities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
Homo erectus used more diverse and sophisticated tools than its predecessors. This has been theorized to have
been a result of Homo erectus first using tools of the Oldowan style and later progressing to the Acheulean
style. The surviving tools from both periods are all made of stone. Oldowan tools are the oldest known formed
tools and date as far back as about 2.6 million years ago. The Acheulean era began about 1.2 million years ago
and ended about 500,000 years ago. The primary innovation associated with Acheulean handaxes is that the
stone was chipped on both sides to form a biface of two cutting edges. In addition it has been suggested that
Homo erectus may have been the first hominid to use rafts to travel over oceans, however this idea is
controversial within the scientific community.[9]
Social aspects
Homo erectus (along with Homo ergaster) was probably the first early human species to fit squarely into the
category of a hunter-gatherer society. Anthropologists such as Richard Leakey believe that H. erectus was
socially closer to modern humans than the more primitive species before it. The increased cranial capacity
generally coincides with the more sophisticated tool technology occasionally found with the species' remains.
The discovery of Turkana boy in 1984 has shown evidence that despite H. erectus's human-like anatomy, they
A reconstruction of Homo erectus.
were not capable of producing sounds of a complexity comparable to modern speech. They may have Anthropologists believe that H.
communicated with a pre-language lacking the fully developed structure of human language but more erectus was the first hominid to
developed than the basic communication used by chimpanzees.[10] control fire.
The latest populations of Homo erectus were probably the first hominid societies to live in small scale
(presumably egalitarian) band societies similar to modern hunter gatherer band societies.[11]
Homo erectus is thought to be the first hominid to hunt on a large scale, use complex tools and care after weaker companions.[8]
H. erectus migrated all throughout the Great Rift Valley, even up to the Red Sea.[12] Early humans, in the person of Homo erectus, were learning to
master their environment for the first time. Attributed to H. erectus, around 1.8 million years ago in the Olduvai Gorge, is the oldest known evidence
of mammoth consumption (BioScience, April 2006, Vol. 56 No. 4, p. 295). Bruce Bower has suggested that H. erectus may have built rafts and
traveled over oceans, although this possibility is considered controversial.[13]
A site called Terra Amata, which lies on an ancient beach location on the French Riviera, seems to have been occupied by Homo erectus and contains
the earliest (least disputed) evidence of controlled fire dated at around 300,000 years BP. There are also older Homo erectus sites in France, China,
Vietnam, and other areas that seem to indicate controlled use of fire, some dating back 500,000 to 1.5 million years ago. A presentation at the
Paleoanthropology Society annual meeting in Montreal, Canada in March of 2004 stated that there is evidence for controlled fires in excavations in
northern Israel from about 690,000 to 790,000 years ago. Despite these examples, some scholars continue to assert that the controlled use of fire was
atypical of Homo erectus, and that the use of controlled fire is more typical of advanced species of the Homo genus (such as Homo antecessor, H.
heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis).
Homo erectus much like the later Middle Paleolithic hominid Homo neanderthalensis[14] may have interbred with modern humans in Europe and Asia
(though genetic evidence largely fails to support this view).[15]
Classification
There has been a great deal of discussion concerning the taxonomy of Homo erectus (see the 1984 and 1994 volumes of Courier Forschungsinstitut
Senckenberg), and it relates to the question whether or not H. erectus is a geographically widespread species (found in Africa, Europe, and Asia), or is
it a classic Asian lineage that evolved from less cranially derived African H. ergaster.
While some have argued (and insisted) that Ernst Mayr's biological species definition cannot be used here to test the above hypotheses, we can,
however, examine the amount of morphological (cranial) variation within known H. erectus / H. ergaster specimens, and compare it to what we see in
different extant primate groups with similar geographical distribution or close evolutionary relationship. Thus, if the amount of variation between H.
erectus and H. ergaster is greater than what we see within a species of, say, macaques, then H. erectus and H. ergaster should be considered as two
different species. Of course, the extant model (of comparison) is very important and choosing the right one(s) can be difficult.
Descendants and subspecies

Homo erectus remains one of the most successful and long-lived species of the Homo genus. It is generally considered to have given rise to a number
of descendant species and subspecies. The oldest known specimen of the ancient human was found in southern Africa.
 Homo erectus
 Homo erectus yuanmouensis
 Homo erectus lantianensis
 Homo erectus wushanensis
 Homo erectus pekinensis
 Homo erectus palaeojavanicus
 Homo erectus soloensis
Other species
 Homo floresiensis
 Homo antecessor
 Homo heidelbergensis
 Homo neanderthalensis
 Homo sapiens
 Homo sapiens sapiens
 Homo rhodesiensis
 Homo cepranensis
The discovery of Homo floresiensis and of the recentness of its extinction has raised the possibility that numerous descendant species of Homo erectus

may have existed in the islands of Southeast Asia which await fossil discovery (see Orang Pendek). Some scientists are skeptical about the claim that
Homo floresiensis is a descendant of Homo erectus. One explanation holds that the fossils are of a modern human with microcephaly, while another
one holds that they are from a group of pygmys.
Individual fossils
Some of the major Homo erectus fossils:
 Indonesia (island of Java): Trinil 2 (holotype), Sangiran collection, Sambungmachan collection, Ngandong collection
 China: Lantian (Gongwangling and Chenjiawo), Yunxian, Zhoukoudian, Nanjing, Hexian
 India: Narmada (taxonomic status debated!)
 Kenya: WT 15000 (Nariokotome), ER 3883, ER 3733
 Tanzania: OH 9
 Vietnam: Northern, Tham Khuyen, Hoa Binh
 Republic of Georgia: Dmanisi collection
 Turkey: Kocabas fossil[16]
Some scholars consider specimens outside of Asia to be Homo ergaster. In other words, Homo erectus is an Asian lineage derived from Homo

ergaster, which originated in Africa ca. 2.0 million years ago (Ma).
See also
 Java Man
 List of primate and hominin fossils (with images)
References
1. ^ Leakey Fights Church Campaign to Downgrade Kenya Museum’s Human Fossils by Kendrick Frazier from Skeptical Inquirer magazine Volume 30 6,
Nov/Dec 2006. Accessed online April 11,2008
2. ^ F. Spoor, M. G. Leakey, P. N. Gathogo, F. H. Brown, S. C. Antón, I. McDougall, C. Kiarie, F. K. Manthi & L. N. Leakey (9 August 2007). "Implications of
new early Homo fossils from Ileret, east of Lake Turkana, Kenya". Nature 448 (448): 688–691. doi:10.1038/nature05986.
3. ^ a b Kalb, John (2004). Adventures in the Bone Trade: The Race to Discover Human Ancestors in Ethiopia's Afar Depression. Springer, p. 76. ISBN 0-3879-
8742-8.
4. ^ Cornevin, Robert (1967). Histoire de l'Afrique. Payotte, p. 440.
5. ^ Mikko's Phylogeny Archive. Retrieved on 2007-01-12.
6. ^ Wood, Bernard (2002). "Palaeoanthropology: Hominid revelations from Chad". Nature 418 (6894): 133–135. doi:10.1038/418133a.
7. ^ Java Man, Curtis, Swisher and Lewin, ISBN 0349114730
8. ^ a b Bryson, Bill. A Short History of Nearly Everything: Special Illustrated Edition. Toronto: Doubleday Canada. ISBN 0-385-66198-3.
9. ^ Gibbons, Ann (1998-03-13). "PALEOANTHROPOLOGY: Ancient Island Tools Suggest Homo erectus Was a Seafarer". Science 279 (5357): 1635–1637.
doi:10.1126/science.279.5357.1635.
10. ^ Ruhlen, Merritt (1994). The origin of language: tracing the evolution of the mother tongue. New York: Wiley. ISBN 0471584266..
11. ^ Boehm, Christopher (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: the evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-39031-8.; p.
198
12. ^ Paolo Novaresio, The Explorers, published 1996 by Stewart, Tabori & Chang, ISBN 1-55670-495-X ; p. 13: "[Homo erectus] roamed the natural corridor of
the Great Rift Valley as far as the Red Sea."
13. ^ Erectus Ahoy Prehistoric seafaring floats into view
14. ^ James Owen. Neanderthals, Modern Humans Interbred, Bone Study Suggests. National Geographic News. Retrieved on 2008-01-14.
15. ^ John Whitfield. Lovers not fighters. Scientific american. Retrieved on 2008-02-23.
16. ^ J. Kappelman et al. (2008). "First Homo erectus from Turkey and implications for migrations into temperate Eurasia". American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 135 (1): 110–116. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20739.
External links
 MNSU
 Smithsonian
 Homo erectus at Stanford University
 Possible co-existence with Homo Habilis - BBC News
 John Hawk's discussion of the Kocabas fossil
 Peter Brown's Australian and Asian Palaeoanthropology
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus"
Categories: Early hominids | Pleistocene extinctions | Pleistocene mammals | Prehistoric Africa
Homo ergaster
Find out more about navigating Wikipedia and finding information.
Homo ergaster ("working man") is an extinct hominid species (or subspecies, according to some authorities) Homo ergaster
which lived throughout eastern and southern Africa between 1.9 to 1.4 million years ago with the advent of the
lower Pleistocene and the cooling of the global climate.
H. ergaster is sometimes categorized as a subspecies of Homo erectus. H. ergaster may be distinguished from
H. erectus by its thinner skull bones and lack of an obvious sulcus. Derived features include reduced sexual
dimorphism; a smaller, more orthognathic (straight jawed) face; a smaller dental arcade; and a larger (700 and
850 cm³) cranial capacity. It is estimated that H. ergaster stood at 1.9 m (6ft3) tall with relatively less sexual
dimorphism in comparison to earlier hominins. Remains have been found in Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya, and
South Africa.
The most complete Homo ergaster skeleton known was discovered at Lake
Turkana, Kenya in 1984. Paleanthropologists Richard Leakey, Kamoya
Kimeu and Tim White dubbed the 1.6 million year old specimen as KNM-
WT 15000 (nicknamed "Turkana Boy").
The type specimen of H. ergaster is KNM ER 992[1]; the species was

named by Groves and Mazak in 1975.
Homo ergaster reconstruction. Museum of
The species name originates from the Greek ergaster meaning Man, San Diego, California.
"Workman". This name was chosen due to the discovery of various tools Scientific classification
such as hand-axes and cleavers near the skeletal remains of H. ergaster. Kingdom: Animalia
This is one of the reasons that it is sometimes set apart distinctly from Phylum: Chordata
other human ancestors. Its use of advanced (rather than simple) tools was
unique to this species; H. ergaster tool use belongs to the Acheulean Class: Mammalia
industry. H. ergaster first began using these tools 1.6 million years ago. Order: Primates
Charred animal bones in fossil deposits and traces of camps suggest that Family: Hominidae
the species made creative use of fire. Another notable characteristic of H. Tribe: Hominini
ergaster is that it was the first hominid to have the same body proportions
Genus: Homo
Homo ergaster skull (longer legs and shorter arms) as modern H. sapiens.[2]
reconstruction. Museum of Man, Species: H. ergaster
San Diego, California.
Contents Binomial name
†Homo ergaster
 1 Notable fossils Groves & Mazak, 1975
 2 See also
 3 References
 5 Footnote
Notable fossils
 KNM ER 3733
 Turkana boy - also classified as Homo erectus
 KNM ER 992
See also
 Telanthropus capensis
References
 Tattersall, Ian and Schwartz, Jeffrey. "Extinct Humans". Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado and Cumnor Hill, Oxford, 2000. ISBN 0-8133-
3482-9 (hc)
External links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster
 Smithsonian
Footnote
1. ^ KNM-ER 992 is short for: Kenya National Museum (where it is housed); East Rudolf (where it was found); and 992 (the museum acquisition number)
2. ^ Standford,C.,Allen,J.S.,and Anton, S.C. "Biological Anthropology". Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River,New Jersey, 2006
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster"

Categories: Early hominids | Pliocene mammals | Pleistocene mammals | Pleistocene extinctions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster
Homo floresiensis
Homo floresiensis ("Man of Flores", nicknamed Hobbit) is a possible species in the genus Homo, remarkable for its Homo floresiensis

Fossil range: Late Pleistocene
small body and brain, and survival until relatively recent times. It was named after the Indonesian island of Flores on
which the remains were found.[1][2] One largely complete subfossil skeleton (LB1) and a complete jawbone from a Conservation status
second individual (LB2),[3] dated at 18,000 years old, were discovered in deposits in Liang Bua Cave on Flores in Fossil
2003. Parts of seven other individuals (LB3 – LB9, the most complete being LB6), all diminutive, have been Scientific classification
recovered as well as similarly small stone tools from horizons ranging from 94,000 to 13,000 years ago.[4] The first Kingdom: Animalia
of these remains was unearthed in 2003 and the publication date of the original description is October 2004.[1][2]
Phylum: Chordata
The discoverers, anthropologists Peter Brown, Michael Morwood and their colleagues have argued that a variety of Class: Mammalia
features, both primitive and derived, identified the skeleton of LB1 as that of a new species of hominin, H. Order: Primates
floresiensis.[1][2] They argued that it was contemporaneous with modern humans (Homo sapiens) on Flores.
Family: Hominidae
Doubts that the discoveries constitute a new species were soon voiced by the Indonesian anthropologist Teuku Jacob, Genus: Homo
who suggested that the skull of LB1 was a microcephalic modern human. A controversy developed, leading to the Species: H. floresiensis
publication of a number of studies which supported or rejected claims for species status. In March 2005 scientists
Binomial name
who published details of the brain of Flores Man in Science supported species status.[5] Several researchers,
including one scientist who worked on the initial study, have disputed the 2005 study, supporting the conclusion that †Homo floresiensis
[6][7] P. Brown et al., 2004
the skull is microcephalic. The original discoverers have argued against these interpretations and maintain that
H. floresiensis is a distinct species.[4][8] This is supported by the most recent study that disputes possibility of
microcephaly published by paleoneurologist Dean Falk[9] comparing the H. floresiensis brain to ten microcephalic brains revealing distinct differences
that have so far gone unanswered by critics. In addition, a 2007 study of carpal bones of H. floresiensis found similarities to those of a chimpanzee or
early hominid such as Australopithecus and were significantly different from the bones of modern humans.[10] Studies of the bones and joints of the
arm and shoulder have also suggested that H. floresiensis was more similar to early humans and apes than modern humans.[11][12] However, critics of
the claim to species status continue to suggest alternative explanations. The most recent hypothesis put forward is that the skeletons found were from
cretinous individuals who suffered from iodine deficiencies in the womb.[13] This idea has been dismissed by members of the original discovery team
as based on a misinterpretation of the data. To date, the only complete cranium is that of LB1.
Contents
 1 Discovery
 2 Anatomy
 2.1 Small bodies
 2.2 Small brains
 2.3 Additional features
 3 Recent survival
 4 Controversies
 4.1 Evidence against microcephaly
 4.2 Laron syndrome
 4.3 Bone structure
 5 See also
 6 References and Notes
 7 Further reading
Discovery
The first specimens were discovered by a joint Australian-Indonesian team of paleoanthropologists
and archaeologists looking on Flores for evidence of the original human migration of H. sapiens
from Asia into Australia.[1][2] They were not expecting to find a new species, and were quite
surprised at the recovery of the nearly complete skeleton of a hominid they dubbed LB1 (for the
first skeleton recovered at the Liang Bua Cave). Subsequent excavations recovered seven
additional skeletons, dating from 38,000 to 13,000 years old, from Liang Bua limestone cave on
Flores.[4] An arm bone, provisionally assigned to H. floresiensis, is about 74,000 years old. Also
widely present in this cave are sophisticated stone implements of a size considered appropriate to Flores is the island highlighted in yellow. The
the 1 m tall human: these are at horizons from 95,000 to 13,000 years and are associated with territory of Indonesia as a whole is in green.
juvenile Stegodon, presumably the prey of LB1.[4]
The specimens are not fossilized, but were described in a Nature news article as having "the consistency of wet blotting paper" (once exposed, the
bones had to be left to dry before they could be dug up). Researchers hope to find preserved mitochondrial DNA to compare with samples from
similarly unfossilised specimens of Homo neanderthalensis and H. sapiens. It is unlikely that useful DNA specimens exist in the available sample, as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
DNA degrades rapidly in warm tropical environments, sometimes in as little as a few dozen years. Also, contamination from the surrounding
environment seems highly possible given the moist environment in which the specimens were found.
Anatomy
The most important and obvious identifying features of H. floresiensis are its small body and small cranial capacity. Brown
and Morwood also identified a number of additional, less obvious features, that might distinguish LB1 from modern H.
sapiens, including the form of the teeth, the absence of a chin, and the unusually low twist in the forearm bones. Each of
these putative distinguishing features has been heavily scrutinized by the scientific community, with different independent
research groups reaching differing conclusions whether these features support the original designation of a new species,[8]
or whether they identify LB1 as a severely pathological H. sapiens.[7] The discovery of additional partial skeletons[4] has
verified the existence of some features found in LB1, such as the lack of a chin, but Jacob and other research teams argue
that these features do not distinguish LB1 from local H. sapiens morphology.[7]
Small bodies
The type specimen for the proposed species is a fairly complete skeleton and near-complete skull proposed to be that of a
30-year-old female (LB1), nicknamed Little Lady of Flores or Flo, about 1.06 m (3 ft 6 in) in height.[1] This short stature is
also supported by the height estimates derived from the tibia of a second skeleton (LB8), on the basis of which Morwood Aspect ratio between
and colleagues suggest that LB8 might have stood 1.09 m (3 ft 7 in) high.[4] These estimates are outside the range of normal homo sapiens (human
modern human height and is considerably shorter than the average adult height of even the physically smallest populations being, white) and homo
floresiensis (pink).
of modern humans, such as the African Pygmies (< 1.5 m, or 4 ft 11 in), Twa, Semang (1.37 m, or 4 ft 6 in for adult
women), or Andamanese (1.37 m, or 4 ft 6 in for adult women). Mass is generally considered more biophysically significant
than a one-dimensional measure of length, and by that measure, due to effects of scaling, differences are even greater. LB1 has been estimated as
perhaps about 25 kg (55 lb). This is smaller than not only modern H. sapiens, but also than H. erectus, which Brown and colleagues have suggested is
the immediate ancestor of H. floresiensis. LB1 and LB8 are also somewhat smaller than the three million years older ancestor australopithecines, not
previously thought to have expanded beyond Africa. Thus, LB1 and LB8 may be the shortest and smallest members of the extended human family
discovered thus far.
Despite the size difference, the specimens seem otherwise to resemble in their features H. erectus, known to be living in Southeast Asia at times
coinciding with earlier finds purported to be of H. floresiensis.[4] These observed similarities form the basis for the establishment of the suggested
phylogenetic relationship. Despite a controversial reported finding by the same team of alleged material evidence, stone tools, of a H. erectus
occupation 840,000 years ago, actual remains of H. erectus itself have not been found on Flores, much less transitional forms.
To explain the small stature of H. floresiensis, Brown and colleagues have suggested that in the limited food environment on Flores H. erectus

underwent strong insular dwarfism,[1] a form of speciation also seen on Flores in several species, including a dwarf Stegodon (a group of
proboscideans that was widespread throughout Asia during the Quaternary), as well as being observed on other small islands. However, the "island
dwarfing" theory has been subjected to some criticism from Teuku Jacob and colleagues[7] who argue that LB1 is similar to local Rampasasa H.
sapiens populations, and who point out that size can vary substantially in pygmy populations.
Small brains
In addition to a small body size, H. floresiensis had a remarkably small brain. The type specimen, at 380 cm³ (23 in³), is at the lower range of

chimpanzees or the ancient australopithecines.[1][5] The brain is reduced considerably relative to this species' presumed immediate ancestor H. erectus,
which at 980 cm³ (60 in³) had more than double the brain volume of its descendant species.[5] Nonetheless, the estimated brain to body mass ratio of
LB1 lies between that of Homo erectus and the great apes.[14]
Indeed, the discoverers have associated H. floresiensis with advanced behaviors. There is evidence of the use of fire for cooking in Liang Bua cave,
and evidence of cut marks on the Stegodon bones associated with the finds.[2][4] The species has also been associated with stone tools of the
sophisticated Upper Paleolithic tradition typically associated with modern humans, who at 1310–1475 cm³ (80–90 in³) nearly quadruple the brain
volume of H. floresiensis (with body mass increased by a factor of 2.6). Some of these tools were apparently used in the necessarily cooperative
hunting of local dwarf Stegodon by this small human species.[4]
An indicator of intelligence is the size of region 10 of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which is associated with self-awareness and is about the same
size as that of modern humans, despite the much smaller overall size of the brain.[5]
Additional features
Additional features used to argue that the finds come from a population of previously unidentified hominins include the absence of a chin, the
relatively low twist of the arm bones, and the width of the leg bones relative to their length.[1][2][4] The presence of each of these features has been
confirmed by independent investigators[7] but their significance has been disputed. For example, Jacob and colleagues argue that each of these unusual
features indicates some form of pathology in the LB1 skeleton.
In September of 2007, Matthew W. Tocheri, of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, announced that Homo floresiensis was indeed
a separate branch on the human evolutionary chain. He and his team found the bones in the Homo floresiensis wrist to be "indistinguishable from an
African ape or early hominin-like wrist and nothing at all like that seen in modern humans and Neanderthals". He goes on to explain how while there
are pathologies that can affect the wrist, there are none that can effectively turn a modern human wrist into that of an extinct proto-human or a modern
day African ape. Once confirmed, this would mean that Neanderthal was not the last homo species to share this planet with Homo sapiens, as Homo
floresiensis only died out around 18,000 years ago, or 12,000 years after the last Homo neanderthalensis.[15]
Recent survival
The species is thought to have survived on Flores until at least as recently as 12,000 years ago making it the longest-lasting non-modern human,
surviving long past the Neanderthals (H. neanderthalensis) which became extinct about 24,000 years ago.[4]
Due to a deep neighboring strait, Flores remained isolated during the Wisconsin glaciation (the most recent glacial period), despite the low sea levels
that united much of the rest of Sundaland. This has led the discoverers of H. floresiensis to conclude the species, or its ancestors, could only have
reached the isolated island by water transport, perhaps arriving in bamboo rafts around 100,000 years ago (or, if they are H. erectus, then about 1
million years ago). This idea of Flores using advanced technology and cooperation on a modern human level has prompted the discoverers to
hypothesize that H. floresiensis almost certainly had language.[16] These suggestions have been some of the most controversial of the discoverers'
findings, despite the probable high intelligence of H. floresiensis.
Local geology suggests that a volcanic eruption on Flores approximately 12,000 years was responsible for the demise of H. floresiensis, along with
other local fauna, including the dwarf elephant Stegodon.[2] The discoverers suspect, however, that this species may have survived longer in other parts
of Flores to become the source of the Ebu Gogo stories told among the local people. The Ebu Gogo are said to have been small, hairy, language-poor
cave dwellers on the scale of H. floresiensis. Believed to be present at the time of the arrival of the first Portuguese ships during the 16th century, these
strange creatures have been reported as recently as the late 19th century.[17]
Gerd van den Bergh, a paleontologist working with the fossils, reported hearing of the Ebu Gogo a decade before the fossil discovery.[18]
Similarly, on the island of Sumatra, there are reports of a 1–1.5 m tall humanoid, the Orang Pendek, which a few professional scholars, such as Debbie
Martyr and Jeremy Holden, take seriously.[19] Some scientists, including noted paleontologist Henry Gee,[20] have speculated that H. floresiensis
might explain the Orang Pendak.
Controversies
Whether the specimens represent a new species is a controversial issue within the scientific community. Professor Teuku Jacob, chief paleontologist of
the Indonesian Gadjah Mada University and other scientists reportedly disagree with the placement of the new finds into a new species of Homo,
stating instead, "It is a sub-species of Homo sapiens classified under the Austrolomelanesid race". He contends that the find is from a 25–30 year-old
omnivorous subspecies of H. sapiens, and not a 30-year-old female of a new species. He is convinced that the small skull is that of a mentally
defective modern human, probably a Pygmy, suffering from the genetic disorder microcephaly, which produces a small brain and skull.
In early December 2004, Professor Jacob removed most of the remains from Soejono's institution, Jakarta's National Research Centre of Archaeology,
for his own research without the permission of the Centre's directors.[21][22][23][24] Some expressed fears that, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, important
scientific evidence would be sequestered by a small group of scientists who neither allowed access by other scientists nor published their own research.
Jacob eventually returned the remains with portions severely damaged[25] and missing two leg bones on 23 February 2005[26] to the worldwide
consternation of his peers. Reports noted the condition of the returned remains; "(including) long, deep cuts marking the lower edge of the Hobbit's jaw
on both sides, said to be caused by a knife used to cut away the rubber mould"; "the chin of a second Hobbit jaw was snapped off and glued back
together. Whoever was responsible misaligned the pieces and put them at an incorrect angle"; and, "The pelvis was smashed, destroying details that
reveal body shape, gait and evolutionary history"[27] and causing the discovery team leader Professor Morwood to remark "It's sickening, Jacob was
greedy and acted totally irresponsibly."[28] Jacob, however, denied any wrongdoing. He stated that such damages occurred during transport from
Yogyakarta back to Jakarta[27] despite the physical evidence to the contrary that the jawbone had been broken while making a mold of the hobbit, and
when trying to repair it "rammed the two halves together at the wrong angle, stuck bone fragments in the cracks, and hidden the mess with a thick
coating of glue".[29]
However, prior to Jacob's removal of the fossils, a CT scan was taken of the skull and in 2005, a computer-generated model of the skull of H.
floresiensis was undertaken, and analysed by a team headed by Dean Falk of Florida State University. The results were published in Science in Feb.
2005. The authors of the study claimed that brainpan was not that of a pygmy nor an individual with a malformed skull and brain, supporting the view
that it is a new species.[5] However, in October 2005 Science published an additional study headed by Alfred Czarnetzki, Carsten M. Pusch and Jochen
Weber. This disagreed with the findings of the February 2005 study and concluded that the skull of LB1 is consistent with microcephaly.[30]
The results of the Feb. 2005 study were also questioned in the May 19, 2006, issue of the journal Science, in which Robert D. Martin of the Field
Museum in Chicago and co-authors argued that the 2005 study had not compared the skull with a typical example of adult microcephaly. Martin and
his co-authors concluded that the skull was probably microcephalic. Martin argued that the brain is far too small to be a separate dwarf species; if it
were, he wrote, the 400-cubic-centimeter brain would indicate a creature only one foot in height, which would be one-third the size of the discovered
skeleton.[31] In the September 5, 2006, issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a group of scientists from Indonesia, Australia,
and the United States came to the same conclusion as Dr. Martin by examining bone and skull structure.[7]
In response, Brown and Morwood have criticized these recent findings by claiming that the scientists came to incorrect conclusions about bone and
skull structure and mistakenly attributed the height of Homo floresiensis to microcephaly.[32] They also pointed to studies by other scientists who
rejected the argument that the individual was diseased. Falk's team replied to the critics of their Feb. 2005 study, standing by their results and insisting
that the skull is very different from microcephalic specimens.[14] Bill Jungers, a morphologist from Stony Brook University, examined the skull and
concluded that the skeleton displays "no trace of disease". However, Jochen Weber of the Leopoldina Hospital in Schweinfurt argues that "we can't
rule out the possibility that he suffered from microcephaly."[33] Debbie Argue of the Australian National University has also published a study in the
Journal of Human Evolution which rejects microcephaly and concludes that the finds are indeed a new species.[34]
Evidence against microcephaly
On January 29, 2007, Falk published a new study supporting the claim to species status[9] offering the most conclusive evidence to date that the claims
of a microcephalic Homo sapiens were not credible. In this new study Falk examines 3-D computer generated models of an additional 9 microcephalic
brains and 10 normal human brains, revealing the floresiensis skulls having shape more aligned with normal human brains, but also having unique
features which is consistent with what one would expect in a new species. Comparing the frontal and temporal lobes, as well as the portion in the back
of the skull revealed a brain highly developed, completely unlike the microcephalic brain, and advanced in ways different from human brains. This
finding also answered past criticisms that the floresiensis brain was simply too small to be capable of the intelligence required to create the tools found
in their proximity. Falk concludes the onus is now upon the critics that continue to claim microcephaly to produce a brain of a microcephalic that bears
resemblance to the floresiensis brain.
Laron syndrome
On June 27, 2007, Hershkovitz et al. published a new paper arguing that the morphological features of H. floresiensis are essentially indistinguishable
from those of Laron syndrome, casting the species claim once more into doubt.[35]
Bone structure
The bone structure of H. floresiensis' shoulders, arms[11] and wrists[10] have been described as very different from modern humans, much closer to the
bone structure of an early hominin or chimpanzees. This supports to the idea of the Hobbit being a separate species of early human rather than a
modern human with a physical disorder.
See also
 List of fossil sites
 List of hominina (hominid) fossils
 Nage tribe on Flores
 Island dwarfism
References and Notes

1. ^ a b c d e f g h Brown, P.; Sutikna, T., Morwood, M. J., Soejono, R. P., Jatmiko, Wayhu Saptomo, E. & Rokus Awe Due (October 27, 2004). "A new small-
bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia". Nature 431: 1055. doi:10.1038/nature02999.
2. ^ a b c d e f g Morwood, M. J.; Soejono, R. P., Roberts, R. G., Sutikna, T., Turney, C. S. M., Westaway, K. E., Rink, W. J., Zhao, J.- X., van den Bergh, G. D.,
Rokus Awe Due, Hobbs, D. R., Moore, M. W., Bird, M. I. & Fifield, L. K. (October 27, 2004). "Archaeology and age of a new hominin from Flores in eastern
Indonesia". Nature 431: 1087–1091. doi:10.1038/nature02956.
3. ^ The Mystery of the Human Hobbit (Horizon 2005). BBC. Retrieved during 2005.
4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Morwood, M. J.; Brown, P., Jatmiko, Sutikna, T., Wahyu Saptomo, E., Westaway, K. E., Rokus Awe Due, Roberts, R. G., Maeda, T.,
Wasisto, S. & Djubiantono, T. (2005-10-13). "Further evidence for small-bodied hominins from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia". Nature 437: 1012–
1017. doi:10.1038/nature04022.
5. ^ a b c d e Falk, D.; Hildebolt, C., Smith, K., Morwood, M. J., Sutikna, T., Brown, P., Jatmiko, Wayhu Saptomo, E., Brunsden, B. & Prior, F. (April 8, 2005).
"The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis". Science 308 (5719): 242. doi:10.1126/science.1109727. PMID 15749690.
6. ^ Martin, R. D.; MacLarnon, A. M., Phillips, J. L., Dussubieux, L., Williams, P. R. & Dobyns, W. B. (May 19, 2006). "Comment on "The Brain of LB1, Homo
floresiensis"". Science 312 (5776): 999. doi:10.1126/science.1121144. PMID 16709768.
7. ^ a b c d e f Jacob, T.; Indriati, E., Soejono, R. P., Hsu, K., Frayer, D. W., Eckhardt, R. B., Kuperavage, A. J., Thorne, A. & Henneberg, M. (September 5, 2006).
"Pygmoid Australomelanesian Homo sapiens skeletal remains from Liang Bua, Flores: Population affinities and pathological abnormalities". Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, USA 103: 13421–13426. doi:10.1073/pnas.0605563103. PMID 16938848.
8. ^ a b Argue, D.; Donlon, D., Groves, C. & Wright, R. (October, 2006). "Homo floresiensis: Microcephalic, pygmoid, Australopithecus, or Homo?". Journal of
Human Evolution 51: 360–374. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.04.013.
9. ^ a b Falk, D.; Hildebolt, C.; Smith, K.; Morwood, M.J.; Sutikna, T.; Others, (2007). "Brain shape in human microcephalics and Homo floresiensis".
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (7): 2513. doi:10.1073/pnas.0609185104. PMID 17277082. Retrieved on 2008-03-05.; lay summary
(2007-01-29). Retrieved on 2008-03-05.
10. ^ a b Tocheri, M.W.; Orr, C.M.; Larson, S.G.; Sutikna, T.; Others, (2007). "The Primitive Wrist of Homo floresiensis and Its Implications for Hominin
Evolution". Science 317 (5845): 1743. doi:10.1126/science.1147143. PMID 17885135.; lay summary (2007-09-20). Retrieved on 2008-03-05.
11. ^ a b Larson SG, Jungers WL, Morwood MJ, et al (2007). "Homo floresiensis and the evolution of the hominin shoulder". J. Hum. Evol. 53 (6): 718–31.
doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.06.003. PMID 17692894.
12. ^ Yes, it's a Hobbit. The debate that has divided science is solved at last (sort of), The Guardian
13. ^ Obendorf, P.J.; Oxnard, C.E.; Kefford , C.E. (2008). "Are the small human-like fossils found on Flores human endemic cretins?". Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London, B Biological Sciences advanced online publication (March 5, 2008): 2513. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1488. Retrieved on 2008-03-05.
14. ^ a b Falk, D.; Hildebolt, C., Smith, K., Morwood, M.J., Sutikna, T., Jatmiko, Wayhu Saptomo, E., Brunsden, B. & Prior, F. (May 19, 2006). "Response to
Comment on "The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis"". Science 312: 999c. doi:10.1126/science.1124972.
15. ^ Randolph E. Schmid (September 20, 2007). Scientists: Hobbit Wasn't a Modern Human. Retrieved on September 21, 2007. “The wrist bones of the 3-foot-tall
creature, technically known as Homo floresiensis, are basically indistinguishable from an African ape or early hominin-like wrist and nothing at all like that seen
in modern humans and Neanderthals, according to the research team led by Matthew W. Tocheri of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.”
16. ^ Skeleton reveals lost world of 'Little people' (October 28, 2004). Retrieved on October 21, 2006. “We also believe that their ancestors may have reached the
island using bamboo rafts. The clear implication is that, despite tiny brains, these little humans were intelligent and almost certainly had language.”
17. ^ Villagers speak of the small, hairy Ebu Gogo. Telegraph.co.uk (2004-10-28). Retrieved on 15 September 2006.
18. ^ Cognitive Science Online, Vol.3.1, pp.1-12, 2005.
19. ^ Explorers find 'perfect' yeti tracks. BBC News (2001-10-30). Retrieved on 2006-10-18.
20. ^ Gee, Henry. 2004. "Flores, God and Cryptozoology: The discovery poses thorny questions about the uniqueness of Homo sapiens.
21. ^ Homo floresiensis. Retrieved on 2006-08-20.
22. ^ Hobbit woman' remains spark row among academics - 30 Nov 2004 - Science. Retrieved on 2006-08-20.
23. ^ Fight over access to 'hobbit' bones - being-human - 11 December 2004 - New Scientist. Retrieved on 2006-08-20.
24. ^ Professor fuels row over Hobbit man fossils - World - Times Online. Retrieved on 2006-08-20.
25. ^ Hobbits triumph tempered by tragedy - Science - www.smh.com.au
26. ^ The Scientist : Flores hominid bones returned. Retrieved on 2006-08-20.
27. ^ a b BBC News, Science/Nature: Hobbit cave digs set to restart. Retrieved on 2007-01-30.
28. ^ Hobbits triumph tempered by tragedy - Science - www.smh.com.au
29. ^ Smith, D (2005-03-05). Hobbits triumph tempered by tragedy. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved on 2008-03-05.
30. ^ Technical Comments: Comment on "The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis". Science (2005-10-14). Retrieved on 2007-03-28.
31. ^ "'Hobbit' Bones Said to Be of Deformed Human". Los Angeles Times, Saturday, May 20, 2006.
32. ^ "Report Reignites Feud Over ‘Little People’ as Separate Species", The New York Times, 2006-08-21. Retrieved on 2006-08-21.
33. ^ Von Bredow, Rafaela. "A Huge Fight over a Little Man", Der Spiegel, 2006-09-01.
34. ^ Vergano, Dan. "The hullabaloo about hobbits", USA Today, 2006-07-16.
35. ^ Hershkovitz I, Kornreich L, Laron Z (2007). "Comparative skeletal features between Homo floresiensis and patients with primary growth hormone
insensitivity (Laron Syndrome)". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 134 (2): 198–208. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20655. PMID 17596857.
Further reading
 Penny Van Oosterzee; Mike Morwood. A New Human: The Startling Discovery and Strange Story of the "Hobbits" of Flores, Indonesia.
London: Collins. ISBN 0-06-089908-5.
 Linda Goldenberg (2007). Little People and a Lost World: An Anthropological Mystery. Minneapolis, MN: Twenty-First Century Books, 112.
ISBN 978-0-8225-5983-2. OCLC 62330789.
External links
 Washington University in St. Louis Virtual Endocasts of the "Hobbit" - Electronic Radiology Laboratory
 Scientific American Interview with Professor Brown 10/27/2004 Indonesia portal
 BBC Horizon: The Mystery of the Human Hobbit, complete documentary at Google Video
 "What is the Hobbit?" A review of the state of debate regarding the status of H. Floresiensis, from the open access journal Public Library of
Science, Biology.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis"
Categories: Early hominids | Pleistocene mammals | Pleistocene extinctions | Fossil species described in 2004
Hidden category: Featured articles
Homo georgicus
Homo georgicus is a species of hominin that was suggested in 2002 to describe fossil skulls and jaws found in Homo georgicus
Dmanisi, Georgia in 1999 and 2001, which seem intermediate between Homo habilis and H. erectus.[1] A partial
skeleton was discovered in 2001. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old. The remains were first discovered in
1991 by Georgian scientist, David Lordkipanidze, accompanied by an international team which unearthed the
hominin remains. Implements and animal bones were found alongside the ancient hominin remains.
At first, scientists thought they had found mandibles and skulls belonging to Homo ergaster, but size differences led
them to consider erecting a new species, Homo georgicus, which would be the descendant of Homo habilis and
ancestor of Asian Homo erectus.
Contents Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata
 1 Interpretations Class: Mammalia
 2 See also
Order: Primates
 3 References
 4 External links Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Interpretations Species: H. georgicus
Binomial name
At around 600cm³ brain volume, the skull D2700 is dated to 1.8 million years old and in good condition offering †Homo georgicus
insights in comparison to the modern human cranial morphology. The cranium was the smallest and most primitive Vekua et al, 2002
hominine skull ever discovered outside of Africa where typical hominines, Australopithecines and early genus Homo
represent two distinctive evolutionary paths sharing a common ancestor. In Georgia the specimens with a brain half the size compared to modern
Homo sapiens were considered the smallest until the discovery of Homo floresiensis from the island of Flores. There is a strong sexual dimorphism
present in the morphological beings revealing a primitive trait (less present in more modern humans in Europe (ie. Homo antecessor, Homo
heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis), with males being significantly larger than females. Due to the dwarf morphology of this hominine, no
subsequent role of H. georgicus can be so far determined. Theories remain debatable whether or not these hominines had a greater intelligence closer
in equivalence to modern humans than previous hominines despite the small cranial capacity. H. georgicus may be the first hominin species to settle in
Europe, some 800,000 years before H. erectus.
Subsequently, four fossil skeletons were found, showing a species primitive in its skull and upper body but with relatively advanced spines and lower
limbs, providing greater mobility. They are now thought not to be a separate species, but to represent a stage soon after the transition between
Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and have been dated at 1.8 million years before the present, according to the leader of the project, David
Lordkipanidze.[2]
See also
References
1. ^ A. Vekua, D. Lordkipanidze, G. P. Rightmire, J. Agusti, R. Ferring, G. Maisuradze, et al. (2002). "A new skull of early Skull D2700 (Replica)
Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia". Science 297: 85–9. doi:10.1126/science.1072953. PMID 12098694.
2. ^ Wilford, John Noble. "New fossils Offer Glance of Human Ancestors", The New York Times, 2007-09-19.
External links
 Hominid species
 Skull D2700 (includes some Creationist responses)
 http://www.rolexawards.com/laureates/laureate-82-lordkipanidze.html
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_georgicus"

Categories: Early hominids | Pleistocene mammals | Pleistocene extinctions | Human evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_georgicus
Homo habilis
Homo habilis (pronounced /ˈhoʊmoʊ ˈhæbəlɪs/) ("handy man", "skillful person") is a species of the genus Homo, Homo habilis

Fossil range: Pliocene-Pleistocene
which lived from approximately 2.2 million to at least 1.6 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene.[1]
The definition of this species is credited to both Mary and Louis Leakey, who found fossils in Tanzania, East Africa,
between 1962 and 1964.[2] Homo habilis is arguably the first species of the Homo genus to appear. In its appearance
and morphology, H. habilis was the least similar to modern humans of all species to be placed in the genus Homo
(except possibly Homo rudolfensis). Homo habilis was short and had disproportionately long arms compared to
modern humans; however, it had a reduction in the protrusion in the face. It is thought to have descended from a
species of australopithecine hominid. Its immediate ancestor may have been the more massive and ape-like Homo
rudolfensis. Homo habilis had a cranial capacity slightly less than half of the size of modern humans. Despite the
ape-like morphology of the bodies, H. habilis remains are often accompanied by primitive stone tools (e.g. Olduvai
Gorge, Tanzania and Lake Turkana, Kenya).
Homo habilis has often been thought to be the ancestor of the lankier and more sophisticated Homo ergaster, which

in turn gave rise to the more human-appearing species, Homo erectus. Debates continue over whether H. habilis is a
direct human ancestor, and whether all of the known fossils are properly attributed to the species. However, in 2007, Scientific classification
new findings suggest that the two species coexisted and may be separate lineages from a common ancestor instead of
H. erectus being descended from H. habilis.[3] Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Contents Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
 1 Findings Family: Hominidae
 1.1 KNM ER 1813
 1.2 OH 7
Genus: Homo
 1.3 OH 24 Species: H. habilis
 1.4 KNM ER 1805
Binomial name
 2 Interpretations
 3 Stratification and expansion †Homo habilis
Leakey et al, 1964
 4 See also
 5 Notes
 6 References
Findings
One set of fossil remains (OH 62), discovered by Donald Johanson and Tim White in Olduvai Gorge in 1986, included the important upper and lower
limbs. An older (1963) finding from the Olduvai site found by N. Mbuika had included a lower jaw fragment, teeth and upper mandible possibly from
a female dating 1.7 million years old. The remains from 3 skeletons stacked on top of each other[4] demonstrated australopithecine-like body with a
more human-like face and smaller teeth. Compared to australopithecines, H. habilis's brain capacity of 590 and 650 cm³ was on average 50% larger
than australopithecines, but considerably smaller than the 1350 to 1450 cm³ range of modern Homo sapiens. These hominins were smaller than modern
humans, on average standing no more than 1.3 m (4 ft 3 in) tall.
The small size and rather primitive attributes have led some experts (Richard Leakey among them) to propose excluding H. habilis from the genus
Homo, and renaming as "Australopithecus habilis".
KNM ER 1813
KNM ER 1813 is a relatively complete cranium which dates 1.9 million years old, discovered at Koobi Fora, Kenya by Kamoya Kimeu in 1973. The
brain capacity is 510 cm³, not as impressive as other early specimen and forms of Homo habilis discovered.
OH 7
OH 7 dates 1.75 million years old and was discovered by Jonathan Leakey on November 4, 1960 at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. It is a lower jaw
complete with teeth and due to the size of the small teeth; researchers estimate this individual had a brain volume of 363 cm³. Also found were more
than 20 fragments of the left hand. Tobias and Napier assisted in classifying OH-7 as the type fossil.
OH 24
OH 24 (AKA Twiggy) is a roughly deformed cranium dating 1.8 million years old discovered in October 1968 at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania by Peter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
Nzube. The brain volume is just under 600 cm³; also a reduction in a protruding face is present compared to members of more primitive
Australopithecines. Twiggy was found in a distorted matrix with a coating of limestone rock.
KNM ER 1805
KNM ER 1805 is a specimen of an adult H. habilis made of 3 pieces of cranium dating 1.74 million years old from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Previous

assumptions were that this specimen belongs to H. erectus based on the degree of prognathism and overall cranial shape.
Interpretations
Homo habilis is thought to have mastered the Olduwan era (Early Paleolithic) tool case which utilized stone flakes. These stone flakes were more
advanced than any tools previously used, and gave H. habilis the edge it needed to prosper in hostile environments previously too formidable for
primates. Whether H. habilis was the first hominin to master stone tool technology remains controversial, as Australopithecus garhi, dated to 2.6
million years ago, has been found along with stone tool implements at least 100,000 - 200,000 years older than H. habilis.
Most experts assume the intelligence and social organization of H. habilis were more sophisticated than typical australopithecines or chimpanzees. Yet
despite tool usage, H. habilis was not the master hunter that its sister species (or descendants) proved to be, as there is ample fossil evidence that H.
habilis was a staple in the diet of large predatory animals such as Dinofelis, a large scimitar-toothed predatory cat the size of a jaguar.[5] H. habilis
used tools primarily for scavenging, such as cleaving meat off of carrion, rather than defense or hunting. Homo habilis is thought to be the ancestor of
the lankier and more sophisticated Homo ergaster, which in turn gave rise to the more human-appearing species Homo erectus. Debates continue over
whether H. habilis is a direct human ancestor, and whether all of the known fossils are properly attributed to the species.
Homo habilis co-existed with other Homo-like bipedal primates, such as Paranthropus boisei, some of which prospered for many millennia. However,

H. habilis, possibly because of its early tool innovation and a less specialized diet, became the precursor of an entire line of new species, whereas
Paranthropus boisei and its robust relatives disappeared from the fossil record. Homo habilis may also have coexisted with Homo erectus in Africa for
a period of 500,000 years.[6]
The classification of H. habilis into the Homo genus is controversial. Like Homo rudolfensis, H. habilis lacked many of the things that were unique to

later hominins such as slim hips for walking long distances, a sophisticated sweating system, narrow birth canal, and legs longer than arms. Such traits
as noticeable whites in the eyes, smaller hairs resulting in exposed skin, and a naked appearance remain theoretical. Despite larger brains than earlier
species, and bipedal locomotion, many scientists think H. habilis and its close relative H. rudolfensis to be more ape-like, and not properly belonging
in the Homo genus.
Stratification and expansion

The evolution of Homo habilis is associated with the species' movement from the central Saharan region of Africa into the more demanding, yet
resourceful habitats of Europe and to a lesser extent Asia. The major developments which contributed to this phenomenon were the greater knowledge
and skill with which Homo habilis crafted the rock blade, increasing knowledge about climate and how to adapt accordingly and the evolution of the
voice-box which allowed greater co-ordination in hunting than was hitherto possible. Homo habilis, due perhaps to many years of adaptation, were
able to create flint blades with 10 cm (4 in) of cutting blade, this finer blade was strong enough to advance Homo habilis from scavenger to hunter.
After many thousands of years of adaptation, humans were eventually able to accumulate enough information about the climate to adapt accordingly,
building fires and wearing thick hides to stave off the cold. The evolution, or more so the moving of the voice box from the top of the throat to the
bottom allowed a greater variety of speech required to co-ordinate and communicate during hunts. All of these evolutionary measures allowed Homo
habilis to exploit the harsher climates of Asia and the borders of Europe. The western and central region of Europe was not settled by humanoids until
the time of Homo erectus.
See also
Notes
1. ^ New York Times article Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution published August 9, 2007 says "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."
2. ^ Richard Leakey describes the discovery and naming of the first habilis in The Making of Mankind, pp 65-66 of the Dutton 1981 hardcover edition. It was
found by Jonathan Leakey at Olduvai, and was called at first "Jonny's child." Richard says that Louis named the fossil for its "ability to make tools" and that
habilis means "skilful." By another account (see the notes for Louis Leakey) Louis solicited a name from Raymond Dart, which Phillip Tobias translated as
"handyman." Later it became OH 7 described under "Famous specimens" below.
3. ^ F. Spoor, M. G. Leakey, P. N. Gathogo, F. H. Brown, S. C. Antón, I. McDougall, C. Kiarie, F. K. Manthi & L. N. Leakey (9 August 2007). "Implications of
new early Homo fossils from Ileret, east of Lake Turkana, Kenya". Nature 448 (448): 688–691. doi:10.1038/nature05986.
4. ^ BBC - Dawn of Man (2000) by Robin Mckie| ISBN 0-7894-6262-1
5. ^ Hillary Mayell. Killer Cats Hunted Human Ancestors. National Geographic News. Retrieved on 2008-02-15.
6. ^ Finds test human origins theory
References
 Early Humans (Roy A. Gallant)/Copyright 2000 ISBN 0-7614-0960-2
 The Making of Mankind, Richard E. Leakey, Elsevier-Dutton Publishing Company, Inc., Copyright 1981, ISBN 0-525-150552, LC Catalog
Number 81-664544.
 A New Species of Genus Homo from Olduvai Gorge, L.S.B. Leakey; P.V. Tobias; J.R. Napier, Current Anthropology, Vol.6, No.4, (Oct 1965)
External links
 MNSU
 Early MNH: Human Phylogeny
 BBC: Food for thought
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis"
Categories: Early hominids | Pliocene mammals | Pleistocene mammals | Pleistocene extinctions | Prehistoric Africa | Transitional fossil
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since October 2007 | Articles with unsourced statements
since June 2007
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo heidelbergensis ("Heidelberg Man") is an extinct species of the genus Homo which may be the direct Homo heidelbergensis
ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. According to the "Recent Out of Africa" theory, similar
"Archaic Homo sapiens" found in Africa (ie. Homo sapiens idaltu), existing in Africa as a part of the
operation of the Saharan pump, and not the European forms of Homo heidelbergensis, are thought to be
direct ancestors of modern Homo sapiens. Homo antecessor is likely a direct ancestor living 750,000 years
ago evolving into Homo heidelbergensis appearing in the fossil record living roughly 600,000 to 250,000
years ago through various areas of Europe.
Homo heidelbergensis remains were found in Mauer near Heidelberg, Germany and then later in Arago,
France and Petralona, Greece. The best evidence found for these hominins date between 400,000 and
500,000 years ago.
H. heidelbergensis stone tool technology was considerably close to that of the Acheulean tools used by
Homo erectus. The first fossil discovery of this species was made on October 21, 1907 and came from
Mauer where the workman Daniel Hartmann spotted a jaw in a sandpit. The jaw was in good condition
except for the missing premolar teeth, which were eventually found near the jaw. The workman gave it to Scientific classification
professor Otto Schoetensack from the University of Heidelberg, who identified and named the fossil. Kingdom: Animalia
Most current experts believe Rhodesian Man, found in Africa, to be within the group Homo heidelbergensis. Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Family: Hominidae
 1 Morphology and interpretations Genus: Homo
 1.1 Evidence of hunting
 1.2 Social behavior Species: H. heidelbergensis
 2 Notable fossils Binomial name
 2.1 Boxgrove Man
†Homo heidelbergensis
 2.2 Sima de los Huesos
Schoetensack, 1908
 3 See also
 4 References

Both H. antecessor and H. heidelbergensis are likely descended from the morphologically very similar Homo
ergaster from Africa. But because H. heidelbergensis had a larger brain-case — with a typical cranial volume of
1100-1400 cm³ overlapping the 1350 cm³ average of modern humans — and had more advanced tools and behavior,
it has been given a separate species classification. The species was tall, 1.8 m (6 ft.) on average, and more muscular
than modern humans.
Evidence of hunting
Homo heidelbergensis skull.
Cut marks found on wild deer, elephants, rhinos and horses demonstrate that they were butchered, some of the
animals weighed as much as 700 kg (1,500 lb) or possibly larger. During this era, now-extinct wild animals such as
mammoths, European lions and Irish elk roamed the European continent.
Social behavior
In theory recent findings in Atapuerca also suggest that H. heidelbergensis may have been the first species of the
Homo genus to bury their dead, but that is contested at this time. Some experts believe that H. heidelbergensis, like its
descendant H. neanderthalensis acquired a primitive form of language. No forms of art or sophisticated artifacts other
than stone tools have been uncovered, although red ochre, a mineral that can be used to create a red pigment which is
useful as a paint, has been found at Terra Amata excavations in the south of France.
Notable fossils cranium.
 Mauer 1
 Arago 21
 Steinheim Skull
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis
 Ciampate del Diavolo
Boxgrove Man
In 1994 British scientists had unearthed a lower hominin tibia bone just a few kilometres away from the English Channel including hundreds of ancient
hand axes at the Boxgrove Quarry site. A partial leg bone is dated to 478,000 and 524,000 years old. Homo heidelbergensis was the early proto-human
species that occupied both France and Great Britain at that time; both locales were connected by a landmass during that epoch. Prior to Gran Dolina,
Boxgrove offered the earliest hominid occupants in Europe.
The tibia had been gnawed by a large carnivore, suggesting that he had been killed by a lion or wolf or that his unburied corpse had been scavenged
after death [1].
Sima de los Huesos
In 1997, a Spanish team located more than 4,000 human bones dated to an age of at least 350,000 years old in the Sima de los Huesos site in the Sierra
de Atapuerca in northern Spain. The fossil pit bones include a complete cranium and fragments of other craniums, mandibles, teeth, a lot of postcranial
bones (femurs, hand and foot bones, vertebrae, ribs, etc.) and a complete pelvis. The pit contains fossils of perhaps 28 individuals together with
remains of bears and other carnivores. Nearby sites contain the only known Homo antecessor fossils.
See also
References
 Sauer, A. (1985). Erläuterungen zur Geol. Karte 1 : 25 000 Baden-Württ..
 Schoetensack, O. (1908). Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis aus den Sanden von Mauer bei Heidelberg. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
 Weinert, H. (1937). "Dem Unterkiefer von Mauer zur 30-jährigen Wiederkehr seiner Entdeckung". Z. f. Morphol. u. Anthropol XXXVII (1): pp.
102–113.
External links
 Smithsonian
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis"

Categories: Early hominids | Pleistocene extinctions | Pleistocene mammals
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis
NeanderthalHelp us provide free content to the world by donating today!
(Redirected from Homo neanderthalensis)
The Neanderthal (IPA: /niːˈændərθɔːl/, also with /neɪ-/, and /-tɑːl/), or Neandertal, was a species of the Homo Neanderthal

genus (Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)[1] which inhabited Europe and parts of
western and central Asia. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 350-500 thousand
years ago.[2] By 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics had appeared and by 50,000 years ago,
Neanderthals disappeared from Asia, although they did not reach extinction in Europe until 30,000 years ago.[3]
No Neanderthal skeletons of younger dating have been found, though it has been suggested that Neanderthals
survived longer in Southern Iberia.[4][5] Neanderthal may have coexisted with modern humans up to 15,000 years
after Homo sapiens had migrated into Europe.[6][7][8] It is believed that the population of Neanderthals was never
much more than 10,000 individuals.[9]
Neanderthals had many adaptations to a cold climate: short, robust builds, and rather large noses — traits selected
by nature in cold climates. Their cranial capacity was larger than modern humans, indicating that their brains may
have been larger. On average, the height of Neanderthals was comparable to contemporaneous homo sapiens.
Neanderthal males stood about 165–68 cm tall (about 5'5") and were heavily built with robust bone structure.
H. neanderthalensis La Chapelle aux
Females stood about 152–56 cm tall (about 5'1").[10] The characteristic style of stone tools in the Middle
Saints.
Paleolithic is called the Mousterian culture, after a prominent archaeological site where the tools were first found.
The Mousterian culture is typified by the wide use of the Levallois technique. Mousterian tools were often Conservation status
produced using soft hammer percussion, with hammers made of materials like bones, antlers, and wood, rather Fossil
than hard hammer percussion, using stone hammers. Near the end of the time of the Neanderthals, they created Scientific classification
the Châtelperronian tool style, considered more advanced than that of the Mousterian. They either invented the Kingdom: Animalia
Châtelperronian themselves or borrowed elements from the incoming modern humans who are thought to have
created the Aurignacian. Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Family: Hominidae
 1 Etymology and classification Genus: Homo
 2 Discovery
Species: H. neanderthalensis
 2.1 Notable fossils
 3 Anatomy Binomial name
 3.1 Distinguishing physical traits †Homo neanderthalensis
 4 Language King, 1864
 5 Tools Synonyms
 6 Habitat and range
 7 Cannibalism or Ritual defleshing? Palaeoanthropus
 8 Pathology neanderthalensis
 8.1 Fractures
H. s. neanderthalensis
 8.2 Trauma
 8.3 Degenerative disease
 8.4 Hypoplastic disease
 8.5 Infection
 9 The fate of the Neanderthals
 10 Genome
 11 Key dates
 12 Popular culture
 13 See also
 14 Footnotes
 15 References
Etymology and classification

The Neandertal is a small valley of the river Düssel in the German Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia, located
about 12 km (7.5 mi) west of Düsseldorf, the capital city of North Rhine-Westphalia. Neanderthal is now spelled two
ways: the old spelling of the German word Thal, meaning "valley or dale", was changed to Tal in 1901, but the former spelling is often retained in
English and always in scientific names, while the modern spelling is used in German while referring to the valley itself.
The Neander Valley was named after theologian Joachim Neander, who lived nearby in Düsseldorf in the late seventeenth century. In turn,
Neanderthals were named after "Neander Valley", where the first Neanderthal remains were found. The term Neanderthal Man was coined in 1863 by
Anglo-Irish geologist William King.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis
The original German pronunciation (regardless of spelling) is with the sound /t/. (See German phonology.) In English
the term is commonly anglicised to /θ/ (th as in thin), though scientists frequently use /t/. "Neander" is a classicized
form of the common German surname Neumann.
For some time, professionals debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Recent genetic
simulations suggested that 5% of human DNA can only be accounted for by assuming a substantial contribution of
Neanderthaler to the European gene pool of up to 25%.[11] Additionally, morphological studies using latest
techniques support that Homo neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies. [12] Some scientists, for
example University of Michigan Professor Milford Wolpoff, claim that fossil evidence suggests that the two species
interbred. This would support the argument that the two were the same biological species. Others, for example
University of Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"[13] and
evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence that Neanderthals were not a subspecies
of H. sapiens.[14]
Discovery Type Specimen, Neanderthal
1.
Neanderthal skulls were first discovered in Engis, Belgium (1829) and in Forbes'
Quarry, Gibraltar (1848), both prior to the "original" discovery in a limestone quarry
of the Neander Valley in Erkrath near Düsseldorf in August, 1856, three years before Charles Darwin's On the Origin
of Species was published.[15]
The type specimen, dubbed Neanderthal 1, consisted of a skull cap, two femora, three bones from the right arm, two
from the left arm, part of the left ilium, fragments of a scapula, and ribs. The workers who recovered this material
originally thought it to be the remains of a bear. They gave the material to amateur naturalist Johann Carl Fuhlrott,
who turned the fossils over to anatomist Hermann Schaaffhausen. The discovery was jointly announced in 1857.
The original Neanderthal discovery is now considered the beginning of paleoanthropology. These and other
discoveries led to the idea that these remains were from ancient Europeans who had played an important role in
modern human origins. The bones of over 400 Neanderthals have been found since.
Location of Neander Valley, Notable fossils

Germany. (The highlighted
area is the modern federal
state of North Rhine- La Ferrassie 1: A fossilized skull discovered in La Ferrassie, France by R. Capitan in 1909. It is estimated to be
Westphalia.) 70,000 years old. Its characteristics include a large occipital bun, low-vaulted cranium and heavily worn teeth.
 Shanidar 1: Found in the Zagros Mountains in northern Iraq; a total of nine skeletons found believed to have lived in
the Middle Paleolithic Period. One of the nine remains had an amputated arm. This is significant due to the fact that it
shows that stone tools were present in that era. Also, another Neanderthal had been buried with flowers, showing that some type of burial
ceremony may have occurred.
 La Chappelle-aux-Saints 1: Called the Old Man, a fossilized skull discovered in La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France by A. and J. Bouyssonie, and L.
Bardon in 1908. Characteristics include a low vaulted cranium and large browridge typical of Neanderthals. Estimated to be about 60,000 years
old, the specimen was severely arthritic and had lost all his teeth, with evidence of healing. For him to have lived on would have required that
someone process his food for him, one of the earliest examples of Neanderthal altruism (similar to Shanidar I.)
 Le Moustier: A fossilized skull, discovered in 1909, at the archeological site in Peyzac-le-Moustier, Dordogne, France. The Mousterian tool
culture is named after Le Moustier. The skull, estimated to be less than 45,000 years old, includes a large nasal cavity and a somewhat less
developed brow ridge and occipital bun as might be expected in a juvenile.
 Neanderthal 1: Initial Neanderthal specimen found during an archaeology dig in August 1856. Discovered in a limestone quarry at the Feldhofer
grotto in Neanderthal, Germany. The find consisted of a skull cap, two femora, the three right arm bones, two of the left arm bones, ilium, and
fragments of a scapula and ribs.
 Kebara 2
Anatomy
Compared to modern humans, Neanderthals were similar in height but with more robust bodies, and had distinct morphological features, especially of
the cranium, which gradually accumulated more derived aspects, particularly in certain relatively isolated geographic regions. Evidence suggests that
they were much stronger than modern humans;[16] their relatively robust stature is thought to be an adaptation to the cold climate of Europe during the
Pleistocene epoch.
A 2007 study confirmed that some Neanderthals had red hair and pale skin color; however, the mutation in the MC1R gene arose independently of the
mutation which causes a similar pigmentation pattern in modern humans.[17][18]
Distinguishing physical traits
The following is a list of physical traits which distinguish Neanderthals from modern
humans; however, not all of them can be used to distinguish specific Neanderthal
populations, from various geographic areas or periods of evolution, from other extinct
humans. Also, many of these traits occasionally manifest in modern humans, particularly
among certain ethnic groups. Nothing is known about the shape of soft parts such as eyes,
ears, and lips of Neanderthals.[19]
 Cranial
 Suprainiac fossa, a groove above the inion
 Occipital bun, a protuberance of the occipital bone which looks like a hair knot
[20]
 Projecting mid-face
 Low, flat, elongated skull Neanderthal cranial anatomy.
 A flat basicranium[18][19][21]
 Supraorbital torus, a prominent, trabecular (spongy) browridge
 1200-1750 cm³ skull capacity (10% greater than modern human average)
 Lack of a protruding chin (mental protuberance; although later specimens possess a slight protuberance)
 Crest on the mastoid process behind the ear opening
 No groove on canine teeth
 A retromolar space posterior to the third molar
 Bony projections on the sides of the nasal opening
 Distinctive shape of the bony labyrinth in the ear
 Larger mental foramen in mandible for facial blood supply
 Broad, projecting nose
 Sub-cranial
 Considerably more robust
 Large round finger tips
 Barrel-shaped rib cage
 Large kneecaps
 Long collar bones
 Short, bowed shoulder blades
 Thick, bowed shaft of the thigh bones
 Short shinbones and calf bones
 Long, gracile pelvic pubis (superior pubic ramus)
 Bowed Femur
Language
See also: Origin of language
The idea that Neanderthals lacked complex language was widespread, despite concerns about the accuracy of reconstructions of the Neanderthal vocal
tract, until 1983, when a Neanderthal hyoid bone was found at the Kebara Cave in Israel. The hyoid is a small bone which connects the musculature of
the tongue and the larynx, and by bracing these structures against each other, allows a wider range of tongue and laryngeal movements than would
otherwise be possible. The presence of this bone implies that speech was anatomically possible. The bone which was found is virtually identical to that
of modern humans.[22]
The morphology of the outer and middle ear of Neanderthal ancestors, Homo heidelbergensis, found in Spain, suggests they had an auditory sensitivity
similar to modern humans and very different from chimpanzees. They were probably able to differentiate between many different sounds.[23]
Neurological evidence for potential speech in neanderthalensis exists in the form of the hypoglossal canal. The canal of neanderthalensis is the same
size or larger than in modern humans, which are significantly larger than the canal of australopithecines and modern chimpanzees. The canal carries
the hypoglossal nerve, which controls the muscles of the tongue. This indicates that neanderthalensis had vocal capabilities similar to modern humans.
[24] A research team from the University of California, Berkeley, led by David DeGusta, suggests that the size of the hypoglossal canal is not an
indicator of speech. His team's research, which shows no correlation between canal size and speech potential, shows there are a number of extant non-
human primates and fossilized australopithecines which have equal or larger hypoglossal canal.[25]
Another anatomical difference between Neanderthals and Modern humans is their lack of a mental protuberance (the point at the tip of the chin). This
may be relevant to speech as the mentalis muscle, one of the muscles which move the lower lip, is attached to the tip of the chin. While some
Neanderthal individuals do possess a mental protuberance, their chins never show the inverted T-shape of modern humans.[26] In contrast, some
Neanderthal individuals show inferior lateral mental tubercles (little bumps at the side of the chin).
A recent extraction of DNA from Neanderthal bones indicates that Neanderthals had the same version of the FOXP2 gene as modern humans. This
gene is known to play a role in human language.[27]
Steven Mithen (2006) proposes that the Neanderthals had an elaborate proto-linguistic system of communication which was more musical than modern
human language, and which predated the separation of language and music into two separate modes of cognition.[28]
Tools
Neanderthal and Middle Paleolithic archaeological sites show a smaller and different toolkit than those which have
been found in Upper Paleolithic sites, which were perhaps occupied by modern humans which superseded them.
Fossil evidence indicating who may have made the tools found in Early Upper Paleolithic sites is still missing.
Neanderthals are thought to have used tools of the Mousterian class, which were often produced using soft hammer
percussion, with hammers made of materials like bones, antlers, and wood, rather than hard hammer percussion, using
stone hammers. A result of this is that their bone industry was relatively simple. However, there is good evidence that
they routinely constructed a variety of stone implements. Neanderthal (Mousterian) tools most often consisted of
sophisticated stone-flakes, task-specific hand axes, and spears. Many of these tools were very sharp. There is also
good evidence that they used a lot of wood, objects which are unlikely to have been preserved until today.[29]
Also, while they had weapons, whether they had implements which were used as projectile weapons is controversial.
They had spears, made of long wooden shafts with spearheads firmly attached, but they are thought by some to have
been thrusting spears.[30] Still, a Levallois point embedded in a vertebra shows an angle of impact suggesting that it
entered by a "parabolic trajectory" suggesting that it was the tip of a projectile.[31] Moreover, a number of 400,000 Neanderthal Hunter,
year old wooden projectile spears were found at Schöningen in northern Germany. These are thought to have been (American Mus. Nat. Hist.) .
made by the Neanderthal's ancestors, Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis. Generally, projectile weapons are more
commonly associated with H. sapiens. The lack of projectile weaponry is an indication of different sustenance
methods, rather than inferior technology or abilities. The situation is identical to that of native New Zealand Maori -
modern Homo sapiens, who also rarely threw objects, but used spears and clubs instead.[32]
Although much has been made of the Neanderthal's burial of their dead, their burials were less elaborate than those of
anatomically modern humans. The interpretation of the Shanidar IV burials as including flowers, and therefore being
a form of ritual burial,[33] has been questioned.[34] On the other hand, five of the six flower pollens found with
Shanidar IV are known to have had 'traditional' medical uses, even among relatively recent 'modern' populations. In
some cases Neanderthal burials include grave goods, such as bison and aurochs bones, tools, and the pigment ochre.
Neanderthals also performed many sophisticated tasks which are normally associated only with humans. For example,
it is known that they controlled fire, constructed complex shelters, and skinned animals. A trap excavated at La Cotte
de St Brelade in Jersey gives testament to their intelligence and success as hunters [35].
Neanderthal Tool Maker.
Particularly intriguing is a hollowed-out bear femur with holes which may have been deliberately bored into it. This
bone was found in western Slovenia in 1995, near a Mousterian fireplace, but its significance is still a matter of
dispute. Some paleoanthropologists have hypothesized that it was a flute, while others believe it was created by accident through the chomping action
of another bear. See: Divje Babe.
Pendants and other jewelry showing traces of ochre dye and of deliberate grooving have also been found[20] with later finds, particularly in France but
whether or not they were created by Neaderthals or traded to them by Cro-Magnons is a matter of controversy.
Habitat and range

Early Neanderthals lived in the Last Glacial age for a span of about 100,000 years. Because of the
damaging effects which the glacial period had on the Neanderthal sites, not much is known about
the early species. Places where their remains are known include Portugal, France[36] and Spain, as
well as Britain [37], Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Greece[38] and Israel.
Classic Neanderthal fossils have been found over a large area, from northern Germany to Israel and
Mediterranean countries like Spain and Italy in the south and from England in the west to
Uzbekistan in the east. This area probably was not occupied all at the same time; the northern
border of their range in particular would have contracted frequently with the onset of cold periods.
On the other hand, the northern border of their range as represented by fossils may not be the real
northern border of the area they occupied, since Middle-Palaeolithic looking artifacts have been
found even further north, up to 60° on the Russian plain.[39] Recent evidence has extended the Sites where typical Neanderthal fossils have been
Neanderthal range by about 1,250 miles (2,010 km) east into southern Siberia's Altay Mountains. found.
[40][41]
Cannibalism or Ritual defleshing?

Neanderthals hunted large animals, such as the mammoth. Stone-tipped wooden spears were used for hunting and stone knives were used for
butchering the animals. They are also believed to have gathered wild plants like their ancestors, Homo erectus. However, they are believed to have
practiced ritual defleshing. This hypothesis has been represented after researchers found marks on Neanderthal bones similar to the bones of a dead
deer eaten by Neanderthals.
Intentional burial and the inclusion of grave goods are the most typical representations of ritual behavior in the Neanderthals and denote a developing
ideology. However, another much debated and controversial manifestation of this ritual treatment of the dead comes from the evidence of cut-marks on
the bone which has historically been viewed as evidence of ritual defleshing.
Neanderthal bones from various sites (Combe-Grenal and Abri Moula in France, Krapina in Croatia and Grotta Guattari in Italy) have all been cited as
bearing cut marks made by stone tools.[42] However, results of technological tests reveal varied causes.
Re-evaluation of these marks using high-powered microscopes, comparisons to contemporary butchered animal remains and recent ethnographic cases
of excarnation mortuary practises have shown that perhaps this was a case of ritual defleshing.
 At Grotta Guattari, the apparently purposefully widened base of the skull (for access to the brains) has been shown to be caused by carnivore
action, with hyena tooth marks found on the skull and mandible.
 According to some studies, fragments of bones from Krapina show marks which are similar to those seen on bones from secondary burials at a
Michigan ossuary (14th century AD) and are indicative of removing the flesh of a partially decomposed body.
 According to others, the marks on the bones found at Krapina are indicative of defleshing, although whether this was for nutritional or ritual
purposes cannot be determined with certainty.[43]
 Analysis of bones from Abri Moula in France does seem to suggest cannibalism was practiced here. Cut-marks are concentrated in places
expected in the case of butchery, instead of defleshing. Additionally the treatment of the bones was similar to that of roe deer bones, assumed to
be food remains, found in the same shelter.[44]
The evidence indicating cannibalism would not distinguish Neanderthals from modern Homo sapiens. Ancient and existing Homo sapiens, including

the Korowai, are known to have practiced cannibalism and/or mortuary defleshing.
Pathology
Within the west Asian and European record there are five broad groups of pathology or injury noted in Neanderthal skeletons.
Fractures
Neanderthals seemed to suffer a high frequency of fractures, especially common on the ribs (Shanidar IV, La Chapelle-aux-Saints ‘Old Man’), the
femur (La Ferrassie 1), fibulae (La Ferrassie 2 and Tabun 1), spine (Kebara 2) and skull (Shanidar I, Krapina, Sala 1). These fractures are often healed
and show little or no sign of infection, suggesting that injured individuals were cared for during times of incapacitation. The pattern of fractures, along
with the absence of throwing weapons, suggests that they may have hunted by leaping onto their prey and stabbing or even wrestling it to the ground.
[45]
Trauma
Particularly related to fractures are cases of trauma seen on many skeletons of Neanderthals. These usually take the form of stab wounds, as seen on
Shanidar III, whose lung was probably punctured by a stab wound to the chest between the 8th and 9th ribs. This may have been an intentional attack
or merely a hunting accident; either way the man survived for some weeks after his injury before being killed by a rock fall in the Shanidar cave. Other
signs of trauma include blows to the head (Shanidar I and IV, Krapina), all of which seemed to have healed, although traces of the scalp wounds are
visible on the surface of the skulls.
Degenerative disease
Arthritis is particularly common in the older Neanderthal population, specifically targeting areas of articulation such as the ankle (Shanidar III), spine
and hips (La Chapelle-aux-Saints ‘Old Man’), arms (La Quina 5, Krapina, Feldhofer) knees, fingers and toes. This is closely related to degenerative
joint disease, which can range from normal, use-related degeneration to painful, debilitating restriction of movement and deformity and is seen in
varying degree in the Shanidar skeletons (I-IV).
Hypoplastic disease
Dental enamel hypoplasia is an indicator of stress during the development of teeth and records in the striations and grooves in the enamel periods of
food scarcity, trauma or disease. A study of 669 Neanderthal dental crowns showed that 75% of individuals suffered some degree of hypoplasia and
that nutritional deficiencies were the main cause of hypoplasia and eventual tooth loss. All particularly aged skeletons show evidence of hypoplasia
and it is especially evident in the Old Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints and La Ferrassie 1 teeth.
Infection
Evidence of infections on Neanderthal skeletons is usually visible in the form of lesions on the bone, which are created by systematic infection on
areas closest to the bone. Shanidar I has evidence of the degenerative lesions as does La Ferrassie 1, whose lesions on both femora, tibiae and fibulae
are indicative of a systemic infection or carcinoma (malignant tumour/cancer).
The fate of the Neanderthals
Possible hypotheses for the fate of Neanderthals include the following:
1. Neanderthals evolved to a separate species which became extinct (see Neanderthal extinction hypotheses) and
were replaced by early modern humans traveling from Africa.[46]
2. Neanderthals was a contemporary subspecies which incidentally bred with Homo sapiens and disappeared
through absorption (see Neanderthal interaction with Cro-Magnons)
3. Neanderthals never split from Homo sapiens and most of their populations transformed into anatomically
modern humans between 50-30 kya (see Multiregional origin of modern humans).
According to the oldest view (#1), modern humans (Homo sapiens) began replacing Neanderthals around 45,000
years ago, as the Cro-Magnon people appeared in Europe, pushing populations of Neanderthals into regional pockets,
where they held on for thousands of years, such as modern-day Croatia, Iberia, and the Crimean peninsula. The last Reconstruction of a
traces of Neanderthal culture have been found around a cave system on the remote south-facing coast of Gibraltar, NeanderthaI child from
Gibraltar (Anthropological
from 30,000 to 24,000 years ago. Institute, University of
Zürich).
The validity of such an extensive period of cornered Neanderthal groups is recently questioned. There is no longer
certainty regarding the identity of the humans who produced the Aurignacian culture, even though the presumed
westward spread of anatomically modern humans (AMHs) across Europe is still based on the controversial first dates of the Aurignacian. Currently,
the oldest European anatomically modern Homo sapiens is represented by a robust modern human mandible discovered at Pestera cu Oase (south-west
Romania), dated to 34–36 kya (thousand years ago). Human skeletal remains from the German site of Vogelherd, so far regarded the best association
between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Aurignacian culture, were revealed to represent intrusive Neolithic burials into the Aurignacian
levels and subsequently all the key Vogelherd fossils are now dated to 3.9–5.0 thousand years ago instead.[47] As for now, the expansion of the first
anatomically modern humans into Europe can't be located by diagnostic and well-dated anatomically modern human fossils "west of the Iron Gates of
the Danube" before 32 kya.[48] Moreover, researchers have recently found in Pestera Muierii, Romania, remains of European humans from 30 kya who
possessed mostly diagnostic "modern" anatomical features, but also had distinct Neanderthal features not present in ancestral modern humans in
Africa, including a large bulge at the back of the skull, a more prominent projection around the elbow joint, and a narrow socket at the shoulder joint.
Analysis of one skeleton's shoulder showed that these humans, like Neanderthal, did not have the full capability for throwing spears.[49]
Consequently, the exact nature of biological and cultural interactions between Neanderthals and other human groups between 50 and 30 thousand
years ago is currently hotly contested. A new proposal resolves the issue by taking the Gravettians rather than the Aurignacians as the anatomically
modern humans which contributed to the post-30 kya Eurasian genetic pool.[50] Correspondingly, the human skull fragment found at the Elbe River
bank at Hahnöfersand near Hamburg was once radiocarbon dated to 36,000 years ago and seen as possible evidence for the intermixing of
Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans. It is now dated to the more recent Mesolithic.[51]
Modern human findings in Abrigo do Lagar Velho, Portugal of 24,500 years ago, allegedly featuring Neanderthal admixtures, have been published.[52]
The paleontological analysis of modern human emergence in Europe has been shifting from considerations of the Neanderthals to assessments of the
biology and chronology of the earliest modern humans in western Eurasia. This focus, involving morphologically modern humans before 28,000 years
ago shows accumulating evidence that they present a variable mosaic of derived modern human, archaic human, and Neanderthal features.[53][54][55]
On the other hand, a mtDNA analysis has shown no evidence for Neanderthal contributions to the gene pool of modern humans.[56] The authors of the
study concede that this does not exclude Neanderthal contributions of other genes. They nevertheless argue that other genetic and morphological data
also suggest little or no Neanderthal contribution.
Genome
Further information: Neanderthal Genome Project
While previous investigations concentrated on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) — which, due to strictly matrilineal inheritance and subsequent
vulnerability to genetic drift, is of limited value to disprove interbreeding — more recent investigations have access to growing strings of deciphered
nuclear DNA (nDNA).
In July 2006, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and 454 Life Sciences announced that they would be sequencing the
Neanderthal genome over the next two years. The Neanderthal genome very likely is roughly the size of the human genome, three-billion base pairs,
and probably shares most of its genes. It is thought that a comparison of the Neanderthal genome and human genome will expand understanding of
Neanderthals as well as the evolution of humans and human brains.[57]
DNA researcher Svante Pääbo has tested more than 70 Neanderthal specimens and found only one which had enough DNA to sample. Preliminary
DNA sequencing from a 38,000-year-old bone fragment of a femur bone found at Vindija cave in Croatia in 1980 shows that Homo neanderthalensis
and Homo sapiens share about 99.5% of their DNA. From mtDNA analysis estimates, the two species shared a common ancestor about 500,000 years
ago. An article appearing in the journal Nature has calculated the species diverged about 516,000 years ago, whereas fossil records show a time of
about 400,000 years ago. From DNA records, scientists hope to falsify or confirm the theory that there was interbreeding between the species.[58] A
2007 study pushes the point of divergence back to around 800,000 years ago.[59]
Edward Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California states that recent genome testing of Neanderthals suggests
human and Neanderthal DNA are some 99.5 percent to nearly 99.9 percent identical.[60][61]
On November 16, 2006, Science Daily published scientific test results demonstrating that Neanderthals and ancient humans probably did not

interbreed. Scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the Joint Genome Institute
(JGI) sequenced genomic nuclear DNA (nDNA) from a fossilized Neanderthal femur. Their results more precisely indicate a common ancestor about
706,000 years ago, and a complete separation of the ancestors of the species about 376,000 years ago. Their results show that the genomes of modern
humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5% identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and despite the two species having cohabitated the same
geographic region for thousands of years, there is no evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two. Edward Rubin, director of both JGI
and Berkeley Lab’s Genomics Division: “While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur,
analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.”
On the other hand, a 2006 investigation suggested that at least 5% of the genetic material of modern Europeans and West Africans has an archaic
origin, due to interbreeding with Neanderthal and a hitherto unknown archaic African population.[11] Plagnol and Wall arrived at this result by first
calculating a "null model" of genetic characteristics which would fulfill the requirement of descendence from Homo sapiens sapiens in a straight line.
Next they compared this model to the current distribution and characteristics of existing genetic polymorphisms, and concluded that this "null model"
deviated considerably from what would be expected. Genetic simulations indicated this 5% of DNA not accounted for by the null model corresponds
to a substantial contribution to the European gene pool of up to 25%. Future investigation—including a full scale Neanderthal genome project—is
expected to cast more light on the subject of genetic polymorphisms to supply more details. Contrary to the investigation of mtDNA, the study of
polymorph mutations has the potential to answer the question whether—and to what extent—Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens interbred.[62]
A main proponent of the interbreeding hypothesis is Erik Trinkaus of Washington University. In a 2006 study published in Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, Trinkaus and his co-authors report a possibility that Neanderthals and humans did interbreed. The study claims to settle
the extinction controversy; according to researchers, the human and neanderthal populations blended together through sexual reproduction. Trinkaus
states, "Extinction through absorption is a common phenomenon."[63] and "From my perspective, the replacement vs. continuity debate that raged
through the 1990s is now dead".[64]
There is a possibility that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbred but left little genetic evidence of that. That is because there is an ongoing debate
about whether the hunter-gatherers of the middle stone age started farming when they came in contact with agriculture, or were completely replaced by
the farmers moving in from the Middle East. If modern Europeans are mainly descendents of these farming people with little or no genetic input of the
hunter gatherers of the middle stone age, then possible interbreeding between them and the Neanderthals would not have had a great effect on the
modern gene-pool.[65]
The case for interbreeding recently revived by studies that claim signs of admixture (introgression), finding unusually deep genealogies in highly
divergent clades (genetic branches). The genetic variation at the microcephalin gene, a critical regulator of brain size whose loss-of-function by
damaging mutations may also cause primary microcephaly, is claimed to be the most compelling evidence of admixture thus far. One type of the
gene,dubbed haplogroup D having an exceptionally high worldwide frequency (~70%), was shown to have a remarkably young coalescence age to its
most recent common ancestor ~37,000 years ago. The remaining types (non-D) coalesce to ~990,000 years ago, while the separation time between D
and non-D was estimated at ~1,100,000 years ago. An evolutionary advance was assumed, even though positive selection was never as all-decisive as
to wipe out the remaining 30% of non-D haplogroups (in which case no introgression could have been suggested) and as for now, a measurable genetic
advance has not been attested.[66] Both the worldwide frequency distribution of the D allele, exceptionally high outside of Africa but low in sub-
Saharan Africa (29%) that suggests involvement of an archaic Eurasian population, and current estimates of the divergence time between modern
humans and Neanderthals based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), are in favor of the Neanderthal lineage as the most likely archaic Homo population
from which introgression into the modern human gene pool took place. [67][68]
Key dates
 1829: Neanderthal skulls were discovered in Engis, Belgium.
 1848: Skull of an ancient human was found in Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar. Its significance was not realised at the time.
 1856: Johann Karl Fuhlrott first recognised the fossil called “Neanderthal man”, discovered in Neanderthal, a valley near Mettmann in what is
now North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.
 1880: The mandible of a Neanderthal child was found in a secure context and associated with cultural debris, including hearths, Mousterian
tools, and bones of extinct animals.
 1899: Hundreds of Neanderthal bones were described in stratigraphic position in association with cultural remains and extinct animal bones.
 1908: A nearly complete Neanderthal skeleton was discovered in association with Mousterian tools and bones of extinct animals.
 1953-1957: Ralph Solecki uncovered nine Neanderthal skeletons in Shanidar Cave in northern Iraq.
 1975: Erik Trinkaus’s study of Neanderthal feet confirmed that they walked like modern humans.
 1987: Thermoluminescence results from Palestine fossils date Neanderthals at Kebara to 60,000 BP and modern humans at Qafzeh to 90,000
BP. These dates were confirmed by Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) dates for Qafzeh (90,000 BP) and Es Skhul (80,000 BP).
 1991: ESR dates showed that the Tabun Neanderthal was contemporaneous with modern humans from Skhul and Qafzeh.
 1997 Matthias Krings et al. are the first to amplify Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) using a specimen from Feldhofer grotto in the
Neander valley. Their work is published in the journal Cell.
 2000: Igor Ovchinnikov, Kirsten Liden, William Goodman et al. retrieved DNA from a Late Neanderthal (29,000 BP) infant from Mezmaikaya
Cave in the Caucausus.
 2005: The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology launched a project to reconstruct the Neanderthal genome.
 2006: The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology announced that it planned to work with Connecticut-based 454 Life Sciences to
reconstruct the Neanderthal genome.
Popular culture
In popular idiom the word neanderthal is sometimes used as an insult, to suggest that a person combines a deficiency of intelligence and an attachment
to brute force, as well as perhaps implying the person is old fashioned or attached to outdated ideas, much in the same way as "dinosaur" is also used.
Counterbalancing this are sympathetic literary portrayals of Neanderthals, as in the novel The Inheritors by William Golding, Isaac Asimov's The Ugly
Little Boy, and Jean M. Auel's Earth's Children series, though Auel repeatedly compares Neanderthals to modern humans unfavorably within the
series, showing them to be less advanced in nearly every facet of their lives. Instead she gives them access to a 'race memory' and uses it to explain
both their cultural richness and eventual stagnation. A more serious treatment is offered by Finnish palaeontologist Björn Kurtén, in several works
including Dance of the Tiger, and British psychologist Stan Gooch in his hybrid-origin theory of humans. The Neanderthal Parallax, a trilogy of
science fiction novels dealing with neanderthals, written by Robert J. Sawyer, explores a scenario where neanderthals are seen as a distinct species
from humans and survive in a parallel universe version of earth. The novels explore what happens when they, having developed a sophisticated
technological culture of their own, open a portal to this version of the earth. The three novels are titled Hominids, Humans, and Hybrids, respectively,
and all form essentially one story.
See also
 List of Neanderthal sites
 Neanderthal Genome Project
 Neanderthal extinction hypotheses
 List of primate and hominin fossils (with images)
 Physical anthropology
 Caveman
 Abrigo do Lagar Velho - More about "the Lapedo child"
 Almas: wild man of Mongolia
 Pleistocene megafauna
Footnotes
1. ^ Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (13): 7117–9.
doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117. PMID 10377375. “on the view that these distinctive hominids merit species recognition in their own right as Homo
neanderthalensis (e.g., refs. 4 and 5), at least as many still regard them as no more than a strange variant of our own species, Homo sapiens (6, 7)” Available
on-line
2. ^ J. L. Bischoff et al. (2003). "The Sima de los Huesos Hominids Date to Beyond U/Th Equilibrium (>350 kyr) and Perhaps to 400–500 kyr: New Radiometric
Dates". J. Archaeol. Sci. 30 (30): 275. doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0834.
3. ^ Last Neanderthals Were Smart, Discovery Channel
4. ^ [1] Climate forcing and Neanderthal extinction in Southern Iberia: insights from a multiproxy marine record - Francisco J. Jiménez-Espejo et al.
5. ^ The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia - Cidália Duarte, João
Maurício, Paul B. Pettitt, Pedro Souto, Erik Trinkaus, Hans van der Plicht, and João Zilhão, PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 13, 7604-7609, June 22, 1999 [2]
6. ^ Rincon, Paul (2006-09-13). Neanderthals' 'last rock refuge'. BBC News. Retrieved on 2006-09-19.
7. ^ Mcilroy, Anne (2006-09-13). Neanderthals may have lived longer than thought. Globe and Mail. Retrieved on 2006-09-19.
8. ^ Richard G. Klein (March 2003). "PALEOANTHROPOLOGY: Whither the Neanderthals?". Science 299 (5612): 1525–1527. doi:10.1126/science.1082025.
PMID 12624250.
9. ^ "Stone Age feminism? Females joining hunt may explain Neanderthals' end." Nickerson, Colin. Boston Globe, November 10, 2007[3]
10. ^ Helmuth, H. (1998). "Body height, body mass and surface area of the Neanderthals". Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 82 (1): 1–12. Retrieved
on [[2008-05-26]].
11. ^ a b Plagnol V, Wall JD: Possible ancestral structure in human populations. PLoS Genet 2006, 2:e105.[4]
12. ^ Harvati & all: Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differencesProc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004
Feb 3;101(5):1147-52)
13. ^ Modern humans, Neanderthals shared earth for 1,000 years. ABC News (Australia) (2005-09-01). Retrieved on 2006-09-19.
14. ^ Hodges, S. Blair (2000-12-07). Human Evolution: A start for population genomics. Nature Publishing Group (Nature. 2000 Dec 7;408(6813):652-3).
15. ^ Human Ancestors Hall: Homo neanderthalensis
16. ^ Science & Nature - Wildfacts - Neanderthal
17. ^ Laleuza-Fox, Carles; Holger Römpler et al (2007-10-25). "A Melanocortin 1 Receptor Allele Suggests Varying Pigmentation Among Neanderthals". Science
318: 1453. doi:10.1126/science.1147417. PMID 17962522. Retrieved on 2007-10-26.
18. ^ Paul Rincon (2007-10-25). Neanderthals 'were flame-haired'. BBC.co.uk. Retrieved on 2007-10-25.
19. ^ Scientists Build 'Frankenstein' Neanderthal Skeleton.
20. ^ Gunz and Harvati: The Neanderthal "chignon": variation, integration, and homology J Hum Evol. 2007 Mar;52(3):262-74
21. '^ B. Arensburg et al. (1990). "A reappraisal of the anatomical basis for speech in Middle Palaeolithic hominids". American Journal of Physical
Anthropology '83 (2): 137–146. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330830202.
22. ^ B. Arensburg, A. M. Tillier, B. Vandermeersch, H. Duday, L. A. Schepartz & Y. Rak (April 1989). "A Middle Palaeolithic human hyoid bone". Nature 338
(338): 758–760. doi:10.1038/338758a0.
23. ^ Martinez, I., L. Rosa, J.-L. Arsuaga, P. Jarabo, R. Quam, C. Lorenzo, A. Gracia, J.-M. Carretero, J.M. Bermúdez de Castro, E. Carbonell (July 2004).
"Auditory capacities in Middle Pleistocene humans from the Sierra de Atapuerca in Spain". PNAS 101 (27): 9976–9981. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403595101. PMID
15213327.
24. ^ Richard F. Kay, Matt Cartmill, and Michelle Balow (April 1998). "The hypoglossal canal and the origin of human vocal behavior". PNAS 95 (9): 5417–5419.
doi:10.1073/pnas.95.9.5417. PMID 9560291.
25. ^ David DeGusta, W. Henry Gilbert and Scott P. Turner (Feb 1999). "Hypoglossal canal size and hominid speech". PNAS 96 (4): 1800–1804.
doi:10.1073/pnas.96.4.1800. PMID 9990105.
26. ^ Jeffrey Schwartz, Ian Tattersall (May 2000). "The human chin revisited: What is it, and who has it?". Journal of Human Evolution 38: 367–409.
doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0339.
27. ^ Neanderthals Had Important Speech Gene, DNA Evidence Shows
28. ^ Steven Mithen, The Singing Neanderthals: the Origins of Music, Language, Mind and Body (2006).
29. ^ Henig, Martin. "Odd man out: Neanderthals and modern humans." British Archeology, #51, Feb 2000. [5]
30. ^ Churchill S.E. (2002) Of assegais and bayonets: Reconstructing prehistoric spear use. Evolutionary Anthropology, 11, 185-186
31. ^ Boëda E., Geneste J.M., Griggo C., Mercier N., Muhesen S., Reyss J.L., Taha A. & Valladas H. (1999) A Levallois point embedded in the vertebra of a wild
ass (Equus africanus): Hafting, projectiles and Mousterian hunting. Antiquity, 73, 394-402
32. ^ Schwimmer, E.G. "Warfare of the Maori." Te Ao Hou: The New World, #36, Sept 1961, pp. 51-53. [6]
33. ^ R. S. Solecki (1975). "Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal flower burial in northern Iraq". [[Science (journal)|]] 190 (28): 880.
34. ^ J. D. Sommer (1999). "The Shanidar IV 'Flower Burial': A Reevaluation of Neanderthal Burial Ritual". Cambridge Archæological Journal 9: 127–129.
35. ^ A History of Britain, Richard Dargie (2007), p. 9
36. ^ Neanderthals and modern man shared a cave
37. ^ A History of Britain, Richard Dargie (2007), p. 9
38. ^ Ancient tooth provides evidence of Neanderthal movement
39. ^ Pavlov, P., W. Roebroeks, and J. I. Svendsen (2004). "The Pleistocene colonization of northeastern Europe: A report on recent research". Journal of Human
Evolution 47 (1-2): 3–17. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.05.002.
40. ^ Fossil DNA Expands Neanderthal Range
41. ^ Neandertals Ranged Much Farther East Than Thought
42. ^ Andrea Thompson (2006-12-04). Neanderthals Were Cannibals, Study Confirms. Health SciTech. LiveScience.
43. ^ Pathou-Mathis M (2000). "Neanderthal subsistence behaviours in Europe". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10: 379–395. doi:10.1002/1099-1212
(200009/10)10:5<379::AID-OA558>3.0.CO;2-4.
44. ^ Defleur A, White T, Valensi P, Slimak L, Cregut-Bonnoure E (1999). "Neanderthal cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, Ardèche, France". Science 286: 128–131.
doi:10.1126/science.286.5437.128.
45. ^ T.D. Berger and E. Trinkaus (1995). "Patterns of trauma among Neadertals". Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 841–852. doi:10.1016/0305-4403(95)
90013-6. Retrieved on 2007-06-28.
46. ^ First genocide of human beings occurred 30,000 years ago
47. ^ Conard, N.J. et al. (2004) Unexpectedly recent dates for human remains from Vogelherd. Nature 430, 198–201 [7]; [8]
48. ^ Trinkaus, E. (2005) Early modern humans. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34, 207–230 [9]
49. ^ [10] Humans and Neanderthals interbred, 2 November 2006 by Jacqui Hayes, Cosmos Online
50. ^ Rapid ecological turnover and its impact on Neanderthal and other human populations - Clive Finlayson and Jose´ S. Carrión, Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
Volume 22, Issue 4 , April 2007, Pages 213-222 [11]
51. ^ From the First Humans to the Mesolithic Hunters in the Northern German Lowlands, Current Results and Trends - THOMAS TERBERGER. From: Across
the western Baltic, edited by: Keld Møller Hansen & Kristoffer Buck Pedersen, 2006, ISBN 87-983097-5-7, Sydsjællands Museums Publikationer Vol. 1 [12]
52. ^ The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia - Cidália Duarte, João
Maurício, Paul B. Pettitt, Pedro Souto, Erik Trinkaus, Hans van der Plicht, and João Zilhão, PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 13, 7604-7609, June 22, 1999 [13]
53. ^ An early modern human from the Petera cu Oase, Romania - Erik Trinkaus et al, PNAS | September 30, 2003 | vol. 100 | no. 20 | 11231-11236 [14]
54. ^ Early modern humans from the Petera Muierii, Baia de Fier, Romania - Andrei Soficaru*, Adrian Dobo, and Erik Trinkaus, PNAS | November 14, 2006 | vol.
103 | no. 46 | 17196-17201 [15]
55. ^ Trinkaus, Erik (2007-04-23). "European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals". PNAS 104 (18): 7367–7372. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702214104.
PMID 17452632. Retrieved on 2008-05-26.Reprint available at: [16]
56. ^ presskits/mtDNANeandertalarticle.pdf Krings et al., Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans Cell. 1997 Jul 11;90(1):19-30.; No
Neandertals in the Gene Pool, Science (2004).
57. ^ Moulson, Geir. "Neanderthal genome project launches", MSNBC.com, Associated Press. Retrieved on 2006-08-22.
58. ^ New Machine Sheds Light on DNA of Neanderthals - New York Times
59. ^ Pennisi, Elizabeth (2007-05-18). "ANCIENT DNA: No Sex Please, We're Neandertals". Science 316 (5827): 967. doi:10.1126/science.316.5827.967a. PMID
17510332. Retrieved on 2007-05-18.
60. ^ Neanderthal bone gives DNA clues
61. ^ Scientists decode Neanderthal genes
62. ^ Review: Archaic admixture in the human genome - Jeffrey D Wall and Michael F Hammer, Elsevier Ltd., 2006 [17] PDF (90.0 KiB)
63. ^ Humans and Neanderthals interbred
64. ^ Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred
65. ^ Where do Europeans come from?
66. ^ Mekel-Bobrov, N., et al. (2007). "The ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM and Microcephalin is not explained by increased intelligence". Hum. Mol. Genet.
16: adv. access. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddl487. PMID 17220170.
67. ^ Evans, Patrick D.; et al. (2006-11-07). "Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic
Homo lineage". PNAS 10 (48): 18178–18183. doi:10.1073/pnas.0606966103. PMID 17090677. Retrieved on 2008-05-26.
68. ^ Evans, Patrick D.; et al. (2005-09-09). "Microcephalin, a Gene Regulating Brain Size, Continues to Evolve Adaptively in Humans". Science 309 (5741):
1717–1720. doi:10.1126/science.1113722. PMID 16151009.
Solecki, Ralph S. "Shanidar." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. 2007. Grolier Online. 25 Nov. 2007 <http://gme.grolier.com/cgi-bin/article?
assetid=0264140-0>.
References
 Derev’anko, Anatoliy P. 1998 The Paleolithic of Siberia. New Discoveries and Interpretations. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
 C. David Kreger (2000-06-30) Homo Neanderthalensis
 Dennis O'Neil (2004-12-06) Evolution of Modern Humans Neandertals retrieved 12/26/2004
 Fink, Bob (1997) The Neanderthal Flute... (Greenwich, Canada) ISBN 0-912424-12-5
 Hickmann, Kilmer, Eichmann (ed.) (2003) Studies in Music Archaeology III International Study Group on Music Archaeology's 2000
symposium. ISBN 3-89646-640-2
 Serre et al. (2004). "No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans". PLoS Biology 2 (3): 313–7.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020057. PMID 15024415.
 Eva M. Wild, Maria Teschler-Nicola, Walter Kutschera, Peter Steier, Erik Trinkaus & Wolfgang Wanek (05 2005). "Direct dating of Early
Upper Palaeolithic human remains from Mladeč". Nature 435: 332–5. doi:10.1038/nature03585. link for Nature subscribers
 Boë, Louis-Jean, Jean-Louis Heim, Kiyoshi Honda and Shinji Maeda. (2002) "The potential Neandertal vowel space was as large as that of
modern humans." Journal of Phonetics, Volume 30, Issue 3, July 2002, Pages 465-484
 Lieberman, Philip. (2007). "Current views on Neanderthal speech capabilities: A reply to Boe et al. (2002)". Journal of Phonetics, Volume 35,
Issue 4, Pages 552-563.
 Neanderthal DNA Sequencing
External links
 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
 Smithsonian
 Archaelogy Info
 MNSU
 "Humans and Neanderthals interbred": Modern humans contain a little bit of Neanderthal, according to a new theory, because the two interbred
and became one species. (Cosmos magazine, November 2006)
 BBC.co.uk - 'Neanderthals "mated with modern humans": A hybrid skeleton showing features of both Neanderthal and early modern humans
has been discovered, challenging the theory that our ancestors drove Neanderthals to extinction', BBC (April 21, 1999)
 BBC.co.uk - 'Neanderthals "had hands like ours": The popular image of Neanderthals as clumsy, backward creatures has been dealt
another blow', Helen Briggs, BBC (March 27, 2003)
 GeoCities.com - 'The Neanderthal Sites at Veldwezelt-Hezerwater, Belgium'
 Greenwych.ca - 'Neanderthal Flute: Oldest Musical Instrument's 4 Notes Matches 4 of Do, Re, Mi Scale - Evidence of Natural Foundation to
Diatonic Scale (oldest known musical instrument), Greenwich Publishing
 Greenwych.ca - 'Chewed or Chipped? Who Made the Neanderthal Flute? Humans or Carnivores?' Bob Fink, Greenwich Publishing
(March, 2003)
 IndState.edu - 'Neanderthals: A Cyber Perspective', Kharlena María Ramanan, Indiana State University (1997)
 Krapina.com - 'Krapina: The World's Largest Neanderthal Finding Site'
 Neanderthal.de - 'Neanderthal Museum'
 Neanderthal DNA - 'Neanderthal DNA' Includes Neanderthal mtDNA sequences
 The Cryptid Zoo - 'Neanderthals and Neanderthaloids in Cryptozoology' (modern sightings promoted by the pseudoscience of cryptozoology)
 UniZH.ch - 'Comparing Neanderthals and modern humans: Neanderthals differ from anatomically modern Homo sapiens in a suite of cranial
features' (cranio-facial reconstructions), Institut für Informatik der Universität Zürich
 WebShots.com - 'IMG_6922 The Neandertal foot prints' (photo of ~25K years old fossilized footprints discovered in 1970 on volcanic layers
near Demirkopru Dam Reservoir, Manisa, Turkey)
 interactive database on the archaeology and anthropology of Neanderthals
 Did free trade cause the extinction of Neanderthals?
 Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA can show conflicting phylogenetic histories
 Neanderthal manifactured pitch
 Homo neanderthalensis reconstruction - Electronic articles published by the Division of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History.
 CBS article on latest scientific speculation about Neanderthals in Gibraltar.
 Neanderthal bone gives DNA clues
 Scientists decode Neanderthal genes
 Scientists Build 'Frankenstein' Neanderthal Skeleton
 A NEANDERTHAL'S DNA TALE
 'Bone and Stone' A digitally enhanced single frame philatelic exhibit dedicated to the Neanderthal.
 How Neanderthal molar teeth grew
 Mousterian Tools of Neanderthals From Europe - World Museum of Man
 The Way We Are
 Link to picture of the Neanderthal trace near Gediz River in Turkey
 Link to Cross-Eyed stereoview of Neanderthal fossil cast in Chicago Field Museum
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal"
Categories: Early hominids | European archaeology | Pleistocene extinctions | Pleistocene mammals | Recent single origin hypothesis | German
loanwords | Paleoanthropology | Human evolution
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since January 2008 | Articles with unsourced statements
since September 2007 | Wikipedia articles needing clarification | Articles needing additional references from April 2008
Homo rhodesiensis
You can support Wikipedia by making a tax-deductible donation.
Homo rhodesiensis is a possible hominin species described from the fossil Rhodesian Man. Other Homo rhodesiensis
morphologically-comparable remains have been found from the same, or earlier, time period in southern Africa
(Hopefield or Saldanha), East Africa (Bodo, Ndutu, Eyasi, Ileret) and North Africa (Salé, Rabat, Dar-es-Soltane,
Djbel Irhoud, Sidi Aberrahaman, Tighenif). These remains were dated to be between 125,000 and 600,000 years
old.
In Africa, there is a distinct difference in the Acheulian tools made before and after 600,000 years ago with the
older group being thicker and less symmetric and the younger being more extensively trimmed. This may be
connected with the appearance of Homo rhodesiensis in the archaeological record at this time who may have
contributed this more sophisticated approach.
Rupert Murrill has studied the relations between Archanthropus skull of Petralona (Chalcidice, Greece) and Kabwe Skull
Rhodesian Man. Most current experts believe Rhodesian Man to be within the group of Homo heidelbergensis
though other designations such as Homo sapiens arcaicus and Homo sapiens rhodesiensis have also been
proposed. According to Tim White, it is probable that Homo rhodesiensis was the ancestor of Homo sapiens Kingdom: Animalia
idaltu (Herto Man), which would be itself at the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens. No direct linkage of the species Phylum: Chordata
can so far be determined. Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
References Family: Hominidae
 Woodward, Arthur Smith (1921). "A New Cave Man from Rhodesia, South Africa". Nature 108: 371– Tribe: Hominini
372. doi:10.1038/108371a0. Genus: Homo
 Singer Robert R. and J. Wymer (1968). "Archaeological Investigation at the Saldanha Skull Site in South Species: H. rhodesiensis
Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin 23 (3): 63–73. doi:10.2307/3888485.
 Murrill, Rupert I. (1975). "A comparison of the Rhodesian and Petralona upper jaws in relation to other Binomial name
Pleistocene hominids". Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 66: 176–187.. †Homo rhodesiensis
 Murrill, Rupert Ivan (1981) Petralona Man. A Descriptive and Comparative Study, with New Information Woodward, 1921
on Rhodesian Man. Springfield, Illinois: Ed. Charles C. Thomas. ISBN 0-398-04550-X
 White et al (2003). "Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia". Nature 423: 742–7. doi:10.1038/nature01669.|issue=6491
 Rightmire, G. Philip (2005). "The Lake Ndutu cranium and early Homo Sapiens in Africa". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 61 (2):
245–254..
 Asfaw, Berhane (2005). "A new hominid parietal from Bodo, middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 61
(3): 367–371..
See also
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis"

Categories: Early hominids | Pleistocene mammals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo rudolfensis is a fossil hominin species discovered by Bernard Ngeneo, a member of a team led by Homo rudolfensis
anthropologist Richard Leakey and zoologist Meave Leakey in 1972, at Koobi Fora on the east side of Lake Rudolf
(now Lake Turkana) in Kenya. The scientific name Homo rudolfensis was proposed in 1986 by V. P. Alexeev for the
specimen Skull 1470 (KNM ER 1470). Skull 1470 has an estimated age of 1.9 million years.
Originally thought to be a member of the species Homo habilis, the fossil was the center of much debate concerning
its species. Assigned initially to Homo habilis, the skull was at first incorrectly dated at nearly three million years
old. This estimate, however, caused much confusion: the date would have made the skull older than any known
australopithecine, from which Homo habilis is thought to have descended. The differences in this skull, when
compared to others of the Homo habilis species, are too pronounced, leading to the presumption of a Homo
rudolfensis species, contemporary with Homo habilis. It is not certain if H. rudolfensis was ancestral to the later
species in Homo, or if H. habilis was, or if some third species yet to be discovered was.
As in the case of H. habilis, there is large amount of controversy about the classification of H. rudolfensis into the Scientific classification
Homo genus. Although no reliably associated postcranial remains have been discovered for H. rudolfensis, it is
Kingdom: Animalia
thought that — like H. habilis — H. rudolfensis lacked many of the features unique to later hominins (that is,
creatures that include humans and their ancestors), such as slim hips for walking long distances, a sophisticated Phylum: Chordata
sweating system, narrow birth canal, legs longer than arms, noticeable whites in the eyes, smaller hairs resulting in Class: Mammalia
naked appearance and exposed skins, etc. Many scientists think H. rudolfensis to be more ape-like despite its large Order: Primates
brain and bipedal locomotion.
Family: Hominidae
In March 2007, a team led by Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University, reconstructed the skull Genus: Homo
of KNM-ER 1470. The new construction looks very ape-like and the cranial capacity based on the new construction Species: H. rudolfensis
is downsized from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526 cm³. Bromage said his team’s reconstruction includes
Binomial name
biological principles not known at the time of the skull’s discovery, which state that a mammal’s eyes, ears and
†Homo rudolfensis
mouth must be in precise relationships relative to one another.[1] Alexeev, 1986
See also
 Koobi Fora
References
1. ^ Than, Ker (2007-03-29). Controversial Human Ancestor Gets Major Facelift. LiveScience. Retrieved on 2007-04-28.
External links
 Science Daily article
 Talk Origins - Skull KNM-ER 1470
 Smithsonian
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis
Human You can support Wikipedia by making a tax-deductible donation.
(Redirected from Homo sapiens)
Human beings, or humans (Homo sapiens — Latin: "wise human" or "knowing human"[2]) are bipedal primates in Human[1]

Fossil range: Pleistocene - Recent
the family Hominidae.[3][4] DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years
ago.[5] Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and emotion.
This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the forelimbs (arms) for manipulating
objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans now permanently
inhabit every continent on Earth, except Antarctica (although several governments maintain permanently- and
seasonally-staffed research stations there). Humans also now have a continuous presence in low Earth orbit,
occupying the International Space Station. The human population on Earth now amounts to over 6.7 billion, as of
June 2008.[6]
Like most primates, humans are social by nature. However, they are particularly adept at utilizing systems of
communication for self-expression, exchanging of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures
composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families to nations. Social interactions between humans Humans depicted on the
have established an extremely wide variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws, which Pioneer plaque
together form the basis of human society. Humans have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics, which, Conservation status
combined with the desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.
Humans are notable for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and
manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to Least Concern (IUCN 3.1)
the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only currently known species known to build fires, Scientific classification
cook their food, clothe themselves, and manipulate and develop numerous other technologies. Humans pass down Domain: Eukaryota
their skills and knowledge to the next generations through education.
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Contents
Class: Mammalia
 1 History Order: Primates
 1.1 Origin Family: Hominidae
 1.2 Rise of civilization
 2 Habitat and population Genus: Homo
 3 Biology Species: H. sapiens
 3.1 Physiology and genetics
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens
 3.2 Life cycle
 3.3 Diet
Trinomial name
 4 Psychology Homo sapiens sapiens
 4.1 Consciousness and thought Linnaeus, 1758
 4.2 Motivation and emotion
 4.3 Sexuality and love
 5 Culture
 5.1 Language
 5.2 Spirituality and religion
 5.3 Philosophy and self-reflection
 5.4 Art, music, and literature
 5.5 Science and technology
 5.6 Race and ethnicity
 5.7 Society, government, and politics
 5.8 War
 5.9 Trade and economics
 6 References
History
Origin
For more details on this topic, see Human evolution, Recent African Origin, and Archaic Homo sapiens.
The scientific study of human evolution encompasses the development of the genus Homo, but usually involves studying
other hominids and hominines as well, such as Australopithecus. "Modern humans" are defined as the Homo sapiens
species, of which the only extant subspecies - our own - is known as Homo sapiens sapiens. Homo sapiens idaltu (roughly translated as "elder wise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens
human"), the other known subspecies, is now extinct.[7] Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in
Africa about 130,000 years ago, although studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of
divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago.[8][9]
The closest living relatives of Homo sapiens are the two chimpanzee species: the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo.
Full genome sequencing has resulted in the conclusion that "after 6.5 [million] years of separate evolution, the differences
between chimpanzee and human are just 10 times greater than those between two unrelated people and 10 times less than
those between rats and mice". Suggested concurrence between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95%
and 99%.[10][11][12][13] It has been estimated that the human lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million
years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago. However, a hominid skull discovered in Chad in 2001,
classified as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, is approximately seven million years old, which may indicate an earlier divergence.
[14]
The Recent African Origin (RAO), or "out-of-Africa", hypothesis proposes that modern humans evolved in Africa before
later migrating outwards to replace hominids in other parts of the world. Evidence from archaeogenetics accumulating since
the 1990s has lent strong support to RAO, and has marginalized the competing multiregional hypothesis, which proposed
A reconstruction of
that modern humans evolved, at least in part, from independent hominid populations.[15] Geneticists Lynn Jorde and Henry
Australopithecus
Harpending of the University of Utah propose that the variation in human DNA is minute compared to that of other species.
afarensis, a human They also propose that during the Late Pleistocene, the human population was reduced to a small number of breeding pairs
ancestor that had – no more than 10,000, and possibly as few as 1,000 – resulting in a very small residual gene pool. Various reasons for this
developed bipedalism, hypothetical bottleneck have been postulated, one being the Toba catastrophe theory.
but which lacked the
large brain of modern Human evolution is characterized by a number of important morphological, developmental, physiological and behavioural
humans.
changes, which have taken place since the split between the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. The first
major morphological change was the evolution of a bipedal locomotor adaptation from an arboreal or semi-arboreal one,[16]
with all its attendant adaptations, such as a valgus knee, low intermembral index (long legs relative to the arms), and reduced upper-body strength.
Later, ancestral humans developed a much larger brain – typically 1,400 cm³ in modern humans, over twice the size of that of a chimpanzee or gorilla.

The pattern of human postnatal brain growth differs from that of other apes (heterochrony), and allows for extended periods of social learning and
language acquisition in juvenile humans. Physical anthropologists argue that the differences between the structure of human brains and those of other
apes are even more significant than their differences in size.
Other significant morphological changes included: the evolution of a power and precision grip;[17] a reduced masticatory system; a reduction of the
canine tooth; and the descent of the larynx and hyoid bone, making speech possible. An important physiological change in humans was the evolution
of hidden oestrus, or concealed ovulation, which may have coincided with the evolution of important behavioural changes, such as pair bonding.
Another significant behavioural change was the development of material culture, with human-made objects becoming increasingly common and
diversified over time. The relationship between all these changes is the subject of ongoing debate.[18][19]
The forces of selection continue to operate on human populations, with evidence that certain regions of the genome display recent positive selection.
[20]
Rise of civilization
For more details on this topic, see History of the world.
The most widely accepted view among current anthropologists is that Homo sapiens originated in the
African savanna around 200,000 BP (Before Present), descending from Homo erectus, had inhabited
Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 BP, and finally inhabited the Americas approximately 14,500 years ago.[21]
They displaced Homo neanderthalensis and other species descended from Homo erectus (which had
inhabited Eurasia as early as 2 million years ago) through more successful reproduction and competition
for resources.
Until c. 10,000 years ago, most humans lived as hunter-gatherers. They generally lived in small nomadic
groups known as band societies. The advent of agriculture prompted the Neolithic Revolution, when
access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals
and the use of metal tools. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society.
Because of the significance of this date for human society, it is the epoch of the Holocene calendar or The rise of agriculture led to the
Human Era. foundation of stable human settlements.
About 6,000 years ago, the first proto-states developed in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus Valley. Military forces were formed for protection, and
government bureaucracies for administration. States cooperated and competed for resources, in some cases waging wars. Around 2,000–3,000 years
ago, some states, such as Persia, India, China, Rome, and Greece, developed through conquest into the first expansive empires. Influential religions,
such as Judaism, originating in the Middle East, and Hinduism, a religious tradition that originated in South Asia, also rose to prominence at this time.
The late Middle Ages saw the rise of revolutionary ideas and technologies. In China, an advanced and urbanized economy promoted innovations such
as printing and the compass, while the Islamic Golden Age saw major scientific advancements in Muslim empires. In Europe, the rediscovery of
classical learning and inventions such as the printing press led to the Renaissance in the 14th century. Over the next 500 years, exploration and
imperialistic conquest brought much of the Americas, Asia, and Africa under European control, leading to later struggles for independence. The
Scientific Revolution in the 17th century and the Industrial Revolution in the 18th – 19th centuries promoted major innovations in transport, such as
the railway and automobile; energy development, such as coal and electricity; and government, such as representative democracy and Communism.
As a result of such changes, modern humans live in a world that has become increasingly globalized and interconnected. Although this has encouraged
the growth of science, art, and technology, it has also led to culture clashes, the development and use of weapons of mass destruction, and increased
environmental destruction and pollution, affecting not only themselves but also most other life forms on the planet.
Habitat and population

For more details on this topic, see Demography and World population.
Early human settlements were dependent on proximity to water and, depending on the lifestyle, other
natural resources, such as fertile land for growing crops and grazing livestock, or seasonally by hunting
populations of prey. However, humans have a great capacity for altering their habitats by various
methods, such as through irrigation, urban planning, construction, transport, manufacturing goods,
deforestation and desertification. With the advent of large-scale trade and transport infrastructure,
proximity to these resources has become unnecessary, and in many places these factors are no longer a
driving force behind the growth and decline of a population. Nonetheless, the manner in which a
habitat is altered is often a major determinant in population change. Humans have structured their environment in
extensive ways in order to adapt to problems
Technology has allowed humans to colonize all of the continents and adapt to all climates. Within the such as high population density, as shown in
last few decades, humans have explored Antarctica, the ocean depths, and space, although long-term this image of Hong Kong.
habitation of these environments is not yet possible. With a population of over six billion, humans are
among the most numerous of the large mammals. Most humans (61%) live in Asia. The vast majority of the remainder live in the Americas (14%),
Africa (14%) and Europe (11%), with 0.5% in Oceania.
Human habitation within closed ecological systems in hostile environments, such as Antarctica and outer space, is expensive, typically limited in
duration, and restricted to scientific, military, or industrial expeditions. Life in space has been very sporadic, with no more than thirteen humans in
space at any given time. Between 1969 and 1972, two humans at a time spent brief intervals on the Moon. As of early 2008, no other celestial body has
been visited by human beings, although there has been a continuous human presence in space since the launch of the initial crew to inhabit the
International Space Station on October 31, 2000. Other celestial bodies have, however, been visited by human-made objects.
Since 1800, the human population increased from one billion to over six billion.[22] In 2004, some 2.5 billion out of 6.3 billion people (39.7%) lived in
urban areas, and this percentage is expected to rise throughout the 21st century. In February 2008, the U.N. estimated that half the world's population
will live in urban areas by the end of the year. Problems for humans living in cities include various forms of pollution and crime,[23] especially in inner
city and suburban slums. Benefits of urban living include increased literacy, access to the global canon of human knowledge and decreased
susceptibility to rural famines.
Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. It has been hypothesized that human predation has contributed to the extinction of numerous
species. As humans stand at the top of the food chain and are not generally preyed upon, they have been described as superpredators.[24] Currently,
through land development and pollution, humans are thought to be the main contributor to global climate change.[25] This is believed to be a major
contributor to the ongoing Holocene extinction event, a mass extinction which, if it continues at its current rate, is predicted to wipe out half of all
species over the next century.[26][27]
Biology
For more details on this topic, see Human biology.
Physiology and genetics
For more details on this topic, see Human anatomy, Human physical appearance, and Human genetics.
Human body types vary substantially. Although body size is largely determined by genes, it is also significantly
influenced by environmental factors such as diet and exercise. The average height of an adult human is about 1.5
to 1.8 m (5 to 6 feet) tall, although this varies significantly from place to place.[28][29] The average weight for a human is 76-83 kg (168-183 lbs) for
males and 54-64 kg (120-140 lbs) for females.[30] Weight can also vary geograhically (see also; obesity, overweight, underweight). Unlike most other
primates, humans are capable of fully bipedal locomotion, thus leaving their arms available for manipulating objects using their hands, aided especially
by opposable thumbs.
Although humans appear relatively hairless compared to other primates, with notable hair growth occurring chiefly on the top of the head, underarms
and pubic area, the average human has more hair follicles on his or her body than the average chimpanzee. The main distinction is that human hairs are
shorter, finer, and less heavily pigmented than the average chimpanzee's, thus making them harder to see.[31]
The hue of human hair and skin is determined by the presence of pigments called melanins. Human skin hues can
range from very dark brown to very pale pink, while human hair ranges from blond to brown to red to, most
commonly, black,[32] depending on the amount of melanin (an effective sun blocking pigment) in the skin. Most
researchers believe that skin darkening was an adaptation that evolved as a protection against ultraviolet solar
radiation. More recently, however, it has been argued that particular skin colors are an adaptation to balance folate,
which is destroyed by ultraviolet radiation, and vitamin D, which requires sunlight to form.[33] The skin
pigmentation of contemporary humans is geographically stratified, and in general correlates with the level of
ultraviolet radiation. Human skin also has a capacity to darken (sun tanning) in response to exposure to ultraviolet
radiation.[34][35] Humans tend to be physically weaker than other similarly sized primates, with young,
conditioned male humans having been shown to be unable to match the strength of female orangutans which are at
least three times stronger.[36]
Humans have proportionately shorter palates and much smaller teeth than other primates. They are the only
primates to have short 'flush' canine teeth. Humans have characteristically crowded teeth, with gaps from lost teeth
usually closing up quickly in young specimens. Humans are gradually losing their wisdom teeth, with some
individuals having them congenitally absent.[37]
An antiquated diagram of a male
human skeleton. The average sleep requirement is between seven and eight hours a day for an adult and nine to ten hours for a
child; elderly people usually sleep for six to seven hours. Experiencing less sleep than this is common in modern
societies; this sleep deprivation can lead to negative effects. A sustained restriction of adult sleep to four hours per day has been shown to correlate
with changes in physiology and mental state, including fatigue, aggression, and bodily discomfort.
Humans are an eukaryotic species. Each diploid cell has two sets of 23 chromosomes, each set received from one parent. There are 22 pairs of
autosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes. By present estimates, humans have approximately 20,000 – 25,000 genes. Like other mammals, humans
have an XY sex-determination system, so that females have the sex chromosomes XX and males have XY. The X chromosome is larger and carries
many genes not on the Y chromosome, which means that recessive diseases associated with X-linked genes, such as haemophilia, affect men more
often than women.
Life cycle
The human life cycle is similar to that of other placental mammals. The fertilized egg divides inside the female's
uterus to become an embryo, which over a period of thirty-eight weeks (9 months) of gestation becomes a human
fetus. After this span of time, the fully-grown fetus is birthed from the woman's body and breathes independently as
an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full
protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend personhood earlier to human fetuses while they remain in the
uterus.
Compared with other species, human childbirth is dangerous. Painful labors lasting twenty-four hours or more are not
uncommon and often leads to the death of the mother, or the child.[38] This is because of both the relatively large fetal
head circumference (for housing the brain) and the mother's relatively narrow pelvis (a trait required for successful
bipedalism, by way of natural selection).[39][40] The chances of a successful labor increased significantly during the
A human embryo at 5 weeks 20th century in wealthier countries with the advent of new medical technologies. In contrast, pregnancy and natural
childbirth remain relatively hazardous ordeals in developing regions of the world, with maternal death rates
approximately 100 times more common than in developed countries.[41]
In developed countries, infants are typically 3 – 4 kg (6 – 9 pounds) in weight and 50 – 60 cm (20 –
24 inches) in height at birth.[43] However, low birth weight is common in developing countries, and
contributes to the high levels of infant mortality in these regions.[44] Helpless at birth, humans continue to
grow for some years, typically reaching sexual maturity at 12 to 15 years of age. Females continue to
develop physically until around the age of 18, whereas male development continues until around age 21.
The human life span can be split into a number of stages: infancy, childhood, adolescence, young
adulthood, adulthood and old age. The lengths of these stages, however, have varied across cultures and
time periods. Compared to other primates, humans experience an unusually rapid growth spurt during
adolescence, where the body grows 25% in size. Chimpanzees, for example, grow only 14%.[45]
There are significant differences in life expectancy around the world. The developed world generally
aging, with the median age around 40 years (highest in Monaco at 45.1 years). In the developing world the
median age is between 15 and 20 years. Life expectancy at birth in Hong Kong, China is 84.8 years for a Two young human females photographed
female and 78.9 for a male, while in Swaziland, primarily because of AIDS, it is 31.3 years for both sexes. at an Inter-racial Christmas Seals Camp in
[46] While one in five Europeans is 60 years of age or older, only one in twenty Africans is 60 years of age August 1943[42]
or older.[47] The number of centenarians (humans of age 100 years or older) in the world was estimated by
the United Nations at 210,000 in 2002.[48] At least one person, Jeanne Calment, is known to have reached the age of 122 years; higher ages have been
claimed but they are not well substantiated. Worldwide, there are 81 men aged 60 or older for every 100 women of that age group, and among the
oldest, there are 53 men for every 100 women.
Humans are unique in the widespread onset of female menopause during the latter stage of life. Menopause is believed to have arisen due to the
Grandmother hypothesis, in which it is in the mother's reproductive interest to forgo the risks of death from childbirth at older ages in exchange for
investing in the viability of her already living offspring.[49]
The philosophical questions of when human personhood begins and whether it persists after death are the subject of considerable debate. The prospect
of death causes unease or fear for most humans, distinct from the immediate awareness of a threat. Burial ceremonies are characteristic of human
societies, often accompanied by beliefs in an afterlife or immortality.
Diet
Early Homo sapiens employed a hunter-gatherer method as their primary means of food collection, involving combining stationary plant and fungal
food sources (such as fruits, grains, tubers, and mushrooms) with wild game, which must be hunted and killed in order to be consumed. It is believed
that humans have used fire to prepare and cook food prior to eating since the time of their divergence from Homo erectus.
Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products. A view of humans as omnivores is supported by the evidence that both
a pure animal and a pure vegetable diet can lead to deficiency diseases in humans. A pure animal diet, for instance, may lead to scurvy, a vitamin C
deficiency, while a pure plant diet may lead to vitamin B12 deficiency.[50] The biggest problem posed by a vitamin B12 deficiency is that it severely
limits the body's ability to synthesize folic acid, a main source of B group carriage. In order to counter the constant folic acid deficiency, one must
regularly consume large amounts of folic acid, as may be found in green, leafy vegetables. Properly planned vegetarian and vegan diets, often in
conjunction with B12 supplements, have been found to completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life. [51]
The human diet is prominently reflected in human culture, and has led to the development of food science. In general, humans can survive for two to
eight weeks without food, depending on stored body fat. Survival without water is usually limited to three or four days. Lack of food remains a serious
problem, with about 300,000 people starving to death every year.[52] Childhood malnutrition is also common and contributes to the global burden of
disease.[53] However global food distribution is not even, and obesity among some human populations has increased to almost epidemic proportions,
leading to health complications and increased mortality in some developed, and a few developing countries. The United States Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) state that 32% of American adults over the age of 20 are obese, while 66.5% are obese or overweight. Obesity is caused by consuming
more calories than are expended, with many attributing excessive weight gain to a combination of overeating and insufficient exercise.
At least ten thousand years ago, humans developed agriculture,[54] which has substantially altered the kind of food people eat. This has led to increased
populations, the development of cities, and because of increased population density, the wider spread of infectious diseases. The types of food
consumed, and the way in which they are prepared, has varied widely by time, location, and culture.
Psychology
For more details on this topic, see Human brain and Mind.
The human brain is the center of the central nervous system in humans, and acts as the primary control center for the
peripheral nervous system. The brain controls "lower", or involuntary, autonomic activities such as the respiration,
and digestion. The brain also controls "higher" order, conscious activities, such as thought, reasoning, and abstraction.
[55] These cognitive processes constitute the mind, and, along with their behavioral consequences, are studied in the
field of psychology.
Generally regarded as more capable of these higher order activities, the human brain is believed to be more
"intelligent" in general than that of any other known species. While many animals are capable of creating structures
and using simple tools — mostly through instinct and mimicry — human technology is vastly more complex, and is
constantly evolving and improving through time. Even the most ancient human tools and structures are far more A sketch of the human brain
advanced than any structure or tool created by any other animal.[56] Modern anthropology has tended to bear out imposed upon the profile of
Darwin's proposition that "the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one Michelangelo's David. Sketch
by Priyan Weerappuli.
of degree and not of kind".[57]
Consciousness and thought
For more details on this topic, see Consciousness and Cognition.
The human ability to think abstractly may be unparalleled in the animal kingdom. Humans are one of only six species to pass the mirror test — which
tests whether an animal recognizes its reflection as an image of itself — along with chimpanzees, orangutans, dolphins, and pigeons.[58] In October
2006, three elephants at the Bronx Zoo also passed this test.[59] Most human children will pass the mirror test at 18 months old.[60] However, the
usefulness of this test as a true test of consciousness has been disputed (see mirror test), and this may be a matter of degree rather than a sharp divide.
Monkeys have been trained to apply abstract rules in tasks.[61] The human brain perceives the external world through the senses, and each individual
human is influenced greatly by his or her experiences, leading to subjective views of existence and the passage of time. Humans are variously said to
possess consciousness, self-awareness, and a mind, which correspond roughly to the mental processes of thought. These are said to possess qualities
such as self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. The extent to which the
mind constructs or experiences the outer world is a matter of debate, as are the definitions and validity of many of the terms used above. The
philosopher of cognitive science Daniel Dennett, for example, argues that there is no such thing as a narrative centre called the "mind", but that instead
there is simply a collection of sensory inputs and outputs: different kinds of "software" running in parallel.[62] Psychologist B.F. Skinner has argued
that the mind is an explanatory fiction that diverts attention from environmental causes of behavior,[63] and that what are commonly seen as mental
processes may be better conceived of as forms of covert verbal behavior.[64]
Humans study the more physical aspects of the mind and brain, and by extension of the nervous system, in the field of neurology, the more behavioral
in the field of psychology, and a sometimes loosely-defined area between in the field of psychiatry, which treats mental illness and behavioral
disorders. Psychology does not necessarily refer to the brain or nervous system, and can be framed purely in terms of phenomenological or information
processing theories of the mind. Increasingly, however, an understanding of brain functions is being included in psychological theory and practice,
particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence, neuropsychology, and cognitive neuroscience.
The nature of thought is central to psychology and related fields. Cognitive psychology studies cognition, the mental processes underlying behavior. It
uses information processing as a framework for understanding the mind. Perception, learning, problem solving, memory, attention, language and
emotion are all well-researched areas as well. Cognitive psychology is associated with a school of thought known as cognitivism, whose adherents
argue for an information processing model of mental function, informed by positivism and experimental psychology. Techniques and models from
cognitive psychology are widely applied and form the mainstay of psychological theories in many areas of both research and applied psychology.
Largely focusing on the development of the human mind through the life span, developmental psychology seeks to understand how people come to
perceive, understand, and act within the world and how these processes change as they age. This may focus on intellectual, cognitive, neural, social, or
moral development.
Some philosophers divide consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is experience itself, and access consciousness, which is the processing
of the things in experience.[65] Phenomenal consciousness is the state of being conscious, such as when they say "I am conscious." Access
consciousness is being conscious of something in relation to abstract concepts, such as when one says "I am conscious of these words." Various forms
of access consciousness include awareness, self-awareness, conscience, stream of consciousness, Husserl's phenomenology, and intentionality. The
concept of phenomenal consciousness, in modern history, according to some, is closely related to the concept of qualia. Social psychology links
sociology with psychology in their shared study of the nature and causes of human social interaction, with an emphasis on how people think towards
each other and how they relate to each other. The behavior and mental processes, both human and non-human, can be described through animal
cognition, ethology, evolutionary psychology, and comparative psychology as well. Human ecology is an academic discipline that investigates how
humans and human societies interact with both their natural environment and the human social environment.
Motivation and emotion
For more details on this topic, see Motivation and Emotion.
Motivation is the driving force of desire behind all deliberate actions of human beings. Motivation is based on
emotion — specifically, on the search for satisfaction (positive emotional experiences), and the avoidance of
conflict. Positive and negative is defined by the individual brain state, which may be influenced by social norms: a
person may be driven to self-injury or violence because their brain is conditioned to create a positive response to
these actions. Motivation is important because it is involved in the performance of all learned responses. Within
psychology, conflict avoidance and the libido are seen to be primary motivators. Within economics motivation is
often seen to be based on financial incentives, moral incentives, or coercive incentives. Religions generally posit
divine or demonic influences.
Happiness, or the state of being happy, is a human emotional condition. The definition of happiness is a common
philosophical topic. Some people might define it as the best condition which a human can have — a condition of
mental and physical health. Others define it as freedom from want and distress; consciousness of the good order of
Goya's Tío Paquete (1820) things; assurance of one's place in the universe or society.
displays an adult male smiling.
Emotion has a significant influence on, or can even be said to control, human behavior, though historically many
cultures and philosophers have for various reasons discouraged allowing this influence to go unchecked. Emotional experiences perceived as pleasant,
such as love, admiration, or joy, contrast with those perceived as unpleasant, like hate, envy, or sorrow. There is often a distinction made between
refined emotions which are socially learned and survival oriented emotions, which are thought to be innate. Human exploration of emotions as separate
from other neurological phenomena is worthy of note, particularly in cultures where emotion is considered separate from physiological state. In some
cultural medical theories emotion is considered so synonymous with certain forms of physical health that no difference is thought to exist. The Stoics
believed excessive emotion was harmful, while some Sufi teachers (in particular, the poet and astronomer Omar Khayyám) felt certain extreme
emotions could yield a conceptual perfection, what is often translated as ecstasy.
In modern scientific thought, certain refined emotions are considered to be a complex neural trait innate in a variety of domesticated and on-
domesticated mammals. These were commonly developed in reaction to superior survival mechanisms and intelligent interaction with each other and
the environment; as such, refined emotion is not in all cases as discrete and separate from natural neural function as was once assumed. However,
when humans function in civilized tandem, it has been noted that uninhibited acting on extreme emotion can lead to social disorder and crime.
Sexuality and love
For more details on this topic, see Love and Human sexuality.
Human sexuality, besides ensuring biological reproduction, has important social functions: it creates physical intimacy, bonds, and hierarchies among
individuals; may be directed to spiritual transcendence (according to some traditions); and in a hedonistic sense to the enjoyment of activity involving
sexual gratification. Sexual desire, or libido, is experienced as a bodily urge, often accompanied by strong emotions such as love, ecstasy and jealousy.
The extreme importance of sexuality in the human species can be seen in a number of physical features, among them hidden ovulation, strong sexual
dimorphism when compared to the chimpanzees, permanent secondary sexual characteristics, the forming of pair bonds based on sexual attraction as a
common social structure and sexual ability in females outside of ovulation. These adaptations indicate that the importance of sexuality in humans is on
par with that found in the Bonobo, and that the complex human sexual behaviour has a long evolutionary history.
As with other human self-descriptions, humans propose that it is high intelligence and complex societies of humans that have produced the most
complex sexual behaviors of any animal, including a great many behaviors that are not directly connected with reproduction.
Human sexual choices are usually made in reference to cultural norms, which vary widely. Restrictions are sometimes determined by religious beliefs
or social customs. The pioneering researcher Sigmund Freud believed that humans are born polymorphously perverse, which means that any number
of objects could be a source of pleasure. According to Freud, humans then pass through five stages of psychosexual development (and can fixate on
any stage because of various traumas during the process). For Alfred Kinsey, another influential sex researcher, people can fall anywhere along a
continuous scale of sexual orientation (with only small minorities fully heterosexual or homosexual). Recent studies of neurology and genetics suggest
people may be born with one sexual orientation or another, so there is not currently a clear consensus among sex researchers.[66][67]
Culture
For more details on this topic, see Culture. Human society statistics
6,670,000,000 (April 2008
Culture is defined here as a set of distinctive material, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual features World population
est.)
of a social group, including art, literature, lifestyles, value systems, traditions, rituals, and beliefs.
The link between human biology and human behavior and culture is often very close, making it 12.7 per km² (4.9 mi²) by
total area
difficult to clearly divide topics into one area or the other; as such, the placement of some subjects Population density
43.6 per km² (16.8 mi²) by
may be based primarily on convention. Culture consists of values, social norms, and artifacts. A land area
culture's values define what it holds to be important or ethical. Closely linked are norms,
Largest Tokyo, Mexico City, Sao
expectations of how people ought to behave, bound by tradition. Artifacts, or material culture, are agglomerations Paulo, Buenos Aires,
objects derived from the culture's values, norms, and understanding of the world. The mainstream Istanbul, Jakarta, Shanghai,
anthropological view of culture implies that most experience a strong resistance when reminded that Hong Kong, Manila, Cairo,
there is an animal as well as a spiritual aspect to human nature.[57] New York City, Los Angeles,
Seoul, Mumbai, Moscow,
London, Paris
Language
Major languages Mandarin Chinese 1.12
For more details on this topic, see Language. by number of billion
native and English 480 million
secondary speakers Spanish 320 million
The capacity humans have to transfer concepts, ideas and notions through speech and writing is (2000 est.) Russian 285 million
unrivaled in known species. Unlike the call systems of other primates which are closed, human French 265 million
language is far more open, and gains variety in different situations. The human language has the Hindu/Urdu 250 million
quality of displacement, using words to represent things and happenings that are not presently or Arabic 221 million
locally occurring, but elsewhere or at a different time.[37] Technology has even advanced so as to
allow the communication of mass data upon request and over great distance through data-nets and United States dollar, Euro,
programs such as the World Wide Web. In this way data networks are important to the continuing Japanese yen, Pound sterling,
Currencies Indian Rupee, Australian
development of language; changing it as just as Gutenberg did with the printing press. The faculty of
Dollar, Russian Ruble,
speech is a defining feature of humanity, possibly predating phylogenetic separation of the modern Canadian Dollar, Chinese
population. Language is central to the communication between humans, as well as being central to Yuan among many others.
the sense of identity that unites nations, cultures and ethnic groups. The invention of writing systems
at least 5,000 years ago allowed the preservation of language on material objects, and was a major $36,356,240 million USD
GDP (nominal)
($5,797 USD per capita)
step in cultural evolution. Language is closely tied to ritual and religion (cf. mantra, sacred text).
The science of linguistics describes the structure of language and the relationship between $51,656,251 million IND
GDP (PPP)
languages. There are approximately 6,000 different languages currently in use, including sign ($8,236 per capita)
languages, and many thousands more that are considered extinct.
Spirituality and religion
For more details on this topic, see Spirituality and Religion.
Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with "faith"—is generally defined as a belief system concerning the supernatural, sacred or divine, and
moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief. In the course of its development, religion has taken on many forms
that vary by culture and individual perspective. Some of the chief questions and issues religions are concerned with include life after death (commonly
involving belief in an afterlife), the origin of life (the source of a variety of creation myths), the nature of the universe (religious cosmology) and its
ultimate fate (eschatology), and what is moral or immoral. A common source in religions for answers to these questions are transcendent divine beings
such as deities or a singular God, although not all religions are theistic — many are nontheistic or ambiguous on the topic, particularly among the
Eastern religions. Spirituality, belief or involvement in matters of the soul or spirit, is one of the many different approaches humans take in trying to
answer fundamental questions about humankind's place in the universe, the meaning of life, and the ideal way to live one's life. Though these topics
have also been addressed by philosophy, and to some extent by science, spirituality is unique in that it focuses on mystical or supernatural concepts
such as karma and God.
Although a majority of humans profess some variety of religious or spiritual belief, some are irreligious, that is lacking or rejecting belief in the
supernatural or spiritual. Additionally, although most religions and spiritual beliefs are clearly distinct from science on both a philosophical and
methodological level, the two are not generally considered to be mutually exclusive; a majority of humans hold a mix of both scientific and religious
views. The distinction between philosophy and religion, on the other hand, is at times less clear, and the two are linked in such fields as the philosophy
of religion and theology. Other humans have no religious beliefs and are atheists, scientific skeptics, agnostics or simply non-religious.
Philosophy and self-reflection
For more details on this topic, see Philosophy, Human self-reflection, and Human nature.
Philosophy is a discipline or field of study involving the investigation, analysis, and development of ideas at a general,
abstract, or fundamental level. It is the discipline searching for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly
speculative means. The core philosophical disciplines are logic, ontology or metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology,
which includes the branches of ethics and aesthetics. Philosophy covers a very wide range of approaches, and is also used
to refer to a worldview, to a perspective on an issue, or to the positions argued for by a particular philosopher or school of
philosophy.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with the study of first principles, being
and existence (ontology). In between the doctrines of religion and science, stands the The Thinker, Artist's
philosophical perspective of metaphysical cosmology. This ancient field of study seeks to rendering of the sculpture
draw logical conclusions about the nature of the universe, humanity, god, and/or their by Auguste Rodin.
connections based on the extension of some set of presumed facts borrowed from religion
and/or observation. Humans often consider themselves to be the dominant species on Earth, and the most advanced in
intelligence and ability to manage their environment. This belief is especially strong in modern Western culture.
Alongside such claims of dominance is often found radical pessimism because of the frailty and brevity of human life.
Humanism is a philosophy which defines a socio-political doctrine the bounds of which are not constrained by those
of locally developed cultures, but which seeks to include all of humanity and all issues common to human beings.
Because spiritual beliefs of a community often manifests as religious doctrine, the history of which is as factious as it
is unitive, secular humanism grew as an answer to the need for a common philosophy that transcended the cultural
boundaries of local moral codes and religions. Many humanists are religious, however, and see humanism as simply a
Plato and Aristotle in a detail
from The School of Athens by mature expression of a common truth present in most religions. Humanists affirm the possibility of an objective truth
Raphael. and accept that human perception of that truth is imperfect. The most basic tenets of humanism are that humans
matter and can solve human problems, and that science, freedom of speech, rational thought, democracy, and freedom
in the arts are worthy pursuits or goals for all peoples. Humanism depends chiefly on reason and logic without
consideration for the supernatural.
Art, music, and literature
For more details on this topic, see Art, Music, and Literature.
Artistic works have existed for almost as long as humankind, from early pre-historic art to contemporary art. Art is one
of the most unusual aspects of human behavior and a key distinguishing feature of humans from other species. Art has
only been around for the last 35,000 years which could suggest that this was the time when humans started to 'think'.
As a form of cultural expression by humans, art may be defined by the pursuit of diversity
and the usage of narratives of liberation and exploration (i.e. art history, art criticism, and
art theory) to mediate its boundaries. This distinction may be applied to objects or
performances, current or historical, and its prestige extends to those who made, found,
exhibit, or own them. In the modern use of the word, art is commonly understood to be the
process or result of making material works which, from concept to creation, adhere to the
Allegory of Music (ca. 1594), "creative impulse" of human beings. Art is distinguished from other works by being in
a painting of a woman
writing sheet music by
large part unprompted by necessity, by biological drive, or by any undisciplined pursuit of
Lorenzo Lippi. recreation.
Music is a natural intuitive phenomenon based on the three distinct and interrelated
organization structures of rhythm, harmony, and melody. Listening to music is perhaps the most common and universal
form of entertainment for humans, while learning and understanding it are popular disciplines. There are a wide variety of
music genres and ethnic musics. Literature, the body of written — and possibly oral — works, especially creative ones, Sculpture by Malvina
includes prose, poetry and drama, both fiction and non-fiction. Literature includes such genres as epic, legend, myth,
Hoffman of an Asian
ballad, and folklore. human male meditating.
Science and technology
For more details on this topic, see Science and Technology.
Science is the discovery of knowledge about the world by verifiable means. Technology is the objects humans
make to serve their purposes. Human cultures are both characterized and differentiated by the objects that they
make and use. Archaeology attempts to tell the story of past or lost cultures in part by close examination of the
artifacts they produced. Early humans left stone tools, pottery and jewelry that are particular to various regions
and times. Improvements in technology are passed from one culture to another. For instance, the cultivation of
crops arose in several different locations, but quickly spread to be an almost ubiquitous feature of human life.
Similarly, advances in weapons, architecture and metallurgy are quickly disseminated.
Although such techniques can be passed on by oral tradition,
the development of writing, itself a kind of technology, made
it possible to pass information from generation to generation
and from region to region with greater accuracy. Together,
these developments made possible the commencement of
civilization and urbanization, with their inherently complex
social arrangements. Eventually this led to the
institutionalization of the development of new technology,
In the mid- to late 20th century,
humans achieved a level of and the associated understanding of the way the world
technological mastery sufficient to functions. This science now forms a central part of human
leave the atmosphere of Earth for culture. In recent times, physics and astrophysics have come
the first time, explore space and to play a central role in shaping what is now known as
walk on the moon.
physical cosmology, that is, the understanding of the universe
through scientific observation and experiment. This discipline, Space science provides a new perspective on human
significance
which focuses on the universe as it exists on the largest scales and at the earliest times, begins by
arguing for the big bang, a sort of cosmic expansion from which the universe itself is said to have
erupted ~13.7 ± 0.2 billion (109) years ago. After its violent beginnings and until its very end, scientists then propose that the entire history of the
universe has been an orderly progression governed by physical laws.
Race and ethnicity
For more details on this topic, see Race (classification of human beings), Race and genetics, Historical definitions of race, and Ethnic group.
Humans often categorize themselves in terms of race or ethnicity, although the validity of human races as true biological categories is questionable.[69]
Human racial categories are based on both ancestry and visible traits, especially skin color and facial features. These categories may also carry some
information on non-visible biological traits, such as the risk of developing particular diseases such as sickle-cell disease.[70] Currently available
genetic and archaeological evidence is generally interpreted as supportive of a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa.[71] Current
genetic studies have demonstrated that humans on the African continent are most genetically diverse.[72] However, compared to many other animals,
human gene sequences are remarkably homogeneous.[73][74][75][76] It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the great majority of genetic variation
occurs within "racial groups", with only 5 to 15% of total variation occurring between racial groups.[77] However, this remains an area of active
debate.[78][79] Ethnic groups, on the other hand, are more often linked by linguistic, cultural, ancestral, and national or regional ties. Self-identification
with an ethnic group is based on kinship and descent. Race and ethnicity can lead to variant treatment and impact social identity, giving rise to racism
and the theory of identity politics.
Society, government, and politics
For more details on this topic, see Society.
For more details on this topic, see Government, Politics, and State.
Society is the system of organizations and institutions arising from interaction between humans. A state is an
organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing
internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter
into international agreements, is often important to the establishment of its statehood. The "state" can also be defined
The United Nations complex
in terms of domestic conditions, specifically, as conceptualized by Max Weber, "a state is a human community that in New York City, which
(successfully) claims the monopoly of the 'legitimate' use of physical force within a given territory."[80] houses one of the largest
human political organizations
Government can be defined as the political means of creating and enforcing laws; typically via a bureaucratic in the world.
hierarchy. Politics is the process by which decisions are made within groups. Although the term is generally applied
to behavior within governments, politics is also observed in all human group interactions, including corporate,
academic, and religious institutions. Many different political systems exist, as do many different ways of understanding them, and many definitions
overlap. The most common form of government worldwide is a republic, however other examples include monarchy, social democracy, military
dictatorship and theocracy. All of these issues have a direct relationship with economics.
War
For more details on this topic, see War.
War is a state of widespread conflict between states, organizations, or relatively large groups of people, which is
characterized by the use of lethal violence between combatants or upon civilians. It is estimated that during the 20th
century between 167 and 188 million humans died as a result of war.[81] A common perception of war is a series of
military campaigns between at least two opposing sides involving a dispute over sovereignty, territory, resources,
religion or other issues. A war said to liberate an occupied country is sometimes characterized as a "war of
liberation", while a war between internal elements of a state is a civil war. Full scale pitched-battle wars between
adversaries of comparable strength appear to have nearly disappeared from human activity, with the last major one in
the Congo region winding down in the late 1990s. Nearly all war now is asymmetric warfare, in which campaigns of
sabotage, guerrilla warfare and sometimes acts of terrorism disrupt control and supply of better-equipped occupying The atomic bombings of
forces, resulting in long low-intensity wars of attrition. Hiroshima and Nagasaki
immediately killed over
120,000 humans.
War is one of the main catalysts for human advances in technology. Throughout human history there has been a
constant struggle between defense and offence, including the technologies behind armour and weapons designed to
penetrate it. Modern examples include the bunker buster bomb and the bunkers which they are designed to destroy. Important inventions such as
medicine, navigation, metallurgy, mass production, nuclear power, rocketry and computers have been completely or partially driven by war.
There have been a wide variety of rapidly advancing tactics throughout the history of war, ranging from conventional war to asymmetric warfare to
total war and unconventional warfare. Techniques include hand to hand combat, the use of ranged weapons, and ethnic cleansing. Military intelligence
has often played a key role in determining victory and defeat. Propaganda, which often includes factual information, slanted opinion and
disinformation, plays a key role in maintaining unity within a warring group, and/or sowing discord among opponents. In modern warfare, soldiers and
armoured fighting vehicles are used to control the land, warships the sea, and air power the sky. These fields have also overlapped in the forms of
marines, paratroopers, naval aircraft carriers, and surface-to-air missiles, among others. Satellites in low Earth orbit have made outer space a factor in
warfare as well, although no actual warfare is currently carried out in space.
Trade and economics
For more details on this topic, see Trade and Economics.
Trade is the voluntary exchange of goods, services and a form of economics. A mechanism that allows trade
is called a market. The original form of trade was barter, the direct exchange of goods and services. Modern
traders instead generally negotiate through a medium of exchange, such as money. As a result, buying can be
separated from selling, or earning. The invention of money (and later credit, paper money and non-physical
money) greatly simplified and promoted trade. Because of specialization and division of labor, most people
concentrate on a small aspect of manufacturing or service, trading their labour for products. Trade exists
between regions because different regions have an absolute or comparative advantage in the production of Buyers and sellers bargain in
some tradeable commodity, or because different regions' size allows for the benefits of mass production. Chichicastenango Market, Guatemala.
Economics is a social science which studies the production, distribution, trade and consumption of goods and
services. Economics focuses on measurable variables, and is broadly divided into two main branches: microeconomics, which deals with individual
agents, such as households and businesses, and macroeconomics, which considers the economy as a whole, in which case it considers aggregate supply
and demand for money, capital and commodities. Aspects receiving particular attention in economics are resource allocation, production, distribution,
trade, and competition. Economic logic is increasingly applied to any problem that involves choice under scarcity or determining economic value.
Mainstream economics focuses on how prices reflect supply and demand, and uses equations to predict consequences of decisions.
References
1. ^ Groves, Colin (16 November 2005). in Wilson, D. E., and Reeder, D. M. (eds): Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, Johns Hopkins University Press.
ISBN 0-801-88221-4.
2. ^ Latin distinguishes homo (human) and vir (man).
3. ^ Goodman, M., Tagle, D., Fitch, D., Bailey, W., Czelusniak, J., Koop, B., Benson, P., Slightom, J. (1990). "Primate evolution at the DNA level and a
classification of hominoids". J Mol Evol 30 (3): 260 – 6. doi:10.1007/BF02099995. PMID 2109087.
4. ^ Hominidae Classification. Animal Diversity Web @ UMich. Retrieved on 2006-09-25.
5. ^ The Smithsonian Institution, Human Origins Program
6. ^ World POPClock Projection. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division/International Programs Center. Retrieved on 2008-05-11.
7. ^ Human evolution: the fossil evidence in 3D, by Philip L. Walker and Edward H. Hagen, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara,
retrieved April 5, 2005.
8. ^ Human Ancestors Hall: Homo Sapiens - URL retrieved October 13, 2006
9. ^ Alemseged, Z., Coppens, Y., Geraads, D. (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117
(2): 103–12. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10032. PMID 11815945.
10. ^ Frans de Waal, Bonobo. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. ISBN 0-520-20535-9 [1]
11. ^ Britten RJ (2002). "Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99 (21):
13633–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.172510699. PMID 12368483.
12. ^ Wildman, D., Uddin, M., Liu, G., Grossman, L., Goodman, M. (2003). "Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity
between humans and chimpanzees: enlarging genus Homo". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100 (12): 7181–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.1232172100. PMID 12766228.
13. ^ Ruvolo M (1997). "Molecular phylogeny of the hominoids: inferences from multiple independent DNA sequence data sets". Mol Biol Evol 14 (3): 248–65.
PMID 9066793.
14. ^ Brunet, M., Guy, F., Pilbeam, D., Mackaye, H., Likius, A., Ahounta, D., Beauvilain, A., Blondel, C., Bocherens, H., Boisserie, J., De Bonis, L., Coppens, Y.,
Dejax, J., Denys, C., Duringer, P., Eisenmann, V., Fanone, G., Fronty, P., Geraads, D., Lehmann, T., Lihoreau, F., Louchart, A., Mahamat, A., Merceron, G.,
Mouchelin, G., Otero, O., Pelaez Campomanes, P., Ponce De Leon, M., Rage, J., Sapanet, M., Schuster, M., Sudre, J., Tassy, P., Valentin, X., Vignaud, P.,
Viriot, L., Zazzo, A., Zollikofer, C. (2002). "A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa". Nature 418 (6894): 145–51.
doi:10.1038/nature00879. PMID 12110880.
15. ^ Eswaran, V., Harpending, H., & Rogers, A. R. "Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans", in Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 49, No. 1,
2005, pp. 1-18.
16. ^ Vančata1 V., & Vančatová, M. A. "Major features in the evolution of early hominoid locomotion". Springer Netherlands, Volume 2, Number 6, December
1987. pp.517-537.
17. ^ Brues, Alice M. & Snow, Clyde C. "Physical Anthropology". Biennial Review of Anthropology, Vol. 4, 1965. pp. 1-39.
18. ^ Boyd, Robert & Silk, Joan B. (2003). How Humans Evolved. New York: Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-97854-0.
19. ^ Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1963). Anthropology and the natural sciences-The problem of human evolution, Current Anthropology '4 (2): 138-148.
20. ^ Nicholas Wade. Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story.
21. ^ Wolman, David (2008). "Fossil Feces Is Earliest Evidence of N. America Humans" National Geographic
22. ^ Whitehouse, David. "World's population reaches six billion". BBC News, 05 August 1999. Retrieved on 05 February 2008.
23. ^ Urban, Suburban, and Rural Victimization, 1993-98 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,. Accessed 29 Oct 2006
24. ^ Scientific American (1998). Evolution and General Intelligence: Three hypotheses on the evolution of general intelligence.
25. ^ www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm. Retrieved on 2007-05-30.
26. ^ American Association for the Advancement of Science. Foreword. AAAS Atlas of Population & Environment.
27. ^ Wilson, E.O. (2002). in The Future of Life.
28. ^ de Beer H (2004). "Observations on the history of Dutch physical stature from the late-Middle Ages to the present". Econ Hum Biol 2 (1): 45–55.
doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2003.11.001. PMID 15463992.
29. ^ "Pygmy." Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2006. Answers.com Accessed 30 Oct. 2006.
http://www.answers.com/topic/pygmy
30. ^ [2]
31. ^ Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Way by Nicholas Wade, New York Times, August 19, 2003.
32. ^ Rogers, Alan R., Iltis, David & Wooding, Stephen (2004). "Genetic variation at the MC1R locus and the time since loss of human body hair". Current
Anthropology 45 (1): 105–108. doi:10.1086/381006.
33. ^ Jablonski, N.G. & Chaplin, G. (2000). The evolution of human skin coloration (pdf), 'Journal of Human Evolution 39: 57-106.
34. ^ Harding, Rosalind M., Eugene Healy, Amanda J. Ray, Nichola S. Ellis, Niamh Flanagan, Carol Todd, Craig Dixon, Antti Sajantila, Ian J. Jackson, Mark A.
Birch-Machin, and Jonathan L. Rees (2000). Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R. American Journal of Human Genetics 66: 1351 – 1361.
35. ^ Robin, Ashley (1991). Biological Perspectives on Human Pigmentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. ^ Schwartz, Jeffrey (1987). The Red Ape: Orangutans and Human Origins, pp.286. ISBN 0813340640.
37. ^ a b Collins, Desmond (1976). The Human Revolution: From Ape to Artist, pp.208.
38. ^ According to the July 2, 2007 Newsweek magazine, a woman dies in childbirth every minute, most often due to uncontrolled bleeding and infection, with the
world's poorest women most vulnerable. The lifetime risk is 1 in 16 in sub-Saharan Africa, compared to 1 in 2,800 in developed countries.
39. ^ LaVelle M (1995). "Natural selection and developmental sexual variation in the human pelvis". Am J Phys Anthropol 98 (1): 59–72.
doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330980106. PMID 8579191.
40. ^ Correia H, Balseiro S, De Areia M (2005). "Sexual dimorphism in the human pelvis: testing a new hypothesis". Homo 56 (2): 153–60.
doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2005.05.003. PMID 16130838.
41. ^ Rush D (2000). "Nutrition and maternal mortality in the developing world". Am J Clin Nutr 72 (1 Suppl): 212 S–240 S. PMID 10871588.
42. ^ "USDA Photo by Gordon Parks". United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved on February 05, 2008.
43. ^ Low Birthweight. Retrieved on 2007-05-30.
44. ^ Khor G (2003). "Update on the prevalence of malnutrition among children in Asia". Nepal Med Coll J 5 (2): 113–22. PMID 15024783.
45. ^ Leakey, Richard; Lewin, Roger. Origins Reconsidered - In Search of What Makes Us Human. Sherma B.V., 1992.
46. ^ "Human Development Report 2006," United Nations Development Programme, pp. 363-366, November 9, 2006
47. ^ The World Factbook, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, retrieved April 2, 2005.
48. ^ U.N. Statistics on Population Ageing, United Nations press release, February 28, 2002, retrieved April 2, 2005
49. ^ Diamond, Jared (1997). Why is Sex Fun? The Evolution of Human Sexuality. Basic Books, 167-170. ISBN ISBN 0-465-03127-7.
50. ^ Healthy choices on a vegan diet. Vegan Society. Retrieved on 2007-02-14.
51. ^ "Vegetarian Diets" (2003). Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103 (6): 748–765. doi:10.1053/jada.2003.50142.online copy available
52. ^ Death and DALY estimates for 2002 by cause for WHO Member States World Health Organisation. Accessed 29 Oct 2006
53. ^ Murray C, Lopez A (1997). "Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global Burden of Disease Study". Lancet 349 (9063): 1436–42.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)07495-8. PMID 9164317.
54. ^ Earliest agriculture in the Americas Earliest cultivation of barley Earliest cultivation of figs - URLs retrieved February 19, 2007
55. ^ 3-D Brain Anatomy, The Secret Life of the Brain, Public Broadcasting Service, retrieved April 3, 2005.
56. ^ Sagan, Carl (1978). The Dragons of Eden. A Ballantine Book. ISBN 0-345-34629-7
57. ^ a b Jonathan Benthall Animal liberation and rights Anthropology Today Volume 23 Issue 2 Page 1 - April 2007
58. ^ Robert W. Allan explores a few of these experiments on his webpage: http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~allanr/mirror.html
59. ^ "Self-recognition in an Asian elephant" . Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. PMID 17075063.
60. ^ Consciousness and the Symbolic Universe, by Dr. Jack Palmer, retrieved March 17, 2006.
61. ^ Researchers home in on how brain handles abstract thought - retrieved July 29, 2006
62. ^ Dennett, Daniel (1991). Consciousness Explained. Little Brown & Co, 1991, ISBN 0-316-18065-3.
63. ^ Skinner, B.F. About Behaviorism 1974, page 74-75
64. ^ Skinner, B.F. About Behaviorism, Chapter 7: Thinking
65. ^ Ned Block: On a Confusion about a Function of Consciousness" in: The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1995.
66. ^ Buss, David M. (2004) "The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating". Revised Edition. New York: Basic Books"
67. ^ Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. T. (2000). A Natural History of Rape. Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Cambridge: MIT Press.
68. ^ http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/languages.htm
69. ^ Royal C, Dunston G (2004). "Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation". Nat Genet 36 (11 Suppl): S5–7. doi:10.1038/ng1454. PMID
15508004.
70. ^ Risch, N., Burchard, E., Ziv, E. and Tang, H. (2002). "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease". Genome Biology 3 (7):
comment2007.2001 - comment2007.2012. doi:10.1186/gb-2002-3-7-comment2007. PMID 12184798.
71. ^ Hua Liu, et al (2006). "A Geographically Explicit Genetic Model of Worldwide Human-Settlement History" ( – Scholar search). The American Journal of
Human Genetics 79: 230–237. doi:10.1086/505436.
72. ^ Jorde L, Watkins W, Bamshad M, Dixon M, Ricker C, Seielstad M, Batzer M (2000). "The distribution of human genetic diversity: a comparison of
mitochondrial, autosomal, and Y-chromosome data". Am J Hum Genet 66 (3): 979–88. doi:10.1086/302825. PMID 10712212.
73. ^ The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research by Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group. Am J Hum Genet. 2005
77(4): 519–532.
74. ^ DECONSTRUCTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENETICS AND RACE Michael Bamshad, Stephen Wooding, Benjamin A. Salisbury and J.
Claiborne Stephens. Nature Genetics (2004) 5:598-609
75. ^ Implications of biogeography of human populations for 'race' and medicine by Sarah A Tishkoff & Kenneth K Kidd. Nature Genetics 36, S21 - S27 (2004)
76. ^ Genetic variation, classification and 'race' by Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding. Nature Genetics' 36, S28 - S33 (2004)
77. ^ "The use of racial, ethnic, and ancestral categories in human genetics research" (2005). Am J Hum Genet 77 (4): 519–32. doi:10.1086/491747. PMID
16175499.
78. ^ Edwards A (2003). "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy". Bioessays 25 (8): 798–801. doi:10.1002/bies.10315. PMID 12879450.
79. ^ Keita, S. O. Y., Kittles, R. A., Royal, C. D. M., Bonney, G. E., Furbert-Harris, P., Dunston, D. M., and Rotimi, C. M. (2004). Conceptualizing human
variation: Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004) doi:10.1038/ng1455
80. ^ Max Weber's definition of the modern state 1918, by Max Weber, 1918, retrieved March 17, 2006.
81. ^ Ferguson, Niall. "The Next War of the World." Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct 2006
External links
 MNSU
 Archaeology Info Mammals portal
 Chororapithecus abyssinicus Possible human-orangutan split 20 million years ago. (Aug 26 2007)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human"
Categories: Least Concern species | Humans | Tool-using species
Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links since June 2008 | All articles with unsourced statements |
Articles with unsourced statements since June 2008
Homo sapiens idaltu
Homo sapiens idaltu is an extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens that lived almost 160,000 years ago in Pleistocene Archaic Humans
Africa. Idaltu is the Afar word for "elder, first born".
The fossilized remains of H. s. idaltu were discovered at Herto Bouri in the Middle Awash site of Ethiopia's Afar Kingdom: Animalia
Triangle in 1997 by Tim White, but were first unveiled in 2003. Herto Bouri is a region of Ethiopia under volcanic
layers. By using radioisotope dating, the layers date between 154,000 and 160,000 years old. Three well preserved Phylum: Chordata
crania are accounted for, the best preserved being from an adult male (BOU-VP-16/1) having a brain capacity of Class: Mammalia
1450 cm³. The other crania include another partial adult male and a six year old child. Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
These fossils differ from those of early (but chronologically later) forms of H. sapiens such as Cro-Magnon found in
Europe and other parts of the world in that their morphology has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens Subfamily: Homininae
(although modern human skulls do differ across the globe). Despite the archaic features, these specimens are Genus: Homo
postulated to represent the direct ancestors of modern Homo sapiens sapiens, which according to the recent "Out of Species: H. sapiens
Africa" theory developed shortly after this period (Khoisan mitochondrial divergence dated not later than 110,000
Subspecies: H. s. idaltu
B.P.) in Eastern Africa, and as such, to be the oldest representative of the H. sapiens species found so far.
Trinomial name
See also †Homo sapiens idaltu
White et al, 2003

 Early Homo sapiens
References
 White, Tim D., Asfaw, B., DeGusta, D., Gilbert, H., Richards, G.D., Suwa, G. and Howell, F.C. (2003). "Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle
Middle Awash, Ethiopia". Nature 423 (6491): 742–747. doi:10.1038/nature01669.
External links
 160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans, Robert Sanders, UC Berkeley, 11 June 2003.
 Missing link in human evolution found in Africa (abc.net.au 12 June 2003)
 Oldest Homo Sapiens Fossils Found, Experts Say (National Geographic News)
 Chris Stringer comments on the 2003-findings (Natural History Museum)
 BBC report and image of the reconstructed skull discovered at Herto
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu"

Categories: Early hominids | Pleistocene mammals | Pleistocene extinctions | Human remains (archaeological) | Prehistoric Africa | Primate stubs
Hidden category: Articles lacking in-text citations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu
Human Help us provide free content to the world by donating today!
(Redirected from Homo sapiens sapiens)

June 2008.[6]
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Contents
Class: Mammalia
 3.2 Life cycle
 3.3 Diet
Trinomial name
 5 Culture
 5.1 Language
 5.8 War
 6 References
History
Origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens
[14]
A reconstruction of
Australopithecus
humans.

[20]
for resources.

Biology
often than women.
Life cycle
uterus.
Diet
Psychology
moral development.
Sexuality and love
Culture
6,670,000,000 (April 2008
est.)
total area
43.6 per km² (16.8 mi²) by
London, Paris
Language
GDP (nominal)
GDP (PPP)
philosophy.
Hoffman of an Asian
walk on the moon.
significance
Race and ethnicity
War
120,000 humans.
Trade and economics
References
ISBN 0-801-88221-4.
(2): 103–12. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10032. PMID 11815945.
13633–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.172510699. PMID 12368483.
PMID 9066793.
doi:10.1038/nature00879. PMID 12110880.
2005, pp. 1-18.
1987. pp.517-537.
doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2003.11.001. PMID 15463992.
30. ^ [2]
doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330980106. PMID 8579191.
doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2005.05.003. PMID 16130838.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)07495-8. PMID 9164317.
15508004.
77(4): 519–532.
16175499.
External links
 MNSU
Human You can support Wikipedia by making a tax-deductible donation.
(Redirected from Homo sapiens sapiens)

June 2008.[6]
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Contents
Class: Mammalia
 3.2 Life cycle
 3.3 Diet
Trinomial name
 5 Culture
 5.1 Language
 5.8 War
 6 References
History
Origin
[14]
A reconstruction of
Australopithecus
humans.

[20]
for resources.

Biology
often than women.
Life cycle
uterus.
Diet
Psychology
moral development.
Sexuality and love
Culture
6,670,000,000 (April 2008
est.)
total area
43.6 per km² (16.8 mi²) by
London, Paris
Language
GDP (nominal)
GDP (PPP)
philosophy.
Hoffman of an Asian
walk on the moon.
significance
Race and ethnicity
War
120,000 humans.
Trade and economics
References
ISBN 0-801-88221-4.
(2): 103–12. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10032. PMID 11815945.
13633–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.172510699. PMID 12368483.
PMID 9066793.
doi:10.1038/nature00879. PMID 12110880.
2005, pp. 1-18.
1987. pp.517-537.
doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2003.11.001. PMID 15463992.
30. ^ [2]
doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330980106. PMID 8579191.
doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2005.05.003. PMID 16130838.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)07495-8. PMID 9164317.
15508004.
77(4): 519–532.
16175499.
External links
 MNSU
Human evolution
Part of the Biology series on
Human evolution is the part of biological evolution concerning the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species from
Evolution
other hominans, great apes and placental mammals. It is the subject of a broad scientific inquiry that seeks to understand
and describe how this change occurred. The study of human evolution encompasses many scientific disciplines, most
notably physical anthropology, linguistics and genetics.
The term "human", in the context of human evolution, refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually
include other hominins, such as the australopithecines. The Homo genus diverged from the australopithecines about 2
million years ago in Africa. Several species of Homo evolved, including Homo erectus, which spread to Asia, and Homo
neanderthalensis, which spread to Europe. Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. Most scientists
Mechanisms and processes
favor the view that modern humans evolved in Africa and spread across the globe, replacing populations of H. erectus and
Neanderthals. Others view modern humans as having evolved as a single, widespread population. Adaptation
Genetic drift
Starting with H. habilis, humans have used stone tools of increasing sophistication. Starting about 50,000 years ago, human Gene flow
technology and culture began to change more rapidly. Mutation
Natural selection
Speciation
Contents Research and history
 1 History of paleoanthropology Evidence
 2 Before Homo Evolutionary history of life
 3 Genus Homo History
 3.1 Homo habilis Modern synthesis
 3.2 Homo rudolfensis and Homo georgicus Social effect / Objections
 3.3 Homo ergaster and Homo erectus Evolutionary biology fields
 3.4 Homo cepranensis and Homo antecessor
 3.5 Homo heidelbergensis Cladistics
 3.6 Homo rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium Ecological genetics
 3.7 Homo neanderthalensis Evolutionary development
 3.8 Homo sapiens Human evolution
 3.9 Homo floresiensis Molecular evolution
 3.10 Comparative table of Homo species
Phylogenetics
 4 Use of tools Population genetics
 4.1 Stone tools Biology Portal ·
 4.2 "Modern man" debate and the Great Leap Forward
 5 Models of human evolution
 5.1 Multiregional model
 5.2 Out of Africa model
 5.3 Comparison of the two models
 6 Notable human evolution researchers
 7 Species list
 8 Additional notes
 9 References
 11 See also
History of paleoanthropology
Reconstruction of a
Paleoanthropology is the study of ancient humans based on fossil evidence, tools, and other signs of human Neanderthal hunter, American
habitation. The modern field of paleoanthropology began in the 19th century with the discovery of "Neanderthal Museum of Natural History.
man". The eponymous skeleton was found in 1856, but there had been finds elsewhere since 1830.[1]
By 1859, the morphological similarity of humans to certain great apes had been discussed and argued for some time, but the idea of the biological
evolution of species in general was not legitimized until Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in November of that year. Darwin's first
book on evolution did not address the specific question of human evolution: "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history", was all
Darwin wrote on the subject. Nevertheless, the implications of evolutionary theory were clear to contemporary readers.[2]
Debates between Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen focused on human evolution. Huxley convincingly illustrated many of the similarities and
differences between humans and apes in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. By the time Darwin published his own book on the
subject, The Descent of Man, it was already a well-known interpretation of his theory, and the interpretation which made the theory highly
controversial. Even many of Darwin's original supporters (such as Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Lyell) did not like the idea that human beings
could have evolved their impressive mental capacities and moral sensibilities through natural selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Since the time of Carolus Linnaeus, scientists have considered the great apes to be the closest relatives of human beings because they look very
similar. In the 19th century, they speculated that the closest living relatives of humans are chimpanzees. Based on the natural range of these creatures,
they surmised that humans share a common ancestor with other African great apes and that fossils of these ancestors would be found in Africa. It is
now accepted by virtually all biologists that humans are not only similar to the great apes but, in fact, are great apes.Classification of Hominidae
It was only in the 1920s that such fossils were discovered in Africa. In 1925, Raymond Dart described Australopithecus africanus.[3] The type

specimen was the Taung Child, an australopithecine infant discovered in a cave. This cave, in Taung, South Africa, was being mined for raw materials
used to make concrete. The child's remains were a remarkably well-preserved tiny skull and an endocranial cast of the individual's brain. Although the
brain was small (410 cm³), its shape was rounded, unlike that of chimpanzees and gorillas, and more like a modern human brain. Also, the specimen
showed short canine teeth, and the position of the foramen magnum was evidence of bipedal locomotion. All of these traits convinced Dart that the
Taung baby was a bipedal human ancestor, a transitional form between apes and humans.
Another 20 years would pass before Dart's claims were taken seriously, following the discovery of more fossils that resembled his find. The prevailing
view of the time was that a large brain evolved before bipedality. It was thought that intelligence on par with modern humans was a prerequisite to
bipedalism.
The australopithecines are now thought to be immediate ancestors of the genus Homo, the group to which modern humans belong.[4] Both
australopithecines and Homo sapiens are part of the tribe Hominini, but recent data has brought into doubt the position of A. africanus as a direct
ancestor of modern humans; it may well have been a dead-end cousin.[5] The australopithecines were originally classified as either gracile or robust.
The robust variety of Australopithecus has since been reclassified as Paranthropus, although it is still regarded as a subgenus of Australopithecus by
some authors.[6]
In the 1930s, when the robust specimens were first described, the Paranthropus genus was used. During the 1960s, the robust variety was moved into
Australopithecus. The recent trend has been back to the original classification as a separate genus.[7]
Hominin species distributed through time
Note: 1e +06 years = 1 million years = 1 Ma.
Before Homo
The evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back for some 85 million years, as one of the oldest of all surviving placental mammal groups.
Most paleontologists consider that primates share a common ancestor with the bats, another extremely ancient lineage, and that this ancestor probably
lived during the late Cretaceous, together with the last dinosaurs. The oldest known primates come from North America, but they were widespread in
Eurasia and Africa as well, during the tropical conditions of the Paleocene and Eocene.
With the beginning of modern climates, marked by the formation of the first Antarctic ice in the early Oligocene around 40 million years ago, primates
went extinct everywhere but Africa and southern Asia. One such primate from this time was Notharctus. Fossil evidence found in Germany 20 years
ago was determined to be about 16.5 million years old, some 1.5 million years older than similar species from East Africa.[8] It suggests that the
primate lineage of the great apes first appeared in Eurasia and not Africa .
The discoveries suggest that the early ancestors of the hominids (the family of great apes and humans) migrated to Eurasia from Africa about 17
million years ago, just before these two continents were cut off from each other by an expansion of the Mediterranean Sea. Begun[8] says that these
primates flourished in Eurasia and that their lineage leading to the African apes and humans—Dryopithecus—migrated south from Europe or Western
Asia into Africa. The surviving tropical population, which is seen most completely in the upper Eocene and lowermost Oligocene fossil beds of the
Fayum depression southwest of Cairo, gave rise to all living primates—lemurs of Madagascar, lorises of Southeast Asia, galagos or "bush babies" of
Africa, and the anthropoids; platyrrhines or New World monkeys, and catarrhines or Old World monkeys and the great apes and humans.
The earliest known catarrhine is Kamoyapithecus from uppermost Oligocene at Eragaleit in the northern Kenya rift valley, dated to 24 mya (millions
of years before present). Its ancestry is generally thought to be close to such genera as Aegyptopithecus, Propliopithecus, and Parapithecus from the
Fayum, at around 35 mya. There are no fossils from the intervening 11 million years. No near ancestor to South American platyrrhines, whose fossil
record begins at around 30 mya, can be identified among the North African fossil species, and possibly lies in other forms that lived in West Africa
that were caught up in the still-mysterious transatlantic sweepstakes that sent primates, rodents, boa constrictors, and cichlid fishes from Africa to
South America sometime in the Oligocene.
In the early Miocene, after 22 mya, many kinds of arboreally adapted primitive catarrhines from East Africa suggest a long history of prior
diversification. Because the fossils at 20 mya include fragments attributed to Victoriapithecus, the earliest cercopithecoid; the other forms are (by
default) grouped as hominoids, without clear evidence as to which are closest to living apes and humans. Among the presently recognized genera in
this group, which ranges up to 13 mya, we find Proconsul, Rangwapithecus, Dendropithecus, Limnopithecus, Nacholapithecus, Equatorius,
Nyanzapithecus, Afropithecus, Heliopithecus, and Kenyapithecus, all from East Africa. The presence of other generalized non-cercopithecids of middle
Miocene age from sites far distant—Otavipithecus from cave deposits in Namibia, and Pierolapithecus and Dryopithecus from France, Spain and
Austria—is evidence of a wide diversity of forms across Africa and the Mediterranean basin during the relatively warm and equable climatic regimes
of the early and middle Miocene.
The youngest of the Miocene hominoids, Oreopithecus, is from 9 mya coal beds in Italy.
Molecular evidence indicates that the lineage of gibbons (family Hylobatidae) became distinct between 18 and 12 Ma, and that of orangutans
(subfamily Ponginae) at about 12 Ma; we have no fossils that clearly document the ancestry of gibbons, which may have originated in a so far
unknown South East Asian hominid population, but fossil proto-orangutans may be represented by Ramapithecus from India and Griphopithecus from
Turkey, dated to around 10 Ma.
It has been suggested that species close to last common ancestors of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils
found in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece. Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 mya, first the gorillas, and then the
chimpanzee (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees.[9] The fossil
record of gorillas and chimpanzees is quite limited [10]. Both poor preservation (rain forest soils tend to be acidic and dissolve bone) and sampling bias
probably contribute to this problem.
Other Hominines, however, likely adapted (along with antelopes, hyenas, dogs, pigs, elephants, and horses) to the somewhat drier environments
outside the equatorial belt (which contracted after about 8 million years ago; reference needed) and their fossils are relatively well known. The earliest
are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7–6 mya) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya), followed by:
 Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 mya), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus;

 Australopithecus (4–2 mya), with species Au. anamensis, Au. afarensis, Au. africanus, Au. bahrelghazali, and Au. garhi;
 Kenyanthropus (3-2.7 mya), with species Kenyanthropus platyops
 Paranthropus (3–1.2 mya), with species P. aethiopicus, P. boisei, and P. robustus;
 Homo (2 mya–present), with species Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis,
Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo
floresiensis
Genus Homo
The word homo is Latin for "human", chosen originally by Carolus Linnaeus in his classification system. It is often translated as "man", although this
can lead to confusion, given that the English word "man" can be generic like homo, but can also specifically refer to males. Latin for "man" in the
gender-specific sense is vir (pronounced weer), cognate with "virile" and "werewolf". The word "human" is from humanus, the adjectival form of
homo.
In modern taxonomy, Homo sapiens is the only extant species of its genus, Homo. Likewise, the ongoing study of the origins of Homo sapiens often

demonstrates that there were other Homo species, all of which are now extinct. While some of these other species might have been ancestors of H.
sapiens, many were likely our "cousins", having speciated away from our ancestral line.[11] There is not yet a consensus as to which of these groups
should count as separate species and which as subspecies of another species. In some cases this is due to the paucity of fossils, in other cases it is due
to the slight differences used to classify species in the Homo genus. The Sahara pump theory provides an explanation of the early variation in the genus
Homo.
Homo habilis
H. habilis lived from about 2.4 to 1.4 million years ago (mya). H. habilis, the first species of the genus Homo, evolved in South and East Africa in the
late Pliocene or early Pleistocene, 2.5 – 2 mya, when it diverged from the Australopithecines. H. habilis had smaller molars and larger brains than the
Australopithecines, and made tools from stone and perhaps animal bones. One of the first known hominids, it was nicknamed 'handy man' by its
discoverer, Louis Leakey due to its association with stone tools (mode 1). Some scientists have proposed moving this species out of Homo and into
Australopithecus due to its postcranial morphology being more adapted to an arboreal existence rather than bipedalism than that of H. sapiens [12].
Homo rudolfensis and Homo georgicus
These are proposed species names for fossils from about 1.9–1.6 mya, the relation of which with H. habilis is not yet clear.
 H. rudolfensis refers to a single, incomplete skull from Kenya. Scientists have suggested that this was just another habilis, but this has not been
confirmed. [13]
 H. georgicus, from Georgia, may be an intermediate form between H. habilis and H. erectus,[14] or a sub-species of H. erectus.[15]
Homo ergaster and Homo erectus
The first fossils of Homo erectus were discovered by Dutch physician Eugene Dubois in 1891 on
the Indonesian island of Java. He originally gave the material the name Pithecanthropus erectus
based on its morphology that he considered to be intermediate between that of humans and apes.
[16] H. erectus lived from about 1.8 mya to 70,000 years ago. Often the early phase, from 1.8 to
1.25 mya, is considered to be a separate species, H. ergaster, or it is seen as a subspecies of H.
erectus, Homo erectus ergaster.
In the Early Pleistocene, 1.5 – 1 mya, in Africa, Asia, and Europe, presumably, some populations
of Homo habilis evolved larger brains and made more elaborate stone tools; these differences and
others are sufficient for anthropologists to classify them as a new species, H. erectus. In addition
H. erectus was the first human ancestor to walk truly upright.[17] This was made possible by the
evolution of locking knees and a different location of the foramen magnum (the hole in the skull
where the spine enters). They may have used fire to cook their meat.
See also: Control of fire by early humans
A famous example of Homo erectus is Peking Man; others were found in Asia (notably in
Indonesia), Africa, and Europe. Many paleoanthropologists are now using the term Homo ergaster
for the non-Asian forms of this group, and reserving H. erectus only for those fossils found in the
Asian region and meeting certain skeletal and dental requirements which differ slightly from One current view of the temporal and geographical
ergaster. distribution of hominid populations. Other
interpretations differ mainly in the taxonomy and
geographical distribution of hominid species.
Homo cepranensis and Homo antecessor
These are proposed as species that may be intermediate between H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis.
 H. antecessor is known from fossils from Spain and England that are 1.2 mya–500,000 years old.[18] [19]
 H. cepranensis refers to a single skull cap from Italy, estimated to be about 800,000 years old.[20]
H. heidelbergensis (Heidelberg Man) lived from about 800,000 to about 300,000 years ago. Also proposed as Homo sapiens heidelbergensis or Homo

sapiens paleohungaricus.[21]
Homo rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium
 H. rhodesiensis, estimated to be 300,000–125,000 years old. Most current experts believe Rhodesian Man to be within the group of Homo
heidelbergensis though other designations such as Archaic Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens rhodesiensis have also been proposed.
 In February 2006 a fossil, the Gawis cranium, was found which might possibly be a species intermediate between H. erectus and H. sapiens or
one of many evolutionary dead ends. The skull from Gawis, Ethiopia, is believed to be 500,000–250,000 years old. Only summary details are
known, and no peer reviewed studies have been released by the finding team. Gawis man's facial features suggest its being either an intermediate
species or an example of a "Bodo man" female.[22]
Homo neanderthalensis
H. neanderthalensis lived from about 250,000 to as recent as 30,000 years ago. Also proposed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis: there is ongoing

debate over whether the 'Neanderthal Man' was a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or a subspecies of H. sapiens.[23] While the debate remains
unsettled, evidence from mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA sequencing indicates that little or no gene flow occurred between H.
neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species.[24] In 1997, Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of
anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that
Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans… Neanderthals are not our ancestors." Subsequent investigation of a second
source of Neanderthal DNA supported these findings.[25] However, supporters of the multiregional hypothesis point to recent studies indicating non-
African nuclear DNA heritage dating to one mya,[26] although the reliability of these studies has been questioned.[27]
Homo sapiens
H. sapiens ("sapiens" means wise or intelligent) has lived from about 250,000 years ago to the present. Between 400,000 years ago and the second
interglacial period in the Middle Pleistocene, around 250,000 years ago, the trend in cranial expansion and the elaboration of stone tool technologies
developed, providing evidence for a transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens. The direct evidence suggests there was a migration of H. erectus out of
Africa, then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus in Africa (there is little evidence that this speciation occurred elsewhere). Then a
subsequent migration within and out of Africa eventually replaced the earlier dispersed H. erectus. This migration and origin theory is usually referred
to as the single-origin theory. However, the current evidence does not preclude multiregional speciation, either. This is a hotly debated area in
paleoanthropology.
Current research has established that human beings are genetically highly homogenous, that is the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for
most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the Toba catastrophe. Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen,
however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small
component of the Homo sapiens genome and include such outward "racial" characteristics as skin color and nose form in addition to internal
characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently in high altitudes.
H. sapiens idaltu, from Ethiopia, lived from about 160,000 years ago (proposed subspecies). It is the oldest known anatomically modern human.
Homo floresiensis
H. floresiensis, which lived about 100,000–12,000 years ago has been nicknamed hobbit for its small size, possibly a result of insular dwarfism.[28] H.
floresiensis is intriguing both for its size and its age, being a concrete example of a recent species of the genus Homo that exhibits derived traits not
shared with modern humans. In other words, H. floresiensis share a common ancestor with modern humans, but split from the modern human lineage
and followed a distinct evolutionary path. The main find was a skeleton believed to be a woman of about 30 years of age. Found in 2003 it has been
dated to approximately 18,000 years old. The living woman was estimated to be one meter in height, with a brain volume of just 380 cm3 (considered
small for a chimpanzee and less than a third of the H. sapiens average of 1400 cm3).
However, there is an ongoing debate over whether H. floresiensis is indeed a separate species.[29] Some scientists presently believe that H. floresiensis

was a modern H. sapiens suffering from pathological dwarfism.[30] This hypothesis is supported in part, because the modern humans who live on
Flores, the island where the skeleton was found, are pygmies. This coupled with pathological dwarfism could indeed create a hobbit-like human. The
other major attack on H. floresiensis is that it was found with tools only associated with H. sapiens.[30]
Comparative table of Homo species
Comparative table of Homo species

Lived when Adult Adult mass Brain volume Fossil Discovery /
Species Lived where
(mya) length (m) (kg) (cm³) record publication of name
H. habilis 2.5 – 1.5 Africa 1.0–1.5 30–55 660[31] many 1960/1964
H. rudolfensis 1.9 Kenya 1 skull 1972/1986
H. georgicus 1.8 – 1.6 Georgia 600 few 1999/2002
H. ergaster 1.9 – 1.4 E. and S. Africa 1.9 700–850 many 1975
Africa, Eurasia (Java, 850(early) –
H. erectus 2 – 0.03 [31] China, Caucasus) 1.8 60 many 1891/1892
1100(late)[31]
H. cepranensis 0.8? Italy 1000 1 skull cap 1994/2003
H. antecessor 0.8 – 0.35 Spain, England 1.75 90 1000 3 sites 1997
H. heidelbergensis 0.6 – 0.25 Europe, Africa, China 1.8 60 1100–1400 many 1908
55–70
H. neanderthalensis 0.35 – 0.03 Europe, W. Asia 1.6 1200–1700 many (1829)/1864
(heavily built)
H. rhodesiensis 0.3 – 0.12 Zambia 1300 very few 1921
0.25 –
H. sapiens worldwide 1.4–1.9 55–80 1000–1850 still living —/1758
present
H. sapiens idaltu 0.16–0.15 Ethiopia 1450 3 craniums 1997/2003
7
H. floresiensis 0.10 – 0.012 Indonesia 1.0 25 400 2003/2004
individuals
Use of tools
Using tools has been interpreted as a sign of intelligence, and it has been theorized that tool use may have stimulated certain aspects of human
evolution—most notably the continued expansion of the human brain. Paleontology has yet to explain the expansion of this organ over millions of
years despite being extremely demanding in terms of energy consumption. The brain of a modern human consumes about 20 Watts (400 kilocalories
per day), which is one fifth of the energy consumption of a human body. Increased tool use would allow for hunting and consuming meat, which is
more energy-rich than plants. Researchers have suggested that early hominids were thus under evolutionary pressure to increase their capacity to create
and use tools.[32]
Precisely when early humans started to use tools is difficult to determine, because the more primitive these tools are (for example, sharp-edged stones)
the more difficult it is to decide whether they are natural objects or human artifacts. There is some evidence that the australopithecines (4 mya) may
have used broken bones as tools, but this is debated.
Stone tools
Stone tools are first attested around 2.6 million years ago, when H. habilis in Eastern Africa used so-called pebble tools, choppers made out of round
pebbles that had been split by simple strikes.[33] This marks the beginning of the Paleolithic, or Old Stone Age; its end is taken to be the end of the last
Ice Age, around 10,000 years ago. The Paleolithic is subdivided into the Lower Paleolithic (Early Stone Age, ending around 350,000–300,000 years
ago), the Middle Paleolithic (Middle Stone Age, until 50,000–30,000 years ago), and the Upper Paleolithic.
The period from 700,000–300,000 years ago is also known as the Acheulean, when H. ergaster (or erectus) made large stone hand-axes out of flint and

quartzite, at first quite rough (Early Acheulian), later "retouched" by additional, more subtle strikes at the sides of the flakes. After 350,000 BP (Before
Present) the more refined so-called Levallois technique was developed. It consisted of a series of consecutive strikes, by which scrapers, slicers
("racloirs"), needles, and flattened needles were made.[33] Finally, after about 50,000 BP, ever more refined and specialized flint tools were made by
the Neanderthals and the immigrant Cro-Magnons (knives, blades, skimmers). In this period they also started to make tools out of bone.
"Modern man" debate and the Great Leap Forward
Until about 50,000–40,000 years ago the use of stone tools seems to have progressed stepwise: each phase (habilis, ergaster, neanderthal) started at a
higher level than the previous one, but once that phase had started further development was slow. In other words, one might call these Homo species
culturally conservative. After 50,000 BP, what Jared Diamond, author of The Third Chimpanzee, and other anthropologists characterize as a "Great
Leap Forward", human culture apparently started to change at much greater speed: "modern" humans started to bury their dead carefully, made
clothing out of hides, developed sophisticated hunting techniques (such as pitfall traps, or driving animals to fall off cliffs), and made cave paintings.
[34] This speed-up of cultural change seems connected with the arrival of behaviorally modern humans, Homo sapiens. As human culture advanced,
different populations of humans began to create novelty in existing technologies. Artifacts such as fish hooks, buttons and bone needles begin to show
signs of variation among different populations of humans, something that had not been seen in human cultures prior to 50,000 BP. Typically,
neanderthalensis populations are found with technology similar to other contemporary neanderthalensis populations.
Theoretically, modern human behavior is taken to include four ingredient capabilities: abstract thinking (concepts free from specific examples),
planning (taking steps to achieve a further goal), innovation (finding new solutions), and symbolic behaviour (such as images, or rituals). Among
concrete examples of modern human behaviour, anthropologists include specialization of tools, use of jewelry and images (such as cave drawings),
organization of living space, rituals (for example, burials with grave gifts), specialized hunting techniques, exploration of less hospitable geographical
areas, and barter trade networks. Debate continues whether there was indeed a "revolution" leading to modern humans ("the big bang of human
consciousness"), or a more gradual evolution.[35]
Models of human evolution

Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens sapiens. However, this is not the first species of hominids: the first species
of genus Homo, Homo habilis evolved in East Africa at least 2 million years ago, and members of this species populated different parts of Africa in a
relatively short time. Homo erectus evolved more than 1.8 million years ago, and by 1.5 million years ago had spread throughout the Old World.
Virtually all physical anthropologists agree that Homo sapiens evolved out of Homo erectus. Anthropologists have been divided as to whether Homo
sapiens evolved as one interconnected species from H. erectus (called the Multiregional Model, or the Regional Continuity Model), or evolved only in
East Africa, and then migrated out of Africa and replaced H. erectus populations throughout the Old World (called the Out of Africa Model or the
Complete Replacement Model). Anthropologists continue to debate both possibilities, and the evidence is technically ambiguous as to which model is
correct, although most anthropologists currently favor the Out of Africa model.
Multiregional model
Advocates of the Multiregional model, primarily Milford Wolpoff and his associates, have argued that the simultaneous evolution of H. sapiens in
different parts of Europe and Asia would have been possible if there was a degree of gene flow between archaic populations.[36] Similarities of
morphological features between archaic European and Chinese populations and modern H. sapiens from the same regions, Wolpoff argues, support a
regional continuity only possible within the Multiregional model.[37] Wolpoff and others further argue that this model is consistent with clinal patterns
of phenotypic variation (Wolpoff 1993).
Out of Africa model
See also: Recent single origin hypothesis
According to the Out of Africa Model, developed by Chris Stringer and Peter Andrews, modern H. sapiens evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago.
Homo sapiens began migrating from Africa between 70,000 – 50,000 years ago and would eventually replace existing hominid species in Europe and
Asia.[38][39] The Out of Africa Model has gained support by recent research using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). After analysing genealogy trees
constructed using 133 types of mtDNA, they concluded that all were descended from a woman from Africa, dubbed Mitochondrial Eve.[40]
There are differing theories on whether there was a single exodus, or several (a Multiple Dispersal Model). A Multiple Dispersal Model involves the
Southern Dispersal theory,[41] which has gained support in recent years from genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence. In this theory, there was a
coastal dispersal of modern humans from the Horn of Africa around 70,000 years ago. This group helped to populate Southeast Asia and Oceania,
explaining the discovery of early human sites in these areas much earlier than those in the Levant. A second wave of humans dispersed across the Sinai
peninsula into Asia, resulting in the bulk of human population for Eurasia. This second group possessed a more sophisticated tool technology and was
less dependent on coastal food sources than the original group. Much of the evidence for the first group's expansion would have been destroyed by the
rising sea levels at the end of the Holocene era.[41]
Comparison of the two models
In a recent article, Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Jackson have called attention to the fact that although the concepts of cline, population, and
ethnicity, as well as humanitarian and political concerns, have led many scientists away from the notion of race, a recent survey showed that physical
anthropologists were evenly divided as to whether race is a valid biological concept. Noting that among physical anthropologists the vast majority of
opposition to the race concept comes from population geneticists, any new support for a biological concept of race will likely come from another
source, namely, the study of human evolution. They therefore ask what, if any, implications current models of human evolution may have for any
biological conception of race.[42]
Lieberman and Jackson have related the multiregional theory to race with the following statement:
The major implication for race in the multiregional evolution continuity model involves the time depth of a million or more years in
“ which race differentiation might evolve in diverse ecological regions [...]. This must be balanced against the degree of gene flow and
the transregional operation of natural selection on encephalization due to development of tools and, more broadly, culture.[43]
”
Lieberman and Jackson have related the Out of Africa theory to race with the following comment:
There are three major implications of this model for the race concept. First, the shallow time dimension minimizes the degree to which
“ racial differences could have evolved [...]. Second, the mitochondrial DNA model presents a view that is very much different from
Carleton Coon's (1962) concerning the time at which Africans passed the threshold from archaic to modern, thereby minimizing race
differences and avoiding racist implications. However, the model, as interpreted by Wainscoat et al. (1989:34), does describe "a major
division of human populations into an African and a Eurasian group." This conclusion could best be used to emphasize the degree of
biological differences, and thereby provide support for the race concept. Third, the replacement of preexisting members of genus Homo
(with little gene flow) implies several possible causes from disease epidemics to extermination. If the latter, then from a contemporary
viewpoint, xenophobia or racism may have been practiced"[44]
”
Lieberman and Jackson have argued that while advocates of both the Multiregional Model and the Out of Africa Model use the word race and make
racial assumptions, none define the term.[43] They conclude that "Each model has implications that both magnify and minimize the differences
between races. Yet each model seems to take race and races as a conceptual reality. The net result is that those anthropologists who prefer to view
races as a reality are encouraged to do so" and conclude that students of human evolution would be better off avoiding the word race, and instead
describe genetic differences in terms of populations and clinal gradations.[45]
Notable human evolution researchers

 James Burnett, Lord Monboddo, a British judge most famous today as a founder of modern comparative historical linguistics
 Charles Darwin, a British naturalist who documented considerable evidence that species originate through evolutionary change
 Richard Dawkins, a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist who has promoted a gene-centered view of evolution
 J. B. S. Haldane, a British geneticist and evolutionary biologist
 William D. Hamilton, a British Evolutionary Biologist who expounded a rigorous genetic basis for kin selection, and on the evolution of HIV
and other human diseases.
 Sir Alister Hardy, a British zoologist, who first hypothesised the aquatic ape theory of human evolution
 Henry McHenry, an American anthropologist who specializes in studies of human evolution, the origins of bipedality, and paleoanthropology
 Louis Leakey, an African archaeologist and naturalist whose work was important in establishing human evolutionary development in Africa
 Richard Leakey, an African paleontologist and archaeologist, son of Louis Leakey
 Svante Pääbo, a Swedish biologist specializing in evolutionary genetics
 Jeffrey H. Schwartz, an American physical anthropologist and professor of biological anthropology
 Chris Stringer, anthropologist, leading proponent of the recent single origin hypothesis
 Alan Templeton, geneticist and statistician, proponent of the multiregional hypothesis
 Erik Trinkaus, a prominent American paleoanthropologist and expert on Neanderthal biology and human evolution
 Milford H. Wolpoff, an American paleoanthropologist who is the leading proponent of the multiregional evolution hypothesis
Species list
This list is in chronological order by genus.
 Sahelanthropus
 Sahelanthropus tchadensis
 Orrorin
 Orrorin tugenensis
 Ardipithecus
 Ardipithecus kadabba
 Ardipithecus ramidus
 Australopithecus
 Australopithecus anamensis
 Australopithecus afarensis
 Australopithecus bahrelghazali
 Australopithecus africanus
 Australopithecus garhi
 Paranthropus
 Paranthropus aethiopicus
 Paranthropus boisei
 Paranthropus robustus
 Kenyanthropus
 Kenyanthropus platyops
 Homo
 Homo habilis
 Homo rudolfensis
 Homo ergaster
 Homo georgicus
 Homo erectus
 Homo cepranensis
 Homo antecessor
 Homo heidelbergensis
 Homo rhodesiensis
 Homo neanderthalensis
 Homo sapiens idaltu
 Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon)
 Homo sapiens sapiens
Additional notes
 The validity of evolution and the origins of humanity have often been a subject of great political and religious controversy within the non-
scientific community (see Creation-evolution controversy and Hybrid-origin).
 The classification of humans and their relatives has changed considerably over time (see History of hominoid taxonomy).
 Speculation about the future evolution of humans is often explored in science fiction as continued speciation of humans as they fill various
ecological niches (see Adaptive radiation and Co-evolution), as well as deliberate self-modification (see Participant evolution).
 Currently, scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5–7 mya.
References
1. ^ Human Ancestors Hall: Homo neanderthalensis. Retrieved on 2008-05-26.
2. ^ Darwin, Charles (1861). On the Origin of Species, 3rd, John Murray, 488.
3. ^ Dart RA (1925). "The Man-Ape of South Africa". Nature 115: 195–199. doi:10.1038/115195a0.
4. ^ Wood B (1996). "Human evolution". Bioessays 18 (12): 945–54. doi:10.1002/bies.950181204. PMID 8976151.
5. ^ Wood B (1992). "Origin and evolution of the genus Homo". Nature 355 (6363): 783–90. doi:10.1038/355783a0. PMID 1538759.
6. ^ Cela-Conde CJ, Ayala FJ (2003). "Genera of the human lineage". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100 (13): 7684–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.0832372100. PMID
12794185.
7. ^ HALDANE JB (July 1955). "Origin of man". Nature 176 (4473): 169–70. PMID 13244650.
8. ^ a b Kordos L, Begun DR (2001). "Primates from Rudabánya: allocation of specimens to individuals, sex and age categories". J. Hum. Evol. 40 (1): 17–39.
doi:10.1006/jhev.2000.0437. PMID 11139358.
9. ^ Chimps are human, gene study implies – 19 May 2003 – New Scientist
10. ^ McBrearty S. Jablonsky N.G. de Lumley M. (2005). "First Fossil Chimpanzee". Nature 437: 105–108. doi:10.1038/nature04008.
11. ^ Strait DS, Grine FE, Moniz MA (1997). "A reappraisal of early hominid phylogeny". J. Hum. Evol. 32 (1): 17–82. doi:10.1006/jhev.1996.0097. PMID
9034954.
12. ^ Wood, B. & Collard, M. (1999) The changing face of Genus Homo. Evol. Anth. 8(6) 195-207
13. ^ Wood B (1999). "'Homo rudolfensis' Alexeev, 1986-fact or phantom?". J. Hum. Evol. 36 (1): 115–8. doi:10.1006/jhev.1998.0246. PMID 9924136.
14. ^ Gabounia L. de Lumley M. Vekua A. Lordkipanidze D. de Lumley H. (2002). "Discovery of a new hominid at Dmanisi (Transcaucasia, Georgia)". Comptes
Rendus Palevol, 1 (4): 243–53. doi:10.1016/S1631-0683(02)00032-5.
15. ^ Lordkipanidze D, Vekua A, Ferring R, et al (2006). "A fourth hominin skull from Dmanisi, Georgia". The anatomical record. Part A, Discoveries in
molecular, cellular, and evolutionary biology 288 (11): 1146–57. doi:10.1002/ar.a.20379. PMID 17031841.
16. ^ Turner W (1895). "On M. Dubois' Description of Remains recently found in Java, named by him Pithecanthropus erectus: With Remarks on so-called
Transitional Forms between Apes and Man". Journal of anatomy and physiology 29 (Pt 3): 424–45. PMID 17232143.
17. ^ Spoor F, Wood B, Zonneveld F (1994). "Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion". Nature 369
(6482): 645–8. doi:10.1038/369645a0. PMID 8208290.
18. ^ Bermúdez de Castro JM, Arsuaga JL, Carbonell E, Rosas A, Martínez I, Mosquera M (1997). "A hominid from the lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain:
possible ancestor to Neandertals and modern humans". Science 276 (5317): 1392–5. PMID 9162001.
19. ^ Carbonell, Eudald; José M. Bermúdez de Castro et al (2008-03-27). "The first hominin of Europe". Nature 452: 465–469. doi:10.1038/nature06815. Retrieved
on 2008-03-26.
20. ^ Manzi G, Mallegni F, Ascenzi A (2001). "A cranium for the earliest Europeans: phylogenetic position of the hominid from Ceprano, Italy". Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 98 (17): 10011–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.151259998. PMID 11504953.
21. ^ Czarnetzki A, Jakob T, Pusch CM (2003). "Palaeopathological and variant conditions of the Homo heidelbergensis type specimen (Mauer, Germany)". J.
Hum. Evol. 44 (4): 479–95. PMID 12727464.
22. ^ Indiana University (March 27, 2006). "Scientists discover hominid cranium in Ethiopia". Press release. Retrieved on 2006-11-26.
23. ^ Harvati K (2003). "The Neanderthal taxonomic position: models of intra- and inter-specific craniofacial variation". J. Hum. Evol. 44 (1): 107–32.
doi:10.1016/S0047-2484(02)00208-7. PMID 12604307.
24. ^ Krings M, Stone A, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Stoneking M, Pääbo S (1997). "Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans". Cell 90 (1):
19–30. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80310-4. PMID 9230299.
25. ^ Serre D, Langaney A, Chech M, et al (2004). "No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans". PLoS Biol. 2 (3): E57.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020057. PMID 15024415.
26. ^ Gutiérrez G, Sánchez D, Marín A (2002). "A reanalysis of the ancient mitochondrial DNA sequences recovered from Neandertal bones". Mol. Biol. Evol. 19
(8): 1359–66. PMID 12140248.
27. ^ Hebsgaard MB, Wiuf C, Gilbert MT, Glenner H, Willerslev E (2007). "Evaluating Neanderthal genetics and phylogeny". J. Mol. Evol. 64 (1): 50–60.
doi:10.1007/s00239-006-0017-y. PMID 17146600.
28. ^ Brown P, Sutikna T, Morwood MJ, et al (2004). "A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia". Nature 431 (7012): 1055–61.
doi:10.1038/nature02999. PMID 15514638.
29. ^ Argue D, Donlon D, Groves C, Wright R (2006). "Homo floresiensis: microcephalic, pygmoid, Australopithecus, or Homo?". J. Hum. Evol. 51 (4): 360–74.
doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.04.013. PMID 16919706.
30. ^ a b Martin RD, Maclarnon AM, Phillips JL, Dobyns WB (2006). "Flores hominid: new species or microcephalic dwarf?". The anatomical record. Part A,
Discoveries in molecular, cellular, and evolutionary biology 288 (11): 1123–45. doi:10.1002/ar.a.20389. PMID 17031806.
31. ^ a b c Java Man, Curtis, Swisher and Lewin, ISBN 0349114730
32. ^ Gibbons, Ann (1998). "Solving the Brain's Energy Crisis". Science 280 (5368): 1345–47. doi:10.1126/science.280.5368.1345. PMID 9634409.
33. ^ a b Plummer T (2004). "Flaked stones and old bones: Biological and cultural evolution at the dawn of technology". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Suppl 39: 118–64.
doi:10.1002/ajpa.20157. PMID 15605391.
34. ^ Ambrose SH (2001). "Paleolithic technology and human evolution". Science 291 (5509): 1748–53. PMID 11249821.
35. ^ Mcbrearty S, Brooks AS (2000). "The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior". J. Hum. Evol. 39 (5): 453–563.
doi:10.1006/jhev.2000.0435. PMID 11102266.
36. ^ Thorne, Alan, and Milford Wolpoff (1992) "The Multiregional Evolution of humans" in Scientific American, April 76-93; Smith, Fred and Frank Spencer, eds
(1984) The Origin of Modern Humans
37. ^ Robert H. Lavenda and Emily A. Shultz Anthropology, what does it mean to be human? Oxford (New York:2008) 132.
38. ^ Modern Humans Came Out of Africa, "Definitive" Study Says
39. ^ Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews (1988) "Genetic and Fossil Evidence for the Origin of Modern Humans" in Science 239: 1263-1268
40. ^ Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking, Allan C. Wilson (1987) "Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution" in Nature 325: 31-36)
41. ^ a b Searching for traces of the Southern Dispersal, by Dr. Marta Mirazón Lahr, et. al.
42. ^ Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in American Anthropologist Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 232-234
43. ^ a b Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in American Anthropologist Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 237
44. ^ Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in American Anthropologist Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 235–
236
45. ^ Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda C. Jackson (1995) "Race and Three Models of Human Origin" in American Anthropologist Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 239
Further reading
 Flinn, M. V., Geary, D. C., & Ward, C. V. (2005). Ecological dominance, social competition, and coalitionary arms races: Why humans evolved
extraordinary intelligence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 10-46. Full text. PDF (345 KiB)
 Rozsa L 2008. The rise of non-adaptive intelligence in humans under pathogen pressure. Medical Hypotheses, 70, 685-690.

 Wolfgang Enard et al. (2002-08-22). "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language". Nature 418: 870.
 DNA Shows Neandertals Were Not Our Ancestors
 J. W. IJdo, A. Baldini, D. C. Ward, S. T. Reeders, R. A. Wells (October 1991). "Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-
telomere fusion". Genetics 88: 9051–9055.—two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
 Ovchinnikov, et al. (2000). "Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus". Nature 404: 490. doi:10.1038/35006625.
 Heizmann, Elmar P J, Begun, David R (2001). "The oldest Eurasian hominoid". Journal of Human Evolution 41 (5): 463.
doi:10.1006/jhev.2001.0495.
 JBS Haldane (1955). "Origin of Man". Nature 176 (169).
 BBC: Finds test human origins theory. 2007-08-08 Homo habilis and Homo erectus are sister species that overlapped in time.
See also
 Aquatic ape hypothesis  Hominid intelligence
 Archaeogenetics  Human behavioral ecology
 Sociocultural evolution  Human vestigiality
 Dual inheritance theory  Hunting hypothesis
 Dysgenics  Mitochondrial Eve ("African Eve" theory)
 Evolutionary anthropology  Most recent common ancestor
 Evolutionary medicine  Multi-regional origin
 Evolutionary neuroscience  Physical anthropology
 Evolutionary psychology  Single origin hypothesis
 FOXP2  Timeline of human evolution
 History of Earth  Y-chromosomal Adam
External links
 BBC: The Evolution of Man
 Illustrations from Evolution (textbook)
 Smithsonian – Homosapiens
 Smithsonian – The Human Origins Program
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution"
Categories: Human evolution | Neogene | Recent single origin hypothesis | Evolution | Sociocultural evolution | Evolution by taxon | Anthropology
Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from May 2008 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements
since May 2008 | Articles with unsourced statements since April 2007
J. B. S. Haldane
See also: Haldane's dilemma
John Burdon Sanderson Haldane FRS (November 5, 1892 – December 1, 1964), known as

Jack (but who used 'J.B.S.' in his printed works), was a British-born Indian geneticist and J. B. S. Haldane
evolutionary biologist. He was one of the founders (along with Ronald Fisher and Sewall
Wright) of population genetics.
Contents
 1 Biography
 1.1 An eccentric aristocratic family
 1.2 As a pioneer geneticist
 1.3 Population genetics and the Briggs-Haldane equation
 1.4 A keen experimenter
 1.5 Career and awards
 1.6 Marriage
 1.7 His politics
 1.8 India
 1.9 An author and a source of inspiration
 1.10 Cancer
 2 Misc
 3 Publications
 4 See also
J. B. S. Haldane
 5 Bibliography
 6 References Born November 5, 1892
 7 External links Oxford, England
Died December 1, 1964 (aged 72)
Biography Bhubaneswar, India
Residence UK
An eccentric aristocratic family U.S.
India
Haldane was born in Oxford in 1892, to physiologist John Scott Haldane and Louisa Nationality British (until 1961)
Kathleen Haldane (née Trotter), and descended from an aristocratic intellectual Scottish Indian
family (See Haldane family). His younger sister Naomi Mitchison became a writer. His uncle
Fields Biologist
was Richard Haldane, 1st Viscount Haldane, politician and one time Secretary of State for
War and his aunt was the author Elizabeth Haldane. His father was a scientist, a philosopher Institutions University of Cambridge
and a liberal, and his mother was a conservative Tory. Haldane took interest in his father’s University of California, Berkeley
work very early in his childhood. University College London
Indian Statistical Institute,Calcutta
He served in the British Army in the First World War in the Black Watch regiment. Alma mater University of Oxford
Doctoral advisor Frederick Gowland Hopkins
As a pioneer geneticist
Doctoral students John Maynard Smith
Between 1919 and 1922 he was a Fellow of New College, Oxford, then moved to Cambridge Known for Population genetics
University, where he accepted a Readership in Biochemistry at Trinity College and taught Enzymology
there until 1932. During his nine years at Cambridge, Haldane worked on enzymes and Notable awards Darwin Medal (1952)
genetics, particularly the mathematical side of genetics. During the teens and twenties,
Haldane wrote many popular essays on science that were eventually collected and published Notes
in 1927 in a volume entitled Possible Worlds. Note that Cambridge did not have PhD degrees until 1919. So
Haldane obtained an M.A., but then directly worked under
He then accepted a position as Professor of Genetics and moved to University College Hopkins who was the equivalent of a doctoral mentor.
London where he spent most of his academic career. Four years later he became the first
Weldon Professor of Biometry at University College London. In the late 1950s he moved to India at the invitation of P.C. Mahalanobis. The move was
ostensibly a protest against the Suez War, but had been a possibility for some while; he was in any case facing retirement from UCL. He became an
Indian citizen.
In 1923 in a talk given in Cambridge, Haldane, foreseeing the exhaustion of coal for power generation in Britain, proposed a network of hydrogen-
generating windmills. This is the first proposal of the hydrogen-based renewable energy economy.
In 1924 Haldane met Charlotte Burghes (nee Franken), a young reporter for the Daily Express, and the two later married. To do so Charlotte divorced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane
her husband Jack Burghes, causing some controversy. Haldane was almost dismissed from Cambridge for the way he handled his meeting with her,
which led to the divorce.
Population genetics and the Briggs-Haldane equation
In 1925, G. E. Briggs and Haldane derived a new interpretation of the enzyme kinetics law described by Victor Henri in 1903, different from the 1913
Michaelis-Menten equation. Leonor Michaelis and Maud Menten assumed that enzyme (catalyst) and substrate (reactant) are in fast equilibrium with
their complex, which then dissociates to yield product and free enzyme. The Briggs-Haldane equation was of the same algebraic form, but their
derivation is based on the quasi steady state approximation, that is the concentration(s) of intermediate complex(es) do(es) not change. As a result, the
microscopic meaning of the "Michaelis Constant" (km) is different. Although commonly referring it as Michaelis-Menten kinetics, most of the current
models actually use the Briggs-Haldane derivation.
Haldane made many contributions to human genetics and was one of the three major figures to develop the mathematical theory of population
genetics. He is usually regarded as the third of these in importance, after R. A. Fisher and Sewall Wright. His greatest contribution was in a series of
ten papers on "A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection" which was the major series of papers on the mathematical theory of natural
selection. It treated many major cases for the first time, showing the direction and rates of changes of gene frequencies. It also pioneered in
investigating the interaction of natural selection with mutation and with migration. Haldane's book, The Causes of Evolution (1932), summarized these
results, especially in its extensive appendix. This body of work was a component of what came to be known as the "modern evolutionary synthesis",
reestablishing natural selection as the premier mechanism of evolution by explaining it in terms of the mathematical consequences of Mendelian
genetics.
Haldane introduced many quantitative approaches in biology such as in his essay On Being the Right Size. His contributions to theoretical population

genetics and statistical human genetics included the first methods using maximum likelihood for estimation of human linkage maps, and pioneering
methods for estimating human mutation rates. His was the first to calculate the mutational load caused by recurring mutations at a gene locus, and to
introduce the idea of a "cost of natural selection".
Haldane is also known for an observation from his essay, On Being the Right Size, which Jane Jacobs and others have since referred to as Haldane's

principle. This is that sheer size very often defines what bodily equipment an animal must have: "Insects, being so small, do not have oxygen-carrying
bloodstreams. What little oxygen their cells require can be absorbed by simple diffusion of air through their bodies. But being larger means an animal
must take on complicated oxygen pumping and distributing systems to reach all the cells." The conceptual metaphor to animal body complexity has
been of use in energy economics and secession ideas.
A keen experimenter
Haldane was a keen experimenter, willing to expose himself to danger to obtain data. One experiment involving elevated levels of oxygen saturation
triggered a fit which resulted in him suffering crushed vertebrae. In his decompression chamber experiments, he and his volunteers suffered perforated
eardrums, but, as Haldane stated in What is Life, "the drum generally heals up; and if a hole remains in it, although one is somewhat deaf, one can blow
tobacco smoke out of the ear in question, which is a social accomplishment."
Career and awards
Between 1919 and 1922, he became a fellow of New College, then moved to Cambridge University, where he accepted a readership in Biochemistry at
Trinity College and taught there until 1932. During his nine years at Cambridge, Haldane worked on enzymes and genetics, particularly the
mathematical side of genetics. During the teens and twenties, Haldane wrote many popular essays on science that were eventually collected and
published in 1927 in a volume entitled “Possible Worlds”. He then accepted a position as Professor of Genetics and moved to University College
London where he spent most of his academic career. Four years later, he became the first Weldon Professor of Biometry at University College London.
In 1952, he received the Darwin Medal from the Royal Society. In 1956, he was awarded the Huxley Memorial Medal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute. Among other awards, he received the Feltrinelli Prize, an Honorary Doctorate of Science, an Honorary Fellowship at New College, and the
Kimber Award of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In the late 1950s, he moved to India at the invitation of P.C. Mahalanobis.
Marriage
In 1924, Haldane met Charlotte Burghes (Née Franken), a young reporter for the ‘Daily Express’, and the two later married. To do so, Charlotte
divorced her husband Jack Burghes, causing some controversy. Haldane was almost dismissed from Cambridge for the way he handled the meeting
with her, which led to the divorce.
His politics
Haldane was raised by a conservative Tory mother and a liberal father, he became a socialist (the Labour Party) during World War I, supported the
Spanish Republic during the Spanish Civil War and finally become a Communist. According to his friends, his involvement in communism was out of
pure contrarian instinct: he would have been a monarchist in Soviet Union. Nethertheless, he became an enthusiastic, idealistic Marxist, and wrote
many articles in the Communist Daily Paper. He was the chairman of the editorial board of the London edition for several years.
His vision of the Socialist principle can be considered pragmatic. In an article written in 1928 (the year of his travel to the Soviet Union), “On being
the right size”, Haldane doubts whether it could be operated on the scale of the British Empire or the United States (and implicitly, the Soviet Union):
“while nationalization of certain industries is an obvious possibility in the largest of states, I find it no easier to picture a completely socialized British
Empire or United States than an elephant turning somersaults or a hippopotamus jumping a hedge.”
In 1937, Haldane clearly became a Marxist and an open supporter of the Communist Party, not being a member of the party though. In 1938, he would
proclaim enthusiastically that “I think that Marxism is true”. He would join the Communist Party of Great Britain (GPGB) in 1942. The first edition of
his children's book My Friend Mr. Leakey contained an avowal of his Party membership which was removed from later editions.
Events in the Soviet Union, such as the rise of Anti-Mendelian agronomist Trofim Lysenko and the crimes of Stalin, may have caused him to break
with the Party later in life, although he showed a partial support of Lysenko and Stalin and didn’t criticize them publicly. Scientists and philosophers
(Baker, Hill and Polanyi) were pressing Haldane to say what they thought about Lysenko and what was happening to genetics in the Soviet Union.
Haldane, a professor of genetics, couldn’t believe the situation in the Soviet Union where geneticists were attacked as anti-Darwinist, genetics was
being denounced as incompatible with dialectical materialism, and Lysenkoism was rising. In 1937, a World Genetics Congress, that was about the
have been held in Moscow, was cancelled, and in 1939, the Soviet delegation could not attend the Congress, held in Edinburgh. In public, he never
denounced all that was happening in the Soviet Union. He shifted the focus on the situation in the United Kingdom where scientific research was
dependent on patronage from wealthy people. Moreover, Vavilov’s work was not curtailed. In 1939, he wrote to Vavilov (a longtime friend who
invited him to the Soviet Union), inviting him to write an article for Modern Quarterly. But one year later, Vavilov was arrested and in 1941, year of
his trial, Haldane wrote:
“The controversy among Soviet geneticists has been largely one between the academic scientist, represented by Vavilov and interested primarily in the
collection of facts, and the man who wants results, represented by Lysenko. It has been conducted not with venom, but in a friendly spirit. Lysenko said
(in the October discussions of 1939): "The important thing is not to dispute; let us work in a friendly manner on a plan elaborated scientifically. Let us
take up definite problems, receive assignments from the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR and fulfil them scientifically. "Soviet genetics,
as a whole, is a successful attempt at synthesis of these two contrasted points of view."”
His ambiguous attitude toward this witch-hunt against geneticists in the Soviet Union was explainable by the atmosphere of the period, where the
involvement in the Communist movement needed an all-or-nothing stand. His attitude changed dramatically at the end of World War II, when
Lysenkoism reached a totalitarian influence in the Communist movement. He then become an explicit critic of the Regime.
He left the Party in 1950, shortly after having toyed with standing for Parliament as a Communist Party candidate. He would continue to admire Stalin,
describing him in 1962: "a very great man who did a very good job." His involvement in the Communist movement ensued from his travel to Moscow
in 1928, a trip which lead him to the Marxist Philosophy of Science.
The most famous of Haldane's many students, John Maynard Smith, shared his mixture of political and scientific interests to some extent, but broke
away from the Communist Party in 1956.
India
Haldane's move to India, initially to the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) was influenced by a wide range of factors. Officially he stated that his chief
political reason was in response to the Suez crisis, the Anglo-French attack on Egyptian territory. He wrote: 'Finally, I am going to India because I
consider that recent acts of the British Government have been violations of international law. His interest in India however was also due to his interest
in biological research, belief that the warm climate would do him good, apart from the fact that India offered him freedom and shared socialist dreams.
[1]
At the ISI he headed the biometry unit and spent time researching a range of topics and guiding other researchers around him. He was keenly interested
in inexpensive research and he wrote to Julian Huxley about his observations on Vanellus malabaricus boasting that he made them from the comfort of
his backyard. Haldane took an interest in anthropology, human genetics and botany. He advocated the use of Vigna sinensis (cowpea) as a model for
studying plant genetics. He took an interest in the pollination of the common weed Lantana camara. Haldane took an interest in the study of floral
symmetry. His wife Helen Spurway conducted studies on wild silkmoths. He was also interested in Hinduism and after his arrival he became a
vegetarian.[1]
Haldane however was unable to get along with the autocratic director Mahalanobis and resigned in February 1961 and moved to a newly established
biometry unit in Orissa.[1]
An author and a source of inspiration
He was also a famous science populariser like Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, or Richard Dawkins. His essay, 'Daedalus; or, Science and the
Future' (1923), was remarkable in predicting many scientific advances but has been criticized for presenting a too idealistic view of scientific progress.
Haldane was a friend of the author Aldous Huxley, who parodied him in the novel "Antic Hay" (1923) as Shearwater, “the biologist too absorbed in his
experiments to notice his friends bedding his wife”. He also influenced Huxley with his book Daedalus, where he exposed the ectogenesis (the
development of foetuses in artificial wombs) that Huxley used in Brave New World (1924). Huxley exposed a society based on “test tube babies” as
eugenic. Haldane’s book shows the effect of the separation between sexual life and pregnancy as a satisfactory one on human psychology and social
life. The book was regarded as shocking science fiction at the time, being the first book about the “test tube babies”, brought to life without sexual
intercourse or pregnancy.
C. S. Lewis wrote much of his three interplanetary space novels, The Space Trilogy, in response to Haldane, whom Lewis found a very immoral man.
The Space Trilogy comprises Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength. Lewis modelled the character Weston, featured in Out
of the Silent Planet and Perelandra, on Haldane. Haldane was one of those, along with Olaf Stapledon, Charles Kay Ogden, I. A. Richards, and H. G.
Wells, whom Lewis accused of scientism, "the belief that the supreme moral end is the perpetuation of our own species, and that this is to be pursued
even if, in the process of being fitted for survival, our species has to be stripped of all those things for which we value it—-of pity, of happiness, and of
freedom." Shortly after the third book of the Ransom Trilogy appeared, J. B. S. Haldane criticized all three of them in an article entitled "Auld Hornie,
F.R.S.". The title reflects the sarcastic tone of the article, Auld Hornie being the pet name given to the devil by the Scots and F.R.S. standing for
"Fellow of the Royal Society". Lewis’s response, "A Reply to Professor Haldane", was never published during his lifetime and apparently never seen
by Haldane. In it, Lewis claims that he was attacking scientism, not scientists, by challenging the view of some that the supreme goal of our species is
to perpetuate itself at any expense.
Cancer
Shortly before his death, Haldane wrote a comic poem while in the hospital, mocking his own incurable disease; it was read by his friends, who
appreciated the consistently irreverence with which Haldane had lived his productive life:
“Cancer’s a Funny Thing: I wish I had the voice of Homer To sing of rectal carcinoma, This kills a lot more chaps, in fact, Than were bumped off when
Troy was sacked…”
Haldane died on December 1, 1964. He willed that his body be used for study at the Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada.[2]
My body has been used for both purposes during my lifetime and after my death, whether I continue to exist or not, I shall have no
“ further use for it, and desire that it shall be used by others. Its refrigeration, if this is possible, should be a first charge on my estate ”
Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg visited Haldane in India. They both shared a friendship with Huxley.
Misc
 He is famous for the (possibly apocryphal) response he gave when some theologians asked him what could be
inferred about the mind of the Creator from the works of Creation: "An inordinate fondness for beetles".[3] This
is in reference to the fact that there are over 350000 known species of beetles in the world, and that this
represents 40% of all known insect species (at the time of the quote, it was over half of all known insect
species).
 Often quoted for saying, "My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but
queerer than we can suppose."[4] Haldane is sometimes misquoted as saying, "Not only is the universe stranger
than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine" which should be attributed to Arthur Stanley Eddington.[5]
 "I had it [gastritis] for about fifteen years until I read Lenin and other writers, who showed me what was wrong
Photograph of a display at the
with our society and how to cure it...Since then I have needed no magnesia."[6] Oxford University Museum of
Natural History dedicated to
Publications Haldane and his reply when
asked to comment on the mind
of the Creator
 Daedalus; or, Science and the Future (1924), E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., a paper read to the Heretics,
Cambridge, on February 4, 1923
 second edition (1928), London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.
 A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection, a series of papers beginning in 1924
 G.E. Briggs and J.B.S. Haldane (1925). A note on the kinetics of enzyme action, Biochem. J., 19: 338-339
 Callinicus: A Defence of Chemical Warfare (1925), E. P. Dutton
 Possible Worlds and Other Essays (1927), Harper and Brothers, London: Chatto & Windus 1937 edition, Transaction Publishers 2001 edition:
ISBN 0765807157 (includes On Being the Right Size)
 Animal Biology (1929) Oxford: Clarendon
 Enzymes (1930), MIT Press 1965 edition with new preface by the author written just prior to his death: ISBN 0262580039
 The Causes of Evolution (1932)
 Science and Human Life (1933), Harper and Brothers, Ayer Co. reprint: ISBN 0836921615
 Science and the Supernatural: Correspondence with Arnold Lunn (1935), Sheed & Ward, Inc,
 Fact and Faith (1934), Watts Thinker's Library[7]
 My Friend Mr Leakey (1937), Vigyan Prasar 2001 reprint: ISBN 8174800298
C. S. Lewis's "A Reply to Professor Haldane" is currently available in "On Stories and Other Essays on Literature," edited by Walter Hooper and
published by Harcourt, Inc. (1982): ISBN 0-15-602768-2.
 Air Raid Precautions (A.R.P.) {1938), Victor Gollancz

 Marxist Philosophy and the Sciences (1939), Random House, Ayer Co. reprint: ISBN 0836911377
 Science and Everyday Life (1940), Macmillan, 1941 Penguin, Ayer Co. 1975 reprint: ISBN 0405065957
 Science in Peace and War (1941), Lawrence & Wishart, ltd
 New Paths in Genetics (1941), George Allen & Unwin
 Heredity & Politics (1943), George Allen & Unwin
 Why Professional Workers should be Communists (1945), London: Communist Party (of Great Britain) In this four page pamphlet, Haldane
contends that Communism should appeal to professionals because Marxism is based on the scientific method and Communists hold scientists as
important; Haldane subsequently disavowed this position
 Adventures of a Biologist (1947)
 Science Advances (1947), Macmillan
 What is Life? (1947), Boni and Gaer, 1949 edition: Lindsay Drummond
 Everything Has a History (1951), Allen & Unwin
 "Origin of Man", Nature, 176, 169 (1955)
 "Cancer's a Funny Thing": New Statesman, 1964. This is a heartwarming poem (but unfortunately composed during what turned out to be his
mortal illness) written to encourage others to consult a doctor when they experience the symptoms it describes. It begins: "I wish I had the voice
of Homer/ To sing of rectal carcinoma,/ Which kills a lot more chaps, in fact,/ Than were bumped off when Troy was sacked." ....and ends "I
know that cancer often kills,/ But so do cars and sleeping pills;/ And it can hurt one till one sweats,/ So can bad teeth and unpaid debts./ A spot
of laughter, I am sure,/ Often accelerates one’s cure;/ So let us patients do our bit/ To help the surgeons make us fit"
See also
 List of independent discoveries ("Primordial soup" theory of the evolution of life from carbon-based molecules, ca. 1924)
Bibliography
 Bryson, Bill (2003) A Short History of Nearly Everything pp. 300-302; ISBN 0-552-99704-8
 Clark, Ronald (1968) JBS: The Life and Work of J.B.S. Haldane ISBN 0-340-04444-6
 Dronamraju, K. R. (editor) (1968) Haldane and Modern Biology Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
 Geoffrey Zubay et al, Biochemistry (2nd ed., 1988), enzyme kinetics, pp. 266-272; MacMillan, New York ISBN 0-02-432080-3
References
1. ^ a b c Krishna R. Dronamraju (1987). "On Some Aspects of the Life and Work of John Burdon Sanderson Haldane, F.R.S., in India". Notes and Records of the
Royal Society of London 41 (2): 211–237. doi:10.1098/rsnr.1987.0006.
2. ^ John Burdon Sanderson Haldane
3. ^ Hutchinson, G. Evelyn (1959). "Homage to Santa Rosalia or Why Are There So Many Kinds of Animals?". The American Naturalist 93 (870): pp. 145–159.
doi:10.1086/282070.
4. ^ Haldane, J.B.S., Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.286. Emphasis in the original.
5. ^ http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Stanley_Eddington
6. ^ Time magazine, June 24, 1940 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,,00.html
7. ^ Fact and faith, [WorldCat.org]
External links
 An online copy of Daedalus or Science and the Future
 A review (from a modern perspective) of The Causes of Evolution
 Royal Society citation
 Unofficial SJG Archive - People - JBS Haldane (1892-1964) Accessed 22 February 2006. Useful text but the likeness is not of JBS but of his
father John Scott Haldane.
 Haldane's contributions to science in India
 Marxist Writers: J.B.S. Haldane
 You can see and hear J.B.S. Haldane speak during the introduction of the rather disturbing Soviet film Experiments in the Revival of Organisms
(1940)
There are photographs of Haldane at
 Photograph from 1946 Royal Society
 JBS Haldane, on the Portraits of Statisticians page.
The biography on the Marxist Writers page has a photograph of Haldane when younger.
 My Friend Mr. Leakey - text - Haldane's most amusing imaginary acquaintance
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane"
Categories: 1892 births | 1964 deaths | People from Edinburgh | Anglo-Scots | Evolutionary biologists | Haldane family | Old Dragons | Old Etonians |
Fellows of New College, Oxford | Population geneticists | British biochemists | British biologists | British communists | British physiologists | Black
Watch officers | British Army personnel of World War I | Academics of University College London | Fellows of the Royal Society
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since October 2007 | Articles with unsourced statements
since June 2008 | Articles with trivia sections from August 2007
Jeffrey H. Schwartz
Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (b. March 6, 1948) is an American physical anthropologist and professor of biological anthropology at the University
of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification of primates. He
has studied and analyzed human and primate skeletons and archaeological remains, focusing much of his research on dentofacial morphology. He has
done substantial fieldwork and museum research in the collections of major museums around the globe.
In the revised and updated publication of The Red Ape: Orangutans and Human Origins, he presents additional evidence for his contention that
orangutans share significantly more morphological similarities to humans than any other great ape. His theory is controversial, especially in light of
molecular evidence showing the chimpanzee to be more closely related to humans, supported by recent DNA analysis.
He has also been a major contributor to the George Washington project, an attempt to create wax figure likenesses of the first U.S. President at the
ages of 19, 45, and 57, based upon dentofacial morphology. They are scheduled for display in 2006 in a new million education center and museum at
Mount Vernon.
Since 1998 he serves as a consultant in forensic anthropology to the Allegheny County coroner's office.
In 2007 he was elected President of the World Academy of Art and Science for a five year term (one year as president-elect). He was the first person
so elected, all previous presidents having been directly appointed by trustees of the organization.
Born March 6 in Richmond, Virginia, Schwartz earned his bachelor's degree from Columbia College in 1969 and completed his doctorate from
Columbia University in 1974.
He is married to the poet Lynn Emanuel and they reside in Pittsburgh.
Major Works
 (2005) The Human Fossil Record (4 volume set) (with Ian Tattersall et al). New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-67864-3.
 (2005) The Red Ape: Orangutans and Human Origins (Revised and Updated edition). Boulder: Westview Press. ISBN 0-471-32985-1.
 (2000) Extinct Humans (with Ian Tattersall). Boulder: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3482-9.
 (1999) Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-32985-1.
 (1995) Skeleton Keys: An Introduction to Human Skeletal Morphology, Development, and Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN
0-19-505638-8.
 (1993) What the Bones Tell Us. New York: Henry Holt. ISBN 0-8050-1056-4.
 (1988) Orang-utan Biology. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504371-5.
References
Source: Contemporary Authors Online. The Gale Group, 2005.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_H._Schwartz"

Categories: 1948 births | American anthropologists | Jewish scientists | Living people | Paleoanthropologists | Scientists from Pittsburgh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_H._Schwartz
Kenyanthropus platyops
(Redirected from Kenyanthropus)
Kenyanthropus platyops is a 3.5 to 3.2 million year old (Pliocene) extinct hominin species that was discovered Kenyanthropus platyops

in Lake Turkana, Kenya in 1999 by Justus Erus, who was part of Meave Leakey's team. [1] The fossil found
features a broad flat face with a toe bone that suggests it probably walked upright. Teeth are intermediate
between typical human and typical ape forms. Kenyanthropus platyops, which means "Flat faced man of
Kenya", is the only described species in the genus. However, if some paleoanthropologists are correct,
Kenyanthropus may not even represent a valid taxon, as the specimen (KNM-WT 40000)[2] is so distorted by
matrix-filled cracks that meaningful morphologic characteristics are next to impossible to assess with
confidence. It may simply be a specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, which is known from the same time
period and geographic area. Other researches speculate that the flatter face position of the rough cranium is
similar to KNM ER 1470 "Homo rudolfensis" and suspect it to be closer to the genus Homo, perhaps being a
direct ancestor. However the debate has not been concluded and the species remains an enigma.
The bones discovered at the site included more than 30 skull and tooth fragments in a stratum dated to between
3.5 and 3.2 million years ago. The fossil was named the Flat Faced Man of Kenya, or Kenyanthropus platyops,
by Dr. Meave Leakey, of the National Museums of Kenya.
Dr. Leakey believes that it belongs to an entirely new genus of ancestors, and is the oldest "reasonably
complete" cranium found so far. Humans were once thought to have evolved from only one member of
Australopithecus afarensis, the species made famous by the fossil Lucy. But now it seems Lucy may have been Scientific classification
sharing the woods and grass plains of prehistoric Africa with a rival.
Kingdom: Animalia
Until more recent discoveries were made, it seemed as if the evolution of man might be “special” since there Phylum: Chordata
appeared to be only one single line of hominids leading from the most primitive to Modern Man of today. And Class: Mammalia
since evolution normally proceeds in branches, multiplying as each branch divides, hominid evolution seemed
Order: Primates
for a while to be the one exception. Now, with the discovery of Kenyanthropus, the picture looks more
“normal”. Family: Hominidae
At present anthropologists aren’t sure how many branches there might have been 3 million years ago. Branches Genus: Kenyanthropus
may have gone extinct that we haven’t yet found representatives for; but such fossils could be discovered at
any time. Species: K. platyops
Binomial name
When learning of the discovery, Dr. Daniel Lieberman, an anthropologist at George Washington University †Kenyanthropus platyops
expressed his opinion that between 3.5 and 2 million years ago there were several human-like species, each of Leakey et al., 2001
which were well adapted to life in their particular environments. Also that, like that of many other mammalian
groups, humans evolved through a series of complex radiations, known as "adaptive radiation".[3]
The Kenyanthropus fossil has a small earhole, like those of chimpanzees. It also shares many features of other primitive hominids, such as a small
brain, but it also has striking differences, including high cheek bones, and a flat plane beneath its nose bone, which gives it a flat face.
Contents
 1 See also
 2 References
See also
 List of human evolution fossils (with images)
References
1. ^ Kenyanthropus platyops
2. ^ KNM-WT 40000 is short for: Kenya National Museum (where it is housed); West Turkana (where it was found); and 40000 (the museum acquisition
number)
3. ^ BBC News (21 March 2001) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1234006.stm
Further reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus
 Leakey, Meave G.; et al. (2001). "New hominin genus from eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene lineages". Nature 410: 433–440.
doi:10.1038/35068500.
External links
 Kenyanthropus.com
 The flat faced man of Kenya (Nature)
 BBC Science article about importance of Kenyanthropus Platyops
 A picture of Kenyathropus-Platyops at the American Museum of Natural History
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus_platyops"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus
Kenyanthropus platyops
Kenyanthropus platyops is a 3.5 to 3.2 million year old (Pliocene) extinct hominin species that was discovered Kenyanthropus platyops
in Lake Turkana, Kenya in 1999 by Justus Erus, who was part of Meave Leakey's team. [1] The fossil found
features a broad flat face with a toe bone that suggests it probably walked upright. Teeth are intermediate
between typical human and typical ape forms. Kenyanthropus platyops, which means "Flat faced man of
Kenya", is the only described species in the genus. However, if some paleoanthropologists are correct,
Kenyanthropus may not even represent a valid taxon, as the specimen (KNM-WT 40000)[2] is so distorted by
matrix-filled cracks that meaningful morphologic characteristics are next to impossible to assess with
confidence. It may simply be a specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, which is known from the same time
period and geographic area. Other researches speculate that the flatter face position of the rough cranium is
similar to KNM ER 1470 "Homo rudolfensis" and suspect it to be closer to the genus Homo, perhaps being a
direct ancestor. However the debate has not been concluded and the species remains an enigma.
The bones discovered at the site included more than 30 skull and tooth fragments in a stratum dated to between
3.5 and 3.2 million years ago. The fossil was named the Flat Faced Man of Kenya, or Kenyanthropus platyops,
by Dr. Meave Leakey, of the National Museums of Kenya.
Dr. Leakey believes that it belongs to an entirely new genus of ancestors, and is the oldest "reasonably
complete" cranium found so far. Humans were once thought to have evolved from only one member of
Australopithecus afarensis, the species made famous by the fossil Lucy. But now it seems Lucy may have been Scientific classification
sharing the woods and grass plains of prehistoric Africa with a rival.
Kingdom: Animalia
Until more recent discoveries were made, it seemed as if the evolution of man might be “special” since there Phylum: Chordata
appeared to be only one single line of hominids leading from the most primitive to Modern Man of today. And Class: Mammalia
since evolution normally proceeds in branches, multiplying as each branch divides, hominid evolution seemed
Order: Primates
for a while to be the one exception. Now, with the discovery of Kenyanthropus, the picture looks more
“normal”. Family: Hominidae
At present anthropologists aren’t sure how many branches there might have been 3 million years ago. Branches Genus: Kenyanthropus
may have gone extinct that we haven’t yet found representatives for; but such fossils could be discovered at
any time. Species: K. platyops
Binomial name
When learning of the discovery, Dr. Daniel Lieberman, an anthropologist at George Washington University †Kenyanthropus platyops
expressed his opinion that between 3.5 and 2 million years ago there were several human-like species, each of Leakey et al., 2001
which were well adapted to life in their particular environments. Also that, like that of many other mammalian
groups, humans evolved through a series of complex radiations, known as "adaptive radiation".[3]
The Kenyanthropus fossil has a small earhole, like those of chimpanzees. It also shares many features of other primitive hominids, such as a small
brain, but it also has striking differences, including high cheek bones, and a flat plane beneath its nose bone, which gives it a flat face.
Contents
 1 See also
 2 References
See also
 List of human evolution fossils (with images)
References
1. ^ Kenyanthropus platyops
2. ^ KNM-WT 40000 is short for: Kenya National Museum (where it is housed); West Turkana (where it was found); and 40000 (the museum acquisition
number)
3. ^ BBC News (21 March 2001) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1234006.stm
Further reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus_platyops
 Leakey, Meave G.; et al. (2001). "New hominin genus from eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene lineages". Nature 410: 433–440.
doi:10.1038/35068500.
External links
 Kenyanthropus.com
 The flat faced man of Kenya (Nature)
 BBC Science article about importance of Kenyanthropus Platyops
 A picture of Kenyathropus-Platyops at the American Museum of Natural History
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus_platyops"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus_platyops
Louis Leakey
Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey (L.S.B. Leakey) (August 7, 1903 – October 1, 1972) was a Louis Leakey

Kenyan archaeologist and naturalist whose work was important in establishing human
evolutionary development in Africa. He also played a major role in creating organizations for
future research in Africa and for protecting wildlife there. Having been a prime mover in
establishing a tradition of palaeoanthropological inquiry, he was able to motivate the next
generation to continue it, notably within his own family, many of whom also became prominent.
Louis participated in national events of British East Africa and then Kenya in critical if less
spectacular ways.
Louis Leakey examining skulls from Olduvai Gorge
Born August 7, 1903
Kenya
Died October 1, 1972
Nationality Kenyan
Fields archaeologist
Known for human evolutionary development in Africa
In natural philosophy he asserted Charles Darwin's theory of evolution unswervingly and set about to
prove Darwin's hypothesis that man arose in Africa. A religious man and a Christian, he said:
Nothing I've ever found has contradicted the Bible. It's people with their finite minds who misread the Bible.
—Louis Leakey, [1]
Contents
 1 White African
 2 The formative years
 2.1 His father's example
 2.2 Diversion from missionary work
 2.3 Research fellow
 3 Reversals of fortune
 3.1 The Defense of Reck
Map of Kenya.
 3.2 Scandal
 3.3 On the road in Africa
 3.4 The Village of Nasty
 4 Our Man in British East Africa
 4.1 The Return of the Native Son
 4.2 The fossil police
 4.3 The turn of the tide
 4.4 Kenyan affairs
 5 Palaeoanthropologist par excellence
 5.1 Vindication at Olduvai
 5.2 The Leakey circus
 5.3 Floruit
 6 Leakey's Angels
 7 The last years
 8 Death and legacy
 8.1 Passing
 8.2 Prominent organizations
 8.3 Prominent family members
 9 Books by Louis Leakey
 10 Notes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Leakey
 11 References
 12 See also
White African
Louis' parents, Harry and Mary Bazett Leakey (called May by her friends),
were British missionaries of the Christian faith in then British East Africa, "When I think back ... of the serval cat and a baboon that I had as pets
now Kenya.[2] Harry had taken a previously established post of the Church in my childhood days−and that eventually I had to house in large
Mission Society among the Kikuyu at Kabete. The station was at that time a cages−it makes me sad. It makes me sadder still, however, and also
hut and two tents in the highlands north of Nairobi. Louis' earliest home had very angry, when I think of the innumerable adult animals and birds
deliberately caught and locked up for the so-called 'pleasure' and
an earthen floor, a leaky thatched roof, rodents and insects, and no heating 'education' of thoughtless human beings. ... surely there are today so
system except for charcoal braziers. The facilities improved but slowly. The many first-class films ... that the cruelty of keeping wild creatures in
mission, a center of activity, set up a clinic in one of the tents, and later a zoos should no longer be tolerated."
girl's school for African women. Harry was working on a translation of the From L.S.B. Leakey, By the Evidence, Chapter 4.
Bible into Kikuyu.
Louis had a younger brother, Douglas, and two older sisters, Gladys Leakey Beecher and Julia Leakey Barham. Louis' primary family came to contain
also Miss Oakes (a governess) Miss Higgenbotham (another missionary), and Mariamu (a Kikuyu nurse). Inevitably, Louis grew up, played, and
learned to hunt with Africans. He also learned to walk with the distinctive gait of the Kikuyu and speak their language fluently, as did his siblings. He
was initiated into the tribe, an event of which he never spoke, as he was sworn to secrecy.[3]
Louis requested and was given permission to build and move into a hut, Kikuyu style, at the end of the garden. It was home to his personal collection
of natural objects, such as birds' eggs and skulls. All the children developed a keen interest in and appreciation of the pristine natural surroundings in
which they found themselves. They raised baby animals, later turning them over to zoos. Louis read a gift book, Days Before History, by H. R. Hall
(1907), a juvenile fictional work illustrating the prehistory of Britain. He began to collect tools and was further encouraged in this activity by a role
model, Arthur Loveridge, first curator (1914) of the Natural History Museum in Nairobi, predecessor of the Coryndon Museum. This interest may
have predisposed him toward a career in archaeology.[4]
Neither Harry nor May were of strong constitution. From 1904-1906 the entire family lived at May's mother's house in Reading, Berkshire, England,
while Harry recovered from neurasthenia, and again in 1911-1913, while May recovered from general frailty and exhaustion. During the latter stay,
Harry bought a house in Boscombe.[5]
The formative years
His father's example
In Britain the Leakey children attended elementary school; in Africa they had a tutor, Miss Laing. They sat out World War I in Africa. When the sea
lanes opened again, they returned to Boscombe, where Louis was sent to Weymouth Secondary School, a private boy's school in 1919 at age 16. In
three years there he did not do well, and complained of rules he considered an infringement on his freedom and hazing by the other boys. Advised by
one teacher to seek employment in a bank, he appealed to his English teacher, Mr. Tunstall, who started him in the application process to Cambridge.
His excellent scores on the entrance exams won him a scholarship.
Louis matriculated at his father's alma mater, Cambridge University, in 1922, intent on becoming a missionary to British East Africa. His son says:[6]
"Louis was in his early twenties when he decided to pursue a fossil-hunting career. Until then, he had intended to follow his father's example and
be a Christian missionary in Kenya."
He preached Christian zeal to his fellow students and otherwise impressed Cambridge society with behavior that was considered eccentric.[7] He was
also an evolutionist and befriended some future naturalists.[8] In 1923 his usual zeal led him into a severe concussion in a game of Rugby union. He
was relieved of his academic duties. Rest and the outdoors were prescribed.
Diversion from missionary work
In that year a position became available that pushed all thought of rest into the background. In 1922 the British had been awarded German East Africa
as part of the settlement of World War I, subsequently applying the name Tanganyika. Within its territory the Germans had discovered a site rich in
dinosaur fossils, Tendaguru. Louis was told by C. W. Hobley, a friend of the family, that the British Museum of Natural History was going to send a
fossil-hunting expedition to it. Louis applied and was hired to locate the site and manage the administrative details. In 1924 the party under William E.
Cutler departed for Africa. They never found a complete dinosaur skeleton. Louis was recalled from the site by Cambridge in 1925, while Cutler
contracted blackwater fever and died nine months later.
This critical experience changed Louis' career decision. Switching majors to anthropology, he found a new mentor in Alfred Cort Haddon, head of the
department. In 1926 he graduated from there with "double firsts", or high honors, in anthropology and archaeology. He had used some of his
preexisting qualifications; for example, Kikuyu was offered and accepted as the second modern language in which he was required to be proficient,
even though no one there could test him on it. The university accepted an affidavit from a Kikuyu chief signed with a thumbprint.
From 1925 on Louis lectured and wrote on African archaeological and palaeontological topics. On graduation he was such a respected figure that
Cambridge sent him to East Africa to study prehistoric African humans. He excavated dozens of sites, undertaking for the first time a systematic study
of the artifacts. Some of his culture names are still in use; for example, Elmenteitan.[9]
Research fellow
In 1927 Louis received a visit at a site called Gamble's Cave, near Lake Elmenteita, by two young ladies on a holiday,
one of whom was Henrietta Wilfreda "Frida" Avern.[10] She had done some course work in archaeology. Louis and
she talked the entire night. They continued the relationship on his return to Cambridge and in 1928 they were married
and set off together for Elmenteita. At that time he discovered the Acheulean site of Kariandusi, which he excavated
in 1928, after collecting a team of interested associates.[11]
On the strength of his work there he obtained a research fellowship at St. John's College and returned to Cambridge in
St. John's College, Cambridge. 1929 to do post-graduate work and to classify and prepare the finds from Elmenteita. His patron and mentor at
Cambridge was now Arthur Keith. While cleaning two skeletons he had found he noticed a similarity to one found in
Olduvai Gorge by Professor Hans Reck, a German national, whom Louis had met in 1925 in Germany while on
business for Keith.
The geology of Olduvai was known and in 1913 Reck had extricated a skeleton from Bed II in the gorge wall. He
argued that it must have the date of the bed, which was believed to 600,000 years, in the mid-Pleistocene. The public
was not ready for this news. Man must have evolved or have been created long after then, was the general belief.
Reck became involved in a media uproar. He was barred from going back to settle the question by the war and then
the terms of the transfer of Tanganyika from Germany to Britain.[12] In 1929 Louis visited Berlin to talk to the now
skeptical Reck. Noting an Acheulean tool in Reck's collection of artifacts from Olduvai, he bet Reck he could find
ancient stone tools at Olduvai within 24 hours.[13]
Olduvai Gorge.
Meanwhile Frida worked on illustrations for The Stone Age Culture of Kenya Colony. Louis was given the PhD in
1930 at age 27. His first child, a daughter, Priscilla Muthoni Leakey, was born in 1931. His headaches and epilepsy
returned in the excitement and he was prescribed Luminal, which he took the rest of his life.
Reversals of fortune
The Defense of Reck
In November, 1931, Louis led an expedition to Olduvai, including Reck,[14] whom he allowed to enter the gorge first. Louis did find Acheulean tools
within the first 24 hours, costing Reck ten pounds on the bet. They verified the provenance of the 1913 find, now Olduvai Man. Non-humanoid fossils
and tools were extracted from the ground in large numbers. Frida delayed joining him and was less enthusiastic about him on behalf of Priscilla. She
did arrive eventually, however, and Louis put her to work. Frida's site became FLK, for Frida Leakey's karongo ("gully").
Back in Cambridge, the skeptics were not impressed. To find supporting evidence of the antiquity of Reck's Olduvai Man, Louis returned to Africa,
excavating at Kanam and Kanjera. He easily found more fossils, which he named Homo kanamensis.[15] While he was gone, the opposition worked up
some "evidence" of the intrusion of Olduvai Man into an earlier layer, evidence that seemed convincing at the time, but is missing and unverifiable
now. On his return Louis' finds were carefully examined by a committee of 26 scientists and were tentatively accepted as valid.
Scandal
With Frida's dowry money, the Leakeys bought a large brick house in Girton near Cambridge, which they named "the Close." She suffered from
morning sickness most of the time and was unable to work on the illustrations for Louis' second book, Adam's Ancestors. At a dinner party given in his
honor after a lecture of his at the Royal Anthropological Institute, Gertrude Caton-Thompson introduced him to her own illustrator, the twenty-year-
old Mary Nicol.
Louis convinced Mary to take on the illustration of his book. A few months later companionship turned to romance. Colin Leakey was born in
December, 1933, and in January, 1934, Louis asked Frida for a divorce. She would not sue for divorce until 1936.[16]
A panel at Cambridge investigated his morals. Grants dried up, but his mother raised enough money for another expedition to Olduvai, Kanam and
Kanjera, the latter two on the Winam Gulf.[17] His previous work there was questioned by P. G. H. Boswell,[18] whom he invited to verify the sites for
himself. Arriving at Kanam and Kanjera in 1935, they found that the iron markers Louis had used to mark the sites had been removed by the Luo tribe
for use as harpoons and the sites could not now be located. To make matters worse, all the photos Louis took were ruined by a light leak in the camera.
After an irritating and fruitless two-month search, Boswell left for England, promising, as Louis understood it, not to publish a word until Louis
returned.
Boswell immediately set out to publish as many words as he was able, beginning with an article in Nature dated March 9, 1935, destroying Reck's and
Louis' dates of the fossils and questioning Louis' competence. Louis on his return accused Boswell of treachery, but Boswell now had public opinion
on his side. Louis was not only forced to retract the accusation but also to recant his support of Reck.[19] Louis was through at Cambridge. Even his
mentors turned on him.
On the road in Africa
Meeting Mary in Africa, he proceeded to Olduvai with a small party. Mary joined him under a stigma but her skill and competence eventually won
over the other participants. Louis' parents continued to urge him to return to Frida, and would pay for everyone in the party, but not Mary. Louis and
his associates did the groundwork for future excavation at Olduvai, uncovering dozens of sites for a broad sampling, as was his method. They were
named after the excavator: SHK (Sam Howard's karongo), BK (Peter Bell's), SWK (Sam White's), MNK (Mary Nicol's). Louis and Mary conducted a
temporary clinic for the Maasai, made preliminary investigations of Laetoli, and ended by studying the rock paintings at the Kisese/Cheke region.[20]
The Village of Nasty
Louis and Mary returned to England in 1935 without positions or any place to stay except Mary's mother's apartment. They soon leased Steen Cottage
in Great Munden[21] and lived without heat, electricity, or plumbing, fetching water from a well, huddling before a fireplace and writing by oil lantern.
They lived happily in poverty for eighteen months at this low point of their fortunes, visited at first only by Mary's relatives. Louis gardened for
subsistence and exercise and improved the house and grounds. He appealed at last to the Royal Society, who relented with a small grant to continue
work on his collection.
Our Man in British East Africa
The Return of the Native Son
Finally, Frida released Louis and he and Mary were married on Christmas Eve, 1936, in a civil ceremony at the registry office of Ware. The witness,
Peter Koinange, the son of a Kikuyu chief, was in Britain doing postgraduate studies at St. John's. Louis got some royalties and advances on books,
and snagged the Munro lectures at Edinburgh University for 1936.[22]
Louis had already involved himself in Kikuyu tribal affairs in 1928, taking a stand against female genital cutting. He got into a shouting match in
Kikuyu one evening with Jomo Kenyatta, who was lecturing on the topic. R. Copeland at Oxford recommended he apply to the Rhodes Trust for a
grant to write a study of the Kikuyu and it was given late in 1936 along with a salary for two years. In January 1937 the Leakeys shook the dust off
their feet and travelled to Kenya. Colin would not see his father for 20 years.
Louis returned to Kiambaa near Nairobi and persuaded Senior Chief Koinange, who designated a committee of chiefs, to help him describe the Kikuyu
the way they had been. Mary excavated at Waterfall Cave.[23] She fell ill with double pneumonia and lay at death's door for two weeks in the hospital
in Nairobi, during which time her mother was sent for. Contrary to expectation she recovered and began another excavation at Hyrax Hill and then
Ngoro River Cave. Louis got an extension of his grant, which he used partially for fossil-hunting. Leakey discoveries began to appear in the
newspapers again.
Tensions between the Kikuyu and the settlers increased alarmingly. Louis jumped into the fray as an exponent of the middle ground. In Kenya:
Contrasts and Problems, he angered the settlers by proclaiming Kenya could never be a "white man's country."
The fossil police
The government offered Louis work as a policeman in intelligence, which he could not afford to refuse. He traveled the country as a pedlar, reporting
on the talk. When Britain went to war in September, 1939, the Kenyan government drafted Louis into its African intelligence service.[24] Apart from
some bumbling around, during which he and some settlers stalked each other as possible saboteurs of the Sagana Railway Bridge,[25] his first task was
to supply and arm Ethiopian guerrillas against the Italian invaders of their country. He created a clandestine network using his childhood friends
among the Kikuyu. They also hunted fossils on the sly.
Louis conducted interrogations, analyzed handwriting, wrote radio broadcasts and took on regular police investigations. He loved a good mystery of
any sort. The white leadership of the King's African Rifles used him extensively to clear up many cultural mysteries; for example, he helped an officer
remove a curse he had inadvertently put on his men.[26]
Mary continued to find and excavate sites. Jonathan Leakey was born in 1940. She worked in the Coryndon Memorial Museum (later called the
National Museums of Kenya) where Louis joined her as an unpaid honorary curator in 1941. Their life was a menage of police work and archaeology.
They investigated Rusinga Island and Olorgesailie. At the latter site they were assisted by a team of Italian experts recruited from the prisoners of war
and paroled for the purpose.[27]
In 1942 the Italian menace ended, but the Japanese began to reconnoiter with a view toward landing in force. Louis found himself in counter-
intelligence work, which he performed with zest and imagination. Deborah was born, but died at three months. They lived in a rundown and bug
infested Nairobi home, provided by the museum. Jonathan was attacked by army ants in his crib.[28]
The turn of the tide
In 1944 Richard Leakey was born. In 1945 the family's income from police work all but vanished. By now Louis was getting plenty of job offers but
he chose to stay on in Kenya as Curator of the Coryndon Museum, with an annual salary and a house, but more importantly, to continue
palaeoanthropological research.
In January, 1947, Louis conducted the first Pan-African Congress of Prehistory at Nairobi. Sixty scientists from 26 countries attended, delivering
papers and visiting the Leakey sites. The conference restored Louis to the scientific fold and made him a major figure in it. With the money that now
poured in Louis undertook the famous expeditions of 1948 and beyond at Rusinga Island in Lake Victoria, where Mary discovered the most complete
Proconsul fossil up to that time.
Charles Boise donated money for a boat to be used for transport on Lake Victoria, "The Miocene Lady." Its famous skipper, Hassan Salimu, was later
to deliver Jane Goodall to Gombe. Philip Leakey was born in 1949. In 1950, Louis was awarded an honorary doctorate by Oxford University.
Kenyan affairs
While the Leakeys were at Lake Victoria, the Kikuyu struck at the European settlers
""... I sought a personal interview with the governor, hoping of the Kenyan highlands, who seemed to have the upper hand and were insisting on a
to make him appreciate that it was no longer possible to "white" government of a "white" Africa. Approximately 1 million Kikuyu were
continue along the lines of the old colonial regime. ... being harassed by about 32,000 settlers. In 1949 the Kikuyu formed a secret society,
Colonial governors and senior civil servants are not easy the Mau Mau, which attacked settlers and especially loyalist Kikuyu.
people to argue with; and, of course, I was not popular,
because of my criticism of the colonial service ... Had it been
possible to make the government open its eyes to the realities
Louis had attempted to warn Sir Philip Mitchell, governor of the colony, that
of the situation, I believe that the whole miserable episode of nocturnal meetings and forced oaths were not Kikuyu customs and foreboded
what is frequently spoken of as 'the Mau Mau rebellion' need violence, but was ignored. Now he found himself pulled away from anthropology to
never have taken place." investigate the Mau Mau. During this period his life was threatened and a reward
From L.S.B. Leakey, By the Evidence, Chapter 18. placed on his head. The Leakeys began to pack pistols, termed "European National
Dress." The government placed him under 24-hour guard.
In 1952, after a massacre of loyal chiefs, the government arrested Jomo Kenyatta, president of the Kenya African Union. Louis was summoned to be a
court interpreter, but withdrew after an accusation of mistranslation because of prejudice against the defendant. He returned on request to translate
documents only. Because of lack of evidence linking Kenyatta to the Mau Mau, although convicted, he did not receive the death penalty, but was
sentenced to several years of hard labor and banned from Kenya.
The government brought in British troops and formed a home guard of 20,000 Kikuyu. During this time Louis played a difficult and contradictory role.
He sided with the settlers, serving as their spokesman and intelligence officer, helping to ferret out bands of guerillas. On the other hand he continued
to advocate for the Kikuyu in his book, Defeating Mau Mau and numerous talks and articles. He recommended a multi-racial government, land reform
in the highlands, a wage hike for the Kikuyu, and many other reforms, most of which were eventually adopted.
The British realized the rebellion was being directed from urban centers, instituted military law and rounded up the committees. Following Louis'
suggestion, thousands of Kikuyu were placed in re-education camps and resettled in new villages. The rebellion continued from bases under Mt. Kenya
until 1956, when, deprived of its leadership and supplies, it had to disperse. The state of emergency lasted until 1960. In 1963 Kenya became
independent, with Jomo Kenyatta as prime minister.[29]
Palaeoanthropologist par excellence
Vindication at Olduvai
Louis and Mary spent all the time they could at Olduvai, starting in 1951.
So far they had discovered only tools. A trial trench in Bed II at BK in 1951 "We know from the study of evolution that, again and again, various
was followed by a more extensive excavation in 1952. They found what branches of animal stock have become over-specialized, and that over-
Louis termed an Olduwan "slaughter-house", an ancient bog where animals specialization has led to their extinction. Present-day Homo sapiens is
had been trapped and butchered. Louis was so carried away that he worked in many physical respects still very unspecialized− ... But in one thing
man, as we know him today, is over-specialized. His brain power is
without his hat and his hair was bleached white from the sun. They stopped very over-specialized compared to the rest of his physical make-up, and
in 1953. it may well be that this over-specialization will lead, just as surely, to
his extinction. ... if we are to control our future, we must first
In 1955 they excavated again with Jean Brown. She related that he preferred understand the past better."
to be called Louis, was absent-minded, once had everyone looking for From L.S.B. Leakey, Adam's Ancestors, Fourth Edition, final page.
spectacles that were around his neck, wore pants with the buttons off and
shoes with holes in them, charged about everywhere and once collapsed
unconscious. He was completely happy.[30]
In 1959 they decided to excavate Bed I. While Louis was sick in camp, Mary discovered Zinjanthropus at FLK, which Mary called "Our Man", and
became "Dear Boy" and "Zinj." The question was whether it was a previous genus discovered by Robert Broom, Paranthropus, which Broom had
taken not to be in the human line, or a different one, in it. Louis opted for Zinj, a decision opposed by Wilfrid Le Gros Clark, but one which attracted
the attention of Melville Bell Grosvenor, president of the National Geographic Society. That contact resulted in an article in National Geographic[31]
and a hefty grant to continue work at Olduvai.
Also in 1960 Jack Evernden and Garniss Curtis, young geophysicists, dated Bed I to 1.75 mya. The world was stunned. Zinj was far older than anyone
had imagined. Scientists swarmed to Africa. Reck and Louis were completely vindicated, too late for Reck, who had died in 1937. Louis had proved
Darwin right.[32]
The Leakey circus
In 1960, unable to leave the museum except on weekends, Louis appointed Mary director of excavation at Olduvai. She brought in a staff of Kamba
tribesmen, instead of Kikuyu, who, she felt, took advantage of Louis. The first, Muteva Musomba, had kept her children's ponies. He recruited
Kamoya Kimeu among others. Mary set up Camp 5 under Jonathan's direction. He was 19. From then on she had her own staff and associates.
Mary picked and sieved at the site from early morning dressed in old clothes, chain smoking cigarettes, always surrounded by her Dalmatian dogs. She
and Louis communicated by radio. On weekends he drove non-stop at high speed the 357 miles between Olduvai and Nairobi. The teen-age boys,
Richard and Philip, were on site holidays and vacations. Louis invited them and Irven DeVore to eat a raw rat so that he could compare the result to
some Hominid coprolites. He said to DeVore, "My dear boy, let me make you famous." DeVore and the boys demurred.[33]
Their home in Nairobi was a circus, figuratively speaking, when they were there. Dinner guests were frequent. Important guests stayed for weeks if
they could stand it. They shared the quarters and the dinner table with the Dalmatians, hyraxes, a monkey, a civet cat, an African eagle owl, tropical
fish, rattlesnakes, vipers and a python. The extended families of twenty African staff lived in cinderblock huts in the yard. Mary had switched to cigars
and the ashes often fell into the food. Both Louis and Mary cooked. Louis never stopped talking; his stories were endless.[34] He literally ran through
the day, making long lists of things to be done, which he never completed. He drove recklessly through the streets of Nairobi, often reading and
writing as he drove.
Floruit
Jonathan achieved some brief fame before he quit palaeoanthropology altogether. He started his own site, "Jonny's site" in the Leakey lingo, FLK-NN.
There he discovered two skull fragments without the Australopithecine sagittal crest, which Mary connected with Broom's and Robinson's
Telanthropus. The problem with it was its contemporaneity with Zinj. Mailed photographs, Le Gros Clark retorted casually "Shades of Piltdown."
Louis cabled him immediately and had some strong words at this suggestion of his incompetence. Clark apologized.[35]
Not long after in 1960 Louis, his son Philip and Ray Pickering discovered a fossil he termed "Chellean Man", as it was in context with Olduwan tools,
the first such find. After reconstruction Louis and Mary called it "Pinhead." It was subsequently included with Homo erectus and was in fact
contemporaneous with Paranthropus, which on that account cannot have been in the human line. For many years Louis believed erectus was the user of
the tools and Australopithecus was not. It is now conceded that both Hominids used them.
In 1961 Louis got a salary as well as a grant from National Geographic and turned over the acting directorship of Coryndon to a subordinate. He
created the Centre for Prehistory and Paleontology on the same grounds, moved his collections to it, and appointed himself director. This was his new
operations center. He opened another excavation at Fort Ternan on Lake Victoria. Shortly after, Heselon discovered Kenyapithecus wickeri, the
species name from the owner of the property, which Louis promptly celebrated with George Gaylord Simpson, who happened to be present, aboard the
Miocene Lady with Leakey Safari Specials, a drink made of condensed milk and cognac.
In 1962 Louis was visiting Olduvai when Ndibo Mbuika discovered the first tooth of Homo habilis at MNK. Louis and Mary thought it was female
and named her Cinderella, or Cindy. Phillip Tobias identified Jonny's Child with it and Raymond Dart came up with the name Homo habilis at Louis'
request, which Tobias translated as "handyman."[36] It was seen as intermediary between gracile Australopithecus and Homo.[37]
Leakey's Angels
One of Louis's greatest legacies stems from his role in fostering field research of primates in their natural habitats, which he understood as key to
unraveling the mysteries of human evolution. He personally chose three female researchers, Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, and Birute Galdikas, who
were later dubbed 'Leakey's Angels' and each went on to become important scholars in the field of primatology.
The last years
Kenya became independent at 12:00 p.m. on December 12, 1963, with Jomo Kenyatta as the first prime minister. The settlers were already leaving the
country in large numbers. Kenyatta saw that he had to act swiftly to prevent a descent into chaos. He took a conciliatory view. There were a few
deportations, but no reprisals. Louis had felt considerable trepidation about the future of palaeoanthropology in Kenya. A meeting was arranged
between him and Jomo at the suggestion of the last colonial governor, Malcom MacDonald. He was introduced by his old friend, Peter Koinange.
They spoke in Kikuyu. The meeting ended with an embrace and reassurances.[38]
During his final years Louis became famous as a lecturer in the United States and United Kingdom. He brought audiences cheering to their feet. He did
not personally excavate any longer, as he was crippled with arthritis, for which he had a hip replacement in 1968. He raised funds and directed his
family and associates. In Kenya he was an indispensable facilitator for the hundreds of scientists then exploring the East African Rift system for
fossils. Without his say-so, permits could not be obtained and access to museum collections was denied. Once he gave permission, his advice was
invaluable.
In 1963 he helped Ruth De Ette get started at a site in the Calico Hills of the Mojave Desert in California. The date then accepted for the arrival of
humans in the Americas was about 12,000 BCE. On the basis of the time required for the evolution and distribution of native American languages,
Louis hypothesized that the arrival must have been thousands of years previously. He encouraged Ruth to view the apparent artifacts she was finding
as older than 100,000 years.
Mary did not share his visionary view. She was increasingly disrespectful, viewing him as incompetent, from 1963 on. The old intimacy was gone. Her
professional opposition began over Calico Man. Under the rationale of trying to stop Louis from making a mistake that would tarnish his reputation,
she persuaded the National Geographic Society to refrain from publishing Calico and pull funding from the project, but Louis found other means. On
March 26, 1968, Alan and Helen O'Brien of Newport Beach, California, and some prominent Californians formed the Leakey Foundation. When Louis
stayed with them when he was in California, the O'Briens noticed that he was very much underpaid on the lecture circuit. From then on Louis worked
with them in fund-raising.
Mary's opposition soon turned into a major schism in the palaeoanthropological village. For example, in 1968 Louis refused an honorary doctorate
from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, primarily because of apartheid in South Africa. Mary accepted one. Now it was Louis' turn to
be concerned about her reputation. The two still cared about each other, but were apart and conducted different professional lives. [39]
In the last few years Louis' health began to fail more seriously. He had his first heart attacks and spent six months in the hospital. An empathy over
health brought him and Dian Fossey together for a brief romance, which she broke off. Richard began to assume more and more of his father's
responsibilities, which Louis resisted, but in the end was forced to accept. Everything bad seemed to happen to him in a run of unfortunate luck: he had
more heart problems, he was swarmed by bees and nearly killed, he had a stroke, he was involved in controversy over Calico man, and he had to brook
Mary's opposition. One good thing that happened is that he found increasing support and comfort in his friend, Vanne Goodall (mother of Jane
Goodall), whose London apartment Louis visited when he could. [40]
Death and legacy
Passing
On October 1, 1972, Louis was stricken with a heart attack in Vanne Goodall's apartment in London. Vanne sat up all night with him in St. Stephen's
Hospital and left at 9:00 a.m. He died at 9:30. He was 69.
Mary wanted to cremate Louis and fly the ashes back to Nairobi. Richard intervened. As Louis was a Kikuyu, he ought to be buried in Kikuyuland. He
was flown home and interred at Limuru near the graves of his parents.
In denial, the family did not face the question of a memorial marker for a year. When Richard went to place a stone on the grave he found one already
there, courtesy of Rosalie Osborn. The inscription was signed with the letters, ILYFA, "I'll love you forever always", which Rosalie used to place on
her letters to him. Richard left it in place. [41]
Prominent organizations
 1958. Louis founded the Tigoni Primate research Center with Cynthia Booth on her farm north of Nairobi. Later it was the National Primate
Research Center, currently the Institute of Primate Research, now in Nairobi. As the Tigoni center, it funded Leakey's Angels.
 1961. Louis created the Centre for Prehistory and Paleontology on the same grounds as Coryndon Museum, appointing himself director.
 1968. Louis assisted with the founding of The Leakey Foundation, to ensure the legacy of his life's work in the study of human origins. The
Leakey Foundation exists today as the number one funder of human origins research in the United States.
Prominent family members
Louis Leakey was married to Mary Leakey, who made the noteworthy discovery of fossil footprints at Laetoli. Found preserved in volcanic ash in
Tanzania, they are the earliest record of bipedal gait.
He is also the father of paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey and the botanist Colin Leakey. Louis' cousin, Nigel Gray Leakey, was a recipient of the

Victoria Cross during World War II.
Books by Louis Leakey
Louis's books are listed below.[42] The gaps between books are filled by too many articles to list. It was Louis who began the Leakey tradition of
publishing in Nature.
First
Publication Title Notes
Date
1931 The Stone Age Culture of Kenya Colony Written in 1929. Illustrated by Frida Leakey.
Adam's Ancestors: The Evolution of Man Multiple editions with rewrites, the 4th in 1955. Illustrated by Mary Leakey. Book
1934
and His Culture reviews:[43]
1935 The Stone Age races of Kenya Proposes Homo kanamensis.
1936 Kenya: Contrasts and Problems Written in 1935.
Stone Age Africa: an Outline of Prehistory Ten chapters consisting of the ten Munro Lectures delivered in 1936 by Louis to
1936
in Africa Edinburgh University and intended by him as a textbook. Illustrated by Mary.
1937 White African: an Early Autobiography Louis described it as a "pot-boiler" written in 1936 for Hodder & Stoughton.
With Wilfrid Le Gros Clark. Volume I of the series Fossil Mammals of Africa
1951 The Miocene Hominoidea of East Africa
published by the British Museum of Natural History.
Olduvai Gorge: A Report on the Evolution
1951 Started in 1935. Names the Olduwan Culture.
of the Hand-Axe Culture in Beds I-IV
1952 Mau Mau and the Kikuyu Online at[44] Quaestia.
1953 Animals in Africa Photographs by Ylla.
1954 Defeating Mau Mau With Peter Schmidt. Online at[45] Quaestia.
Olduvai Gorge: A Preliminary Report on
1965 Volume 1.[46]
the Geology and Fauna, 1951-61
1969 Unveiling Man's Origins With Vanne Morris Goodall.
1969 Animals of East Africa: The Wild realm
1970 Olduvai Gorge, 1965-1967
Written in 1972 and published posthumously. Louis finished writing on the day
1974 By the Evidence: Memoirs, 1932-1951
before his death.
Published posthumously. The manuscript remained in Louis' safe for decades for
1977 The Southern Kikuyu before 1903 lack of a publisher. It was 3 volumes. He refused to follow editorial advice and
shorten it.
Notes
1. ^ Reported in Ancestral Passions, Chapter 3.
2. ^ Harry: 1868-1940; Mary: ?-1948. Harry later became canon of the station and had a distinguished career. Louis reports in his memoirs, Chapter 6, that the
Leakeys were of the Church of England, or Anglican
3. ^ According to Blake Edgar in Louis Leakey's Legacy: Celebrating the Centennial of His Extraordinary Life and Finds in AnthroQuest Online for Fall, 2003,
Louis received the Kikuyu name Wakuruigi, "Son of the Sparrow Hawk." Harry also had a name, apparently not an initiation name, but rather descriptive:
Giteru, "Big beard."
4. ^ Canon Leakey also was a naturalist and must have been a significant model, as Louis wished originally to pattern his life after his father's. Canon Leakey was
one of the original founders of the East Africa and Uganda Natural History Society, according to Louis' memoirs, Chapter 8
5. ^ The facts for this section were gathered mainly from Ancestral Passions, Chapter 1, "Kabete", and from the "Publisher's Prologue" of the Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich edition of By the Evidence.
6. ^ Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Chapter 1. The rest of the material comes from Morell, Chapter 2, "From Cambridge to Olduvai.".
7. ^ For the details of eccentricity, read Bowman-Kruhm, Chapter 2. They include, for example, demonstrating talking drums from the roof of a building at
Cambridge.
8. ^ Gregory Bateson, E. Barton Worthington
9. ^ This Mesolithic culture is described in The Elmenteitan by Peter Robertshaw in World Archaeology, Vol. 20, No. 1, Archaeology in Africa (Jun., 1988), pp.
57-69, of which the first page is displayed for free.
10. ^ 1902-1993
11. ^ Douglas Leakey, Donald Macinnes, Tom Powys Cobb, John D. Solomon, Elisabeth Kitson, Cecily Creasy, Penelope Jenkin. For a description and history of
the site see Kariandusi Museum at the National Museums of Kenya web site.
12. ^ For an account of the incident refer to Hans Reck and the Discovery of O.H.1 at the "Always Something New" site.
13. ^ The source for this subsection is Morell, Chapter 3, "Laying Claim to the Earliest Man."
14. ^ Arthur Tindell Hopwood, Donald MacInnes, Vivian Fuchs, Captain Hewlitt, Frances Kenrick, Frida, Reck, and a number of African assistants.
15. ^ Read about these events in Recent Research into Oldowan Hominin Activities at Kanjera South, Western Kenya, by L. C. Bishop et al., published in the
African Archaeological Review.
16. ^ This account is based on Morell, Chapter 4, "Louis and Mary."
17. ^ The guest list is Peter Bell (zoologist), Sam White (surveyor), Peter Kent (geologist), Heselon Mukiri, Thairu Irumbi, Ndekei.
18. ^ Head of the Department of Geology at the Imperial College of Science, London.
19. ^ This account is based on Morell, Chapter 5, "Disaster at Kanam", supplemented with detail from Louis' account in By the Evidence, Chapter 2. Olduvai Man
languished through World War II in a Berlin museum and then partially disappeared, but preservative applied to the bones took away any hope of an accurate C-
14 date; however, neither can any evidence of intrusion be located. Kanjera Man is ancient, possibly Homo habilis; Homo kanamensis is an intrusion.
20. ^ The initial chapters of By the Evidence and Morell, Chapter 6, "Olduvai's Bounty", describe the explorations on which these few sentences are based.
21. ^ This settlement was in Hertfordshire and had an unusual, more ancient name, which Louis, with his sense of humor noted in his memoirs, Chapter 5, as "the
village of Nasty." Nasty is a hamlet in Great Munden; however, Louis' mood reflects that of the population of Hertfordshire, which delights in assigning unusual
village names.
22. ^ This subsection depends on Morell, Chapter 7, "Consequences."
23. ^ According to Louis' memoirs, Chapter 6, it was the chief who suggested she excavate. He knew artifacts were being washed from the cave. Louis and Mary
had moved into a hut in his compound at his invitation.
24. ^ Louis describes this authority in Chapter 8 of his Memoirs as "...the CID... Special Branch, Section 6, concerned with civil intelligence." The drafting authority
was the "Kenya government" and there is no indication in the Memoirs that the service was more directly British; in fact, he refers to "my counterpart in military
intelligence." However, Louis would not be revealing everything he knew. Morell portrays him as having been in police work before being drafted. She had
personal access to the surviving Leakeys.
25. ^ Memoirs Chapter 8
26. ^ Memoirs, Chapter 9.
27. ^ Memoirs Chapter 12
28. ^ This section is based on Morell, Chapter 8, "Cloak-and-Dagger."
29. ^ This subsection is based on Morell's chapter 11, "Louis and Kenyatta."
30. ^ This Olduvai period, including Jean's description of Louis, is from Morell, Chapter 12, "Our Man."
31. ^ September, 1960, Finding the World's Earliest Man.
32. ^ The material on Zinjanthropus and the dating of Bed I is from Morell, Chapter 13, "Fame, Fortune and Zinj."
33. ^ The anecdote about the rat is given in Morell, Chapter 14, Note 8.
34. ^ This section is based on Morell, Chapter 5, "Mary's Dig." There was another side to the Leakey family, written about by Morell in Chapter 17, "Chimpanzees
and Other Loves". Louis was a notorious womanizer. He was faithful neither to Frida nor to Mary. Mary tolerated this behavior well until his relationship with
Rosalie Osborn, 1954/55, threatened to break up her marriage. The two fought constantly, upsetting the boys. After Richard nearly died in a fall from a horse,
Louis broke with Rosalie for the sake of the boys. In 1960 Louis and Mary were especially close, which lasted until the arrival of Vanne Goodall.
35. ^ Morell, Chapter 14, "Mary's Dig."
36. ^ Morell Chapter 16, "The Human with Ability." Richard Leakey tells a different story about the name. See in the Notes section of Homo habilis.
37. ^ These few paragraphs rely on Morell, Chapter 16, "The Human with Ability."
38. ^ Morell, Chaper 19, "A Girl for the Gorillas."
39. ^ This section is based on Morell Chapter 23, "Mining Hominids at Olduvai."
40. ^ These details and many more can be found in Morell, Chapters 27-30.
41. ^ Morell Chapter 30, "An End and a Beginning."
42. ^ Most of them have many publishers in many editions.
43. ^ http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294%28193507%2F09%292%3A37%3A3%3C510%3AAAAUOO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&size=LARGE
44. ^ Mau Mau and the Kikuyu
45. ^ Defeating Mau Mau
46. ^ The second volume, Olduvai Gorge: the Cranium and Maxillary Dentition of Australopithecus (Zinjanthropus) boisei, was written by Phillip Tobias. The third
volume was written by Mary Leakey.
References
 Virginia Morell, Ancestral Passions: The Leakey Family and the Quest for Humankind's Beginnings , Copyright 1995.
 Mary Bowman-Kruhm, The Leakeys: a Biography, Copyright 2005, Greenwood Press, ISBN 0-313-32985-0. Online preview found at[1] in
Google Books.
See also
 Calico Early Man Site
 Leakey family

Frida Avern
Louis Leakey
Mary Nicol

Philip

Colin Leakey Meave Epps Richard Leakey Margaret Cropper Jonathan

Leakey

Louise Emmanuel de

Leakey Merode

Further information: Leakey's Angels (Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, and Birutė Galdikas)
External links
 LeakeyFoundation.org - The Leakey Foundation: a non-profit organization committed to increasing scientific knowledge, education, and public
understanding of human origins, evolution, behavior and survival.
 Talk Origins.org - Louis Leakey
 Louis S. B. Leakey, the leakey.com biography.
 Louis Leakey, article by Brian M. Fagan in CD Groliers Encyclopedia.
 Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey (1903-1972)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Leakey"
Categories: Anglo-African people | Deaths by myocardial infarction | Kenyan archaeologists | Kenyans of English descent | People from Nairobi |
Paleoanthropologists | 1903 births | 1972 deaths | Kenyan Anglicans
Hidden category: Articles needing additional references from February 2007
Milford H. You
Wolpoff
can support Wikipedia by making a tax-deductible donation.
Milford H. Wolpoff (born 1942 to Ruth (Silver) and Ben Wolpoff, Chicago) is a paleoanthropologist, and since 1977, a professor of anthropology and
adjunct associate research scientist, Museum of Anthropology at the University of Michigan. He is the leading proponent of the multiregional
evolution hypothesis that attempts to explain the evolution of Homo sapiens as a consequence of evolutionary processes within a single species. He is
the author of Paleoanthropology, 1980 and 1999 editions with McGraw-Hill, New York. ISBN 0-07-071676-5), and the co-author (with Rachel
Caspari) of Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction (ISBN 0-684-81013-1), which reviews the scientific evidence and conflicting theories
about how human evolution has been interpreted, and how its interpretation is related to views about race.
His research on the Multiregional model of human evolution challenges the 'Out of Africa' theory. His basis for advancing the multiregional
interpretation of human evolution derives from his disbelief in punctuated equilibrium (the idea that changes occur when new species are formed and
only rarely are slowly and gradually accumulated during the stable periods between speciations) as an accurate model for Pleistocene humanity, noting
that speciation played a role earlier in human evolution.
Contents
 1 Education
 2 Professional
 3 Multiregional evolution and the punctuated equilibrium theory
 4 Books and monographs
 5 Other Publications
 5.1 2004
 5.2 2005
 5.3 2006
 6 Past PhD Students
Education
Wolpoff received an A.B. in 1964 and a Ph.D., both in anthropology, from the University of Illinois in Urbana, Illinois. His research advisor and
intellectual mentor was Eugene Giles.
Professional
Wolpoff is a paleoanthropologist, an anthropologist who studies the human past. Wolpoff was trained at the University of Illinois, as a student of
Eugene Giles and a product of an aggressively 4-field department. Beyond anthropology, his training has been in physics and evolutionary biology and
ecology. He brings to the study of the human and non-human primate fossil record a background that combines evolutionary theory, population
genetics, and biomechanics.
With over 50 grants funded by the National Science Foundation, National Academy of Sciences, and the University of Michigan, Wolpoff has visited
the museums where human and primate fossils are stored and has studied in detail and at length all the materials addressing the fossil evidence for
human evolution across Europe, Asia, and Africa. His research foci have included the evolution and fate of the European Neandertals, the role of
culture in early hominid evolution, the nature and explanation of allometry, robust australopithecine evolution, the distribution and explanation of
sexual dimorphism, hominid origins, the pattern and explanation of Australasian hominid evolution, the contributions and role of genetics in
paleoanthropological research, and the taxonomy of the genus Homo. In addition, he is a primary describer of many hominid fossil remains.
Drawing on this background and research experience, Wolpoff's continuing research for the last 15 years has been the development, articulation, and
defense of his multiregional model of human evolution. Almost as time-consuming has been the preparation and publication of the 2nd edition of
Paleoanthropology (1999, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-071676-5), Wolpoff's detailed 878 page presentation of the fossil record for human evolution and
the many levels of explanation for the pattern it reflects. Writing with Rachel Caspari, their Race and Human Evolution (1997, Simon & Schuster) was
very favorably reviewed in professional journals and in the New York Times, where it was recommended reading. It received the W.W. Howells Book
Prize in Biological from the Biological Anthropology Section of the American Anthropological Association.
Besides these, Wolpoff has published 5 other books, 160 papers, and 22 book reviews, has presented numerous lectures and meetings papers, and has
had many interviews and video appearances. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, New Scientist, Discover, and Newsweek. Since 1976
Wolpoff has graduated 14 Ph.D. students, 7 women and 7 men, all but two of whom have academic positions. These Michigan graduates include the
discoverer of several new australopithecine species, the first paleoanthropologist to debunk the hominid status of Ramapithecus, the leaders in the
study of late Pleistocene European evolution, three past or present chairs (or heads) of anthropology departments, and the past president of the
American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and the editor of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Wolpoff is a member of many
anthropological organizations, and is an Honorary Life Member of the Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi and a Fellow of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milford_H._Wolpoff
Multiregional evolution and the punctuated equilibrium theory
Wolpoff suggests that after an African origin of Homo sapiens (including Homo ergaster/Homo erectus) and the subsequent migration of H. erectus
throughout much of the globe with the exception of the Americas, local evolutionary events took place across the world (Africa, Europe, Asia, and
when they were advantageous, they spread everywhere else. According to Wolpoff, populations of Homo evolved together as a single species. Change
in Pleistocene populations did not involve speciation (the splitting of one species into two): all this time, the geographically distinct populations
maintained small amounts of gene flow. This idea directly challenges the Out of Africa model, which claims Homo sapiens evolved recently as a new
species in Africa, and then dispersed throughout the Old World, replacing the existing human populations without mixing with them.
In an earlier example of punctuated evolution preceding the global diffusion of Homo sapiens genes from Africa, some two million years ago, Wolpoff
points to evidence of an earlier 'genetic revolution' that took place in a small group isolated from australopithecine forebears. "The earliest H. sapiens
remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details," he notes. "Insofar as we can tell, these changes were sudden
and not gradual."
Books and monographs

 1971 Metric Trends in Hominid Dental Evolution. Case Western Reserve Studies in Anthropology 2. Case Western Reserve University Press,
Cleveland; 244 pp.
 1976 William R. Farrand, Richard W. Redding, Milford H. Wolpoff, and Henry T. Wright, III) An Archaeological Investigation on the Loboi
Plain, Baringo District, Kenya. Museum of Anthropology, The University of Michigan Technical Reports Number 4, Research Reports in
Archaeology, Contribution 1, Ann Arbor.
 1980 Paleoanthropology. Knopf, New York; 379 pp. ISBN 0-394-32197-9
 1988 Jakov Radovčić, Fred H. Smith, Erik Trinkaus, and Milford H. Wolpoff The Krapina Hominids: An Illustrated Catalog of the Skeletal
Collection. Mladost Press and the Croatian Natural History Museum, Zagreb.
 1994 Paleoanthropology. Preliminary publication of the 2nd edition. College Custom Series, McGraw-Hill, New York. ISBN 0-07-071679-X
 1995 Human Evolution. 1996 edition. College Custom Series, McGraw-Hill, New York. ISBN 0-07-071827-X
 1996 Human Evolution. 1996-1997 edition. College Custom Series, McGraw-Hill, New York. ISBN 0-07-071833-4
 1997 Milford H. Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari: Race and Human Evolution. Simon and Schuster, New York. ISBN 0-684-81013-1. Published in
paperback in 1998 by Westview press ISBN 0-8133-3546-9. A Canadian National Institute for the Blind talking book RC18623 (4 cassettes,
narrated by Roy Avers). Recipient of the 1999 W.W. Howells Book Prize in Biological Anthropology, presented by the Biological
Anthropology Section of the American Anthropological Association
 1999 Paleoanthropology. 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. ISBN 0-07-071676-5. Reviewed by A. Bilsborough (2001) Clash of the Titans.
Journal of Human Evolution 41:701-709.
Other Publications
Other publications may be found at Wolpoff's web site and many can be downloaded.
His most recent publications are:
2004
 Opinion: Multiregional Origins of Modern Humans. In M.A. Jobling, M.E. Hurles, and C. Tyler-Smith: Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins,
Peoples, and Disease. Garland Science, New York. pp. 244-245.
 Wolpoff, M.H., B. Mannheim, A. Mann, J. Hawks, R. Caspari, K.R. Rosenberg, D.W. Frayer, G.W. Gill, and G.A. Clark: Why Not the
Neandertals? World Archaeology 36(4):527-546.
2005
 Multiregional Evolution. In C. Renfrew and P. Bahn (eds): Archaeology: The Key Concepts. Routledge, London. pp. 176-181.
 Wolpoff, M.H., and D.W. Frayer: Unique Ramus Anatomy for Neandertals? American Journal of Physical Anthropology 128(2):245-251.
 Caspari, R., and M.H. Wolpoff Origines et diversité. L’évolution multirégionale de l’espèce humaine. Krisis: Revue d’Idées et de Débats
(Origine? ed. Alain de Benoist) 27:117-128.
 Jelínek, J., M.H. Wolpoff, and D.W. Frayer: Evolutionary Significance of the Quarry Cave Specimens from Mladeč. Anthropologie 43(2-3):199-
211.
 Lee, S-H., and M.H. Wolpoff: Habiline Variation: A New Approach using STET. Theory in Biosciences 124(1):25-40.
2006
 Wolpoff, M.H., and R. Caspari: Does Krapina reflect Early Neandertal Paleodemography? Periodicum Biologorum 108(4):425-432.
 Wolpoff, M.H., J. Hawks, B. Senut, M. Pickford, and J. Ahern: An Ape or The Ape: Is The Toumaï Cranium TM 266 a Hominid?
PaleoAnthropology 2006:36-50.
 Wolpoff, M.H., and Sang-Hee Lee: Variation in the Habiline Crania – Must it be Taxonomic? Human Evolution
 Rougier, H., I. Crevecoeur, and M.H. Wolpoff: Lower Third Premolar Rotation in the Krapina Dental Sample. Periodicum Biologorum 108
(3):269-278.
Past PhD Students

 David Wayne Frayer 1976
 Fred Hines Smith 1976
 Leonard Owen Greenfield 1977
 Timothy Douglas White 1977
 Clark Spencer Larsen 1980
 Mary Doria Russell 1983
 Marcia Lynn Robertson 1984
 Lynne Alison Schepartz 1987
 Andrew Kramer 1989
 Tracey Leigh Crummett 1994
 Katarzyna Anna Kaszycka 1995
 James Chapin McLaughlin Ahern 1998
 Noriko Seguchi 1998
 Sang-Hee Lee 1999
 John D. Hawks 1999
 Adam P. Van Arsdale 2006
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milford_H._Wolpoff"

Categories: 1942 births | Paleoanthropologists | American paleoanthropologists | University of Michigan faculty | Living people | Recent single origin
hypothesis | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign alumni

Orrorin tugenensis
Learn more about using Wikipedia for research.
(Redirected from Orrorin)
Orrorin tugenensis is considered to be the oldest known hominin ancestor related to modern humans and is the only Orrorin

Fossil range: Miocene
species classified in genus Orrorin. The name was given by the discoverers who found Orrorin fossils in the Tugen
Hills of Kenya. By using radiometric dating techniques, the volcanic tuffs and lavas, faunal correlation and magneto- Scientific classification
stratigraphy, the strata in which the fossils were found were estimated to date between 6.1 and 5.8 million years ago, Kingdom: Animalia
during the Miocene. This find is significant because it represents the earliest hominid species with evidence of
Phylum: Chordata
bipedal locomotion.
Class: Mammalia
The fossils found so far come from at least five individuals. They include a femur, suggesting that Orrorin walked Order: Primates
upright; a right humerus shaft, suggestive of tree-climbing skills but not brachiation; and teeth that suggest a diet Family: Hominidae
much like that of modern humans. The obturator externus groove on the posterior aspect of the neck of the fossil
femur suggests that Orrorin tugenensis moved bipedally. The bunodont, microdont molars and small canines suggest Subfamily: Homininae
that Orrorin ate mostly fruit and vegetables, with occasional meat. Orrorin was about the size of a modern Tribe: Hominini
chimpanzee. Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Orrorin
The team that found these fossils in 2000 was led by Brigitte Senut and Martin Pickford from the Muséum national Senut et al, 2001
d'histoire naturelle of Paris. The discovers conclude that Orrorin is a hominin on the basis of its bipedal locomotion
Species: O. tugenensis
and dental anatomy; based on this, they date the split between hominins and African great apes to at least 7 million
years ago. This date is markedly different from those derived using the molecular clock approach, but has found Binomial name
general acceptance among paleoanthropologists. †Orrorin tugenensis
Senut et al, 2001
If Orrorin proves to be a direct human ancestor, then australopithecines such as Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy")
may be considered a side branch of the hominid family tree: Orrorin is both earlier, by almost 3 million years, and more similar to us than is A.
afarensis. The main similarity is that the Orrorin femur is morphologically closer to that of H. sapiens than is Lucy's; there is, however, some
discussion over this point.
Other fossils (leaves and many mammals) found in the Lukeino Formation show that Orrorin lived in dry evergreen forest environment, not the
savanna assumed by many theories of human evolution. Thus, the origins of bipedalism occurred in an arboreal precursor living in forest and not a
quadrupedal ancestor living in open country. A recently published idea suggests that ancestral apes may have shared the technique used by modern
orangutans of moving bipedally over small springy branches with the vertebral column oriented vertically (orthograde), using their arms for balance
and keeping their legs straight. This kind of upright locomotion could have been used as a way of getting around on the ground when gaps opened in
the forest canopy. Our closest extant relatives the gorillas and chimpanzees developed a flexed stance (with clinograde, (sloping) vertebral column)
and are more adapted to tree climbing and to quadrupedal locomotion while on the ground. According to a minority of researchers, like humans, they
have fused and strengthened wrist bones suggesting a shared period of knuckle walking.[1][2][3]
References
1. ^ Sample, I. (June 1, 2007). New theory rejects popular view of man's evolution - Research - EducationGuardian.co.uk. Retrieved on 2007-11-05.
 Senut, B.; et al. (2001). "First hominid from the Miocene (Lukeino Formation, Kenya)". Comptes Rendus de l'Académie de Sciences 332 (2):

137–144. doi:10.1016/S1251-8050(01)01529-4.
 Orrorin Tugenensis: Pushing back the hominin line
External links
 Martin Pickford answers a few questions about this month's fast breaking paper in field of Geosciences
 BBC News: First chimpanzee fossils found
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin_tugenensis"
Categories: Early hominids | Miocene mammals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin
Orrorin tugenensis
Orrorin tugenensis is considered to be the oldest known hominin ancestor related to modern humans and is the only Orrorin
Fossil range: Miocene
species classified in genus Orrorin. The name was given by the discoverers who found Orrorin fossils in the Tugen
Hills of Kenya. By using radiometric dating techniques, the volcanic tuffs and lavas, faunal correlation and magneto- Scientific classification
stratigraphy, the strata in which the fossils were found were estimated to date between 6.1 and 5.8 million years ago, Kingdom: Animalia
during the Miocene. This find is significant because it represents the earliest hominid species with evidence of
Phylum: Chordata
bipedal locomotion.
Class: Mammalia
The fossils found so far come from at least five individuals. They include a femur, suggesting that Orrorin walked Order: Primates
upright; a right humerus shaft, suggestive of tree-climbing skills but not brachiation; and teeth that suggest a diet Family: Hominidae
much like that of modern humans. The obturator externus groove on the posterior aspect of the neck of the fossil
femur suggests that Orrorin tugenensis moved bipedally. The bunodont, microdont molars and small canines suggest Subfamily: Homininae
that Orrorin ate mostly fruit and vegetables, with occasional meat. Orrorin was about the size of a modern Tribe: Hominini
chimpanzee. Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Orrorin
The team that found these fossils in 2000 was led by Brigitte Senut and Martin Pickford from the Muséum national Senut et al, 2001
d'histoire naturelle of Paris. The discovers conclude that Orrorin is a hominin on the basis of its bipedal locomotion
Species: O. tugenensis
and dental anatomy; based on this, they date the split between hominins and African great apes to at least 7 million
years ago. This date is markedly different from those derived using the molecular clock approach, but has found Binomial name
general acceptance among paleoanthropologists. †Orrorin tugenensis
Senut et al, 2001
If Orrorin proves to be a direct human ancestor, then australopithecines such as Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy")
may be considered a side branch of the hominid family tree: Orrorin is both earlier, by almost 3 million years, and more similar to us than is A.
afarensis. The main similarity is that the Orrorin femur is morphologically closer to that of H. sapiens than is Lucy's; there is, however, some
discussion over this point.
Other fossils (leaves and many mammals) found in the Lukeino Formation show that Orrorin lived in dry evergreen forest environment, not the
savanna assumed by many theories of human evolution. Thus, the origins of bipedalism occurred in an arboreal precursor living in forest and not a
quadrupedal ancestor living in open country. A recently published idea suggests that ancestral apes may have shared the technique used by modern
orangutans of moving bipedally over small springy branches with the vertebral column oriented vertically (orthograde), using their arms for balance
and keeping their legs straight. This kind of upright locomotion could have been used as a way of getting around on the ground when gaps opened in
the forest canopy. Our closest extant relatives the gorillas and chimpanzees developed a flexed stance (with clinograde, (sloping) vertebral column)
and are more adapted to tree climbing and to quadrupedal locomotion while on the ground. According to a minority of researchers, like humans, they
have fused and strengthened wrist bones suggesting a shared period of knuckle walking.[1][2][3]
References
1. ^ Sample, I. (June 1, 2007). New theory rejects popular view of man's evolution - Research - EducationGuardian.co.uk. Retrieved on 2007-11-05.
 Senut, B.; et al. (2001). "First hominid from the Miocene (Lukeino Formation, Kenya)". Comptes Rendus de l'Académie de Sciences 332 (2):
137–144. doi:10.1016/S1251-8050(01)01529-4.
 Orrorin Tugenensis: Pushing back the hominin line
External links
 Martin Pickford answers a few questions about this month's fast breaking paper in field of Geosciences
 BBC News: First chimpanzee fossils found
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin_tugenensis"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin_tugenensis
Paranthropus
The robust australopithecines, members of the extinct hominin genus Paranthropus (Greek para "beside", Greek Robust australopithecines
anthropos "human"), were bipedal hominins that probably descended from the gracile australopithecine hominins
(Australopithecus).
Contents
 1 Description
 2 Disputed taxonomy
 3 Occurrence
 4 Intelligence
 5 Discovery
 6 See also
 7 References
Description
All species of Paranthropus were bipedal, and many lived during a time when species of the genus Homo (which Paranthropus boisei, "Zinj"
were possibly descended from Australopithecus), were prevalent. Paranthropus first appeared roughly 2.7 million Scientific classification
years ago. Most species of Paranthropus had a brain about 40 percent of the size of modern man. There was some Kingdom: Animalia
size variation between the different species of Paranthropus, but most stood roughly 1.3-1.4 m (4.26 to 4.59 feet)
Phylum: Chordata
tall and were quite well muscled. Paranthropus is thought to have lived in wooded areas rather than the grasslands
of the Australopithecus. Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
The behavior of Paranthropus was quite different from that of the genus Homo, in that it was not as adaptable to its
Family: Hominidae
environment or as resourceful. Evidence of this exists in the form of its physiology which was specifically tailored
to a diet of grubs and plants. This would have made it more reliant on favorable environmental conditions than Subfamily: Homininae
members of the genus Homo, such as Homo habilis, which would eat a much wider variety of foods. Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Hominina
Disputed taxonomy Genus: Paranthropus
Broom, 1938
Opinions differ whether the species P. aethiopicus, P. boisei and P. robustus should be included within the genus Species
Australopithecus. The emergence of the robusts could be either a display of divergent or convergent evolution.
There is currently no consensus in the scientific community whether P. aethiopicus, P. boisei and P. robustus †Paranthropus aethiopicus
should be placed into a distinct genus, Paranthropus, which is believed to have developed from the ancestral †Paranthropus boisei
Australopithecus line. Up until the last half-decade, the majority of the scientific community included all the species †Paranthropus robustus
of both Australopithecus and Paranthropus in a single genus. Currently, both taxonomic systems are used and
accepted in the scientific community. On Wikipedia, the genus Paranthropus is used for all articles which mention the species P. aethiopicus, P. boisei
and P. robustus.
Occurrence
For the most part the Australopithecus species A. afarensis, A. africanus, and A. anamensis either disappeared from the fossil record before the
appearance of early humans or seem to have been the ancestors of Homo habilis, yet P. boisei and P. aethiopicus continued to evolve along a separate
path distinct and unrelated to early humans. Paranthropus shared the earth with some early examples of the Homo genus, such as H. habilis, H.
ergaster, and possibly even H. erectus. Australopithecus afarensis and A. anamensis had, for the most part, disappeared by this time. There were also
significant morphological differences between Australopithecus and Paranthropus, although the differences were found on the cranial remains. The
postcranial remains were still very similar. Paranthropus was more massively built craniodentally and tended to sport gorilla-like sagittal crests on the
cranium which anchored massive temporalis muscles of mastication.[1]
Intelligence
Species of Paranthropus had smaller braincases than Homo, yet they had significantly larger braincases than Australopithecus. Paranthropus is
associated with stone tools both in southern and eastern Africa, although there is considerable debate whether or not they were made and utilized by
these robust australopithecines or contemporaneous Homo. Most believe that early Homo was the tool maker.[2] Most Paranthropus specia seem
almost certainly to have not used language or to have controlled fire, although they are directly associated with the latter at Swartkrans, South Africa.
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus
Discovery
A partial cranium and mandible of Paranthropus robustus was discovered in 1938 by a schoolboy, Gert Terblanche, at Kromdraai B (70 km south
west of Pretoria) in South Africa. It was described as a new genus and species by Robert Broom of the Transvaal Museum. The site has been excavated
since 1993 by Francis Thackeray of the Transvaal Museum. A date of at least 1.95 million years has been obtained for Kromdraai B.
Paranthropus boisei was discovered by Mary Leakey on July 17, 1959, at the FLK Bed I site of Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (specimen OH5). Mary
was working alone, as Louis was ill in camp. She rushed back to camp and at the news Louis made a remarkable recovery. They refrained from
excavating until Des Bartlett had photographed the site.
In his notes Louis recorded a first name, Titanohomo mirabilis, reflecting an initial impression of close human affinity. Louis and Mary began to call it
"Dear Boy". Recovery was halted on August 7. Dear Boy was in context with Olduwan tools and animal bones.
The fossil was published in Nature dated August 15, 1959, but due to a strike of the printers the issue was not released until September. In it Louis
placed the fossil in Broom's Australopithecinae family, creating a new genus for it, Zinjanthropus, species boisei. "Zinj" is an ancient Arabic word for
the coast of East Africa and "boisei" referred to Charles Boise, an anthropological benefactor of the Leakeys. Louis based his classification on twenty
differences from Australopithecus.
Broom had died in 1951 but Dart was still living. He is said to have wept for joy on Louis' behalf on being personally shown Zinj, which Louis and
Mary carried around in a tin (later a box). Louis had considered Broom's Paranthropus genus, but rejected it because he believed Zinj was in the Homo
ancestral stock but Paranthropus was not. He relied heavily on the larger size of Zinj's canines.
At that time palaeoanthropology was in an overall mood to lump and was preaching against splitting. Consequently, the presentation of Zinj during the
Fourth Pan-African Congress of Prehistorians in July in the then Belgian Congo, at which Louis was forced to read the delayed Nature article, nearly
came to grief for Louis over the creation of a new genus. Dart rescued him with the now famous joke, "... what would have happened if Mrs. Ples had
met Dear Boy one dark night."
The battle of the name raged on for many years and drove a wedge between Louis and LeGros Clark, Sir Wilfrid from 1955, who took the
Paranthropus view. On the other hand it brought the Leakeys and Dr. Melville Bell Grosvenor of the National Geographic Society together. The
Leakeys became international figures and had no trouble finding funds from then on. The Zinj question ultimately became part of the
Australopithecus/Paranthropus question (which only applied to the robust Australopithecines).
See also
References
1. ^ Wood, B. & Strait, D. (2004). "Patterns of resource use in early Homo and Paranthropus". Journal of Human Evolution 46: 119–162.
doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2003.11.004.
2. ^ a b Klein, R. (1999). The Human Career. University of Chicago Press.
External links
 Hominidae. Mikko's Phylogeny Archive.
 Early Human Phylogeny. Smithsonian Institution.
 Paranthropus. Human Evolution—A Look At Our Ancestors. Humboldt State University.
 "What Killed Paranthropus?" (Abstract) (2004-02-14). New Scientist (2434).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus"

Categories: Early hominids | Pliocene mammals | Pleistocene mammals | Pleistocene extinctions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus aethiopicus is an extinct species of hominid. The finding discovered in 1985 in West Turkana, Paranthropus aethiopicus
Kenya, KNM WT 17000 (known as the "Black Skull" due to the dark coloration of the bone, caused by high levels
of manganese), is one of the earliest examples of robust pliocene hominids. The skull is dated to 2.5 million years
ago, older than the later forms of robust australopithecines. Anthropologists suggest that P. aethiopicus lived
between 2.7 and 2.5 million years ago. The features are quite primitive and share many traits with Australopithecus
afarensis; thus P. aethiopicus is likely to be a direct descendant. With its face being as prognathic (projecting) as A.
afarensis, its brain size was also quite small at 410 cc.
P. aethiopicus was first found in Ethiopia in 1968 as the first assigned specimen. Lower jaw and teeth fragments
have been uncovered. P. aethiopicus had a large sagittal crest and zygomatic arch adapted for heavy chewing (as in WT 17000 "Black Skull"
gorilla skulls). Not much is known about this species since the best evidence comes from the "Black Skull" and the Scientific classification
jaw. There is not enough material to make an assessment to how tall they were, but they may have been as tall as Kingdom: Animalia
Australopithecus afarensis.
Phylum: Chordata
Not all anthropologists agree that P. aethiopicus gave rise to both Paranthropus boisei and Paranthropus robustus, Class: Mammalia
since the skull more closely resembles that of A. afarensis. The one clue that makes P. aethiopicus a possible Order: Primates
ancestor to both P. boisei and P. robustus is the similarity in jaw size. P. aethiopicus is known to have lived in Family: Hominidae
mixed savanna and woodland. More evidence must be gathered about P. aethiopicus in order to accurately describe
Genus: Paranthropus
its physiology. The bizarre primitive shape of the "Black Skull" gives evidence that P. aethiopicus and the other
australopithecines are on an evolutionary branch of the hominid tree, distinctly diverging from the Homo (human) Species: P. aethiopicus
lineage. Binomial name
†Paranthropus aethiopicus
See also (Olson, 1985)

References
 http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/aeth.html
 http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusaethiopicus.htm
 http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/aethiopicus.htm
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus_aethiopicus"

 This page was last modified on 11 April 2008, at 21:02.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus_aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus boisei (originally called Zinjanthropus boisei and then Australopithecus boisei until recently) was Paranthropus boisei

Fossil range: Pliocene-Pleistocene
an early hominin and described as the largest of the Paranthropus species. It lived from about 2.6 until about 1.2
million years ago during the Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs in Eastern Africa.
Contents
 1 Discovery
 2 Morphology and interpretations
 3 Fossils
 3.1 Other well preserved specimens
 4 See also
 5 References
Discovery
First discovered by anthropologist Mary Leakey in July 1959 at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, the well-preserved
cranium OH 5 (nicknamed "Nutcracker Man") was dated to 1.75 million years old and had characteristics Kingdom: Animalia
distinctive of the robust australopithecines. Mary and her husband Louis Leakey classified the specimen as Phylum: Chordata
Zinjanthropus boisei: "Zinj" for the medieval East African region of Zanj, "anthropus" meaning ape or ape-human, Class: Mammalia
and "boisei" for Charles Boise (the anthropologists team’s funder at the time). Paranthropus boisei (as the species
Order: Primates
was eventually categorized) proved to be a treasure especially when the anthropologists' son Richard Leakey
considered it to be the first hominin species to use stone tools. Another skull was unearthed in 1969 by Richard at Family: Hominidae
Koobi Fora near the Lake Turkana region. Genus: Paranthropus
Species: P. boisei
Morphology and interpretations Binomial name
†Paranthropus boisei
The brain volume is quite small, about 500 and 550 cm³, not much larger in comparison to Australopithecus (Mary Leakey, 1959)
afarensis and Australopithecus africanus. It had a skull highly specialized for heavy chewing and several traits seen
in modern day gorillas. P. boisei inhabited savannah woodland territories. Males weighed 68 kg (150 lb) and stood 1.3 m (4 ft 3 in) tall, while females
weighed 45 kg (99 lb) and stood 1.05 m (3 ft 5 in) tall. The average adult males were much larger than females (sexual dimorphism), as was the case in
virtually all australopithecine species. The back molar teeth were relatively large, with an area over twice as great as is found in modern humans.[1]
The species is sometimes referred to as “Nutcracker Man” because it has the biggest, flattest cheek teeth and the thickest enamel of any known
hominin.[2]
Some argue that the craniodental morphology of this taxon (e.g., large postcanine dentition, thick enamel, robust mandibles, sagittal cresting, flaring
zygomatic region) are indicative of a diet of hard or tough foods such ground tubers, nuts and seeds.[3] However, research on the molar microwear of
P. boisei suggests that hard foods did not constitute a regular portion of its diet, but may have served as "fallback foods" when other fare was
unavailable.[4][5]
Fossils
In 1993, A. Amzaye found fossils of P. boisei at Kronso, Ethiopia. The partial skull's designation is KGA10-525
and is dated to 1.4 million years ago. It is the biggest skull specimen ever found of P. boisei. It has been claimed as
the only remains of the species found in Ethiopia; all others have been in other parts of Eastern Africa. The oldest specimen of P. boisei was found in
Omo, Ethiopia and dates to 2.3 million years old classified as (L. 74a-21) while the youngest speciemen from Olduvai Gorge dates 1.2 million years
old classified as OH 3 and OH 38.
Other well preserved specimens
 OH 5 "Nutcrackerman" is the first P. boisei found by Mary Leakey at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania belonging to an adult male (circa. 1.75 mya).
 KNM ER 406 is a small partial cranium discovered by H. Mutua and Richard Leakey in 1969 found at Koobi Fora, Kenya displays large
zygomatic arches, a cranial capacity of 510 cm³ (circa. 1.7 mya).
 KNM WT 17400 a partial cranium with similar characteristics as KNM WT 17000 "Black skull" belonging to Paranthropus aethiopicus. The

skull was found at West Turkana, Kenya (circa. 1.7 mya).
 ER 406 was found by Richard Leakey and H. Mutua in 1970 at Koobi Fora, Kenya is a partial cranium most likely identified as belonging to a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus_boisei
female (circa. 1.7 mya).
See also
 Olduwan
References
1. ^ McHenry, H.M.; Coffing. K. (2000). "Australopithecus to Homo: transformations in body and mind". Annual Review
of Anthropology 29: 125–146. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.125.
2. ^ Findings Challenge Conventional Ideas on Evolution of Human Diet, Natural Selection Newswise, Retrieved on June
26, 2008.
3. ^ Klein, Richard G. (1999). The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins, 2nd edition, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226439631.
4. ^ Ungar, Peter S.; Frederick E. Grine, Mark F. Teaford (April 2008). "Dental Microwear and Diet of the Plio-
Pleistocene Hominin Paranthropus boisei". PLoS ONE 3 (4). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002044. Retrieved on 2008-05-
05. Cast of the skull found by Mary
5. ^ "Gnashers at Work", The Economist, 2008-05-01. Retrieved on 2008-05-05. Leakey in 1959 with jaw
discovered by Kimoya Kimeu in
1964.
External links
 MNSU
 Smithsonian
 The first skull of Australopithecus boisei, Gen Suwa et al., letters to nature, Nature, Vol. 389, 2 October 1997
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus_boisei"
Categories: African archaeology | Early hominids | Pliocene mammals | Pleistocene mammals | Pleistocene extinctions
Hidden categories: Articles lacking sources from December 2007 | All articles lacking sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus_boisei
Richard Dawkins
Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born March 26, 1941) is a British ethologist, evolutionary Richard Dawkins

biologist and popular science writer. He holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public
Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford and is a professorial fellow of New College,
Oxford.[1][2]
Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-

centred view of evolution and introduced the term meme. In 1982, he made a widely cited
contribution to evolutionary biology with the theory, presented in his book The Extended Phenotype,
that phenotypic effects are not limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the
environment, including the bodies of other organisms.
In addition to his biological work, Dawkins is well-known for his views on atheism, evolution,
creationism, and religion. He is a prominent critic of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986
book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the
existence of a supernatural creator based upon the observed complexity of living organisms, and
instead described evolutionary processes as being analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since
written several popular science books, and made regular appearances on television and radio
programmes, predominantly discussing the aforementioned topics. Dawkins at a lecture in Reykjavík, Iceland,
June 24, 2006.
Dawkins is an atheist;[3][4][5] a freethinker, secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist,[6] and Born March 26, 1941

supporter of the Brights movement.[7] He has widely been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Nairobi, Kenya
Rottweiler",[8][9] by analogy with English biologist T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Residence Oxford, England
Bulldog" for his advocacy of natural selection. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins
Nationality British
contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith qualifies
as a delusion—as a fixed false belief.[10] As of November 2007, the English language version had Fields Ethologist and evolutionary biologist
sold more than 1.5 million copies and had been translated into 31 other languages,[11] making it his Institutions University of California, Berkeley
most popular book to date. University of Oxford
Alma
Contents mater
Balliol College, Oxford
Doctoral
 1 Biography advisor Nikolaas Tinbergen
 2 Work Doctoral Alan Grafen
 2.1 Evolutionary biology students Mark Ridley
 2.2 Meme
Known for Advocacy of atheism and rationalism
 2.3 Criticism of creationism
Criticism of religion
 2.4 Atheism and rationalism
 2.5 Richard Dawkins Foundation
Gene-centred view of evolution
 2.6 Other fields
Introduction of meme concept
 3 Awards and recognition Notable Zoological Society Silver Medal (1989)
 4 Publications awards Faraday Award (1990)
 4.1 As sole author Kistler Prize (2001)
 4.2 As sole editor
 4.3 Further reading
Notes
 4.4 Documentaries and debates
Fellow of the Royal Society
 5 Notes Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature
 6 References
Biography
Richard Dawkins was born on March 26, 1941, in Nairobi, Kenya.[12] His father, Clinton John Dawkins, was a soldier who moved to Kenya from
England during the Second World War to join the Allied Forces,[13] returning to England in 1949 when Richard was eight.[13] Both of his parents were
interested in natural sciences, and they answered Dawkins' questions in scientific terms.[14]
Dawkins describes his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing", but reveals that he began doubting the existence of God when he was about nine
years old. He later reconverted because he was persuaded by the argument from design, an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on
perceived evidence of order, purpose, design or direction—or some combination of these—in nature. However, he began to feel that the customs of the
Church of England were absurd, and had more to do with dictating morals than with God. Later, when he better understood the process of evolution,
his religious position again changed, because he felt that natural selection could account for the complexity of life in purely material terms, rendering a
supernatural designer unnecessary.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
Dawkins attended Oundle School from 1954 to 1959. He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning
ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen, graduating in 1962. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision at the University of Oxford,
receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966, while staying as a research assistant for another year.[12] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of
animal behaviour, particularly the questions of instinct, learning and choice.[16] Dawkins' research in this period concerned models of animal decision
making.[17]
From 1967 to 1969, Dawkins was an assistant professor of zoology at the University of California, Berkeley. During this period, the students and
faculty at UC Berkeley were largely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War, and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and
activities.[18] He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970 taking a position as a lecturer, and—in 1990—a reader, in zoology. In 1995, he was
appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles
Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field".
[19] Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.[20]
In the 1970s Dawkins turned to explaining the life sciences to a popular audience, beginning with his well-known and influential, 1976 book, The
Selfish Gene.[16]
Dawkins has delivered a number of inaugural and other notable lectures, including the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture (1989), first Erasmus
Darwin Memorial Lecture (1990), Michael Faraday Lecture (1991), T.H. Huxley Memorial Lecture (1992), Irvine Memorial Lecture (1997), Sheldon
Doyle Lecture (1999), Tinbergen Lecture (2004), and Tanner Lectures (2003).[12] In 1991, he gave the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for
Children (released on DVD in 2007 as Growing Up in the Universe[21]). He has also served as editor of a number of prominent journals, and has acted
as editorial advisor to Encarta Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Evolution. He is a senior editor of the Council for Secular Humanism's Free
Inquiry magazine, for which he also writes a column. He has been a member of the editorial board of Skeptic magazine since its foundation.[22]
He has sat on numerous judging panels for awards as diverse as the Royal Society's Faraday Award and the British Academy Television Awards,[12]
and has been president of the Biological Sciences section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2004, Balliol College, Oxford
instituted the Dawkins Prize, awarded for "outstanding research into the ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be
endangered by human activities".[23]
In September 2008, Dawkins is due to retire from his post as Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, due to reaching the
university's mandatory retirement age.[24][25]
In 1967, Dawkins married fellow ethologist Marian Stamp, and they divorced in 1984. Later that year, Dawkins married Eve Barham—with whom he
had a daughter, Juliet Emma Dawkins—but they too divorced, and Barham died of cancer in early 1999.[26] In 1992, he married actress Lalla Ward.
[27] Dawkins had met her through their mutual friend Douglas Adams, who had previously worked with Ward on the BBC science-fiction television
programme Doctor Who (in 2008 Dawkins made a cameo appearance as himself in the Doctor Who episode The Stolen Earth). Ward has illustrated
over half of Dawkins' books and co-narrated the audio versions of two of his books, The Ancestor's Tale and The God Delusion.
Work
Evolutionary biology
Further information: Gene-centred view of evolution
In his scientific works, Dawkins is best known for his popularisation of the gene-centred view of evolution. This
view is most clearly set out in his books The Selfish Gene (1976), where he notes that "all life evolves by the
differential survival of replicating entities", and The Extended Phenotype (1982), in which he describes natural
selection as "the process whereby replicators out-propagate each other". In his role as an ethologist, interested in
animal behaviour and its relation to natural selection, he advocates the idea that the gene is the principal unit of
selection in evolution.
Dawkins has consistently been sceptical about non-adaptive processes in evolution (such as spandrels, described
by Gould and Lewontin) and about selection at levels "above" that of the gene. He is particularly sceptical about
the practical possibility or importance of group selection as a basis for understanding altruism.[28] This behaviour Dawkins at the 34th annual
appears at first to be an evolutionary paradox, since helping others costs precious resources and decreases one's conference of American Atheists
own fitness. Previously, many had interpreted this as an aspect of group selection: individuals were doing what on March 21, 2008.
was best for the survival of the population or species as a whole, and not specifically for themselves. British
evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton had used the gene-centred view to explain altruism in terms of inclusive fitness and kin selection—that
individuals behave altruistically toward their close relatives, who share many of their own genes.[29][a] Similarly, Robert Trivers, thinking in terms of
the gene-centred model, developed the theory of reciprocal altruism, whereby one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of future
reciprocation.[30] Dawkins popularised these ideas in The Selfish Gene, and developed them in his own work.[31]
Critics of Dawkins' approach suggest that taking the gene as the unit of selection—of a single event in which an individual either succeeds or fails to
reproduce—is misleading, but that the gene could be better described as a unit of evolution—of the long-term changes in allele frequencies in a
population.[32] In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains that he is using George C. Williams' definition of the gene as "that which segregates and
recombines with appreciable frequency".[33] Another common objection is that genes cannot survive alone, but must cooperate to build an individual,
and therefore cannot be an independent "unit".[34] In The Extended Phenotype, Dawkins suggests that because of genetic recombination and sexual
reproduction, from an individual gene's viewpoint all other genes are part of the environment to which it is adapted.
Advocates for higher levels of selection such as Richard Lewontin, David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober suggest that there are many phenomena
(including altruism) that gene-based selection cannot satisfactorily explain. The philosopher Mary Midgley, whom Dawkins has intermittently debated
since the late 1970s,[35][36] has criticised gene selection, memetics and sociobiology as being excessively reductionist.[37]
In a set of controversies over the mechanisms and interpretation of evolution (the so-called "Darwin Wars"),[38] one faction was often named after
Dawkins and its rival after American biologist Stephen Jay Gould, reflecting the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of pertinent ideas. In particular,
Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in the controversy over sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, with Dawkins generally
approving and Gould generally critical.[39] A typical example of Dawkins' position was his scathing review of Not in Our Genes by Steven Rose, Leon
J. Kamin and Richard C. Lewontin.[40] Two other thinkers on the subject often considered to be in the same camp as Dawkins are Steven Pinker and
Daniel Dennett; Dennett has promoted a gene-centred view of evolution and defended reductionism in biology.[41] Despite their academic
disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book A Devil's
Chaplain posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year.
Meme
Dawkins coined the term meme (the cultural equivalent of a gene) to describe how Darwinian principles might be extended to explain the spread of
ideas and cultural phenomena.[42] This has spawned the field of memetics. Dawkins used the word meme to refer to any cultural entity which an
observer might consider a replicator. He hypothesised that people could view many cultural entities as capable of such replication, generally through
exposure to humans, who have evolved as efficient (although not perfect) copiers of information and behaviour. Memes are not always copied
perfectly, and might indeed become refined, combined or otherwise modified with other ideas, resulting in new memes, which may themselves prove
more, or less, efficient replicators than their predecessors, thus providing a framework for a hypothesis of cultural evolution, analogous to the theory of
biological evolution based on genes.[43] Since originally outlining the idea in his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins has largely left the task of
expanding upon it to other authors such as Susan Blackmore.[44]
Although Dawkins coined the term meme independently, he has never claimed that the idea itself was entirely a new one—there had been similar
expressions for similar ideas in the past. John Laurent, in The Journal of Memetics, has suggested that the term may have derived from the work of the
little-known German biologist Richard Semon.[45] In 1904, Semon published Die Mneme (which appeared in English in 1924 as The Mneme). Semon's
book discussed the cultural transmission of experiences, with insights parallel to Dawkins'. Laurent also found the term mneme used in Maurice
Maeterlinck's The Life of the White Ant (1926), and highlighted the similarities to Dawkins' concept.[45]
Criticism of creationism
Dawkins is a prominent critic of creationism, the religious belief that humanity, life and the universe were created by a deity. He has described it as a
"preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood,"[46] and his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker, contains a sustained critique of the argument from design, an
important creationist argument. In the book, Dawkins argued against the watchmaker analogy made famous by the 18th-century English theologian
William Paley in his book Natural Theology. Paley argued that, just as a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into existence
merely by accident, so too must all living things, with their far greater complexity, be purposefully designed. According to Dawkins, however, natural
selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of
watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, nonintelligent, blind watchmaker.[47]
In 1986, Dawkins participated in the Oxford Union's Huxley Memorial Debate, in which he and English biologist John Maynard Smith debated Young
Earth creationist A. E. Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews, president of the Biblical Creation Society.[b] In general, however, Dawkins has followed the
advice of his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould and refused to participate in formal debates with creationists because doing so would give them the
"oxygen of respectability" they crave. He suggests that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them
recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."[48]
In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about
as certain as anything we know". When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory, Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's
just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective
hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as
well be spelled out in words of English."[49]
Dawkins has ardently opposed the inclusion of intelligent design in science education, describing it as "not a scientific argument at all, but a religious
one".[50] He has been a strong critic of the British organisation Truth in Science, which promotes the teaching of creationism in state schools, and he
plans—through the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science—to subsidise the delivering of books, DVDs, and pamphlets to schools, in
order to counteract what he has described as an "educational scandal".[51]
Atheism and rationalism
Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and a prominent critic of religion. He is an Honorary Associate of the National
Secular Society,[52] a vice-president of the British Humanist Association (since 1996),[12] a Distinguished
Supporter of the Humanist Society of Scotland,[53] a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of
Humanism,[54] and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.[55] In 2003, he signed Humanism and Its
Aspirations, published by the American Humanist Association.[56]
Dawkins believes that atheism is the logical extension of understanding evolution[57] and that religion is
incompatible with science.[58] In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins wrote:
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I
know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't
help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that
although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist.[59]
In his 1991 essay "Viruses of the Mind" (from which the term faith-sufferer originated), he suggested that memetic
theory might analyse and explain the phenomenon of religious belief and some of the common characteristics of
religions, such as the belief that punishment awaits non-believers. According to Dawkins, faith—belief that is not Dawkins lecturing on his book
based on evidence—is one of the world's great evils. He claims it to be analogous to the smallpox virus, though The God Delusion, June 24, 2006.
more difficult to eradicate.[60] Dawkins is well-known for his contempt for religious extremism, from Islamist
terrorism[61] to Christian fundamentalism; but he has also argued with liberal believers and religious scientists, from biologists Kenneth Miller[62] and
Francis Collins[63] to theologians Alister McGrath and Richard Harries.[64] Dawkins has stated that his opposition to religion is twofold, claiming it to
be both a source of conflict and a justification for belief without evidence.[65] However, he describes himself as a "cultural Christian",[66] and
proposed the slogan "Atheists for Jesus".[67]
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when asked how the world might have changed, Dawkins responded:
Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation,
where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it
gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically
removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And
dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned
respectful![68]
Dawkins has especially risen to prominence in contemporary public debates relating science and religion since the publication of his 2006 book The
God Delusion, which has achieved greater sales figures worldwide than any of his other works to date. Its success has been seen by many as indicative
of a change in the contemporary cultural zeitgeist, central to a recent rise in the popularity of atheistic literature.[69][70] The God Delusion was praised
by many intellectuals including the Nobel laureate chemist Sir Harold Kroto, psychologist Steven Pinker, and the Nobel laureate biologist James D.
Watson.[71] In the book, Dawkins argued that atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.[72]
He sees education and consciousness-raising as the primary tools in opposing what he considers to be religious dogma and indoctrination.[18][73][3]
These tools include the fight against certain stereotypes, and he has adopted the term Bright as a way of associating positive public connotations with
those who possess a naturalistic worldview.[73] Dawkins notes that feminists have succeeded in arousing widespread embarrassment at the routine use
of "he" instead of "she". Similarly, he suggests, a phrase such as "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should be considered just as socially absurd as, for
instance, "Marxist child": children should not be classified based on their parents' ideological beliefs.[73] According to Dawkins, there is no such thing
as a Christian child or a Muslim child.[72]
In January 2006, Dawkins presented a two-part television documentary entitled The Root of All Evil?, addressing what he sees as the malignant

influence of religion on society. The title itself is one with which Dawkins has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction.[74] Critics have said that the
programme gave too much time to marginal figures and extremists, and that Dawkins' confrontational style did not help his cause;[75][76] Dawkins
rejected these claims, citing the number of moderate religious broadcasts in everyday media as providing a suitable balance to the extremists in the
programmes. He further remarked that someone who is deemed an "extremist" in a religiously moderate country may well be considered "mainstream"
in a religiously conservative one.[77] The unedited recordings of Dawkins' conversations with Alister McGrath and Richard Harries, including material
unused in the broadcast version, have been made available online by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.[78]
Oxford theologian Alister McGrath maintains that Dawkins is "ignorant" of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith
intelligently.[79] In reply, Dawkins asks "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?",[80] and—in the paperback
edition of The God Delusion—he refers to the American biologist PZ Myers, who has satirized this line of argument as "The Courtier's Reply".[81]
Dawkins had an extended debate with McGrath at the 2007 Sunday Times Literary Festival.[82]
Another Christian philosopher, Keith Ward, explores similar themes in his 2006 book Is Religion Dangerous?, arguing against the view of Dawkins
and others that religion is socially dangerous. Criticism of The God Delusion has come from philosophers such as Professor John Cottingham of the
University of Reading.[83] Other commentators, including ethicist Margaret Somerville,[84] have suggested that Dawkins "overstates the case against
religion",[85] particularly its role in human conflict. Many of Dawkins' defenders, however, claim that critics generally misunderstand his real point.
During a debate on Radio 3 Hong Kong, David Nicholls, writer and president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, reiterated Dawkins' sentiments
that religion is an "unnecessary" aspect of global problems.[86]
Dawkins argues that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other".[87] He disagrees with Stephen Jay Gould's principle of
nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA). In an interview with Time magazine, Dawkins said:
I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very
empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts
of science but to the spirit of science.[88]
Astrophysicist Martin Rees has suggested that Dawkins' attack on mainstream religion is unhelpful.[89] Regarding Rees' claim in his book Our Cosmic
Habitat that "such questions lie beyond science", Dawkins asks "what expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists
cannot?"[90][91] Elsewhere, Dawkins has written that "there's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting
evidence and logic, and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority or revelation."[60] As examples of "good scientists who are
sincerely religious", Dawkins names Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins, but says "I remain baffled ... by their
belief in the details of the Christian religion."[92][93][94][95][96] He has said that the publication of The God Delusion is "probably the culmination" of
his campaign against religion.[97]
In 2007, Dawkins founded the Out Campaign to encourage atheists worldwide to declare their stance publicly and proudly.[98] Inspired by the gay
rights movement, Dawkins hopes that atheists' identifying of themselves as such, and thereby increasing public awareness of how many people hold
these views, will reduce the negative opinion of atheism among the religious majority.[4][99]
Richard Dawkins Foundation
In 2006, Dawkins founded the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS), a non-profit organization. The foundation is in
developmental phase. It has been granted charitable status in the United Kingdom and the United States. RDFRS plans to finance research on the
psychology of belief and religion, finance scientific education programs and materials, and publicise and support secular charitable organizations. The
foundation also offers humanist, rationalist, and scientific materials and information through its website.[100]
Other fields
In his role as professor for public understanding of science, Dawkins has been a critic of pseudoscience and
alternative medicine. His 1998 book Unweaving the Rainbow takes John Keats' accusation that, by explaining the
rainbow, Isaac Newton had diminished its beauty, and argues for the opposite conclusion. He suggests that deep
space, the billions of years of life's evolution, and the microscopic workings of biology and heredity contain more
beauty and wonder than do "myths" and "pseudoscience".[101] Dawkins wrote a foreword to John Diamond's
posthumously published Snake Oil, a book devoted to debunking alternative medicine, in which he asserted that
alternative medicine was harmful, if only because it distracted patients from more successful, conventional
treatments, and gave people false hopes.[102] Dawkins states that "there is no alternative medicine. There is only
medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."[103]
Dawkins has expressed concern about the growth of the planet's human population, and about the matter of
overpopulation.[104] In The Selfish Gene, he briefly mentions population growth, giving the example of Latin
America, whose population, at the time the book was written, was doubling every 40 years. He is critical of
Roman Catholic attitudes to family planning and population control, stating that leaders who forbid contraception,
and "express a preference for 'natural' methods of population limitation" will get just such a method in the form of Dawkins talking at Kepler's
starvation.[105] Books, Menlo Park, California,
October 29, 2006.
As a supporter of the Great Ape Project—a movement to extend certain moral and legal rights to all great apes—
Dawkins contributed an article entitled "Gaps in the Mind" to the Great Ape Project book edited by Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer. In this essay, he
criticises contemporary society's moral attitudes as being based on a "discontinuous, speciesist imperative".[106]
Dawkins also regularly comments in newspapers and weblogs on contemporary political questions; his opinions include opposition to the 2003
invasion of Iraq,[107] the British nuclear deterrent, and the actions of U.S. President George W. Bush.[108] Several such articles were included in A
Devil's Chaplain, an anthology of writings about science, religion and politics.
In the 2007 TV documentary The Enemies of Reason,[109] Dawkins discusses what he sees as the dangers of abandoning critical thought and rationale

based upon scientific evidence. He specifically cites astrology, spiritualism, dowsing, alternative faiths, alternative medicine, and homeopathy. He also
discusses how the Internet can be used to spread religious hatred and conspiracy theories with scant attention to evidence-based reasoning.
Awards and recognition
Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in
science from the University of Westminster, Durham University,[110] and the University of Hull, and an honorary
doctorate from the Open University and from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.[12] He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St
Andrews and the Australian National University, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001.[12]
In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award, and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the

same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode entitled The
Blind Watchmaker.[12]
His other awards have included the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), the Michael Faraday
Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International
Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), and the
Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002).[12]
Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the
readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up.[111][112] He has been short-listed as a candidate in their
2008 follow-up poll.[113] In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare
Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge". He won the Lewis
Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006 and the Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year Award
for 2007.[114] In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the
world in 2007,[115] and was awarded the Deschner Award, named after Karlheinz Deschner.[116]
Dawkins receiving the Deschner Since 2003, the Atheist Alliance International has awarded a prize during its annual conference, honoring an
Prize in Frankfurt, October 12, outstanding atheist whose work has done most to raise public awareness of atheism during that year. It is known as
2007, from Karlheinz Deschner.
the Richard Dawkins Award, in honor of Dawkins' own work.[117]
Publications
As sole author
 The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-19-286092-5

 The Extended Phenotype, Oxford University Press, 1982, ISBN 0-19-288051-9
 The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company, 1986, ISBN 0-393-31570-3
 River out of Eden, Basic Books, 1995, ISBN 0-465-06990-8
 Climbing Mount Improbable, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996, ISBN 0-393-31682-3
 Unweaving the Rainbow, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998, ISBN 0-618-05673-4
 A Devil's Chaplain, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003, ISBN 0-618-33540-4
 The Ancestor's Tale, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004, ISBN 0-618-00583-8
 The God Delusion, Bantam Books, 2006, ISBN 0-618-68000-4
As sole editor
 The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 0-199-21680-0
Dawkins' next book will marshal empirical evidence supporting the theory of evolution, is scheduled to be published in the United States by Free Press
on November 24, 2009, the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's seminal On the Origin of Species.[118]
Further reading
 Sexton, Ed (2001). Dawkins and the Selfish Gene. Totem Books. ISBN 1-84046-238-8.

 Sterelny, Kim (2001). Dawkins vs Gould: Survival of the Fittest. Icon Books. ISBN 1-84046-249-3.
 McGrath, Alister (2004). Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 1-4051-2538-1.
 Grafen, Alan; Mark Ridley (eds.) (2006). Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-
929116-0.
 McGrath, Alister; Joanna Collicutt McGrath (2007). The Dawkins Delusion?. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. ISBN 0-281-05927-
6.
Documentaries and debates
 Nice Guys Finish First (1987)

 The Blind Watchmaker (1987)
 Growing Up in the Universe (1991)
 Break the Science Barrier (1996)
 The Root of All Evil? (2006)
 The Enemies of Reason (2007)
On September 30, 2007, Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens discussed their views on atheism and religion, amongst
themselves. The talk was filmed and entitled Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Episode One: The Four Horsemen.[119] Episode Two in the series, a
short segment of which has already been released,[120] will feature a 90-minute conversation between Dawkins and PZ Myers.
Notes
a. ^ W. D. Hamilton hugely influenced Dawkins and the influence can be seen throughout Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.[18] They became friends at Oxford and
following Hamilton's death in 2000, Dawkins wrote his obituary and organised a secular memorial service.[121]
b. ^ The debate ended with the motion "That the doctrine of creation is more valid than the theory of evolution" being defeated by 198 votes to 15, according to a
report reproduced on the American Association for the Advancement of Science site. However, the voice of the teller of the vote on the video is not clear enough to
discern the exact number of persons in support of the motion. [122]
References
1. ^ The Simonyi Professorship Home Page. The University of Oxford. Retrieved on 2008-03-08.
2. ^ The Third Culture: Richard Dawkins. Edge.org. Retrieved on 2008-03-08.
3. ^ a b Smith, Alexandra. "Dawkins campaigns to keep God out of classroom", The Guardian, November 27, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-01-15.
4. ^ a b Chittenden, Maurice; Waite, Roger. "Dawkins to preach atheism to US", The Sunday Times, December 23, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-04-01.
5. ^ Persuad, Raj. "Holy visions elude scientists", The Daily Telegraph, 2003-03-20. Retrieved on 2008-04-17.
6. ^ Why I am a secular humanist. The University of Oxford. Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
7. ^ Hitchens, Christopher (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve Books, 5. ISBN 0-446-57980-7.
8. ^ Hall, Stephen S. (2005-08-09). Darwin's Rottweiler. Discover magazine. Retrieved on 2008-03-22.
9. ^ Mohler, R. Albert (September 9, 2005). "Darwin's Rottweiler" -- Richard Dawkins Speaks His Mind. AlbertMohler.com. Retrieved on 2008-03-22.
10. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Transworld Publishers, 5. ISBN 0-5930-5548-9.
11. ^ Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism. Richard Dawkins at Point of Inquiry (2007-12-08). Retrieved on 2008-03-14.
12. ^ a b c d e f g h i Curriculum vitae of Richard Dawkins. The University of Oxford. Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
13. ^ a b Catalano, John (1995). Biography of Richard Dawkins. The University of Oxford. Retrieved on 2006-01-29.
14. ^ "Richard Dawkins: The foibles of faith", BBC News, 2001-10-12. Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
15. ^ Hattenstone, Simon. "Darwin's child", The Guardian, February 10, 2003. Retrieved on 2008-04-22.
16. ^ a b Schrage, Michael (July, 1995). Revolutionary Evolutionist. Wired. Retrieved on 2008-04-21.
17. ^ Dawkins, Richard (1969). "A threshold model of choice behaviour". Animal Behaviour 17: 120. doi:10.1016/0003-3472(69)90120-1.
18. ^ a b c "Belief" interview. BBC (April 5, 2004). Retrieved on 2008-04-08.
19. ^ Simonyi, Charles (1995-05-15). Manifesto for the Simonyi Professorship. The University of Oxford. Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
20. ^ The Current Simonyi Professor: Richard Dawkins. The University of Oxford. Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
21. ^ Growing Up in the Universe: 2-Disc DVD Set. RichardDawkins.net (April 2, 2007). Retrieved on 2008-04-23.
22. ^ Editorial Board. The Skeptics' Society. Retrieved on 2008-04-22.
23. ^ The Dawkins Prize for Animal Conservation and Welfare. Balliol College, Oxford (November 9, 2007). Retrieved on 2008-03-30.
24. ^ Dawkins, Richard. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science. RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved on 2008-03-29.
25. ^ Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science - post advertisement. The University of Oxford. Retrieved on 2008-03-29.
26. ^ Riddell, Mary. "Eating people is wrong", New Statesman, March 26, 1999. Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
27. ^ McKie, Robin. "Doctor Zoo", The Guardian, July 25, 2004. Retrieved on 2008-03-17.
28. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Transworld Publishers, 169–172. ISBN 0-5930-5548-9.
29. ^ Hamilton, W.D. (1964). "The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II". Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–16, 17–52. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)
90038-4.
30. ^ Trivers, Robert (1971). "The evolution of reciprocal altruism". Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57. doi:10.1086/406755.
31. ^ Dawkins, Richard (1979). "Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection". Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 51: 184–200.
32. ^ Dover, Gabriel (2000). Dear Mr Darwin. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-7538-1127-8.
33. ^ Williams, George C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection. United States: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02615-7.
34. ^ Mayr, Ernst (2000). What Evolution Is. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-04426-3.
35. ^ Midgley, Mary, “Gene Juggling”, Philosophy 54 (210): 439–458, <http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=14>. Retrieved on 18
March 2008
36. ^ Dawkins, Richard, “In Defence of Selfish Genes”, Philosophy 56: 556–573, <http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=5>. Retrieved on
17 March 2008
37. ^ Midgley, Mary (2000). Science and Poetry. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-27632-2.
38. ^ Brown, Andrew (1999). The Darwin Wars: How stupid genes became selfish genes. London: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-684-85144-X.
39. ^ Morris, Richard (2001). The Evolutionists. W. H. Freeman. ISBN 071674094X.
40. ^ Dawkins, Richard (January 24, 1985), “Sociobiology: the debate continues”, New Scientist, <http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-
archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml>. Retrieved on 3 April 2008
41. ^ Dennett, Daniel (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea. United States: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-80290-2.
42. ^ Dawkins, Richard (1989). The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed., United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 11. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
43. ^ Kelly, Kevin (1994). Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World. United States: Addison-Wesley, 360. ISBN 0-
201-48340-8.
44. ^ Blackmore, Susan (1999). The Meme Machine. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286212-X.
45. ^ a b Laurent, John (1999), A Note on the Origin of 'Memes'/'Mnemes', vol. 3, Journal of Memetics, pp. 14–19, <http://cfpm.org/jom-
emit/1999/vol3/laurent_j.html>. Retrieved on 17 March 2008
46. ^ Dawkins, Richard. A scientist's view. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2008-04-03.
47. ^ Catalano, John. Book: The Blind Watchmaker. The University of Oxford. Retrieved on 2008-02-28.
48. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2003). A Devil's Chaplain. Houghton Mifflin, 256. ISBN 0-618-33540-4.
49. ^ Moyers, Bill (December 3, 2004). Now with Bill Moyers. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved on 2006-01-29.
50. ^ Dawkins, Richard and Coyne, Jerry (September 1, 2005). One side can be wrong. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2006-12-21.
51. ^ Swinford, Steven (November 19, 2006). Godless Dawkins challenges schools. The Times. Retrieved on 2008-04-03.
52. ^ Our Honorary Associates. National Secular Society (2005). Retrieved on 2007-04-21.
53. ^ The HSS Today. The Humanist Society of Scotland (2007). Retrieved on 2008-04-03.
54. ^ The International Academy Of Humanism - Humanist Laureates. Council for Secular Humanism. Retrieved on 2008-04-07.
55. ^ The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry - Fellows. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved on 2008-04-07.
56. ^ Humanism and Its Aspirations - Notable Signers. American Humanist Association. Retrieved on 2008-04-07.
57. ^ Sheahen, Laura (October, 2005). The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins (2). Beliefnet.com. Retrieved on 2008-04-11.
58. ^ Interview with Richard Dawkins. PBS. Retrieved on 2008-04-12.
59. ^ Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker, 6. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.
60. ^ a b Dawkins, Richard (January/February 1997). Is Science a Religion?. American Humanist Association. Retrieved on 2008-03-15.
61. ^ Dawkins, Richard. "Religion's misguided missiles", The Guardian, September 15, 2001. Retrieved on 2008-04-13.
62. ^ Hall, Stephen S. (2005-08-09). Darwin's Rottweiler. Discover magazine. Retrieved on 2008-03-22.
63. ^ Biema, David Van (November 5, 2006). God Vs. Science. Time. Retrieved on 2008-04-07.
64. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Root of All Evil?. Channel 4. Retrieved on 2008-04-13.
65. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Transworld Publishers, 282-286. ISBN 0-5930-5548-9.
66. ^ "Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian", BBC News, December 10, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-03-01.
67. ^ Dawkins, Richard (April 11, 2006). Atheists for Jesus. RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved on 2008-03-15.
68. ^ Dawkins, Richard (November 11, 2001). Has the world changed?. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2006-01-29.
69. ^ Odoyo, Peter (July 16, 2007). The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West. The Nation. Retrieved on 2008-03-15.
70. ^ Burkowitz, Peter (July 16, 2007). The New Atheism. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on 2008-03-15.
71. ^ The God Delusion - Reviews. RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved on 2008-04-08.
72. ^ a b Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion, 3. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
73. ^ a b c Dawkins, Richard (June 21, 2003). The future looks bright. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
74. ^ "The Jeremy Vine Show", BBC Radio 2, January 5, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-04-11.
75. ^ Jacobson, Howard (November 11, 2001). Nothing like an unimaginative scientist to get non-believers running back to God. The Independent. Retrieved on
2007-03-27.
76. ^ Ferguson, Ron (January 19, 2006). What a lazy way to argue against God. The Herald. Retrieved on 2008-04-03.
77. ^ Dawkins, Richard (January 30, 2006). Diary - Richard Dawkins. New Statesman. Retrieved on 2007-03-25.
78. ^ Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath Root of All Evil? Uncut Interviews. RichardDawkins.net (May 31, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-10-10.
79. ^ McGrath, Alister (2004). Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing, 81. ISBN 1-405-12538-1.
80. ^ Dawkins, Richard (September 17, 2007). Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?. RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved on 2007-11-
14.
81. ^ Myers, PZ (December 24, 2006). The Courtier's Reply. Pharyngula. Retrieved on 2007-11-14.
82. ^ Cole, Judith (March 26, 2007). Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival. The Times. Retrieved on 2008-03-04.
83. ^ Cole, Judith (October 19, 2006). Flawed case for the prosecution. The Tablet. Retrieved on 2008-03-04.
84. ^ Huxley, John (May 24, 2007). Aiming for knockout blow in god wars. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved on 2007-05-27.
85. ^ Easterbrook, Gregg. Does God Believe in Richard Dawkins?. Beliefnet. Retrieved on 2007-05-26.
86. ^ Is God a Delusion?. Radio 3, Hong Kong (April 4, 2007).
87. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion, 50. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
88. ^ Van Biema, David (November 5, 2006). God vs. Science (3). Time. Retrieved on 2008-04-03.
89. ^ Jha, Alok (May 29, 2007). Scientists divided over alliance with religion. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2008-03-17.
90. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). When Religion Steps on Science's Turf. Free Inquiry magazine. Retrieved on 2008-04-03.
91. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion, 55–56. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
92. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion, 99. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
93. ^ Crace, John (January 10, 2006). Richard Dawkins: Beyond belief. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2008-04-03.
94. ^ Ruse, Michael (2000). Double-Dealing in Darwin. Beliefnet. Retrieved on 2008-04-03.
95. ^ Belief - radio interview. BBC Radio (2004). Retrieved on 2008-04-03.
96. ^ The Atheist: interview with Gordy Slack. Salon.com (April 28, 2005). Retrieved on 2008-04-03.
97. ^ Bearder, Tim (March 24, 2006). BBC Oxford interview. FT Magazine. Retrieved on 2007-05-25.
98. ^ The Out Campaign (original announcement). RichardDawkins.net (2007-07-30). Retrieved on 2008-04-01.
99. ^ Dawkins, Richard (October 24, 2007). Richard Dawkins speech at Atheist Alliance International Convention 2007. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for
Reason and Science. RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved on 2008-04-01.
100. ^ Our Mission. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Retrieved on 2006-11-17.
101. ^ Dawkins, Richard (1998). Unweaving The Rainbow. United Kingdom: Penguin, 4–7. ISBN 0-618-05673-4.
102. ^ Diamond, John (2001). Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations. United Kingdom: Vintage. ISBN 0-099-42833-4.
103. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2003). A Devil's Chaplain. United States: Houghton Mifflin, 58. ISBN 0-618-33540-4.
104. ^ The Selfish Green. RichardDawkins.net (April 2, 2007). Retrieved on 2008-04-22.
105. ^ Dawkins, Richard (1989). The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed., United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 213. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
106. ^ (1993) The Great Ape Project. United Kingdom: Fourth Estate. ISBN 0-312-1181-8.
107. ^ Dawkins, Richard. "Bin Laden's victory", The Guardian, March 22, 2003. Retrieved on 2008-03-15.
108. ^ Dawkins, Richard. "While we have your attention, Mr President...", The Guardian, November 18, 2003. Retrieved on 2008-03-16.
109. ^ The Enemies of Reason. Channel 4 (August, 2007). Retrieved on 2008-04-13.
110. ^ "Durham salutes science, Shakespeare and social inclusion", Durham News & Events Service, August 26, 2005. Retrieved on 2006-04-11.
111. ^ "Q&A: Richard Dawkins", BBC News, July 29, 2004. Retrieved on 2008-03-09.
112. ^ Herman, David (2004). Public Intellectuals Poll. Prospect magazine. Retrieved on 2008-03-09.
113. ^ The Top 100 Public Intellectuals. Prospect magazine. Retrieved on 2008-04-22.
114. ^ Galaxy British Book Awards - Winners & Shortlists 2007. Publishing News (2007). Retrieved on 2007-04-21.
115. ^ Behe, Michael. Time Top 100. TIME. Retrieved on 2008-03-02.
116. ^ Giordano Bruno Stiftung (May 28, 2007). Deschner-Preis an Richard Dawkins. Humanistischer Pressedienst. Retrieved on 2008-04-04.
117. ^ Slack, Gordy (2005-04-30). The atheist. Salon. Retrieved on 2007-08-03.
118. ^ Neyfakh, Leon. "Richard Dawkins' Follow-Up to God Delusion Sold to Free Press for $3.5 Million", The New York Observer, February 7, 2008. Retrieved on
2008-03-04.
119. ^ Discussions with Richard Dawkins, Episode One: The Four Horsemen. RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved on 2008-03-08.
120. ^ Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled. RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved on 2008-03-27.
121. ^ Dawkins, Richard. "Obituary by Richard Dawkins", The Independent, October 3, 2000. Retrieved on 2008-03-22.
122. ^ 1986 Oxford Union Debate: Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith. RichardDawkins.net. Retrieved on 2007-05-10. Debate downloadable as MP3 files.
External links
General
 Official website
 The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
 The Current Simonyi Professor: Richard Dawkins
 Richard Dawkins at TED Talks
 Richard Dawkins at the Internet Movie Database
 Richard Dawkins Resource Page – links to videos that include Richard Dawkins, with thumbnails and descriptions.
 Livejournal community dedicated to discussing Dawkins' ideas and activities
 Dawkins at the Clinton School – Lecture and Q&A Session
Selected writings
 Viruses of the Mind (1993) – Religion as a mental virus.
 The Real Romance in the Stars (1995) – A critical view of astrology.
 The Emptiness of Theology (1998) – A critical view of theology.
 Snake Oil and Holy Water (1999) – Suggests that there is no convergence occurring between science and theism.
 What Use is Religion? (2004) – Suggests that religion may have no survival value other than to itself.
 Race and Creation (2004) – On race, its usage and a theory of how it evolved.
 The giant tortoise's tale, The turtle's tale and The lava lizard's tale (2005) – A series of three articles written after a visit to the Galápagos Islands.
 Dawkins' Huffington Post articles
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins"
Categories: 1941 births | Academics of the University of Oxford | Alumni of Balliol College, Oxford | Atheist thinkers and activists | Brights | English
atheists | British biologists | British humanists | English sceptics | British science writers | Criticism of religion | Ethologists | Evolutionary biologists |
Fellows of New College, Oxford | Fellows of the Royal Society | Fellows of the Royal Society of Literature | Living people | Old Oundelians | People
from Nairobi | Recent single origin hypothesis | Statutory Professors of the University of Oxford | University of California, Berkeley faculty
Richard Leakey
Richard Erskine Frere Leakey (born 19 December 1944 in Nairobi, Kenya), is a Kenyan politician, paleontologist and conservationist. He is second

of the three sons of the archaeologists Louis Leakey and Mary Leakey, and is the younger brother of Colin Leakey.
Contents
 1 Early life
 1.1 Earliest years
 1.2 Broken leg
 1.3 Duke of York Secondary School
 1.4 Teenage entrepreneur
 1.5 Marriage to Margaret Cropper
 2 Paleontology
 2.1 The Omo
 2.2 Koobi Fora
 2.3 West Turkana
 3 Conservation
 4 Politics
 5 Bibliography
 6 References
 7 See also
Early life
Earliest years
As a small boy Richard lived in Nairobi with his parents, Louis Leakey, curator of the Coryndon Museum, and Mary Leakey, director of the Leakey
excavations at Olduvai, and his two brothers, Jonathan and Philip. The Leakey brothers had a very active childhood. All the boys had ponies and
belonged to the Langata Pony Club. They participated in jumping and steeplechase competitions but often rode for fun across the plains to the Ngong
Hills, chasing and playing games with the animals. Sometimes the whole club were guests at the Leakeys for holidays and vacations. Richard's parents
founded the Dalmatian Club of East Africa and won a prize in 1957. Dogs and many other pets shared the Leakey home. The Leakey boys participated
in games conducted by both adults and children, in which they tried to imitate early man, catching springhares and small antelope by hand on the
Serengeti. They drove lions and jackals from the kill to see if they could do it.[1]
Broken leg
When Richard was 11, he fell from his horse, fractured his skull and lay near death. Coincidentally it was this incident that saved his parents' marriage.
Louis was seriously considering leaving Mary for his secretary, Rosalie Osborn. As the battle with Mary raged in the household, Richard begged his
father from his sickbed not to leave. That was the deciding factor. Louis broke up with Rosalie and the family lived in happy harmony for a few years
more.[2]
Duke of York Secondary School
The Leakey boys had nannies like their father before them. At age 11 Richard entered the Duke of York Secondary School (later known as Lenana
School). The Mau Mau rebellion was just winding down, the settlers believed they had won a victory, and the mood reflected that struggle and that
belief.[3] On his first day Richard advocated for racial equality, like his father. Calling him a "lover of niggers", the other students locked him in a wire
cage, spat and urinated on him and poked him with sticks. The school administration blamed Richard. After he was later caned for missing chapel,
Richard resolved never to be a Christian.
Circumstances such as these do not favor a successful academic career; in effect, Richard was denied a formal education. He skipped class frequently
in favor of a business he started, selling small animals to be photographed by Des Bartlett. In December, 1960, Richard reached his 16th birthday and
promptly quit the Duke of York. His parents gave him a choice: return to school or support himself.
Teenage entrepreneur
Richard chose to support himself, borrowed 500 pounds from his parents for a Land Rover, and went into the trapping and skeleton supply business
with Kamoya Kimeu. Already a skilled horseman, outdoorsman, rover mechanic, archaeologist and expedition leader, he learned to identify bones,
skills which all pointed to a path he did not yet wish to take, simply because his father was on it.[4]
The bone business turned into a safari business in 1961. In 1962 he obtained a private airplane pilot license and took tours to Olduvai. It was from a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Leakey
casual aerial survey that he noted the potential of Lake Natron's shores for paleontology. He went looking for fossils in a Land Rover, but could find
none, until his parents assigned Glynn Isaac to go with him. Louis was so impressed with their finds that he gave them National Geographic money for
a month's expedition.[5] They explored in the vicinity of Peninj near the lake, where Richard was in charge of the administrative details. Bored, he
returned to Nairobi temporarily, but at that moment, Kimoya Kameu discovered a fossil of Australopithecus boisei. A second expedition left Richard
feeling that he was being excluded from the most significant part of the operation, the scientific analysis.
Marriage to Margaret Cropper
In 1964 on his second Lake Natron expedition, Richard met an archaeologist named Margaret Cropper. When she returned to England, he decided to
go to there to study for a degree and become more acquainted with Margaret. He completed his high school requirements in six months; meanwhile
Margaret obtained her degree at the University of Edinburgh. He passed the entrance exams for admission to college, but in 1965 he and Margaret
decided to get married and return to Kenya. His father offered him a job at Centre for Prehistory and Paleontology. He worked for it, excavating at
Lake Baringo and continued his photographic safari business, making enough money to buy a house in Karen, a pleasant suburb of Nairobi.
Paleontology
Richard’s career as a palaeoanthropologist did not begin with a dateable event or a sudden decision, as did Louis’; he was with his parents on every
excavation, was taught every skill and was given responsible work even as a boy. It is not surprising that his independent decision making led him into
conflict with his father, who had always tried to instill in him that very trait. After he gave some fossils to Tanzania and set Margaret to inventory
Louis’ collections, Louis suggested he find work elsewhere in 1967.
Richard formed the Kenya Museum Associates with influential Kenyans in that year. Their intent was to 'Kenyanize' and improve the National
Museum. They offered the museum 5000 pounds, 1/3 of its yearly budget, if it would place Richard in a responsible position. He was given an
observer’s seat on the board of directors. Joel Ojal, the government official in charge of the museum, and a member of the Associates, directed the
chairman of the board to start placing Kenyans on it. Currently, (amidst several other projects) Richard Leakey is a visiting professor of Human
Evolution and Conservation at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
The Omo
Plans for the museum had not matured when Louis, intentionally or not, found a way to remove his confrontational son from the scene. Louis attended
a lunch with Haile Selassie and Jomo Kenyatta. The conversation turned to fossils and Haile wanted to know why none had been found in Ethiopia.
Louis developed this inquiry into permission to excavate on the Omo River.
The expedition consisted of three contingents: French, under Camille Arambourg, American, under Clark Howell, and Kenyan, led by Richard. Louis
could not go because of his arthritis. Crossing the Omo in 1967, Richard’s contingent was attacked by crocodiles, which destroyed their wooden boat.
Expedition members barely escaped with their lives. Richard radioed Louis for a new, aluminum boat, which the National Geographic Society was
happy to supply.
On site, Kamoya Kimeu found a Hominid fossil. Richard took it to be Homo erectus, but Louis identified it as Homo sapiens. It was the oldest of the
species found at that time, dating to 160,000 years, and was the first contemporaneous with Homo neanderthalensis. During the identification process,
Richard came to feel that the college men were patronizing him.[6]
Koobi Fora
During the Omo expedition of 1967, Richard visited Nairobi and on the return flight the pilot flew over Lake Rudolph (now Lake Turkana) to avoid a
thunderstorm. The map led Richard to expect volcanic rock below him but he saw sediments. Visiting the region with Howell by helicopter, he saw
tools and fossils everywhere. In his mind, he was already formulating a new enterprise.
In 1968 Louis and Richard attended a meeting of the Research and Exploration Committee of the National Geographic Society to ask for money for
Omo. Catching Louis by surprise, Richard asked the committee to divert the $25,000 intended for Omo to new excavations to be conducted under his
leadership at Koobi Fora. Richard won, but chairman Leonard Carmichael told him he'd better find something or never "come begging at our door
again." Louis graciously congratulated Richard.
More was yet to come. By now the board of the National Museum was packed with Kenyan supporters of Richard. They appointed him administrative
director. The curator, Robert Carcasson, resigned in protest and Richard was left with the museum at his command, which he, like Louis before him,
used as a base of operations.[7] Although there was friendly rivalry and contention between Louis and Richard, relations remained good. Each took
over for the other when one was busy with something else or incapacitated, and Richard continued to inform his father immediately of Hominid finds.
In the first expedition to Allia Bay on Lake Turkana, where the Koobi Fora camp came to be located, Richard hired only graduate students in
anthropology, as he did not want any questioning of his leadership. The students were John Harris and Bernard Wood. Also present was a team of
Africans under Kamoya, a geochemist: Paul Abel, and a photographer: Bob Campbell. Margaret was the archaeologist. Richard took to smoking a pipe
to enhance his status, as did Kamoya. There were no leadership problems. In contrast to his father, Richard ran a disciplined and tidy camp, although in
order to find fossils, he did push the expedition harder than it wished.
In 1969 the discovery of a cranium of Paranthropus boisei caused great excitement. A Homo habilis skull (KNM ER 1470) and a Homo erectus skull

(KNM ER 3733), discovered in 1972 and 1975, respectively, were among the most significant finds of Leakey's earlier expeditions. In 1978 an intact
cranium of Homo erectus (KNM ER 3883) was discovered.
Richard's wife Meave Leakey and daughter Louise Leakey still continue paleontological research in Northern Kenya.
West Turkana
Turkana Boy, discovered by Kamoya Kimeu, a member of Leakeys' team in 1984 - was the nearly complete skeleton of a 12-year-old (or possibly 9-
year-old) Homo erectus who died 1.6 million years ago. Leakey and Roger Lewin describe the experience of this find and their interpretation of it, in
their book Origins Reconsidered (1992). Shortly after the discovery of Turkana Boy, Leakey and his team made the discovery of a skull of a new
species, Australopithecus aethiopicus (WT 17000).
Conservation
In 1989 Richard Leakey was appointed the head of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department (WMCD) by President Daniel Arap Moi
in response to the international outcry over the poaching of elephants and the impact it was having on the wildlife of Kenya. The department was
replaced by Kenyan Wildlife Service (KWS) in 1990, and Leakey became its first chairman. With characteristically bold steps Leakey created special,
well-armed anti-poaching units that were authorized to shoot poachers on sight. The poaching menace was dramatically reduced. Impressed by
Leakey's transformation of the KWS, the World Bank approved grants worth $140 million. Richard Leakey, President Arap Moi and the WMCD made
the international news headlines when a stock pile of 12 tons of ivory was burned in 1989.
Richard Leakey's confrontational approach to the issue of human-wildlife conflict in national parks did not win him friends. His view was that parks
were self-contained ecosystems that had to be fenced in and the humans kept out. Leakey's bold and incorruptible nature also offended many local
politicians.
In 1993 Richard Leakey lost both his legs when his propeller-driven plane crashed. Sabotage was suspected but never proved. In a few months Richard
Leakey was walking again on artificial limbs. Around this time the Kenyan government announced that a secret probe had found evidence of
corruption and mismanagement in the KWS. An annoyed Leakey resigned publicly in a press conference in January 1994. He was replaced by David
Western as the head of the KWS.
Richard Leakey wrote about his experiences at the KWS in his book Wildlife Wars: My Battle to Save Kenya's Elephants (2001).
Leakey is currently a professor of anthropology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, where he directs the Turkana Basin Institute.
In 2004, Richard Leakey founded and chaired WildlifeDirect, a Kenya-based charitable organization. The charity was established to provide support to
conservationists in Africa directly on the ground via the use of blogs. This enables individuals anywhere to play a direct and interactive role in the
survival of some of the world’s most precious species. The organisation played a significant role in the saving of Congo's mountain gorillas in Virunga
National Park in January 2007 after a rebel uprising threatened to eliminate the highly vulnerable population.
Politics
In May 1995 Richard Leakey joined a group of Kenyan intellectuals in launching a new political party - the Safina Party, which in Swahili means
"Noah's Ark." "If KANU and Mr. Moi will do something about the deterioration of public life, corruption and mismanagement, I'd be happy to fight
alongside them. If they won't, I want somebody else to do it," announced Richard Leakey. The Safina party was routinely harassed and even its
application to become an official political party was not approved until 1997.
In 1999, Moi had to appoint Richard Leakey as Cabinet Secretary and overall head of the civil service at the insistence of international donor
institutions as a pre-condition for the resumption of donor funds. Leakey's second stint in the civil service lasted until 2001 when he was forced to
resign again.
In April 2007 he was appointed interim chairman of Transparency International Kenya branch [8].
Bibliography
Leakey's early published works include: Origins and The People of the Lake (both with Roger Lewin as co-author); The Illustrated Origin of Species;
and The Making of Mankind (1981). Leakey had an open scientific rivalry with Donald Johanson during the 80's.
 Origins (with Roger Lewin) (Dutton, 1977)
 People of the Lake: Mankind and its Beginnings (with Roger Lewin)(Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1978)
 Making of Mankind (Penguin USA, 1981)
 One Life: An Autobiography (Salem House, 1983)
 Origins Reconsidered (with Roger Lewin)(Doubleday, 1992)
 The Origin of Humankind (Perseus Books Group, 1994)
 The Sixth Extinction (with Roger Lewin) (Bantam Dell Pub Group, 1995)
 Wildlife Wars: My Fight to Save Africa's Natural Treasures (with Virginia Morell) (St. Martin's Press, 2001)
References
1. ^ Virginia Morell, Ancestral Passions, Copyright 1995, Chapter 18, "Richard Makes his Move".
2. ^ Morell, Chapter 17, "Chimpanzees and Other Loves."
3. ^ Within a few years the settlers would be stampeding out of the country at the political victory of Jomo Kenyatta and the independence of
Kenya.
4. ^ Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Copyright 1981, Chapter 1 Page 1. He says he wished to be "free" of his parents' world, a
sentiment both Louis and Mary must have understood very well, even though they opposed his freedom.
5. ^ Morell, Chapter 18, "Richard Makes his Move." Besides Richard and Glynn, the roster included Barbara Isaac, Philip Leakey, Hugo van
Lawick and six of Mary's African assistants.
6. ^ This section is based on Morell Chapter 20, “To the Omo.”
7. ^ Morell, Chapter 21, "Breaking Away."
8. ^ The Standard, April 4, 2007: Leakey takes over at TI
See also
 Leakey family

Frida Avern
Louis Leakey
Mary Nicol

Philip

Colin Leakey Meave Epps Richard Leakey Margaret Cropper Jonathan

Leakey

Louise Emmanuel de

Leakey Merode

Further information: Leakey's Angels (Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, and Birutė Galdikas)
External links
 Richard Leakey's Blog on WildlifeDirect
 Leakey Foundation
 Talk Origins - Richard Leakey
 Leakey
 KFRP
 Time: Leakey
 Leakey
 WildlifeDirect
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Leakey"
Categories: 1944 births | Living people | Anglo-African people | Kenyan archaeologists | Kenyan anthropologists | Kenyan paleontologists | Kenyan
conservationists | Kenyan politicians | Kenyans of English descent | Paleoanthropologists | People from Nairobi | State University of New York at
Stony Brook faculty
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
(Redirected from Sahelanthropus)
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is a fossil ape, thought to have lived approximately 7 million years ago. It is Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Fossil range: Late Miocene
sometimes claimed as the oldest known ancestor of Homo (humans) post-dating the most recent common
ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. It was a species of Miocene ape, related to humans and other living
African apes.
Contents
 1 Fossils
 2 Perspective
 3 See also
 4 References
Fossils Scientific classification

Kingdom: Animalia
Existing fossils, a relatively small cranium, five pieces of jaw, and some teeth, make up a head that has a
mixture of derived and primitive features. The braincase, being only 340 cm³ to 360 cm³ in volume is similar to Phylum: Chordata
that of extant chimpanzees and is notably less than the approximate human volume of 1350 cm³. The teeth, Class: Mammalia
brow ridges, and facial structure differ markedly from those found in Homo sapiens. Due to the distortion that Order: Primates
the cranium has suffered, a 3D computer reconstruction has not been produced. Since no postcranial remains
Family: Hominidae
(bones below the skull) have been discovered, it is as of yet unknown whether Sahelanthropus tchadensis was
indeed bipedal, although claims for an anteriorly placed foramen magnum suggests that this may have been the Subfamily: Homininae
case, although some paleontologists have disputed this interpretation of the basicranium. Its canine wear is Tribe: Hominini
similar to other Miocene apes. Subtribe: Hominina
The fossils were discovered in the desert of Chad by a team of four; three Chadians, Mahamat Adoum and Genus: Sahelanthropus
Brunet et al, 2002
Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye (who found the skull on July 19, 2001), Fanone Gongdibe, and Alain Beauvilain,
the French team leader. All fossils of Sahelanthropus were found between July 2001 to March 2002. The Species: S. tchadensis
discoverers claimed that S. tchadensis is the oldest known human ancestor after the split of the human line Binomial name
from that of chimpanzees. The bones were found in Chad, far from most previous hominin fossil finds, i.e. †Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Eastern and Southern Africa. However, an australopithecine mandible was also found in Chad by Brunet et al, 2002
Sahelanthropus' discoverers in 1993 belonging to Australopithecus bahrelghazali.
Perspective
The fossil skull TM 266, nicknamed "Toumaï" ("hope of life" in the local Goran language of Chad), may be a common ancestor of humans and
chimpanzees; most molecular clocks suggest humans and chimps diverged 1–2 million years after S. tchadensis (5 mya) but there is now general
acceptance among paleontologists, and even among molecularists, that such a late divergence is no longer tenable. The original placement of this
species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor complicated the picture of the human family tree. In particular, if Toumaï is a direct human
ancestor, then its facial features bring the status of Australopithecus into doubt because its thickened brow ridges were reported to be similar to those
of some later fossil hominids (notably Homo erectus), whereas this morphology differs from that observed in all australopithecines, most fossil
hominids and extant humans.
Another possibility is that Toumaï is related to both humans and chimpanzees, but is the ancestor of neither. Brigitte Senut and Martin Pickford, the
discoverers of Orrorin tugenensis, suggested that the features of S. tchadensis are consistent with a female proto-gorilla. Even if this claim is upheld,
then the find would lose none of its significance, for at present precious few chimpanzee or gorilla ancestors have been found anywhere in Africa.
Thus if S. tchadensis is an ancestral relative of the chimpanzees (or gorillas) then the first light would be shed on their family trees. Furthermore, S.
tchadensis does indicate that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is unlikely to resemble chimpanzees very much, as had been
previously supposed by some paleontologists.
See also
 Human evolution
References
 Brunet, Michel; et al. (2002). "A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa". Nature 418: 145–151.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus
doi:10.1038/nature00879.
 Brunet, Michel; et al. (2005). "New material of the earliest hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad". Nature 434: 752–755.
doi:10.1038/nature03392.
 Guy, Franck; et al. (2005). "Morphological affinities of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Late Miocene hominid from Chad) cranium". PNAS 102
(52): 18836–18841.
 Wolpoff, M. H.; et al. (2006). "An Ape or the Ape: Is the Toumaï Cranium TM 266 a Hominid?". PaleoAnthropology 2006: 36–50.
External links
 Sahelanthropus.com
 [http://toumai.site.voila.fr/
 Fossil Hominids: Toumai
 National Geographic: Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period of Human Origins
 image of the skull (nature.com)
 New Findings Bolster Case for Ancient Human Ancestor
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus
Alister Hardy
(Redirected from Sir Alister Hardy)
Sir Alister Clavering Hardy (10 February 1896 – 22 May 1985) was an Oxford-educated marine biologist, expert on zooplankton and marine

ecosystems. He founded the Religious Experience Research Centre in 1969, after retiring as a professor at Oxford.
Contents
 1 Biology and zoology
 2 Study of religion
 3 References
Biology and zoology

Hardy was the zoologist on the RRS Discovery voyage to explore the Antarctic between 1925 and 1927, as part of the Discovery Investigations.
Through his studies of zooplankton and its relationship with predators, he became expert in marine mammals such as whales. Whilst on board the
Discovery he designed and later built a mechanism called the Continuous Plankton Recorder or CPR. The CPR collects plankton samples and stores
them on a moving band of silk, preserving them in formalin. His pioneering research into plankton distribution and abundance is continued by the Sir
Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science (SAHFOS).
Hardy was the first Professor of Zoology at the University of Hull from 1928 - 1942. In 1942, he was then appointed Professor of Natural History at
the University of Aberdeen, where he remained until 1946, when he became Linacre Professor of Zoology in Oxford, a position he held until 1961. In
1940, Hardy was made a Fellow of the Royal Society. He was knighted in 1957.
In 1930, while reading Wood Jones' Man's Place among the Mammals, which included the question of why humans, unlike all other land mammals,
had fat attached to their skin, Hardy realized that this trait sounded like the blubber of marine mammals, and apparently began to suspect that humans
had ancestors more aquatic than previously imagined. Fearing the backlash of such a radically different idea, he kept this hypothesis secret until 1960,
when he spoke, and later wrote, on the subject, which became known as the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, in academic circles.
Study of religion
Dating from his boyhood at Oundle School, Hardy had a lifelong interest in spiritual phenomena, but aware that his interests were likely to be
considered unorthodox in the scientific community, apart from occasional lectures he kept his opinions to himself until his retirement from his Oxford
Chair. During the academic sessions of 1963-4 and 1964-5, he gave the Gifford Lectures at Aberdeen University on the evolution of religion, later
published as The Living Stream and The Divine Flame. These lectures signalled his wholehearted return to his religious interests. In 1969 he founded
the Religious Experience Research Unit in Manchester College, Oxford. The Unit began its work by compiling a database of religious experiences and
continues to investigate the nature and function of spiritual and religious experience at the University of Wales, Lampeter.
Hardy's biological approach to the roots of religion is currently shared by a number of other researchers (cf. Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, Richard
Dawkins, Lewis Wolpert) but unlike them Hardy did not wish to be reductionist, seeing religious awareness as having evolved in response to a genuine
dimension of reality. For his work in founding the Religious Experience Research Centre, Hardy received the Templeton Prize shortly before his death
in 1985.[1]
References
1. ^ Hardy's contribution to the scientific study of religion is reviewed in David Hay's book Something There: The Biology of the Human Spirit
published in London in July 2006 by Darton, Longman & Todd and in the United States by Templeton Press in 2007.
External links
 Alister Hardy Society Homepage
 Archives Hub
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_Hardy"
Categories: 1896 births | 1985 deaths | English marine biologists | Fellows of Exeter College, Oxford | Alumni of Exeter College, Oxford | Fellows of
Merton College, Oxford | Fellows of the Royal Society | Templeton Prize laureates | Academics of the University of Aberdeen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Alister_Hardy
W. D. Hamilton
(Redirected from William D. Hamilton)
William Donald Hamilton, F.R.S. (1 August 1936 — 7 March 2000) was a British evolutionary biologist,

considered one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century.[1] From 1984 to his death in 2000, he was
the Royal Society Research Professor at Oxford University. Hamilton became famous for his theoretical work
expounding a rigorous genetic basis for the existence of kin selection. This insight was a key part of the development
of a gene-centric view of evolution, and he can therefore be seen as one of the forerunners of the discipline of
sociobiology popularized by E. O. Wilson. Hamilton also published important work on sex ratios and the evolution of
sex.
Contents
 1 Biography
 1.1 Early life
 1.2 Hamilton's rule W. D. Hamilton, 1996
 1.3 Extraordinary sex ratios
 1.4 Chasing the Red Queen
 1.5 Back in Britain
 1.6 On the Origin of HIV
 1.7 Postscript
 1.8 Social evolution
 2 Awards
 3 Biographies
 4 Works
 4.1 Collected papers
 4.2 Significant papers
 4.3 Other references
 5 Cited references
 6 Other references
 6.1 Game Theory
 6.2 AIDS
Biography
Early life
Hamilton was born in 1936 in Cairo, Egypt, the second eldest of six children. His father A. M. Hamilton was a New Zealand-born engineer. His
mother B. M. Hamilton was a medical doctor.
The Hamilton family settled in Kent. During the Second World War he was evacuated to Edinburgh. He had an interest in natural history from an early
age and would spend his spare time collecting butterflies and other insects. In 1946 he discovered E.B. Ford's New Naturalist book Butterflies, which
introduced him to the principles of evolution by natural selection, genetics and population genetics.
He was educated at Tonbridge School, where he was in the School House. As a 12-year old he was seriously injured while playing with explosives his
father had left over from when he made hand grenades for the Home Guard during the Second World War, an accident that probably would have killed
him had his mother not been medically qualified. A thoracotomy in King’s College Hospital saved his life, but the explosion left him with amputated
fingers on his right hand and scarring on his body — he took six months to recover.
Hamilton stayed on an extra term at Tonbridge in order to complete the Cambridge entrance examinations, and then travelled in France. He then
completed two years of national service. As an undergraduate at St. John's College, he was uninspired by the fact that there "many biologists hardly
seemed to believe in evolution". Nevertheless, he came across Ronald Fisher's book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection; Fisher lacked standing
at Cambridge as he was viewed only as a statistician. Hamilton wrote on a postcard to his sister Mary on the day he found the book, excited by its
chapters on eugenics. In earlier chapters, Fisher provided a mathematical basis for the genetics of evolution. Working through the stodgy prose,
Hamilton later blamed Fisher's book for his getting only a 2:1 degree.
Hamilton's rule
Hamilton having various ideas and problems enrolled on an MSc course in human demographics at the London School of Economics (LSE), under
Norman Carrier who secured for him various grants. Later when work became more mathematical and then genetical, he had his supervision
transferred to John Hajnal of the LSE and Cedric Smith of University College London (UCL).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Hamilton
Both Fisher and J. B. S. Haldane had seen a problem in how organisms could increase the fitness of their own genes by aiding their close relatives, but
not recognised its significance or properly formulated it. Hamilton worked through several examples, and eventually realised that the number that kept
falling out of his calculations was Sewall Wright's coefficient of relationship. Thus became Hamilton's rule. Briefly, the rule is that a costly action
should be performed if:
Where C is the cost in fitness to the actor, R the genetic relatedness between the actor and the recipient and B is the fitness benefit to the recipient.
Fitness costs and benefits are measured in fecundity. His two 1964 papers entitled The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior are now widely
referenced.
The proof and discussion of its consequences however involved heavy mathematics, and was passed over by two reviewers. The third, John Maynard
Smith, did not completely understand it either, but recognised its significance; this passing over would later lead to friction between Hamilton and
Maynard Smith, Hamilton feeling that Maynard Smith had held his work back to claim credit for the idea himself. The paper was printed in the
relatively obscure Journal of Theoretical Biology, and when first published was largely ignored. The significance of it gradually increased, to the point
where they are routinely cited in biology books. To date, however, there have been no empirical studies that have calculated values for R, B, and C to
determine if Hamilton's rule is ever satisfied in nature; as such, even after more than 40 years, the theory remains unproven, though predictions based
upon the theory are largely supported.
A large part of the discussion related to the evolution of eusociality in insects of the order Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps) based on their unusual
haplodiploid sex-determination system. This system means that females are more closely related to their sisters than to their own (potential) offspring.
Thus, Hamilton reasoned, a "costly action" would be better spent in helping to raise their sisters, rather than reproducing themselves.
Extraordinary sex ratios
Between 1964 and 1978 Hamilton was a lecturer at Imperial College London. Whilst there he published a paper in Science on "extraordinary sex
ratios". Fisher (1930) had proposed a model as to why "ordinary" sex ratios were nearly always 1:1 (but see Edwards 1998), and likewise extraordinary
sex ratios, particularly in wasps, needed explanations. Hamilton had been introduced to the idea and formulated its solution in 1960 when he had been
assigned to help Fisher's pupil A.W.F. Edwards test the Fisherian sex ratio hypothesis. Hamilton combined his extensive knowledge of natural history
with deep insight into the problem, opening up a whole new area of research.
The paper was also notable for introducing the concept of the "unbeatable strategy", which John Maynard Smith and George R. Price were to develop
into the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), a concept in game theory not limited to evolutionary biology. Price had originally come to Hamilton after
deriving the Price equation, and thus rederiving Hamilton's rule. Maynard Smith later peer reviewed one of Price's papers, and drew inspiration from it.
The paper was not published but Maynard Smith offered to make Price a co-author of his ESS paper, which helped to improve relations between the
men. Price committed suicide in 1975, and Hamilton and Maynard Smith were among the few present at the funeral.
Hamilton was regarded as a poor lecturer. This shortcoming would not affect the popularity of his work, however, as it was popularised by Richard
Dawkins in Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene.
In 1966 he married Christine Friess and they were to have three daughters, Helen, Ruth and Rowena. 26 years later they amicably separated.
Hamilton was a visiting professor at Harvard University and later spent nine months with the Royal Society's and the Royal Geographic Society's
Xavantina-Cachimbo Expedition as a visiting professor at the University of São Paulo.
From 1978 Hamilton was Professor of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Michigan. Simultaneously, he was elected a Foreign Honorary
Member of American Academy of Arts and Sciences. His arrival sparked protests and sit-ins from students who did not like his association with
sociobiology. There he worked with the political scientist Robert Axelrod on the prisoner's dilemma, and was a member of the BACH group with
original members Arthur Burks, Robert Axelrod, Michael Cohen and John Holland.
Chasing the Red Queen
Hamilton was an early proponent of the Red Queen theory of the evolution of sex,[2] first proposed by Leigh Van Valen. This was named for a
character in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who is continuously running but never actually travels any distance:
"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else—if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've
been doing."
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get
somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!" (Carroll, pp. 46)
This theory hypothesizes that sex evolved because new and unfamiliar combinations of genes could be presented to parasites, preventing the parasite
from preying on that organism—species with sex were able to continuously "run away" from their parasites. Likewise, parasites were able to evolve
mechanisms to get around the organism's new set of genes, thus perpetuating an endless race.
Back in Britain
In 1980 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1984 he was invited by Richard Southwood to be the Royal Society Research Professor at
New College, Oxford, Department of Zoology, where he remained until his death.
From 1994 Hamilton found companionship with Maria Luisa Bozzi, an Italian science journalist and author.
On the Origin of HIV
During the 1990s Hamilton became increasingly convinced by the controversial argument that the origin of the HIV virus lay in oral polio vaccines
(the OPV AIDS hypothesis) in Africa during the 1950s. Letters by Hamilton to Science were rejected by the journal, amid accusations that the medical
establishment were ranging against the OPV hypothesis.
To find indirect evidence of the OPV hypothesis by assessing natural levels of SIV in primates, he and two others ventured on a field trip to the war-
torn Democratic Republic of the Congo, where he contracted malaria. He was rushed home and spent six weeks in hospital before dying from a
cerebral haemorrhage.
Postscript
A secular memorial service (he was an atheist) was held at the Chapel of New College, Oxford on Saturday 1 July 2000, organised by Richard
Dawkins.
His body was interred in Wytham Woods. He however had written an essay on My intended burial and why in which he wrote:[3]
I will leave a sum in my last will for my body to be carried to Brazil and to these forests. It will be laid out in a manner secure against
“ the possums and the vultures just as we make our chickens secure; and this great Coprophanaeus beetle will bury me. They will enter,
will bury, will live on my flesh; and in the shape of their children and mine, I will escape death. No worm for me nor sordid fly, I will
buzz in the dusk like a huge bumble bee. I will be many, buzz even as a swarm of motorbikes, be borne, body by flying body out into
the Brazilian wilderness beneath the stars, lofted under those beautiful and un-fused elytra which we will all hold over our backs. So
finally I too will shine like a violet ground beetle under a stone.
”
The second volume of his collected papers was published in 2002.
Social evolution
The field of social evolution, of which Hamilton's rule has central importance, is broadly defined as being the study of the evolution of social
behaviours, i.e. those that impact on the fitness of individuals other than the actor. Social behaviours can be categorized according to the fitness
consequences they entail for the actor and recipient. A behaviour that increases the direct fitness of the actor is mutually beneficial if the recipient also
benefits, and selfish if the recipient suffers a loss. A behaviour that reduces the fitness of the actor is altruistic if the recipient benefits, and spiteful if
the recipient suffers a loss. This classification was first proposed by Hamilton in 1964.
Through his collaboration with Hugh N. Comins and Bob May on evolutionarily stable dispersal strategies, Hamilton acquired an Erdős number of 5.
Awards
 1978 Foreign Honorary Member of American Academy of Arts and Sciences
 1980 Fellow of the Royal Society of London
 1982 Newcomb Cleveland Prize of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
 1988 Darwin Medal of the Royal Society of London
 1989 Scientific Medal of the Linnean Society
 1991 Frink Medal of Zoological Society of London
 1992/3 Wander Prize of the University of Bern
 1993 Crafoord Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
 1993 Kyoto Prize of the Inamori Foundation
 1995 Frissen Prize of the Fyssen Foundation
Biographies
 Alan Grafen has written a biographical memoir for the Royal Society. See http://users.ox.ac.uk/~grafen/cv/WDH_memoir.pdf
 A book is also in press: Segerstråle, U. 2007 Nature's oracle: an intellectual biography of evolutionist W. D. Hamilton. Oxford University Press.
See http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198607274
Works
Collected papers
Hamilton started to publish his collected papers starting in 1996, along the lines of Fisher's collected papers, with short essays giving each paper
context. He died after the preparation of the second volume, so the essays for the third volume come from his coauthors.
 Hamilton, W.D. (1996) Narrow Roads of Gene Land vol. 1: Evolution of Social Behaviour Oxford University Press,Oxford. ISBN 0-7167-
4530-5
 Hamilton, W.D. (2002) Narrow Roads of Gene Land vol. 2: Evolution of Sex Oxford University Press,Oxford. ISBN 0-19-850336-9
 Hamilton, W.D. (2005) Narrow roads of Gene Land, vol. 3: Last Words (with essays by coauthors, ed. M. Ridley). Oxford University Press,
Oxford. ISBN 0-19-856690-5
Significant papers
 Hamilton, W.D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II. — Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16 and 17-52. pubmed I

pubmed II
 Hamilton, W.D. (1967). Extraordinary sex ratios. Science 156: 477-488. pubmed JSTOR
 Hamilton, W.D. (1971). Geometry for the selfish herd. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 31: 295-311.
 Hamilton, W.D. (1975). Innate social aptitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics. in R. Fox (ed.), Biosocial Anthropology,
Malaby Press, London, 133-53.
 Axelrod, R. and W.D. Hamilton (1981) The evolution of co-operation Science 211: 1390-6 Pubmed, JSTOR
 Hamilton, W.D. and M. Zuk (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218: 384-387.
Other references
 Edwards, A.W.F. (1998), Notes and Comments. Natural selection and sex ratio: Fisher's sources. American Naturalist 151: 564-569

 Fisher, R.A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
 Ford E.B. (1945) New Naturalist 1: Butterflies. Collins: London.
 Maynard Smith, J. and G.R. Price (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 146: 15—18.
 Dawkins, R. (1989), The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
 Madsen, E.A., Tunney, R., Fieldman, G., Plotkin, H.C., Dunbar, R.I.M., Richardson, J.M., & McFarland, D. (2006) Kinship and altruism:
A cross-cultural experimental study. British Journal of Psychology [1]
Cited references
1. ^ Obituary by Richard Dawkins - The Independent - 10 March 2000
2. ^ The Red Queen Hypothesis at Indiana University. Quote: "W.D. Hamilton and John Jaenike were among the earliest pioneers of the idea."
3. ^ Hamilton, W.D. (2000) My intended burial and why, Ethology Ecology and Evolution 12 111-122 PDF
Other references
 Obituaries and reminiscences
 Royal Society citation
 Truth and Science: Bill Hamiltonís legacy
 Centro Itinerante de Educação Ambiental e Científica Bill Hamilton (The Bill Hamilton Itinerant Centre for Environmental and Scientific
Education) (in Portuguese)
 Non-mathematical excerpts from Hamilton 1964
 "If you have a simple idea, state it simply" a 1996 interview with Hamilton
Game Theory
 W.D. Hamilton's work in game theory
AIDS
 Polio vaccines and AIDS
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton"
Categories: 1936 births | 2000 deaths | Alumni of the London School of Economics | British atheists | British zoologists | Evolutionary biologists |
Evolutionary psychologists | Fellows of the Royal Society | Old Tonbridgians | Population geneticists | University of São Paulo | Inductees of the
Brazilian Order of Scientific Merit

Main Page The Department of Evolutionary Genetics studies the genetic history of humans, apes and
other organisms. We are interested in both the forces that affect the genome directly, such
Evolutionary Genetics as mutation and recombination, and in the effects of selection and population history. The
department consists of two tenured faculty members: Svante Pääbo and Mark Stoneking;
- Svante Pääbo
and three non-tenured members, Michael Hofreiter, Janet Kelso and Michael Lachmann.
Molecular Research is done in Evolutionary Genetics, Molecular Anthropology, Theoretical Biology,
Anthropology Ancient DNA and Bio-Infomatics.
- Mark Stoneking

Theoretical Biology

- Michael Lachmann
Molecular Ecology

- Michael Hofreiter

Bioinformatics

- Janet Kelso
Talks

Position Available
Recent Department
Molecular Anthropology
Publications

Laboratory Facilities Theoretical Biology
Molecular Ecology
Links
Bioinformatics

Lab Meeting
password required

Talks
Position Available
Recent Department Publications

Laboratory Facilities
Links

Imprint (in German)
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/

Human Evolution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Evolution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Home News Sport Radio TV Weather Languages

Menos gráficos Sólo texto Escríbanos Ayuda

Mundo USA Encuentran falo antiquísimo

Ayuda Escríbanos Cláusula de privacidad

Portada | Internacional | América Latina | Economía | Ciencia y Tecnología | Cultura | Deportes |

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Templeton"

 This page was last modified on 28 February 2008, at 13:11.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus"

 This page was last modified on 24 June 2008, at 09:47.

Ardipithecus is a very early hominin genus (subfamily Homininae) which lived about 4.4 million years ago during Ardipithecus

Ardipithecus is a very early hominin genus (subfamily Homininae) which lived about 4.4 million years ago during Ardipithecus

The genus Australopithecus (Latin australis "of the south", Greek pithekos "ape") is a group of extinct Gracile australopithecine

1. ^ Bower, Bruce (May 20, 2006). "Hybrid-Driven Evolution: Genomes show complexity of human-chimp split" ( – Scholar search). Science News

Australopithecus afarensis is an extinct hominid which lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. In common Australopithecus afarensis

 BBC - Dawn of Man (2000) by Robin Mckie| ISBN 0-7894-6262-1

Australopithecus africanus was an early hominid, an australopithecine, who lived between 2-3 million Australopithecus africanus

Morphology and interpretations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_anamensis"

 This page was last modified on 23 June 2008, at 02:02.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_bahrelghazali"

 This page was last modified on 30 June 2008, at 09:38.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 1 Morphology and interpretations Binomial name

Morphology and interpretations

Earliest stone tools

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi"

 This page was last modified on 16 March 2008, at 17:41.

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist,[I] eminent as Charles Darwin

For more details on this topic, see Charles Darwin's education.

For more details on this topic, see Inception of Darwin's theory.

For more details on this topic, see Development of Darwin's theory.

Darwin now had the framework of his theory of natural selection “by which to work”,[66] as his “prime hobby”.[67] His research subsequently included

For more details on this topic, see Publication of Darwin's theory.

For more details on this topic, see Reaction to Darwin's theory.

Broader public interest had already been stimulated by Vestiges, and the Origin of Species was translated into many Down House Entrance.

proved the existence of God,[124] but during the Beagle voyage he questioned, Anne Elizabeth Darwin (2 March 1841–22 April 1851)

For more details on this topic, see Eugenics.

For more details on this topic, see Social Darwinism.

III. ^ See, for example, WILLA volume 4, Charlotte Perkins Gilman and the Feminization of Education by Deborah M. De Simone: “Gilman shared many basic

IV. ^ See, for example, the song “A lady fair of lineage high” from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Princess Ida, which describes the descent of man (but not woman!) from

V. ^ The Nazi eugenics policies are discussed in a number of sources. A few of the more definitive ones are Robert Proctor, Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page was last modified on 21 February 2008, at 02:05.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Trinkaus"

 This page was last modified on 11 March 2008, at 21:06.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Efficient Walker theory

Study of African ancestors

 DavisShambhala.org - 'Davis Shambhala Meditation Center'

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_McHenry"

 This page was last modified on 19 March 2008, at 20:08.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents Scientific classification

Sima del Elefante

 BBC - Dawn of Man (2000) by Robin Mckie ISBN 0-7894-6262-1

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor"

 This page was last modified on 22 June 2008, at 15:25.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page was last modified on 4 April 2008, at 23:03.