For exam, lecture 2

Question 1

what do We informally refer to Australopithecines as

Answer 1

the ‘gracile’ or omnivorous line, since their dentition indicates a more generalized adaptation to a broader diet (meat, plants, fruit)

Question 2

in general, what is is defining feature of Australopithecines

Answer 2

molars and pre-molars are smaller than those we find with the Paranthropines, or ‘robust’ line

Question 3

when did the genus Paranthropus exist

Answer 3

2.7-1.2 mya

Question 4

where are the Paranthropus distributed

Answer 4

This genus includes three species, distributed throughout both East and Southern Africa

Question 5

what species fall under Paranthropus and where were they found

Answer 5

In East Africa: 
P. aethiopicus (2.7 - 2.5 mya) 
P. boisei (2.3 – 1.2 mya) 
In Southern Africa: 
P. robustus (2 – 1.5 mya)

Question 6

Paranthropines are likely descended from what

Answer 6

Au. afarensis

Question 7

are Paranthropines believed to be on a direct ancestral line with the genus Homo

Answer 7

no

Question 8

did Paranthropines branch out?

Answer 8

This hominin line is believed to have died out completely around 1 mya; there are no direct living primate descendants of the paranthropines

Question 9

The morphological differences between paranthropines and australopithecines raises the question about what

Answer 9

how genera and species are defined

Question 10

how could We choose to define species

Answer 10

according to the terms already discussed in this class: individuals capable of producing fertile offspring

or

Alternately, we could define species in more general terms: individuals sharing similar environments, behaviors and – by extension – genotypes and phenotypes

Question 11

what are Lumpers vs Splitters

Answer 11

Informal terms that refer to opposing philosophies in any discipline that categorizes individuals

Question 12

what is the Splitter Perspective

Answer 12

Emphasizes differences between individuals, resulting in a greater number of taxonomically defined species.
Should result in a phylogenetic tree that is more bushy, i.e. more branches

Question 13

what is the Lumper Perspective

Answer 13

Emphasizes similarities between individuals, resulting in fewer number of taxonomically defined species.
Should result in a phylogenetic tree that is thinner, i.e. has fewer branches

Question 14

what did Tim White argue

Answer 14

Tim White (2003) paper - “Early Hominids: Diversity or Distortion” 
argued that ALL fossils from 3.7 to 2.9 MYA represented only 1 species, A. afarensis

Question 15

when did Paranthropus aethiopicus exist

Answer 15

2.7-2.5 mya

Question 16

Fossil fragments of P. aethiopicus were first discovered where

Answer 16

in Omo, Ethiopia in 1967

Question 17

what is P. aethiopicus sometimes referred to as

Answer 17

The species is sometimes (though not commonly) referred to as P. walkeri, after Alan Walker, the discoverer of its most significant fossil specimen: a partial cranium (well-‐dated to around 2.5 mya), known widely as ‘the Black Skull’ (KMN-‐WT 17000).

Question 18

what is the cc of P. aethiopicus

Answer 18

410 cc

Question 19

what is the Cranial Morphology of P. aethiopicus

Answer 19

A prominent sagittal crest (presumably only on males) anchors large temporalis muscles.
Cranial capacity is very low (around 410 cc) and the forehead is strongly sloping—indicating less development in the frontal part of the brain.
There is severe postorbital constriction.
The face is wide and flat.
The zygomatic arches are flaring, leaving ample room for the temporalis muscles.
There is a high degree of facial prognathism, though less than in the australopithecines.
Exhibits “post-canine megadontia” (i.e. great enlargement of the premolars and molars)

Question 20

when did Paranthropus boisei exist

Answer 20

2.3-1.2 mya

Question 21

who found the first P. boisei specimen and where

Answer 21

The first P. boisei specimen was found in 1959 by Mary Leakey at Olduvai, Kenya
It was the partial cranium of a male, more robust than any hominin that had been found in E. Africa to that point.

Question 22

what was the largest and most robust of the paranthropines

Answer 22

P. boisei was by far the largest and most robust of the paranthropines

Question 23

what are the Notable specimens include of paranthropines

Answer 23

1. Olduvai hominin 5 (OH5), Leakey’s original cranium, dating to 1.8 mya;
2. L74, a very robust jaw found at Omo, Ethiopia, dating to around 2.3 mya;
3. A 1.8-million-year-old female skull from Koobi Fora, Kenya

Question 24

what is the cc of paranthropines

Answer 24

Low cranial capacity (500-520 cc);

Question 25

what is the Cranial Morphology of paranthropines

Answer 25

Severe postorbital constriction; 
Low vault elevation above orbits; 
Well-developed supraorbital tori; 
A wide, long, flat face; 
Flaring zygomatic arches; 
A moderate degree of facial prognathism; 
Very large molars

Question 26

when did Paranthropus robustus exist

Answer 26

2.0-1.5 mya

Question 27

who discovered Paranthropus robustus and where

Answer 27

Typified by a cranium discovered by Robert Broom in 1938, P. robustus is known from several specimens from the Southern African sites Kromdraai and Swartkrans

Question 28

where do All P. robustus specimens come from

Answer 28

All P. robustus specimens come from cave sites, and have uncertain dates

Question 29

Notable specimens of P. robustus (all recovered from Swartkrans) include

Answer 29

1. An upper and lower jaw (from two separate individuals);
2. A right adult innominate (pelvic half);
3. Robert Broom’s partial cranium, which has been heavily disturbed by erosion, and (tenuously) dates to between 2 and 1.5 million years old

Question 30

what is the cc of P. robustus

Answer 30

Low cranial capacity (~500 cc);

Question 31

what is the cranial morphology of P. robustus

Answer 31

Severe postorbital constriction; 
Very low vault elevation above orbits; 
A wide, long, flat face; 
Flaring zygomatic arches; 
A moderate degree of facial prognathism; 
Very large molars with thick enamel; 
Relatively small incisors and canines

Question 32

did P. robustus use tools

Answer 32

Possible evidence for tool use comes from Swartkrans, in the form of “digging sticks”
Use-wear analysis (i.e. traceology) suggests animal bones were used to access termites from mounds as a source of protein

Question 33

what is the difference in cranial morphology between Australopithecus and Paranthropus

Answer 33

Australopithecus–
Narrow cranium, with moderate vault elevation above orbits.
Sagittal crest is generally absent in males.
Weak supraorbital tori and variable facial prognathism.
Molars are small or intermediate in size; canines are jutting and large.
Dentition is generally better suited to leaves, fleshy fruits and meat

Paranthropus–
Broad cranium, with very low vault elevation.
Sagittal crest is generally present in males. A flat face, strong supraorbital tori
and variable facial prognathism.
Molars are thick with strong enamel; canines are in line with the overall dental arcade.
Dentition is better suited to tough, fibrous vegetation, such as roots, tubers and nuts

Question 34

when did Kenyanthropus platyops exist

Answer 34

3.5-3.2 mya

Question 35

what is one of the most difficult hominins to classify.

Answer 35

K.platyops, described by Meave Leakey in 1999, is one of the most difficult hominins to classify

Question 36

why is K.platyops so difficult to classify

Answer 36

Its cranial morphology combines traits of paranthropines and australopithecines

Question 37

is the K.platyops its own genus?

Answer 37

Because of its unique combination of characteristics, it was somewhat controversially ascribed its own genus— Kenyanthropus (‘Kenya Man’). It’s species name, platyops, is derived from the Greek for ‘flat face.’

Question 38

what is the cc of K.platyops

Answer 38

Low cranial capacity (~450cc);

Question 39

what is the cranial morphology of K.platyops

Answer 39

Severe postorbital constriction;
Relatively high vault elevation above orbits;
Somewhat gracile supraorbital tori;
A narrow, but flat face;
Non-flaring zygomatic arches;
A moderate degree of facial prognathism;
Small molars 


Question 40

what do Scientists disagree over when it comes to Keynathropus

Answer 40

Scientists disagree over whether Keynathropus is a flat-faced species of hominin or just a distorted example of Australopithecus afarensis

Question 41

what is the relationship between Keynathropus and Laetoli footprints

Answer 41

It’s been proposed that given the timing of Kenyanthropus in East Africa, it – and not Au. afarensis – may be responsible for the Laetoli footprints, which date to around 3.7 mya. The evidence for this is e n t i re circumstantial

Question 42

what is the Paranthropine Legacy

Answer 42

Overspecialisation and reliance on hard-object feeding likely caused Paranthropines to go extinct.
Increasing climatic fluctuations in the Pliocene meant Paranthropines’ food sources became unpredictable

Question 43

when did Homo (genus) exist

Answer 43

2.8 mya to present

Question 44

what species go under homo

Answer 44

Traditionally, researchers have divided the genus Homo into three chronospecies:
H. habilis
H. erectus
H. sapiens
Of course, today, we know speciation within our genus has produced more than a handful of separate human species, of which we are the only surviving example

Question 45

what is the association between tool creation/use and brains

Answer 45

There is a clear association between tool creation/use and higher brain function

Question 46

Most (if not, all) tools fashioned and used by apes are what in nature

Answer 46

expedient in nature

Question 47

Typically, the more time devoted to producing an artifact, what happens

Answer 47

Typically, the more time devoted to producing an artifact, the more apparent the object will be, if taphonomic processes haven’t interfered

Question 48

what is the problem with Taphonomy and Preservation for tools

Answer 48

an unmodified tool with little-to-no usewear will not stand out as an artifact.
A more significant problem for our purposes is that the vast majority of very early expedient and possibly more complex tools are presumed not to have preserved, due to various taphonomic processes. Organic materials are especially susceptible.
We will refer to this as the preservation bias in hominin technology

Question 49

what is preservation bias in hominin technology

Answer 49

an unmodified tool with little-to-no usewear will not stand out as an artifact.
A more significant problem for our purposes is that the vast majority of very early expedient and possibly more complex tools are presumed not to have preserved, due to various taphonomic processes. Organic materials are especially susceptible.
We will refer to this as the preservation bias in hominin technology

Question 50

The earliest known stone tool technology dates to around what

Answer 50

3.3 mya—actually predating our genus (species undetermined)!

Question 51

The earliest tool types were very rudimentary in design. They consisted of three general categories of tool type which are

Answer 51

1. Cores (choppers, discoids)
2. Unmodified flakes (scrapers)
3. Hammerstones

Question 52

what is Oldowan Tradition

Answer 52

tool industry

By around 2.3-2.1 mya, this basic style of production—known as the Oldowan Tradition—becomes widespread in E. Africa

Question 53

In areas where conditions for fossil preservation are good, sites with Oldowan tools feature what

Answer 53

broken animal bones, or bones with butchery

Question 54

There are two primary hominin suspects for the earliest habitual use of Oldowan technology, what are they

Answer 54

1. Au. garhi (2.5 mya)

2. H. habilis (2.1-1.5 mya)

Question 55

While the timing of the earliest Oldowan tools precludes H. habilis as a creator of the technology, what is clear

Answer 55

it is clear the species was a prolific user.

Question 56

when did Homo habilis live

Answer 56

2.1-1.5 mya

Question 57

where were specimens for H. Habilis live

Answer 57

First specimen (OH7) discovered at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
Most specimens are from either Olduvai or Koobi Fora, Kenya

Question 58

what is the nickname for H. habilis

Answer 58

Oldowan stone tools associated with H. habilis remains earned this hominin the nickname “handy man.”

Question 59

what is the cc of H. habilis

Answer 59

500-600 cc, the first hominin with brain size expanded beyond known ape range

Question 60

what is the cranial morphology of H. habilis

Answer 60

Rounded crania with a rising forehead, with cranial capacity of 500-600 cc, the first hominin with brain size expanded beyond known ape range
The face is narrow and small; reduced prognathism when compared to Australopithecines
Compared to Australopithecines, H. habilis had wider parabolic dental arcade, reduced canines, deeper palate, relatively small and narrow molars

Question 61

why is the classification for H. rudolfensis difficult

Answer 61

The Olduvai H. habilis specimens all undoubtedly belong to the same species. The situation is more complicated further north at Koobi Fora, where a large number of hominins may have shared space between 2 and 1 mya.
One of these hominins was the habilis-‐like H. rudolfensis

Question 62

when did Homo rudolfensis live

Answer 62

2.4-1.5 mya

Question 63

where was Homo rudolfensis found

Answer 63

Found at Koobi Fora and (possibly) one site in Malawi

Question 64

how tall was H. rudolfensis

Answer 64

About 1.5 m in height; limbs similar to modern humans

Question 65

what is the cc of H. rudolfensis

Answer 65

Cranial capacity of 600-‐800 cc

Question 66

what is the cranial morphology of H. rudolfensis

Answer 66

A flat, wide face with moderate facial prognathism.
Molars are thick and the jaw is robust, as with paranthropines

Though the classification of H. rudolfensis was at one time controversial, there is now consensus that the cranial morphology is unique enough to warrant a separate species designation

Question 67

In addition to H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, Oldowan tools may have been utilized by what.

Answer 67

paranthropines living nearby

Question 68

Today, we believe Oldowan tool makers/users were of what diet

Answer 68

both scavenging for meat and foraging, a broader concept of “gathering,” the collection of roots, leaves, fruits, nuts, seeds and insects.

Question 69

why is scavenging a practical hypothesis

Answer 69

Scavenging would likely not have included driving predators off their kills, or competition over carrion with larger scavengers

This would have allowed access only to carcasses picked clean of large-to- medium sized packages of meat

Question 70

what evidence is there that Oldowan tool makers/users scavenged

Answer 70

The evidence for this lies in the fact that at all known hominin sites with both Oldowan tools and preserved animal bones, the bones have been broken for marrow extraction. This would not necessarily have been done if other fat and protein was available

Question 71

when and why did Animal fat and protein become more important to the diet

Answer 71

Animal fat and protein may have become more important to the diet at around 2 – 1.5 mya because larger brains require an increased amount of energy that can be obtained only through some dietary fats