Re: Time Frame: Early Hominids
HARRY R. ERWIN (firstname.lastname@example.org)
30 Apr 1995 15:24:51 GMT
Phil Nicholls (email@example.com) wrote:
: In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
: Patricia Lynn Sothman <email@example.com> wrote:
: >As far as habilis is concerned. The ONLY specimen which has unquestioned
: >association between cranial and post-cranial fragments is OH 62 (there
: >are questions about the type specimen, OH 7, and the paratypes originally
: >ascribed to habilis, e-mail if you want references) found by Johanson's
: >team in 1986, published in Nature in 1987 (327: 205-209).
: In Johanson's "science-by-showbiz" NOVA special he does not discuss
: OH-62 at all. Didn't discuss the Hadar family either.
: If I remember correctly, aren't the cranial fragments of OH-62
: mostly lower jaw? Isn't the diagnosis of Homo habilis based on
: the metric comparison of the relative size of the molars? (I might
: be wrong, it's been awhile since I read the descriptions).
Palate. Per Bernard Wood, Nature, 355:783ff, "details of the floor of the
nose, the shape of the tooth row and the size of the teeth point to it
belonging to Homo and not Paranthropus."
PhD student in comp neurosci: "Glitches happen" & "Meaning is emotional"