Re: An alternative to ST and AAT
John Waters (email@example.com)
17 Nov 1996 15:35:26 GMT
> Susan S. Chin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in article
> : <susansfE0nzAv.email@example.com>...
> : JW: I cannot site any source or references in respect
> : early Australopithicenes, and I doubt if anyone else
> : either. I say this because the really early
> : Australopithicene fossils only comprise teeth and
> : As far as middle Australopithicenes are concerned (e.g.
> : Lucy), my references are pretty ancient, but as far as
> : aware they have not yet been seriously contradicted.
> Actually, A. anamensis does have a proximal tibia
preserved which show
> a bipedally-adapted anatomy. This early Australopithecine
> dated at 3.8-4.2myo making it the earliest known hominid
(at the moment).
JW: My references here were to the Lukeino Molar, which is
considered transitional between hominoids and hominids.
This is dated at 6 to 7 Myrs.
The second reference was to the Lothagam Jaw, found in
Kenya, which is considered to be like that of most
hominids. Does this make it an early Australopithicene? It
is dated at 5 to 5.5 Myrs.