Re: Australopith query
debra mckay (email@example.com)
Thu, 17 Oct 1996 16:46:16 GMT
Mark Leney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Glad to see that s.a.p. continues with the usual mixture of invective and
>debate. Could someone please refresh my memory and tell me what was the
>name of that new austrolpith from ?Chad (well new last year). I haven't
>been following the debate over its taxonomy as I've been buried in the
>European late Pleistocene. I would appreciate a summary of where you lot
>think this fossil fits into the scheme of things. Please post to the group
>if you feel that it is worthwhile, however if you feel that this question
>is talked-out I would appreciate an off-list opinion.
_A. bahrelgazali_. 3.0 to 3.5 my old. I'd like the reference for the article
in which it was actually _named_; the Nature ref I've got (Brunet et al 1995)
didn't do so; only assigned it to _Australopithecus_ aff. _A. afarensis_.
I'd like to know what combination of morphology and distance (from East
Africa, that is) led to the new specific designation.
As far as where it fits? I've always suspected that early hominid diversity
was rather greater than what we've been led to believe. I think trying to
"fit" each new bit into some family-tree schema at this point will just lead
to a mess of dotted lines and question marks.