Re: An EVEN MORE IMPORTANT FOSSIL...
debra mckay (email@example.com)
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 02:23:14 GMT
firstname.lastname@example.org (Susan S. Chin) wrote:
>[...] The version of the NY Times article I downloaded
>actually contained a horribly glaring error... I'm curious if it appeared
>in the paper version as well? Towards the end of the article, the author,
>John Wilkes Noble, mentions that anatomically modern Homo sapiens
>appeared 200 million to 100 million years ago. Now if that isn't a typo,
>I'm not sure what is!
We is older than coal...!
>Also, the article mentions that both halves of the maxilla, including the
>palate, was recovered. Since no mention was made of any teeth found, I
>assume that none were. They were able to determine that the maxilla
>belongs to genus Homo from the more parabolic shape of the arcade, wider
>palate, less protruding facial region. But the species designation is
>currently indeterminate, pending more diagnostic finds from the cranial
There are teeth--complete P4 to M2 on the left, as well as broken P3, root
of canine, and I2; right P4, M1. At least, this is what I recall from the
tv news pictures. From what I could tell, it's largely palate--not much
>What I'm curious about is, if they had found teeth associated with the
>maxilla... say an upper canine and molar, would there be enough
>diagnostic features to distinguish whether this was habilis, rudolfensis,
>erectus or as one interested paleo-researcher suggests, a new species of
>Homo? Or would we still need to wait for more diagnostic fossils?
More has been made from much less. This will be interesting.