Re: Time Frame: Early Hominids
HARRY R. ERWIN (herwin@osf1.gmu.edu)
30 Apr 1995 15:24:51 GMT
Phil Nicholls (pn8886@csc.albany.edu) wrote:
: In article <3npoc8$f08@newsreader.wustl.edu>,
: Patricia Lynn Sothman <plsothma@artsci.wustl.edu> 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."
--
Harry Erwin
Internet: herwin@gmu.edu
PhD student in comp neurosci: "Glitches happen" & "Meaning is emotional"
|