Re: Time Frame: Early Hominids
Patricia Lynn Sothman (plsothma@artsci.wustl.edu)
6 May 1995 14:48:21 GMT
I have been busy for a while with papers and such, so I apologize for
not responding to some messages.
OH 62 does have some cranial frags, very few, very flattened and not
enough to infer any interesting morphology.
KNM-ER 3735 probably won't figure into any of these discussions, it is an
isolated, very weathered distal humeri and has not been given any
taxonomic affinities by the original describers. Perhaps you were
thinking of another specimen, ER 1500? This one is an associated (but
crappy) partial skeleton of boisei (or last taxonomy has placed it there).
>From the original article on OH 62, it was assigned to habilis on the
basis of date, location and putative similarities between OH 62 and StW
53 and OH 24. At least one of their morphological characteristics of the
femur (flattened femoral neck) has been used by REF Leakey to discern
australopithecine femora at Koobi.
Patricia L. Sothman
Dept. Anthropology
WASH U., St. Louis
Whenever there is s simple error that most laymen fall for, there is
always a slightly mor sophisticated version of the same problem
that experts fall for.
--Amos Tversky
|