Re: Time Frame: Early Hominids
Phil Nicholls (pn8886@thor.albany.edu)
7 May 1995 15:40:50 GMT
In article <3og27l$f9j@newsreader.wustl.edu>,
Patricia Lynn Sothman <plsothma@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>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
Pat,
What is your opinion of the OH 62 stuff? I mean, my impression is
that OH 62 is a rather small individual and the use of molar size
(i.e. small buccolingual diameters) sets off these alarms in my
head. Unfortunately we can't do allometric scaling when we have
such lousy data on body size.
Also, did you notice that Johanson didn't even mention OH62 in
his NOVA show?
>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
--
Phil Nicholls "To ask a question you must first
Department of Anthropology know most of the answer."
SUNY Albany -Robert Sheckley
pn8886@cnsunix.albany.edu SEMPER ALLOUATTA
|