Peter Flint Brian Ford-Lloyd 12/30/12 Word Count: 541 Should Homo habilis be reassigned to the genus Australopithecus?

In 1960 in Olduvai Gorge, the first samples of the Homo habilis hypodigm were discovered, sparking controversy in the paleoanthropological community. H. habilis shows morphological similarities to Australopithecus, the ancestral genus directly preceding it, but whether the distinctions that classified it as Homo differentiate it enough from the australopithecines is under contention. This essay will attempt to classify H. habilis under an appropriate genus through comparative analysis of relevant hominid synapomorphies. Much discrepancy in classifying H. habilis concerns morphological similarities to the Australopithicus postcranium. Named for its ability to use a precision grip on stone tools1, further analysis showed that this grip was much weaker than originally anticipated.2 In addition, the use of these tools was recently discovered in pre-Pleistocene, hominid populations, predating H. habilis.3,4 Due to fragmented sample remains, the analysis of H. habiliss humerofemoral index, a value that compares femur and humerus lengths, is rather inconclusive. Pan troglodytes maintains a mean index of 1.025 and serves as a reference for hominid specimens.5 The index of Australopithecus afarensis (specimen A.L. 2881) displays a more ape-like figure (0.856) than do modern humans (0.715)5,6. Some studies retain that H. habilis meets criteria for modern Homo proportions,7 while others claim an even more ape-like gait (0.950) than Australopithecus.5 What is clear, despite fragmented evidence, is that varying morphology did modify locomotion between H. habilis and Australopithecus. While the ambiguity of the postcranial comparisons between H. habilis and Australopithecus muddle their division, many distinctions between hominid taxa have been made using fossilized braincase volume.1 Brain size can be considered an unreliable focal point however due to the extreme variability of fossil samples and therefore a more consistent derived trait is the disproportionate encephalization that stemmed from H. habilis.8 This autapomorphy of Homo9 is evident during the comparison of mean braincase volumes. Recent measurements show that the mean absolute volume of Homo habilis braincases is 45.1% larger than Australopithecus africanus and 24.8% larger that A. boisei.9 Additionally, the appearance of action-specific neurological regions, such as Brocas area that dont appear in pre-Pleistocene hominids, are indicated in H. habilis fossil castings.12 Brocas area, responsible for speech in later Homo, would indicate greater neurological control and sophistication in H. habilis.13, 14 This study allows for human error as endocasts are not perfectly accurate structures. Another means for comparison, craniodental features, can be inconclusive due to heterogeneity in dental morphology of australopithecine, H. habilis, and H. ergaster specimens.8 A cladistic analysis of sixty craniodental traits9, revealed only four Homo-specific synapomorphies. Sample cladograms placed H. habilis in a sister clade from the later Pleistocene Homo. All members of this Homo clade

showed relatively reduced masticatory systems.8 This may indicate that craniodental features are more variable due to adaptation to rapidly shifting diets, and from this, only generalized data can be recorded. Cranial samples of H. habilis suggest transition into the Homo taxon, but its postcranial stature, proportions and morphology insinuate closer australopithecine relationship. Craniodental and postcranial evidence remains very inconclusive due to fragmented fossil samples, and now, once-defining traits such as tool-use and bipedalism are now put into question. It is unpresumptuous to assume that Homo habilis upholds the qualities of early Homo cranial morphology with a reserved, arboreal gait rather than a late, bipedal australopithecine with accelerated encephalization. References 1. Leakey, L. S. B., Tobias, P. V., & Napier, J. R. (1964). A New Specias of the Genus Homo from Olduvai Gorge.pdf. Nature, 202(4927), 79. 2. Wood, B. A., & Collard, M. (2001). The Meaning of Homo.pdf. Ludus Vitalis, 9(15), 6374. 3. McPherron SP (2010) Evidence for stone-tool-assisted consumption of animal tissues before 3.39 million years ago at Dikka, Ethopia. Nature 466: 857-860. 4. Semaw, S., Renne, P., Harris, J. W., Feibel, C. S., Bernor, R. L., Fesseha, N., & Mowbray, K. (1997, January 23). 2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature. doi:10.1038/385333a0 5. Ruff, C. (2009). Relative limb strength and locomotion in Homo habilis. American journal of physical anthropology, 138(1), 90100. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20907 6. Orleans, N., & City, I. (2007). Humeral Length Allometry in African Hominids (sensu, (1929). 7. Haeusler M, McHenry HM (2004) Body proportions of Homo habilis reviewed. Journal of Human Evolution.46: 433-65. 8. Mchenry, H. M., & Coffing, K. (2000). AUSTRALOPITHECUS TO HOMO: Transformations in Body and Mind. 9. Tobias PV (1987) The brain of Homo habilis: A new level of organization in cerebral evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 16: 741-761. 10. Strait DS, Grine FE, Moniz MA. 1997. A reappraisal of early hominid phylogeny. J. Hum. Evol. 32(1):1782 11. Lieberman, D. E., Wood, B. A., & Pilbeam, D. R. (1996). Homoplasy and early Homo: an analysis of the evolutionary relationships of H. habilis sensu stricto and H. rudolfensis. Journal of Human Evolution, (30), 97 120. 12. Tobias PV (1987) The brain of Homo habilis: A new level of organization in cerebral evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 16: 741-761.

13. Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M. a. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in neurosciences, 21(5), 18894. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9610880 14. Wynn T (1998) Did Homo erectus speak? Cambridge Archeological Journal 8: 78-81.