Flip through scientific textbooks illustrating ideas about human evolution or visit any number of museums of natural history and you will notice an abundance of reconstructions attempting to depict the appearance of ancient hominins. Spend some time comparing reconstructions of the same specimen and notice an obvious fact: hominin reconstructions vary in appearance considerably. In this review, we summarize existing methods of reconstruction to analyze this variability. It is argued that variability between hominin reconstructions is likely the result of unreliable reconstruction methods and misinterpretation of available evidence. We also discuss the risk of disseminating erroneous ideas about human evolution through the use of unscientific reconstructions in museums and publications. The role an artist plays is also analyzed and criticized given how the aforementioned reconstructions have become readily accepted to line the halls of even the most trusted institutions. In conclusion, improved reconstruction methods hold promise for the prediction of hominin soft tissues, as well as for disseminating current scientific understandings of human evolution in the future.
In modern humans, facial soft tissue thicknesses have been shown to covary with craniometric dimensions. However, to date it has not been confirmed whether these relationships are shared with non-human apes. In this study, we analyze these relationships in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) with the aim of producing regression models for approximating facial soft tissue thicknesses in Plio-Pleistocene hominid individuals. Using CT scans of 19 subjects, 637 soft tissue, and 349 craniometric measurements, statistically significant multiple regression models were established for 26 points on the face and head. Examination of regression model validity resulted in minimal differences between observed and predicted soft tissue thickness values. Assessment of interspecies compatibility using a bonobo (Pan paniscus) and modern human (Homo sapiens) subject resulted in minimal differences for the bonobo but large differences for the modern human. These results clearly show that (1) soft tissue thicknesses covary with craniometric dimensions in P. troglodytes, (2) confirms that such covariation is uniformly present in both extant Homo and Pan species, and (3) suggests that chimp-derived regression models have interspecies compatibility with hominids who have similar craniometric dimensions to P. troglodytes. As the craniometric dimensions of early hominids, such as South African australopithecines, are more similar to P. troglodytes than those of H. sapiens, chimpanzee-derived regression models may be used for approximating their craniofacial anatomy. It is hoped that the results of the present study and the reference dataset for facial soft tissue thicknesses of chimpanzees it provides will encourage further research into this topic.
In modern humans, facial soft tissue thicknesses have been shown to covary with craniometric dimensions. However, to date it has not been confirmed whether these relationships are shared with non-human apes. In this study, we analyze these relationships in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) with the aim of producing regression models for approximating facial soft tissue thicknesses in Plio-Pleistocene hominids. Using CT scans of 19 subjects, 637 soft tissue, and 349 craniometric measurements, statistically significant multiple regression models were established for 26 points on the face and head. Examination of regression model validity resulted in minimal differences between observed and predicted soft tissue thickness values. Assessment of interspecies compatibility using a bonobo (Pan paniscus) and modern human subject resulted in minimal differences for the bonobo but large differences for the modern human. These results clearly show that (1) soft tissue thicknesses covary with craniometric dimensions in P. troglodytes, (2) confirms that such covariation is uniformly present in both extant Homo and Pan species, and (3) suggests that chimp-derived regression models have interspecies compatibility with hominids who have similar craniometric dimensions to P. troglodytes. As the craniometric dimensions of early hominids, such as South African australopithecines, are more similar to P. troglodytes than those of H. sapiens, chimpanzee-derived regression models may be used for approximating their craniofacial anatomy. It is hoped that the results of the present study and the reference dataset for facial soft tissue thicknesses of chimpanzees it provides will encourage further research into this topic.
By identifying homogeneity in bone and soft tissue covariation patterns in living hominids, it is possible to produce facial approximation methods with interspecies compatibility. These methods may be useful for producing facial approximations of fossil hominids that are more realistic than currently possible. In this study, we conducted an interspecific comparison of the nasomaxillary region in chimpanzees and modern humans with the aim of producing a method for predicting the positions of the nasal tips of Plio-Pleistocene hominids. We addressed this aim by first collecting and performing regression analyses of linear and angular measurements of nasal cavity length and inclination in modern humans (Homo sapiens; n = 72) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes; n = 19), and then performing a set of out-of-group tests. The first test was performed on four subjects that belonged to the same genus as the training sample, i.e., Homo (n = 2) and Pan (n = 2), and the second test, which functioned as an interspecies compatibility test, was performed on Pan paniscus (n = 1), Gorilla gorilla (n = 3), Pongo pygmaeus (n = 1), Pongo abelli (n = 1), Symphalangus syndactylus (n = 3), and Papio hamadryas (n = 3). We identified statistically significant correlations in both humans and chimpanzees with slopes that displayed homogeneity of covariation. Prediction formulae combining these data were found to be compatible with humans and chimpanzees as well as all other African great apes, i.e., bonobos and gorillas. The main conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that our set of regression models for approximating the position of the nasal tip are homogenous among humans and African apes, and can thus be reasonably extended to ancestors leading to these clades.
By identifying similarity in bone and soft tissue covariation patterns in hominids, it is possible to produce facial approximation methods that are compatible with more than one species of primate. In this study, we conducted an interspecific comparison of the nasomaxillary region in chimpanzees and modern humans with the aim of producing a method for predicting the nasal protrusions of ancient Plio-Pleistocene hominids. We addressed this aim by first collecting and performing regression analyses of linear and angular measurements of nasal cavity length and inclination in modern humans ( Homo sapiens; n = 72) and chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ; n = 19), and then by performing a set of out-of-group tests. The first test was performed on two subjects that belonged to the same genus as the training sample, i.e., Homo ( n = 1) and Pan ( n = 1), and the second test, which functioned as an interspecies compatibility test, was performed on Pan paniscus ( n = 1), Gorilla gorilla ( n = 3), Pongo pygmaeus ( n = 1), Pongo abelli ( n = 1), Symphalangus syndactylus ( n = 3), and Papio hamadryas ( n = 3). We identified statistically significant correlations in both humans and chimpanzees with slopes that displayed homogeneity of covariation. Joint prediction formulae were found to be compatible with humans and chimpanzees as well as all other African great apes, i.e., bonobos and gorillas. The main conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that regression models for approximating nasal projection are homogenous among humans and African apes and can thus be reasonably extended to ancestors leading to these clades.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.