A general problem in biology is how to incorporate information about evolutionary history and adaptation into taxonomy. The problem is exemplified in attempts to define our own genus, Homo. Here conventional criteria for allocating fossil species to Homo are reviewed and are found to be either inappropriate or inoperable. We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus. The earliest taxon to satisfy the criteria is Homo ergaster, or early African Homo erectus, which currently appears in the fossil record at about 1.9 million years ago.

This paper reports the results of a literature search for information about the soft-tissue anatomy of the extant non-human hominoid genera, Pan , Gorilla , Pongo and Hylobates , together with the results of a phylogenetic analysis of these data plus comparable data for Homo . Information on the four extant non-human hominoid genera was located for 240 out of the 1783 soft-tissue structures listed in the Nomina Anatomica . Numerically these data are biased so that information about some systems (e.g. muscles) and some regions (e.g. the forelimb) are over-represented, whereas other systems and regions (e.g. the veins and the lymphatics of the vascular system, the head region) are either under-represented or not represented at all. Screening to ensure that the data were suitable for use in a phylogenetic analysis reduced the number of eligible soft-tissue structures to 171. These data, together with comparable data for modern humans, were converted into discontinuous character states suitable for phylogenetic analysis and then used to construct a taxon-by-character matrix. This matrix was used in two tests of the hypothesis that soft-tissue characters can be relied upon to reconstruct hominoid phylogenetic relationships.In the first, parsimony analysis was used to identify cladograms requiring the smallest number of character state changes. In the second, the phylogenetic bootstrap was used to determine the confidence intervals of the most parsimonious clades. The parsimony analysis yielded a single most parsimonious cladogram that matched the molecular cladogram. Similarly the bootstrap analysis yielded clades that were compatible with the molecular cladogram; a ( Homo , Pan ) clade was supported by 95% of the replicates, and a ( Gorilla , Pan , Homo ) clade by 96%.These are the first hominoid morphological data to provide statistically significant support for the clades favoured by the molecular evidence.

Homo naledi is a recently discovered species of fossil hominin from South Africa. A considerable amount is already known about H. naledi but some important questions remain unanswered. Here we report a study that addressed two of them: "Where does H. naledi fit in the hominin evolutionary tree?" and "How old is it?" We used a large supermatrix of craniodental characters for both early and late hominin species and Bayesian phylogenetic techniques to carry out three analyses. First, we performed a dated Bayesian analysis to generate estimates of the evolutionary relationships of fossil hominins including H. naledi. Then we employed Bayes factor tests to compare the strength of support for hypotheses about the relationships of H. naledi suggested by the best-estimate trees. Lastly, we carried out a resampling analysis to assess the accuracy of the age estimate for H. naledi yielded by the dated Bayesian analysis. The analyses strongly supported the hypothesis that H. naledi forms a clade with the other Homo species and Australopithecus sediba. The analyses were more ambiguous regarding the position of H. naledi within the (Homo, Au. sediba) clade. A number of hypotheses were rejected, but several others were not. Based on the available craniodental data, Homo antecessor, Asian Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens, and Au. sediba could all be the sister taxon of H. naledi. According to the dated Bayesian analysis, the most likely age for H. naledi is 912 ka. This age estimate was supported by the resampling analysis. Our findings have a number of implications. Most notably, they support the assignment of the new specimens to Homo, cast doubt on the claim that H. naledi is simply a variant of H. erectus, and suggest H. naledi is younger than has been previously proposed.

Cladistic analysis of cranial and dental evidence has been widely used to generate phylogenetic hypotheses about humans and their fossil relatives. However, the reliability of these hypotheses has never been subjected to external validation. To rectify this, we applied identical methods to equivalent evidence from two groups of extant higher primates for whom reliable molecular phylogenies are available, the hominoids and papionins. We found that the phylogenetic hypotheses based on the craniodental data were incompatible with the molecular phylogenies for the groups. Given the robustness of the molecular phylogenies, these results indicate that little confidence can be placed in phylogenies generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence. The corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable. Accordingly, new approaches are required to address the problem of hominin phylogeny.T he upsurge in paleoanthropological field research over the past quarter century has resulted in the recognition of many new hominin species, including Australopithecus afarensis (1), Paranthropus aethiopicus (2), Ardipithecus ramidus (3, 4), Australopithecus anamensis (5), Australopithecus bahrelghazali (6), Homo antecessor (7), and Australopithecus garhi (8). This has led to commensurate interest in the generation of reliable hypotheses about human phylogeny (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14). Without a reliable phylogeny, little confidence can be placed in hypotheses of ancestry, or in scenarios linking events in human evolution with environmental and ecological influences. However, the phylogenetic relationships of the dozen, or so, species whose remains comprise the hominin fossil record are far from certain. Despite, in paleontological terms, a relative abundance of fossil evidence, cladistic analyses of the hominins have so far yielded conflicting and weakly supported hypotheses of relationships (9-14, 15, 16). Conventionally, this state of affairs has been attributed to poor character choice, taxonomic disagreements, or flaws in the available analytical methods (10,12,14). A fourth possibility, namely, that the type of qualitative and quantitative craniodental characters normally used to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships of hominin species and genera are not reliable for this purpose, has only recently been entertained (8,13,(17)(18)(19)(20)(21).To assess the likely reliability of standard hominin cranial and dental characters for interspecific and intergeneric phylogenetic reconstruction, we used hominin cladistic methods to analyze comparable characters from two groups of extant primates: the hominoids, the higher primate group most closely related to the fossil hominins, and the papionins, the Old World monkey tribe comprising the baboons, mangabeys, and macaques. We then judged the resulting cladograms against the groups' consensus molecular phylogenies (22,23). This approach, which is similar to Hartman's (24), assumes that congruence between the morpholog...

No abstract

The phylogenetic relationships of several hominin species remain controversial. Two methodological issues contribute to the uncertainty-use of partial, inconsistent datasets and reliance on phylogenetic methods that are ill-suited to testing competing hypotheses. Here, we report a study designed to overcome these issues. We first compiled a supermatrix of craniodental characters for all widely accepted hominin species. We then took advantage of recently developed Bayesian methods for building trees of serially sampled tips to test among hypotheses that have been put forward in three of the most important current debates in hominin phylogeneticsthe relationship between Australopithecus sediba and Homo, the taxonomic status of the Dmanisi hominins, and the place of the so-called hobbit fossils from Flores, Indonesia, in the hominin tree. Based on our results, several published hypotheses can be statistically rejected. For example, the data do not support the claim that Dmanisi hominins and all other early Homo specimens represent a single species, nor that the hobbit fossils are the remains of small-bodied modern humans, one of whom had Down syndrome. More broadly, our study provides a new baseline dataset for future work on hominin phylogeny and illustrates the promise of Bayesian approaches for understanding hominin phylogenetic relationships.

Recent molecular research has provided a consistent estimate of phylogeny for the living papionin monkeys (Cercocebus, Lophocebus, Macaca, Mandrillus, Papio, and Theropithecus). This phylogeny differs from morphological phylogenies regarding the relationships of the mangabeys (Cercocebus and Lophocebus) and baboons (Mandrillus, Papio, and Theropithecus). Under the likely assumption that the molecular estimate is correct, the incongruence between the molecular and morphological data sets indicates that the latter include numerous homoplasies. Knowledge of how these homoplasies emerge through development is important for understanding the morphological evolution of the living papionins, and also for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships and adaptations of their fossil relatives. Accordingly, we have used geometric morphometric techniques and the molecular phylogeny to investigate the ontogeny of a key area of morphological homoplasy in papionins, the face. Two analyses were carried out. The first compared allometric vectors of Cercocebus, Lophocebus, Macaca, Mandrillus, and Papioto determine which of the facial resemblances among the genera are homoplasic and which are plesiomorphic. The second analysis focused on early post-natal facial form in order to establish whether the facial homoplasies exhibited by the adult papionins are to some degree present early in the post-natal period or whether they develop only later in ontogeny. The results of our analyses go some way to resolving the debate over which papionin genera display homoplasic facial similarities. They strongly suggest that the homoplasic facial similarities are exhibited by Mandrillus and Papio and not by Cercocebus and Lophocebus, which share the putative primitive state with Macaca. Our results also indicate that Mandrillus and Papio achieve their homoplasic similarities in facial form not through simple extension of the ancestral allometric trajectory but through a combination of an extension of allometry into larger size ranges and a change in direction of allometry away from the ancestral trajectory. Thus, the face of Mandrillus is not simply a hypermorphic version of the face of its sister taxon, Cercocebus, and the face of Papio is not merely a scaled-up version of the face of its sister taxon, Lophocebus. Lastly, our results show that facial homoplasy is not restricted to adult papionins; it is also manifest in infant and juvenile papionins. This suggests that the homoplasic facial similarities between Mandrillus and Papio are unlikely to be a result of sexual selection.

Demography is increasingly being invoked to account for features of the archaeological record, such as the technological conservatism of the Lower and Middle Pleistocene, the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition, and cultural loss in Holocene Tasmania , which appear to demonstrate that population size is the crucial determinant of cultural complexity. Here, we show that these models fail in two important respects. First, they only support a relationship between demography and culture in implausible conditions. Second, their predictions conflict with the available archaeological and ethnographic evidence. We conclude that new theoretical and empirical research is required to identify the factors that drove the changes in cultural complexity that are documented by the archaeological record.