A re-evaluation of the metric diversity within Homo erectus

Hominin lower second premolar morphology: evolutionary inferences through geometric morphometric analysis

“…The composition of Homo erectus is a controversial issue (e.g., Aguirre and de Lumley, 1977). In addition, some researchers have recently argued that the Zhoukoudian H. erectus crania are more derived than those from Indonesia or Africa (Antón, 2002;Kidder and Durband, 2004); potentially, this could apply to their teeth as well. Whatever the influence of our different H. erectus samples on P4 morphology, we also used Australopithecus and early Homo to help determine the polarity of P4 crown asymmetry.…”

Global and local perspectives on cranial shape variation in Indonesian <i>Homo erectus</i>

“…The Zhoukoudian fossils were differentiated in those analyses mostly on the basis of their narrower biasterionic and wider biauricular breadths compared to the Indonesian sample. The isolation of the Zhoukoudian sample on the basis of its narrow biasterionic and frontal breadths and wider biauricular breadth was further confirmed in CVAs of size-corrected linear dimensions (Kidder and Durband, 2004;Durband et al, 2005;Durband, 2006). Based on the 'Original' analysis presented here, this pattern did differentiate the Zhoukoudian H. erectus from the Indonesian, particularly the later Indonesian, fossils, but was not as diagnostic for Zhoukoudian compared to African and Georgian fossils.…”

“…There is substantial variation within this sample that spans three continents and more than a million years of evolutionary change. Some of this variation is attributable to diachronic change (Wolpoff et al, 1994;Antón, 2003;Kaifu et al, 2005Kaifu et al, , 2008, and to geography (perhaps related to genetic drift or local adaptation) Kidder and Durband, 2004;Durband, 2006;Baab, 2010), but is also influenced by cranial size (Santa Luca, 1980;Antón et al, 2007;Baab, 2008b;Kaifu et al, 2008). Some studies have found that the Zhoukoudian hominins are particularly distinct in their craniometric dimensions Kidder and Durband, 2004), while others have indicated that the Ngandong/Sambungmacan/Ngawi series of calvaria are at least as distinct (Baab, 2010;Zeitoun et al, 2010).…”

Morphological variation inHomo erectusand the origins of developmental plasticity

“…When subdivided in this manner, some regional variation in size is evident both metrically and non-metrically (table 1). The Chinese fossils are more constricted across the asterionic region and have more vertical frontal squamae than the Indonesian groups [60,62]. The Asian samples are larger and thicker on average than the African and Georgian assemblages.…”

“…A parallel research trend uneasy with the idea that H. erectus was universally large examined the growing fossil dataset to keep regional variations visible-not to argue for specific distinctions across regions, but rather in an attempt to understand possible influences of differences in time, geography, climate and other selective factors, as well as isolation and drift [60][61][62]. Following Antón [40], most recent papers run multiple comparisons that consider first the entirety of H. erectus, in order to maximize sample size, and then subsets based on continent of origin, sometimes subdivided by time.…”