An examination of the taxonomic status of the fragmentary mandible Sangiran 5, (Pithecanthropus dubius), Homo erectus, “Meganthropus”, or Pongo?

104

It is generally accepted that from the late Middle to the early Late Pleistocene (∼340-90 ka BP), Neanderthals were occupying Europe and Western Asia, whereas anatomically modern humans were present in the African continent. In contrast, the paucity of hominin fossil evidence from East Asia from this period impedes a complete evolutionary picture of the genus Homo, as well as assessment of the possible contribution of or interaction with Asian hominins in the evolution of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. Here we present a comparative study of a hominin dental sample recovered from the Xujiayao site, in Northern China, attributed to the early Late Pleistocene (MIS 5 to 4). Our dental study reveals a mosaic of primitive and derived dental features for the Xujiayao hominins that can be summarized as follows: i) they are different from archaic and recent modern humans, ii) they present some features that are common but not exclusive to the Neanderthal lineage, and iii) they retain some primitive conformations classically found in East Asian Early and Middle Pleistocene hominins despite their young geological age. Thus, our study evinces the existence in China of a population of unclear taxonomic status with regard to other contemporary populations such as H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis. The morphological and metric studies of the Xujiayao teeth expand the variability known for early Late Pleistocene hominin fossils and suggest the possibility that a primitive hominin lineage may have survived late into the Late Pleistocene in China.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hominin teeth from the early Late Pleistocene site of Xujiayao, Northern China

Xing

Martinón‐Torres

Castro

et al. 2014

104

“…The eustatic oscillations which cyclically affected the Indonesian Archipelago during the Quaternary caused recurrent paleoenvironmental fluctuations and deeply conditioned the evolutionary dynamics and time‐related biodiversity changes by intermittently allowing, limiting, or inhibiting the faunal exchanges between the continental and insular domains (Djubiantono and Sémah, ; Voris, ; de Vos and Long, ; van den Geer et al, ). In such a dynamic eco‐evolutionary context, it is not surprising that the Indonesian fossil hominin tooth assemblage shows a high degree of morphometric variability (Kaifu et al, ) and that the taxonomic affinities of a number of specimens from the Sangiran Dome remain a matter of discussion (e.g., Antón, ; Tyler, ; Kaifu et al, ; Smith et al, ). Perhaps adding to this uncertainty is the lack of precise chronostratigaphic information for a good number of fossils (von Koenigswald, ; Widianto, ; Grine and Franzen, ; Aziz and Saefudin, ; Kaifu et al, ; Aziz et al, ; Zanolli, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While most of this material is currently attributed to Homo erectus (Antón, ; Schwartz and Tattersall, ; Kaifu et al, ), because of the wide morphometric variability that characterizes the Indonesian fossil record, some robust specimens (e.g., Sangiran 5, Sangiran 6a, Arjuna 9) have been attributed to other taxa such as Meganthropus paleojavanicus , Pithecanthropus dubius , and Pongo sp. (Weidenreich, ; von Koenigswald, ; Franzen, ; Tyler, ; Smith et al, ; Zanolli et al, ). This taxonomic uncertainty is mainly due to the similarity in molar crown size and morphology between Homo and Pongo (Grine and Franzen, ; Tyler, ; Aziz et al, ; Ciochon, ; Smith et al, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Weidenreich, ; von Koenigswald, ; Franzen, ; Tyler, ; Smith et al, ; Zanolli et al, ). This taxonomic uncertainty is mainly due to the similarity in molar crown size and morphology between Homo and Pongo (Grine and Franzen, ; Tyler, ; Aziz et al, ; Ciochon, ; Smith et al, ). This is also the case for deciduous molars (Hooijer, ; Jørgensen, ; Kraus and Jordan, ; Swarts, ; Swindler, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The early Pleistocene deciduous hominid molar FS‐72 from the Sangiran dome of java, Indonesia: A taxonomic reappraisal based on its comparative endostructural characterization

Zanolli

Grine

Kullmer

et al. 2015

“…Several dental remains from Sangiran Dome and Trinil in Java, dated to the Early or Middle Pleistocene have been attributed to Homo erectus, Meganthropus palaeojavanicus , or Pongo sp. (Antón, ; de Vos, ; Harrison et al, , ; Hooijer, ; Smith et al, ; Tyler, ; von Koenigswald, ; Zanolli et al, ; Zanolli, Grine, Kullmer, Schrenk, & Macchiarelli, ), with a few authors even suggesting morphological affinities with Homo habilis , Paranthropus robustus , Australopithecus africanus , and Pan sp. (e.g., Tyler, , ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A distinguishing feature of Pongo upper molars and its implications for the taxonomic identification of isolated hominid teeth from the Pleistocene of Asia

Ortiz

Bailey

Delgado

et al. 2019

Objectives: The taxonomic status of isolated hominoid teeth from the Asian Pleistocene has long been controversial due to difficulties distinguishing between pongine and hominin molars given their high degree of morphometrical variation and overlap.Here, we combine nonmetric and geometric morphometric data to document a dental pattern that appears to be taxonomically diagnostic among Pongo. We focus on the protoconule, a cuspule of well-documented evolutionary history, as well as on shape differences of the mesial fovea of the upper molars. Materials and methods:We examined 469 upper molars of eight hominid genera (Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Homo, Meganthropus, Sivapithecus, Pan, Gorilla, and Pongo), including representatives of Homo erectus and extinct and recent Pongo. Analyses were conducted at the enamel-dentine junction to overcome the limitations introduced by dental wear.