Functional Morphology of Homo habilis

Abstract

Olduvai hominid (O.H.) fossils 7, 8, and 35 represent the earliest species of the genus Homo dated at 1.76 million years. The O.H. 7 hand, jaw, and skull and the O.H. 8 foot come from one subadult individual, and the O.H. 35 leg are also those of Homo habilis. The skeleton represents a mosaic of primitive and derived features, indicating an early hominid which walked bipedally and could fabricate stone tools but also retained the generalized hominoid capacity to climb trees.

Exercise Intensity and Pacing Strategy of a 5-km Indoor Race Walk During a World Record Attempt: A Case Study

“…Questi erano membri del genere Australopithecus ed erano caratterizzati da una corporatura ridotta (se paragonata all'essere umano moderno) ed i loro scheletri contenevano un mosaico di caratteristiche differenti (e.g., articolazioni relativamente mobili, arti superiori ed inferiori relativamente lunghi e corti, rispettivamente etc.) (Leakey, Feibel, McDougall & Walker 1995;Lovejoy 1988;Stern & Susman 1983;Susman & Stern 1982;Ward et al, 1999). Le loro caratteristiche di deambulazione si differenziavano da quelle della stragrande maggioranza dei mammiferi a causa delle diverse richieste meccaniche che gravavano sugli arti durante la locomozione, comportamento che si pensa sia stato decisivo nell'origine dei primati 55 milioni di…”

The Olduvai Hominid 8 foot: Adult or subadult?

“…Christie (1990) also found differences in adult and juvenile tali and noted specifically that the OH 8 talus was much more similar to that of an adult human talus than a subadult. However, other studies of the Olduvai fossils have suggested that OH 8 was from a subadult and that the OH 8 foot, OH 7 hand, mandible, and cranial fragments, and perhaps also the OH 35 tibia and fibula, may represent a single adolescent individual (Susman and Stern, 1982;Susman, 2008). The subadult status of the OH 7 mandible and hand is unequivocal, based on an unerupted third molar and unfused epiphyses on the phalanges (Napier, 1962;Susman and Creel, 1979), although recent analysis of the manual remains suggest that the hand and the craniodental fossils of OH 7 may belong to different taxa (Moyà-Solà et al, 2008).…”

“…The second and third metatarsals of OH 8 are missing the distal heads, a feature regarded initially as evidence for carnivore activity. It has since been suggested that instead of being broken by carnivores, the ends of the second and third metatarsals are unfused epiphyseal surfaces (Susman and Stern, 1982;Susman, 2008). Based on this interpretation of the morphology, OH 8 was suggested to have belonged to an individual of the same developmental age as the OH 7 hand and the OH 7 mandible (Susman and Stern, 1982;Susman and Brain, 1988).…”

“…It has since been suggested that instead of being broken by carnivores, the ends of the second and third metatarsals are unfused epiphyseal surfaces (Susman and Stern, 1982;Susman, 2008). Based on this interpretation of the morphology, OH 8 was suggested to have belonged to an individual of the same developmental age as the OH 7 hand and the OH 7 mandible (Susman and Stern, 1982;Susman and Brain, 1988). It is unlikely that modern humans are the appropriate model for aging hominin remains, and therefore Susman (2008) has emphasized that the relative ages of the OH 8 foot, OH 7 hand and OH 7 mandible are concordant.…”

“…The end of each bone occurs just as the diaphyseal surface begins to expand into the metatarsal heads. If these are unfused epiphyses (Susman and Stern, 1982;Susman, 2008), then it is curious that the proximal epiphysis of the first metatarsal is fully fused to the diaphysis and the diaphyseo-epiphyseal junction is completely obliterated both visually and in published radiographs (Susman, 2008). The purpose of this study is to compare metatarsal fusion patterns among African apes and modern humans to determine the frequencies of varying fusion patterns.…”