The Olduvai Hominid 8 foot: Adult or subadult?

DeSilva, Jeremy M.; Zipfel, Bernhard; Arsdale, Adam P. Van; Tocheri, Matthew W.

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.03.004

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the frequency of visible epiphyseal scars in adult and even elderly adult human first metatarsals presented in this study, the visibility of the basal epiphyseal scar in the MT1 of OH 8 does not provide conclusive evidence that OH 8 was a subadult (Susman, 2008;Susman et al, 2011) or an adult (DeSilva et al, 2010). The presence of an epiphyseal scar is therefore irrelevant to whether OH 8 belongs to a juvenile or to an adult.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Unfortunately, in OH 8, the distal ends of MT4 and 5 are broken off and the distal ends of MT2 and 3 are absent and there is much disagreement on whether the latter two bones are unfused juvenile or broken adult metatarsals (DeSilva et al, 2010; Njau and Blumenschine, in press;Susman et al, 2011). Thus, the fusion of the proximal base of MT1 in relation to the fusion of MT2 through five takes on AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 147: 489-492 (2012) additional importance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the persistence of an epiphyseal scar in the first metatarsal (MT1) and its utility in aging isolated pedal remains has never been systematically evaluated. This absence of any data testing the correlation between age and presence of the epiphyseal scar in the first metatarsal has gained relevance in part because of a discussion in the literature regarding the chronological age of the 1.8 million year old OH 8 (Olduvai Hominin 8) foot (Susman, 2008;DeSilva et al, 2010;Susman et al, 2011).Whether OH 8 belongs to a subadult or an adult is currently unresolved. If OH 8 is a subadult, then it is likely associated with the subadult remains of OH 7 that are the holotype of Homo habilis (Leakey et al, 1964), and therefore, OH 8 would also belong to Homo habilis making OH 7 and OH 8 one of the most complete early Homo fossil skeletons yet found (Susman, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If OH 8 is a subadult, then it is likely associated with the subadult remains of OH 7 that are the holotype of Homo habilis (Leakey et al, 1964), and therefore, OH 8 would also belong to Homo habilis making OH 7 and OH 8 one of the most complete early Homo fossil skeletons yet found (Susman, 2008). However, if OH 8 is an adult, then it would belong to a different individual, and perhaps even a different species of hominin (Paranthropus boisei) as some have suggested (Wood et al, 1998;Gebo and Schwartz, 2006).To determine whether the OH 8 foot is a subadult or an adult both DeSilva et al (2010) and Susman et al (2011) examined fusion patterns of metatarsals in modern humans and the African apes and compared them to the fusion pattern found in OH 8. Unfortunately, in OH 8, the distal ends of MT4 and 5 are broken off and the distal ends of MT2 and 3 are absent and there is much disagreement on whether the latter two bones are unfused juvenile or broken adult metatarsals (DeSilva et al, 2010; Njau and Blumenschine, in press;Susman et al, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the fusion of the proximal base of MT1 in relation to the fusion of MT2 through five takes on AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 147: 489-492 (2012) additional importance. Based on their external examination of fusion patterns, DeSilva et al (2010) concluded that OH 8 is an adult because, in humans and apes, the most frequent fusion pattern found is that MT2-5 fuse prior to the base of MT1. Whereas Susman et al (2011), using dorsoplantar radiographs, concluded that sometimes MT2-5 fuse after the base of MT1, making it possible that OH 8 is a subadult with unfused distal ends of MT2 and 3.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Brief communication: Radiographic study of metatarsal one basal epiphyseal fusion: A note of caution on age determination

Weiss

DeSilva

Zipfel

2012

American J Phys Anthropol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines radiographs of first metatarsals of 131 individuals from age 17-88 years to determine whether internal basal epiphyseal lines may be visible past the age of metatarsal fusion, which usually occurs between 14 and 16 years of age (Scheuer and Black: The juvenile skeleton. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press,2004). In 29% (38 out of 131) of the radiographed first metatarsals (MT1s) the basal epiphyseal scar is visible, including in one individual who was 80 years old. Statistically, there was no relationship between the loss of the epiphyseal scar and age. Thus, the presence of the epiphyseal scar does not necessarily indicate subadult age. These data suggest that OH 8's radiographically visible basal epiphyseal line has no bearing on whether it is a subadult or not.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Brief communication: Radiographic study of metatarsal one basal epiphyseal fusion: A note of caution on age determination

Weiss

DeSilva

Zipfel

2012

American J Phys Anthropol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

One small step: A review of Plio‐Pleistocene hominin foot evolution

DeSilva

McNutt

Benoît

et al. 2018

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bipedalism is a hallmark of being human and the human foot is modified to reflect this unique form of locomotion. Leonardo da Vinci is credited with calling the human foot “a masterpiece of engineering and a work of art.” However, a scientific approach to human origins has revealed that our feet are products of a long, evolutionary history in which a mobile, grasping organ has been converted into a propulsive structure adapted for the rigors of bipedal locomotion. Reconstructing the evolutionary history of foot anatomy benefits from a fossil record; yet, prior to 1960, the only hominin foot bones recovered were from Neandertals. Even into the 1990s, the human foot fossil record consisted mostly of fragmentary remains. However, in the last two decades, the human foot fossil record has quadrupled, and these new discoveries have fostered fresh new perspectives on how our feet evolved. In this review, we document anatomical differences between extant ape and human foot bones, and comprehensively examine the hominin foot fossil record. Additionally, we take a novel approach and conduct a cladistics analysis on foot fossils (n = 19 taxa; n = 80 characters), and find strong evidence for mosaic evolution of the foot, and a variety of anatomically and functionally distinct foot forms as bipedal locomotion evolved.

show abstract

Form, function and evolution of the human hand

Kivell

Baraki

Lockwood

et al. 2022

American Journal of Biological Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The modern human hand is an intriguing mix of primitive morphology and derived function. Traditionally, its form and function are explained as a functional “trade‐off” between the requirements of locomotion and manipulation, but recently acquired comparative, experimental and fossil evidence suggests that this functional trade‐off is more complex than conventional wisdom suggests. Moreover, when studying hand evolution within the hominin clade, the only morphological evidence comes from the hard‐tissues, and evidence about hand function must be inferred indirectly from the archaeological record. We lack information about critical aspects of hand form (e.g., soft tissues) and function (e.g., neurology) as well as non‐lithic evidence about behavior. Thus, comparative anatomical, experimental and ethological studies of modern humans and other primates are critical to making more informed inferences about hand use in the past. We review the relevant fossil and archaeological evidence within the relevant comparative context (e.g., other extant apes and dexterous monkeys) in an attempt to reconstruct hand evolution within the hominin clade. We conclude by summarizing our current understanding—or lack thereof—of the evolutionary history of the modern human hand.

show abstract

The Olduvai Hominid 8 foot: Adult or subadult?

Cited by 15 publications

References 22 publications

Brief communication: Radiographic study of metatarsal one basal epiphyseal fusion: A note of caution on age determination

Brief communication: Radiographic study of metatarsal one basal epiphyseal fusion: A note of caution on age determination

One small step: A review of Plio‐Pleistocene hominin foot evolution

Form, function and evolution of the human hand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About