The taxonomic status ofpraeanthropus africanus (primates: Pongidae) from the late pliocene of Eastern Africa

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The taxon Praeanthropus africanus (WEINERT, 1950), represented by the Garusi maxilla, is valid and reinstated. The morphological pattern of the Garusi maxilla is not that of a primitive hominid, but of a relatively generalized pongid. Since the apelike lectotype L.H.-4 and paralectotype A.L.200-1a of Australopithecus afarensis JOHANSON et al., 1978 are conspecific with P. afrieanus, and originate from the same formation, they are reassigned to Praeanthropus africanus.

Critique of ‘Australopithecus afarensis’ as a single species based on dental metrics and morphology

“…The paradigm of'A. afarensis' was shown to represent three distinct taxa, P. africanus; Homo antiquus FERGUSON, 1984;and Australopithecus africanus miodentatus FERGUSON, 1987. The so-called species '.4.…”

“…Not all of the male Pss are bicuspid and molarized. For example, L. H.-4 is basically unicuspid (FERGUSON, 1983). It is longer than it is broad with no buccolingual expansion.…”

“…afarensis' is widely accepted, an increasing number of authors give evidence that it relates to more than one taxon (Col'PENS, 1981FERGUSON, 1983FERGUSON, , 1984FERGUSON, , 1986FERGUSON, , 1987LEA~EY, 1981;OLSON, 1981OLSON, , 1985READ, 1984;TARDIEU, 1983 ;SENUT & TARD1EU, 1985 ;ZIHLMAN, 1985a, b). In 1987, LEONARD and HEGMON made a statistical study of dental metrics of 'A.…”

“Australopithecus afarensis”: A composite species

“…In response to a critique by FERGUSON (1989), LEONARD (1991) reiterates most of his original arguments for supporting "Australopithecus afarensis" JOHANSON, WHITE, and COPPENS, 1978 as a single species. He disregards the principle of morphological equivalence by comparing the dental metrics and morphology of a hominid with those of species of the Pongidae, which do not correspond with the degree of variation in hominids, instead of with those of species of the Hominidae.…”

“…afarensis" represents a single species according to a statistical and morphological analysis of selected teeth compared to those of modern great apes. In a critique, FERGUSON (1989) refutes this analysis as fundamentally flawed by comparing a member of the Hominidae with an entirely different family, the Pongidae, instead of with other hominids. The range of variation in pongids is much greater than in hominids so it is not surprising that the hominid %4.…”