Lab 10 - Evolution of the Genus Homo.docx - ANT 3514C...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 13 pages.

___________ ANT 3514C – Introduction to Biological Anthropology Lab 10: Evolution of the Genus Homo Learning Objectives: Critically evaluate the morphology of the taxon Homo habilis compared with contemporaneous hominins. Describe major anatomical changes from Early Homo to Homo erectus and other derived species of genus Homo. Appraise the arguments for lumping and for splitting fossil hominin specimens into various taxa and formulate an informed opinion. Interpret the mosaic of features seen in recently discovered species of the Genus Homo . Purpose: To illustrate cranial and postcranial anatomical distinctions of the genus Homo from more primitive bipedal hominins. Recall our very first lab and how challenging it was to arrange the imaginary Caminalcules into a satisfactory taxonomy that everyone agreed on. Now envision that all you have to create your taxonomy are a few, incomplete fossilized remains that represent only a fraction of the total original diversity of taxa and whose behavior and ecology can only be inferred, not directly observed. This is the problem paleoanthropologists face every time they discover a new fossil. As you can imagine, there is much disagreement over how to correctly classify our hominin relatives, and arguments intensify when a researcher claims that a fossil species is particularly closely related to modern humans. One of the many challenges paleoanthropologists face is that it is difficult to define what a species actually is. According to the biological species concept (BSC) , a species is a group of organisms that are potentially or actually able to interbreed. This definition might seem straightforward, but it is not; in nature there are many circumstances where the BSC is difficult to apply or observe. For instance, sometimes organisms that are clearly different morphologically can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Alternatively, some organisms that appear indistinguishable to us might be unable to interbreed due to differences in the timing or behavior of reproduction. Researchers have therefore come up with many other definitions of species. Unfortunately each definition can be problematic and none of them work perfectly in all instances. Defining species becomes even more challenging with extinct taxa, when we are left with only fossils and no way to directly observe soft tissue or behavior. Consequently, the argument about whether hominin fossils should be “split” into distinct species or “lumped” into one diverse species is particularly common in paleoanthropology. This is typically referred to as the “lumper vs. splitter” debate . A hominin taxon that makes a good example for the lumper vs. splitter debate is Homo rudolfensis . In this week’s lab, we will consider the validity of H. rudolfensis as a distinct taxon, yet your textbook makes no mention of this species. This is because many researchers, including the authors of your textbook, lump H. rudolfensis into H.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture