Chimpanzee subspecies and 'robust' australopithecine holotypes, in the context of comments by Darwin

On the basis of comparative anatomy (including chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates), Darwin1 suggested that Africa was the continent from which 'progenitors' of humankind evolved. Hominin fossils from this continent proved him correct. We present the results of morphometric analyses b...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: J. Thackeray, S. Prat
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Academy of Science of South Africa 2010-02-01
Series:South African Journal of Science
Online Access:http://192.168.0.121/index.php/sajs/article/view/10019
id doaj-4153c98473ed435d91db39098f3cc6f3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-4153c98473ed435d91db39098f3cc6f32021-04-06T13:38:55ZengAcademy of Science of South AfricaSouth African Journal of Science1996-74892010-02-0110511/12Chimpanzee subspecies and 'robust' australopithecine holotypes, in the context of comments by DarwinJ. Thackeray0S. Prat1Institute for Human Evolution, University of the Witwatersrand, P.O. WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa.UPR 2147 du CNRS, 44 rue de l'Amiral Mouchez, 75014 Paris, France. Human Origins and Past Environments Research Unit (HRU), Transvaal Museum, P.O. Box 413, Pretoria 0001, South Africa.On the basis of comparative anatomy (including chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates), Darwin1 suggested that Africa was the continent from which 'progenitors' of humankind evolved. Hominin fossils from this continent proved him correct. We present the results of morphometric analyses based on cranial data obtained from chimpanzee taxa currently recognised as distinct subspecies, namely Pan troglodytes troglodytes and Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii, as well as Pan paniscus (bonobo). Our objective was to use a morphometric technique2 to quantify the degree of similarity between pairs of specimens, in the context of a statistical (probabilistic) definition of a species.3 - 5 Results obtained from great apes, including two subspecies of chimpanzee, were assessed in relation to same-scale comparisons between the holotypes of 'robust' australopithecine (Plio-Pleistocene hominin) taxa which have traditionally been distinguished at a species level, notably Paranthropus robustus from South Africa, and Paranthropus (Australopithecus/ Zinjanthropus) boisei from East Africa. The question arises as to whether the holotypes of these two taxa, TM 1517 from Kromdraai6 and OH 5 from Olduvai,7 respectively, are different at the subspecies rather than at the species level.http://192.168.0.121/index.php/sajs/article/view/10019
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author J. Thackeray
S. Prat
spellingShingle J. Thackeray
S. Prat
Chimpanzee subspecies and 'robust' australopithecine holotypes, in the context of comments by Darwin
South African Journal of Science
author_facet J. Thackeray
S. Prat
author_sort J. Thackeray
title Chimpanzee subspecies and 'robust' australopithecine holotypes, in the context of comments by Darwin
title_short Chimpanzee subspecies and 'robust' australopithecine holotypes, in the context of comments by Darwin
title_full Chimpanzee subspecies and 'robust' australopithecine holotypes, in the context of comments by Darwin
title_fullStr Chimpanzee subspecies and 'robust' australopithecine holotypes, in the context of comments by Darwin
title_full_unstemmed Chimpanzee subspecies and 'robust' australopithecine holotypes, in the context of comments by Darwin
title_sort chimpanzee subspecies and 'robust' australopithecine holotypes, in the context of comments by darwin
publisher Academy of Science of South Africa
series South African Journal of Science
issn 1996-7489
publishDate 2010-02-01
description On the basis of comparative anatomy (including chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates), Darwin1 suggested that Africa was the continent from which 'progenitors' of humankind evolved. Hominin fossils from this continent proved him correct. We present the results of morphometric analyses based on cranial data obtained from chimpanzee taxa currently recognised as distinct subspecies, namely Pan troglodytes troglodytes and Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii, as well as Pan paniscus (bonobo). Our objective was to use a morphometric technique2 to quantify the degree of similarity between pairs of specimens, in the context of a statistical (probabilistic) definition of a species.3 - 5 Results obtained from great apes, including two subspecies of chimpanzee, were assessed in relation to same-scale comparisons between the holotypes of 'robust' australopithecine (Plio-Pleistocene hominin) taxa which have traditionally been distinguished at a species level, notably Paranthropus robustus from South Africa, and Paranthropus (Australopithecus/ Zinjanthropus) boisei from East Africa. The question arises as to whether the holotypes of these two taxa, TM 1517 from Kromdraai6 and OH 5 from Olduvai,7 respectively, are different at the subspecies rather than at the species level.
url http://192.168.0.121/index.php/sajs/article/view/10019
work_keys_str_mv AT jthackeray chimpanzeesubspeciesandrobustaustralopithecineholotypesinthecontextofcommentsbydarwin
AT sprat chimpanzeesubspeciesandrobustaustralopithecineholotypesinthecontextofcommentsbydarwin
_version_ 1721538096629022720