Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Paleoanth Lab 3
ATH 370 Portland State N. Vasey
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Where does the Homo habilis OH8 Foot – come from? | Olduvai Gorge; part of the hypodigm of H. habilis; est. by Louis Leakey in the early 1960s. |
| What features make an H. habilis foot appear more like a human than an australopithecine? | The metatarsal for the big toe is adducted and stout. Also, there are two arches, a longitudinal one and a transverse one, the latter being a feature not found in apes. |
| Where did the Homo spp. skulls – KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813 – come from? | Koobi Fora, Kenya |
| Has there always been agreement on how to classify the KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813 Homo skulls? | No, they have been variously called a male and female of the same species (H. habilis), or different species (H. rudolfensis for the larger KNM-ER 1470 and H. habilis for the smaller KNM-ER 1813). |
| What are some features of the cranium that unite the two Homo skull specimens (KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813) and distinguish them from Australopithecus and H. erectus? | Brain size is larger than Australopithecus, but smaller than H. erectus; maxilla (& mandible) are smaller than in Australopithecus; muscle markings are slight to strong. |
| How do the two Homo skull specimens (KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813) differ? | The supraorbital and cheek regions and brain size differ. The jaws and teeth are smaller and the upper face is broader than the midface in KNM-ER 1813. The jaws and teeth are larger, and the midface is broader than the upper face in KNM-ER 1470. |
| What is the estimated brain size for KNM-ER 1813? | estimated at 510 cc for KNM-ER 1813 (smaller than in some australopithecine specimens.) |
| What is the estimated brain size for KNM-ER 1470? | estimated at 770 cc for KNM-ER 1470. |
| Where does the Homo spp. mandible -- KNM-ER 992 – come from? | Koobi Fora; Kenya. – first attributed to Homo habilis, then later became the type for a separate species of early Homo -- Homo ergaster. |
| In general, what did the material from Koobi Fora alert us to? | the extensive amount of anatomical variation expressed by the earliest members of the genus Homo. |
| How does the Homo spp. mandible – KNM-ER 992 – compare to robust australopithecines and H. erectus? | The incisors are relatively large. |
| How does the postcanine dentition of the Homo spp. mandible – KNM-ER 992 – compare with australopithecines? | The premolars and molars are narrow buccolingually and elongated mesiodistally. |
| Where was the Homo habilis – OH 7 – juvenile mandible found? | the FLK site of Olduvai;1960; used as the type specimen. |
| What was found along with the Homo habilis (OH 7) – juvenile mandible? | two parietal bones, wrist, hand, and finger bones. |
| What are some distinctive features of the dentition in the specimen (OH 7) of Homo habilis? | canines large relative to premolars; premolars narrower than australopithecines;cheek teeth relatively narrow buccolingually / elongated mesiodistally, leaving ample room for incisors. Molars overlap the range for australopithecines and H. erectus. |
| What do we know about the postcranial skeleton of this group (FLK site, Olduvai) of Homo habilis? | Limb proportions and robusticity known to be apelike; hand is mosaic of ape-like and human-like features. Foot retains climbing adaptations. |
| What did the partial skeleton recovered from Olduvai in 1986 (OH 62, dated to 1.8 mya) reveal? | just how primitive the postcranial skeleton of H. habilis was, more primitive in some regards than robust australopithecines. |
| What is the estimated cranial capacity of the OH 7 Homo habilis juvenile found at the FLK site at Olduvai? | in the range of 642-723 cc. |
| How does the cranial capacity of the OH 7 Homo habilis juvenile found at the FLK site at Olduvai compare with that of the australopithecines. | it is much larger. |
| From the perspective of brain size, why was there initially so much resistance to accepting Homo habilis as a member of the genus Homo? | Brain enlargement had been considered a hallmark of the genus Homo, and the brain size of Homo erectus (at ~ 900 cc) was considered minimum. Homo habilis, with a cranial capacity of less than 700 cc, was clearly below the standard. |
| Where was Homo habilis -- OH 24 (Twiggy) found? | Olduvai Gorge |
| What is on of the most complete crania known of Homo habilis? | OH 24 (aka “Twiggy”) is one of the most complete crania known of Homo habilis and forms part of the hypodigm of this taxon, having been found at Olduvai Gorge. |
| Which two sites in South Africa have fossil materials which have also been considered Homo habilis? | Sterkfontein and Swartkrans; often compared to OH 24, particularly a partial cranium (Stw 53) from Sterkfontein. |
| What are some features of the OH 24 Homo habilis (Twiggy) skull that make it part of the Homo clade? | Reduced postorbital constriction, increased cranial vault height, more anteriorly placed foramen magnum, reduced lower facial prognathism, reduction in the length of molar tooth rows. |
| Where was the Australopithecus boisei cranium (KNM-ER 732) discovered? | Koobi Fora |
| What gender is the Australopithecus boisei (KNM-ER 732) considered? | female |
| How does the Australopithecus boisei cranium (KNM-ER 732) differ from other adult australopithecines? | considerably smaller. It also lacks the extreme ectocranial buttressing seen in presumed A. boisei males such as OH 5 (“Zinjanthropus”) and KNM-ER 406. |
| How does the Australopithecus boisei cranium (KNM-ER 732) resemble other adult australopithecines? | This specimen does possess a large, backwardly extending zygomatic arch, as in other robust australopithecines. |
| What ectocranial features commonly seen in male A. boisei does this specimen lack? | A sagittal crest is not developed. |
| Do the distal phalanges of Homo habilis resemble modern humans or apes? | The distal phalanges of Homo habilis are broad as in humans. |
| Do the middle phalanges of Homo habilis resemble modern humans or apes? | The middle phalanges of Homo habilis are curved and have marked flexor insertions as in apes. |
| What was the first evidence for the coexistence of Australopithecus and Homo in the African fossil record? | Homo erectus mandible; (1949) at Swartkrans;named Telanthropus capensis. 1961 reclassified as H. erectus. A. robustus and H. erectus are known from members 1 & 2. Only A. robustus has been found in Member 3. Members 1-3 date from 1.0-1.8 MYA. |
| What questions remain unanswered regarding the site of Swartkrans and its resident hominids? | Members 1-3 all contain Developed Oldowan stone tools (cores, choppers, flake tools), while member 3 also contains evidence for fire. It is not clear who the toolmakers or firebuilders were. |
| Name some unique features of the Homo erectus pelvis. | acetabulum is extremely large (so is the femoral head), very robust iliac pillar; the auricular surface for articulation with the sacrum is small; ischium is oriented laterally indicating a different action for the thigh flexors. |
| What could cause a porous extra layer of bone as found on the Homo erectus post cranial material – KNM-ER 1808? | A pathological condition known as hypervitaminosis A that may have resulted from consumption of food rich in vitamin A such as a carnivore liver. |
| Where was the most complete skeleton of a Homo erectus youth recovered? | In sediments dated to 1.65 my on the west side of Lake Turkana. |
| What indicated that the Homo erectus skull -- KNM-WT 15000 – was not yet an adult? | The dentition. Not all adult teeth have erupted. Also, the skull does not have a lot of ectocranial buttressing. |
| How old was the Homo erectus skull -- KNM-WT 15000 – at death? | Between 10 and 12 years old. |
| How do the thoracic vertebrae of humans and Homo erectus differ? | The thoracic vertebral bodies (round part) and vertebral canal (hole) are relatively smaller in H. erectus. |
| What could the small vertebral canal of H. erectus indicate? | Possibly, that H. erectus lacked the central nervous system motor control of the thorax necessary for speech. |
| What does the femur of H. erectus indicate about bipedalism, obstetrical issues and fetal/post-natal growth trajectories? | The femoral neck is rel. long and the angle formed by the shaft and neck is rel. small. Suggests that birth canal diameters were rel. small in H. erectus → fetal growth rates persisted after birth as in modern humans → infants are born dependent. |
| When is Homo erectus (OH9) from East Africa dated to and where was it discovered? | OH 9 is from Olduvai and is dated to 1.2 mya. |
| What features of Homo erectus (OH9) from East Africa are characteristic of Homo erectus and shared with Homo erectus specimens from Asia? | Supraorbital torus, low lateral profile of braincase with receding frontal bone, greatest skull breadth is low near mastoid crests, nuchal crest, larger brain case than in H. habilis (750-1,250 cc in H. erectus versus 500-800 in early Homo). |
| Name a feature that differs between Homo erectus (OH9) from East Africa and Asian Homo erectus? | Many Asian H. erectus have a sagittal keel, whereas this African specimen does not. |
| When and where was the Sangiran 2 (skull cap) discovered? | in Java in the 1930s, long before H. erectus was known from Africa. |
| What are the dates for the oldest material from Java and how do these dates relate to known dates for African H. erectus? | The oldest material from Java dates between 1.8 and 1.6 mya. These dates are comparable to the oldest H. erectus material from East Africa (East Turkana sites such as Koobi Fora). |
| What do the dates for the oldest H. erectus material from Java imply? | that H. erectus dispersed out of Africa earlier than previously thought. |
| How does the H. erectus skull from Choukoutien(Zhoukoudian) compare to Sangiran 2 in age? | The Choukoutien(Zhoukoudian) material is much younger than the Sangiran material dating to between 700-250 kya. |
| Where were the recently discovered Dmanisi hominins found? | Europe (Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia) |
| What were the Homo erectus fossils from Dmanisi found in association with? | Oldowan tools |
| When do the Homo erectus fossils from Dmanisi date to? | about 1. 7 mya. This is nearly a million years older than any other Homo erectus material from Europe and it is among the earliest Homo fossils to be found outside of Africa. |
| Does everyone agree on the classification of the Dmanisi hominins? | Some authorities consider their affinities to be with Homo habilis, rather than Homo erectus. |
| What are some of the features that the recently discovered Dmanisi hominin skulls share with Homo habilis? | Small cranial capacity (600-700 cc) |
| What are some features that the recently discovered Dmanisi hominin skulls share with Homo erectus? | Single-rooted upper premolars, thin supraorbital tori, large orbits, and angled cranial vault. |
Created by:
kevin23
Popular Anthropology sets