4.8 Article

Australopithecus sediba Hand Demonstrates Mosaic Evolution of Locomotor and Manipulative Abilities

Journal

SCIENCE
Volume 333, Issue 6048, Pages 1411-1417

Publisher

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.1202625

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. South African Department of Science and Technology
  2. South African National Research Foundation
  3. Institute for Human Evolution, University of the Witwatersrand
  4. University of the Witwatersrand
  5. National Geographic Society
  6. Palaeontological Scientific Trust
  7. Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
  8. Ford Foundation
  9. U.S. Diplomatic Mission to South Africa
  10. French embassy of South Africa
  11. Oppenheimer and Ackerman families
  12. Sir Richard Branson
  13. Witwatersrand's Schools of Geosciences and Anatomical Sciences
  14. Bernard Price Institute for Palaeontology
  15. Gauteng Government
  16. Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment
  17. Cradle of Humankind Management Authority

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hand bones from a single individual with a clear taxonomic affiliation are scarce in the hominin fossil record, which has hampered understanding the evolution of manipulative abilities in hominins. Here we describe and analyze a nearly complete wrist and hand of an adult female [Malapa Hominin 2 (MH2)] Australopithecus sediba from Malapa, South Africa (1.977 million years ago). The hand presents a suite of Australopithecus-like features, such as a strong flexor apparatus associated with arboreal locomotion, and Homo-like features, such as a long thumb and short fingers associated with precision gripping and possibly stone tool production. Comparisons to other fossil hominins suggest that there were at least two distinct hand morphotypes around the Plio-Pleistocene transition. The MH2 fossils suggest that Au. sediba may represent a basal condition associated with early stone tool use and production.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available