4.3 Article

Description, new reconstruction, comparative anatomy, and classification of the Sterkfontein Stw 53 cranium, with discussions about the taxonomy of other southern African early Homo remains

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
Volume 50, Issue 1, Pages 36-77

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.07.008

Keywords

Homo; Sterkfontein; fossil reconstruction; anatomy; systematics; Swartkrans; Drimolen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Specimen Stw 53 was recovered in 1976 from Member 5 of the Sterkfontein Formation. Since its incomplete initial description and comparison, the partial cranium has figured prominently in discussions about the systematics of early Homo. Despite publication of a preliminary reconstruction in 1985, Stw 53 has yet to be compared comprehensively to other Plio-Pleistocene fossils or assessed systematically. In this paper, we report on a new reconstruction of this specimen and provide a detailed description and comparison of its morphology. Our reconstruction differs in important respects from the earlier one, especially in terms of neurocranial length, breadth, and height. However, given that Stw 53 exhibits extensive damage, these dimensions are most likely prone to much error in reconstruction. In areas of well-preserved bone, Stw 53 shares many cranial features with Homo habilis, and we propose retaining it within this species. We also consider the affinities of dental remains from Sterkfontein Member 5, along with those from Swartkrans and Drimolen previously assigned to Homo. We find evidence for sympatry of H. habilis and Australopithecus robustus and possibly Plio-Pleistocene Homo sapiens sensu lato in Sterkfontein Member 5. At Swartkrans and Drimolen, we find evidence of H. habilis. We also compare the morphologies of Stw 53 and SK 847 and find compelling evidence to assign the latter specimen to H. habilis, as has been proposed. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available