3.9 Article

Missing Omo L338y-6 occipital-marginal sinus drainage pattern: Ground sectioning, computer tomography scanning, and the original fossil fail to show it

期刊

ANATOMICAL RECORD
卷 266, 期 4, 页码 249-257

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ar.10067

关键词

occipital-marginal sinus (O/M); drainage pattern; brain evolution; Australopithecus; brain endocasts; computer tomography; ground sectioning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Omo L338y-6 occipital region has been recently studied by White and Falk (1999), who claim that it shows a readily identifiable enlarged left occipital-marginal sinus (O/M). These observations are contrary to the direct observations of previous investigators (Rak and Howell, 1978; Mmbel, 1984; Holloway, 1981; Holloway, 1988). White and Falk (1999) further argue that the presence of this enlarged O/M strongly suggests that the Omo L338y-6 hominid was indeed a robust Australopithecus. We used direct sectioning and CT scanning to analyze magnified sections of a high-quality first-generation cast of the newly cleaned original fossil. These methods fail to show any evidence of a morphological landmark that can be interpreted as an enlarged O/M, either as an eminence or a sulcus. In contrast, the same techniques used with both SK 1585 and OH5 (robust Australopithecus with an enlarged O/M) show extremely visible and palpable enlarged O/M's. Examination of the original Omo fossil confirms that it lacks an O/M. This evidence clearly shows that an enlarged O/M cannot be identified on either the original fossil or a first-generation cast, although this does not rule out the possibility that the Omo L338y-6 hominid was a robust Australopithecus. We believe that the differences between observers regarding this feature are most probably due to displacement caused by a crack and the different source materials employed, i.e., the difference between a first-generation cast of the original fossil and a third- or fourth-generation cast of the endocast made two decades ago.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据