CT-based study of internal structure of the anterior pillar in extinct hominins and its implications for the phylogeny of robust Australopithecus

Department of Anthropology, University College London, London WC1H 0BW, United Kingdom.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Impact Factor: 9.67). 09/2011; 108(39):16200-5. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1105844108
Source: PubMed


The phylogeny of the early African hominins has long been confounded by contrasting interpretations of midfacial structure. In particular, the anterior pillar, an externally prominent bony column running vertically alongside the nasal aperture, has been identified as a homology of South African species Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus robustus. If the anterior pillar is a true synapomorphy of these two species, the evidence for a southern African clade of Australopithecus would be strengthened, and support would be given to the phylogenetic hypothesis of an independent origin for eastern and southern African "robust" australopith clades. Analyses of CT data, however, show that the internal structure of the circumnasal region is strikingly different in the two South African australopith species. In A. africanus the anterior pillar is a hollow column of cortical bone, whereas in A. robustus it is a column of dense trabecular bone. Although Australopithecus boisei usually lacks an external pillar, it has internal morphology identical to that seen in A. robustus. This result supports the monophyly of the "robust" australopiths and suggests that the external similarities seen in the South African species are the result of parallel evolution.

Download full-text


Available from: Brian Villmoare, Mar 11, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Determining the diet of an extinct species is paramount in any attempt to reconstruct its paleoecology. Because the distribution and mechanical properties of food items may impact postcranial, cranial, mandibular, and dental morphologies related to their procurement, ingestion, and mastication, these anatomical attributes have been studied intensively. However, while mechanical environments influence skeletal and dental features, it is not clear to what extent they dictate particular morphologies. Although biomechanical explanations have been widely applied to extinct hominins in attempts to retrodict dietary proclivities, morphology may say as much about what they were capable of eating, and perhaps more about phylogenetic history, than about the nature of the diet. Anatomical attributes may establish boundary limits, but direct evidence left by the foods that were actually (rather than hypothetically) consumed is required to reconstruct diet. Dental microwear and the stable light isotope chemistry of tooth enamel provide such evidence, and are especially powerful when used in tandem. We review the foundations for microwear and biogeochemistry in diet reconstruction, and discuss this evidence for six early hominin species (Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Au. afarensis, Au. africanus, Paranthropus robustus, and P. boisei). The dietary signals derived from microwear and isotope chemistry are sometimes at odds with inferences from biomechanical approaches, a potentially disquieting conundrum that is particularly evident for several species.
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 06/2012; 148(2):285-317. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.22086 · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent biomechanical analyses examining the feeding adaptations of early hominins have yielded results consistent with the hypothesis that hard foods exerted a selection pressure that influenced the evolution of australopith morphology. However, this hypothesis appears inconsistent with recent reconstructions of early hominin diet based on dental microwear and stable isotopes. Thus, it is likely that either the diets of some australopiths included a high proportion of foods these taxa were poorly adapted to consume (i.e., foods that they would not have processed efficiently), or that aspects of what we thought we knew about the functional morphology of teeth must be wrong. Evaluation of these possibilities requires a recognition that analyses based on microwear, isotopes, finite element modeling, and enamel chips and cracks each test different types of hypotheses and allow different types of inferences. Microwear and isotopic analyses are best suited to reconstructing broad dietary patterns, but are limited in their ability to falsify specific hypotheses about morphological adaptation. Conversely, finite element analysis is a tool for evaluating the mechanical basis of form-function relationships, but says little about the frequency with which specific behaviors were performed or the particular types of food that were consumed. Enamel chip and crack analyses are means of both reconstructing diet and examining biomechanics. We suggest that current evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that certain derived australopith traits are adaptations for consuming hard foods, but that australopiths had generalized diets that could include high proportions of foods that were both compliant and tough. Am J Phys Anthropol 151:339-355, 2013.© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 07/2013; 151(3):339-55. DOI:10.1002/ajpa.22285 · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The mandibular third premolar (P3) of Australopithecus afarensis is notable for extensive morphological variability (e.g., metaconid presence/absence, closure of the anterior fovea, root number) and temporal trends in crown length and shape change over its 700 Ka time range. Hominins preceding A. afarensis have unicuspid, mesiodistally elongated P3s with smaller talonids, and subsequent australopiths have bicuspid, more symmetrically-shaped P3 crowns with expanded talonids. For these features, A. afarensis is intermediate and, thus, evinces the incipient stages of P3 molarization. Here, we examine A. afarensis P3 Phase II microwear and compare it with that of Australopithecus africanus and Cercocebus atys, an extant hard-object specialist, to assess whether the role of the P3 in food processing changed over time in A. afarensis. Premolar Phase II microwear textures are also compared with those of the molars to look for evidence of functional differentiation along the tooth row (i.e., that foods with different mechanical properties were processed by separate regions of the postcanine battery). Microwear textures were also examined along the mesial protoconid crest, the site of occlusion with the maxillary canine, of the A. afarensis P3 and compared with the same region in Pan troglodytes to determine whether microwear can be useful for identifying changes in the occlusal relationship between the P3 and maxillary canine in early Australopithecus. Finally, temporal trends in P3 Phase II and mesial microwear are considered. Results indicate that 1) both the P3 and molar Phase II facets of A. afarensis have less complex microwear textures than in A. africanus or C. atys; 2) A. afarensis P3 and molar Phase II textures differ, though not to the extent seen in taxa that eat hard and tough items; 3) microwear along the A. afarensis mesial protoconid crest is clearly distinct from that of the P. troglodytes, indicating that there is no honing equivalent in A. afarensis; and 4) there is little evidence of change over time in A. afarensis P3 microwear on either the mesial or Phase II facet. In sum, these results provide no evidence that A. afarensis routinely loaded either its premolars or molars to process hard objects or that A. afarensis P3 function changed over time.
    Journal of Human Evolution 07/2013; 65(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.001 · 3.73 Impact Factor
Show more