Les premiers représentants du genre Homo, en quête d’une identité. Apports de l’étude morphologique et de l’analyse cladistique

No consensus has been achieved concerning the taxonomic significance of the species Homo habilis. Four main hypotheses have been advanced: (1) the specimens from Olduvai, East Turkana and Omo belong to the same palaeospecies:  Homo habilis sensu lato; (2) the hypodigm is heterogenous; two species co...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Sandrine Prat
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Société d'Anthropologie de Paris 2004-06-01
Series:Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/586
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832579937276526592
author Sandrine Prat
author_facet Sandrine Prat
author_sort Sandrine Prat
collection DOAJ
description No consensus has been achieved concerning the taxonomic significance of the species Homo habilis. Four main hypotheses have been advanced: (1) the specimens from Olduvai, East Turkana and Omo belong to the same palaeospecies:  Homo habilis sensu lato; (2) the hypodigm is heterogenous; two species could be defined : Homo habilis sensu stricto and Homo rudolfensis; (3) these specimens do not belong to the genus Homo but to Australopithecus or (4) Kenyanthropus.The goal of this study is to critically re-evaluate the hypotheses concerning the taxonomy of the specimens attributed to early Homo, and to test whether they belong to the genus Homo or to another genus. A morphological study and numerical cladistic analyses on 122 morphological characteristics were carried out on the original Plio-Pleistocene specimens. The Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) is defined by the fossil specimen rather than the species in the absence of consensus concerning the taxonomic attribution of the fossil specimens studied. Indeed, because no consensus concerning the hypodigm of Homo habilis has been achieved, the creation of OTU on the basis of shared anatomy would have introduced circularity into our analysis. The results of these analyses show that: (a) two species could be defined: habilis and rudolfensis; (b) the specimens belonging to these two taxa are included in the clade of Homo ; (c) the conclusions concerning the revision of the genus Homo and the inclusion of the specimens of habilis and rudolfensis to the genus Australopithecus or Kenyanthropus are questioned.
format Article
id doaj-art-e03098e536fd4f499fbab60893e01264
institution Kabale University
issn 1777-5469
language English
publishDate 2004-06-01
publisher Société d'Anthropologie de Paris
record_format Article
series Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris
spelling doaj-art-e03098e536fd4f499fbab60893e012642025-01-30T11:28:00ZengSociété d'Anthropologie de ParisBulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris1777-54692004-06-01162173510.4000/bmsap.586Les premiers représentants du genre Homo, en quête d’une identité. Apports de l’étude morphologique et de l’analyse cladistiqueSandrine PratNo consensus has been achieved concerning the taxonomic significance of the species Homo habilis. Four main hypotheses have been advanced: (1) the specimens from Olduvai, East Turkana and Omo belong to the same palaeospecies:  Homo habilis sensu lato; (2) the hypodigm is heterogenous; two species could be defined : Homo habilis sensu stricto and Homo rudolfensis; (3) these specimens do not belong to the genus Homo but to Australopithecus or (4) Kenyanthropus.The goal of this study is to critically re-evaluate the hypotheses concerning the taxonomy of the specimens attributed to early Homo, and to test whether they belong to the genus Homo or to another genus. A morphological study and numerical cladistic analyses on 122 morphological characteristics were carried out on the original Plio-Pleistocene specimens. The Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) is defined by the fossil specimen rather than the species in the absence of consensus concerning the taxonomic attribution of the fossil specimens studied. Indeed, because no consensus concerning the hypodigm of Homo habilis has been achieved, the creation of OTU on the basis of shared anatomy would have introduced circularity into our analysis. The results of these analyses show that: (a) two species could be defined: habilis and rudolfensis; (b) the specimens belonging to these two taxa are included in the clade of Homo ; (c) the conclusions concerning the revision of the genus Homo and the inclusion of the specimens of habilis and rudolfensis to the genus Australopithecus or Kenyanthropus are questioned.https://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/586hominidstaxonomycladisticsanatomy
spellingShingle Sandrine Prat
Les premiers représentants du genre Homo, en quête d’une identité. Apports de l’étude morphologique et de l’analyse cladistique
Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris
hominids
taxonomy
cladistics
anatomy
title Les premiers représentants du genre Homo, en quête d’une identité. Apports de l’étude morphologique et de l’analyse cladistique
title_full Les premiers représentants du genre Homo, en quête d’une identité. Apports de l’étude morphologique et de l’analyse cladistique
title_fullStr Les premiers représentants du genre Homo, en quête d’une identité. Apports de l’étude morphologique et de l’analyse cladistique
title_full_unstemmed Les premiers représentants du genre Homo, en quête d’une identité. Apports de l’étude morphologique et de l’analyse cladistique
title_short Les premiers représentants du genre Homo, en quête d’une identité. Apports de l’étude morphologique et de l’analyse cladistique
title_sort les premiers representants du genre homo en quete d une identite apports de l etude morphologique et de l analyse cladistique
topic hominids
taxonomy
cladistics
anatomy
url https://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/586
work_keys_str_mv AT sandrineprat lespremiersrepresentantsdugenrehomoenqueteduneidentiteapportsdeletudemorphologiqueetdelanalysecladistique