Similarities Between Kenyathrpus And Australopithecus Afarens
Station 1: Our Australopithecene ancestors
When comparing the two species Kenyanthrpus platyops and Australopithecus afarensis, there are many differences, some known and unknown. Looking at the canines of both species, we can see that Australopithecus afarensis didn’t have either prominent canines or a diastema and in Kenyanthrpus platyops we are not sure whether it did or not due to the lack of evidence in the fossil remains. As for the molars, Australopithecus afarensis had more parallel molars to apes than humans while in Kenyanthrpus platyops it is hard to tell whether it is parallel or parabolic: nevertheless, they look to be more parabolic shape. The cheek bones on Australopithecus afarensi are somewhat prominent compared to head size and there is no fossilization of the cheek bones in Kenyanthrpus platyops to determine the shape of them. Both Kenyanthrpus platyops and Australopithecus afarensi had somewhat prominent brow bones and non-vertical foreheads in their species. Only Australopithecus afarensi had a slight sagittal crest on its skull while Kenyanthrpus platyops did not. The foramen magnum on Kenyanthrpus platyops can not be seen however on Australopithecus afarensi it is centered at the based of the skull much like modern humans. …show more content…
Looking at the differences and similarities in both specimens I concluded, that Kenyanthrpus platyops was the ancestor of all Australopithecenes because with the lack of evidence like canines, diastemas, and molars to name a few, the only information I can look at is the features of Australopithecus afarensi’s skull.
Although the skull looks more ape like than human, Australopithecus afarensi does have similar canines and foramen magnum. Since these can’t be seen in Kenyanthrpus platyops I believe that Australopithecus afarensi shows more promise of being closer to Homo sapiens than Kenyanthrpus platyops, at least until new research and skulls are
found.
Station 2: Australopithecene branches
When looking at the similarities and differences between Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus boisei they both didn’t have canines or diastemas to study; however, Australopithecus boisei was more apelike in comparison. At the same time both skulls had parallel molars and large cheek bones in comparison to the rest of the skull, Australopithecus boisei still having larger cheeks than Australopithecus africanus. While Australopithecus africanus had no sagittal crest, Australopithecus boisei had a very large and prominent crest on top of its skull. Like the cheek bones, both species had large brow bones and nonvertical foreheads. The last difference between Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus boisei was that Australopithecus boisei seemed to have a father back foramen magnum whereas Australopithecus africanus was more centered at the base of the skull.
Looking at the similarities and differences of Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus boisei and the information we looked at during class discussion it is safe to say that Australopithecus boisei were most likely herbivorous and Australopithecus africanus were more omnivorous. We can see these differences in mainly the Australopithecus boisei species. When comparing the Australopithecus boisei skull to a gorilla skull they both share similarities in molar sizes, parallel pallets, and sagittal crests. Since gorillas stick to a mainly vegetarian diet, I believe that with the similarities Australopithecus boisei would be vegetarian as well. The Australopithecus africanus skull not having these similarities and looking more human like, I believe them to be more omnivorous. They may not have hunted down prey but rather scavenge carcasses unlike Australopithecus boisei who didn’t have the teeth and molars to chew meat.
Station 3: Archaic Homo
When examining the three skulls, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo ergaster, we don’t see any prominent canines in Homo erectus while we do see prominent canines in Homo ergaster and there is no fossilization of the canines to see in Homo habilis. As for the diastemas, Homo erectus did not have any while Homo ergaster seemed to have small gaps to allow for closing of the mouth. On the other hand, Homo erectus did not have diastemas and Homo habilis did not have remains to look at of diastemas much like the canines. The molars and palate shapes of all the skulls were smaller in Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Homo ergaster had larger molars and a somewhat parallel pallet. Now looking at the brow ridges, we couldn’t see Homo ergaster’s skull due to fossilization errors but Homo erectus had large brows where Homo habilis had smaller brow ridges. The cheek bones of both Homo ergaster and Homo erectus had non-prominent cheek bones but there was not fossilization on the skull of Homo habilis. All the skulls don’t have vertical foreheads or sagittal crests. The foramen magnums were centered at the base of the skull in both Homo ergaster and Homo erectus but there was no foramen magnum to see in the Homo habilis skull due to fossilization.
Homo habilis looked smaller in size compared to the skulls of Homo erectus and Homo ergaster. Also, the teeth sizes in Homo habilis are much larger in comparison to its jaw size where as Homo erectus and Homo ergaster had teeth proportional to their overall head size. Other than that, the species were very similar when it came to shape of the skulls; but, I would need better fossilized examples of Homo habilis to determine if there were more differences than just the ones mentioned.
I believe that both Homo erectus and Homo ergaster are the same species due to the very similar sizes of the skulls, non-vertical foreheads, cheek bones, sagittal crests, and centered foramen magnums. With these many similarities I feel the differences were due to genetic mutations to better fit the needs of the different climates and environments in both continents, Homo erectus in Asia and Homo ergaster in Africa. With these ideas in mind I think the both are from the same species but are beginning to show change into different species.
Station 4: Neanderthals vs. Homo sapiens
Examining the two skulls, Homo sapiens’ skull had no prominent canines and no diastemas shown whereas Neanderthals’ skull had no fossilized evidence of canines or diastemas to examine. As for the molars and pallets, in both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens had larger molars compared to the front teeth with parabolic pallets and non-prominent cheek bones. Although both skulls had centered foramen magnums at the base of the skull and no sagittal crests, Neanderthals had prominent brow ridges and a non-vertical forehead while Homo sabiens had no prominent brow ridges along with a vertical forehead.
As researched, the two species Homo sapiens and Neanderthals have many similarities and differences. Both species had parabolic pallets, non-prominent cheek bones, and larger molars in the back with smaller teeth in the front of the mouth. With these more important mutations there are also many differences in the species. In the skull of Homo sapiens they had non-prominent brow ridges and a vertical forehead unlike Neanderthals who had a prominent brow ridge resulting in a non-vertical forehead. Another difference would be the smaller brain region in Homo sapiens compared to Neanderthals’ longer and wider region resulting in a larger brain. When looking at all this information, it is plausible for there to be a subspecies Homo sapiens neandertalensis. The mutations when the two-species interbred may explain why some people’s brain region are larger and also why some people in different continents/ regions have different brow ridges/ cheekbones. Since Homo sapiens out lived the Neanderthals, the more prominent genes shown would be that of the Homo sapiens, explaining why some scientist believes there is no subspecies.
Station 5: Stone Tool Techniques; Oldowan, Aecheulian, and Mousterian
The three different tools show a distinct line on how tools evolved through the species. When looking at the Oldowan tools, it is easy to see that the production and use of them were the most primitive tools the hominins created. By using the pebble rock to strike the others in hope to create a sharp point was by luck. The shards broken off were not extremely sharp or long in length making me believe the purpose of the tool was to scavenge carcasses for meat, using the tool to pick through the body or slice away the skin of the animal. Moving onto the Aecheulian tools, these were more round yet showed purposeful hit marks from other rocks to sharpen the edges. The rock material was also different than that compared to the earlier Oldowan tools, possibly meaning it was a harder and sharper tool. I think the purpose of these tools may have been to hammer or cut either meat or sticks. By sharpening sticks with this tool, the species could have hunted larger prey. I also think that the prehistoric antler could have been a handle in which they attached the tool to the end to use as a primitive axe. The final tools were the more advanced tools in which the hominins took a rock and distinctively made one side wider and gradually created a sharp point, spears, used to throw and pierce through skin of larger animals while hunting.
As a physical anthropologist, the two most important evidence of evolutionary change into the modern human would be the parabolic pallet and the vertical forehead. When comparing all the species skulls over the ages, a parallel pallet means that the species is more closely related to apes and a closer diet/behavior of apes. By developing a parabolic pallet that shows the species is more adapted towards an omnivorous lifestyle, increasing the chance of survival. The other big difference in evolution would be the change in skull producing a vertical forehead. Unlike all other species research in the lab, Homo sapiens were the only ones to truly produce a vertical forehead by not having prominent brow ridges. All other hominin species had somewhat or extremely prominent brow ridges. These two distinct features are specific to only Homo sapiens, making one think why are these characteristics so unique? In other hominins the skull’s look more like that of apes with a long and wide face while the human skull has a smaller more vertical skull. The change into vertical forehead may have resulted in a larger cognitive capacity along with the use of tools and adaptability of their environment to survive. These two traits, parabolic pallet and vertical forehead, may not seem to be overly important; but, with Homo sapiens being the last species to survive, and the only ones with both these traits, they had to have played a large part in our evolution.
When comparing the two species Kenyanthrpus platyops and Australopithecus afarensis, there are many differences, some known and unknown. Looking at the canines of both species, we can see that Australopithecus afarensis didn’t have either prominent canines or a diastema and in Kenyanthrpus platyops we are not sure whether it did or not due to the lack of evidence in the fossil remains. As for the molars, Australopithecus afarensis had more parallel molars to apes than humans while in Kenyanthrpus platyops it is hard to tell whether it is parallel or parabolic: nevertheless, they look to be more parabolic shape. The cheek bones on Australopithecus afarensi are somewhat prominent compared to head size and there is no fossilization of the cheek bones in Kenyanthrpus platyops to determine the shape of them. Both Kenyanthrpus platyops and Australopithecus afarensi had somewhat prominent brow bones and non-vertical foreheads in their species. Only Australopithecus afarensi had a slight sagittal crest on its skull while Kenyanthrpus platyops did not. The foramen magnum on Kenyanthrpus platyops can not be seen however on Australopithecus afarensi it is centered at the based of the skull much like modern humans. …show more content…
Looking at the differences and similarities in both specimens I concluded, that Kenyanthrpus platyops was the ancestor of all Australopithecenes because with the lack of evidence like canines, diastemas, and molars to name a few, the only information I can look at is the features of Australopithecus afarensi’s skull.
Although the skull looks more ape like than human, Australopithecus afarensi does have similar canines and foramen magnum. Since these can’t be seen in Kenyanthrpus platyops I believe that Australopithecus afarensi shows more promise of being closer to Homo sapiens than Kenyanthrpus platyops, at least until new research and skulls are
found.
Station 2: Australopithecene branches
When looking at the similarities and differences between Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus boisei they both didn’t have canines or diastemas to study; however, Australopithecus boisei was more apelike in comparison. At the same time both skulls had parallel molars and large cheek bones in comparison to the rest of the skull, Australopithecus boisei still having larger cheeks than Australopithecus africanus. While Australopithecus africanus had no sagittal crest, Australopithecus boisei had a very large and prominent crest on top of its skull. Like the cheek bones, both species had large brow bones and nonvertical foreheads. The last difference between Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus boisei was that Australopithecus boisei seemed to have a father back foramen magnum whereas Australopithecus africanus was more centered at the base of the skull.
Looking at the similarities and differences of Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus boisei and the information we looked at during class discussion it is safe to say that Australopithecus boisei were most likely herbivorous and Australopithecus africanus were more omnivorous. We can see these differences in mainly the Australopithecus boisei species. When comparing the Australopithecus boisei skull to a gorilla skull they both share similarities in molar sizes, parallel pallets, and sagittal crests. Since gorillas stick to a mainly vegetarian diet, I believe that with the similarities Australopithecus boisei would be vegetarian as well. The Australopithecus africanus skull not having these similarities and looking more human like, I believe them to be more omnivorous. They may not have hunted down prey but rather scavenge carcasses unlike Australopithecus boisei who didn’t have the teeth and molars to chew meat.
Station 3: Archaic Homo
When examining the three skulls, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo ergaster, we don’t see any prominent canines in Homo erectus while we do see prominent canines in Homo ergaster and there is no fossilization of the canines to see in Homo habilis. As for the diastemas, Homo erectus did not have any while Homo ergaster seemed to have small gaps to allow for closing of the mouth. On the other hand, Homo erectus did not have diastemas and Homo habilis did not have remains to look at of diastemas much like the canines. The molars and palate shapes of all the skulls were smaller in Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Homo ergaster had larger molars and a somewhat parallel pallet. Now looking at the brow ridges, we couldn’t see Homo ergaster’s skull due to fossilization errors but Homo erectus had large brows where Homo habilis had smaller brow ridges. The cheek bones of both Homo ergaster and Homo erectus had non-prominent cheek bones but there was not fossilization on the skull of Homo habilis. All the skulls don’t have vertical foreheads or sagittal crests. The foramen magnums were centered at the base of the skull in both Homo ergaster and Homo erectus but there was no foramen magnum to see in the Homo habilis skull due to fossilization.
Homo habilis looked smaller in size compared to the skulls of Homo erectus and Homo ergaster. Also, the teeth sizes in Homo habilis are much larger in comparison to its jaw size where as Homo erectus and Homo ergaster had teeth proportional to their overall head size. Other than that, the species were very similar when it came to shape of the skulls; but, I would need better fossilized examples of Homo habilis to determine if there were more differences than just the ones mentioned.
I believe that both Homo erectus and Homo ergaster are the same species due to the very similar sizes of the skulls, non-vertical foreheads, cheek bones, sagittal crests, and centered foramen magnums. With these many similarities I feel the differences were due to genetic mutations to better fit the needs of the different climates and environments in both continents, Homo erectus in Asia and Homo ergaster in Africa. With these ideas in mind I think the both are from the same species but are beginning to show change into different species.
Station 4: Neanderthals vs. Homo sapiens
Examining the two skulls, Homo sapiens’ skull had no prominent canines and no diastemas shown whereas Neanderthals’ skull had no fossilized evidence of canines or diastemas to examine. As for the molars and pallets, in both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens had larger molars compared to the front teeth with parabolic pallets and non-prominent cheek bones. Although both skulls had centered foramen magnums at the base of the skull and no sagittal crests, Neanderthals had prominent brow ridges and a non-vertical forehead while Homo sabiens had no prominent brow ridges along with a vertical forehead.
As researched, the two species Homo sapiens and Neanderthals have many similarities and differences. Both species had parabolic pallets, non-prominent cheek bones, and larger molars in the back with smaller teeth in the front of the mouth. With these more important mutations there are also many differences in the species. In the skull of Homo sapiens they had non-prominent brow ridges and a vertical forehead unlike Neanderthals who had a prominent brow ridge resulting in a non-vertical forehead. Another difference would be the smaller brain region in Homo sapiens compared to Neanderthals’ longer and wider region resulting in a larger brain. When looking at all this information, it is plausible for there to be a subspecies Homo sapiens neandertalensis. The mutations when the two-species interbred may explain why some people’s brain region are larger and also why some people in different continents/ regions have different brow ridges/ cheekbones. Since Homo sapiens out lived the Neanderthals, the more prominent genes shown would be that of the Homo sapiens, explaining why some scientist believes there is no subspecies.
Station 5: Stone Tool Techniques; Oldowan, Aecheulian, and Mousterian
The three different tools show a distinct line on how tools evolved through the species. When looking at the Oldowan tools, it is easy to see that the production and use of them were the most primitive tools the hominins created. By using the pebble rock to strike the others in hope to create a sharp point was by luck. The shards broken off were not extremely sharp or long in length making me believe the purpose of the tool was to scavenge carcasses for meat, using the tool to pick through the body or slice away the skin of the animal. Moving onto the Aecheulian tools, these were more round yet showed purposeful hit marks from other rocks to sharpen the edges. The rock material was also different than that compared to the earlier Oldowan tools, possibly meaning it was a harder and sharper tool. I think the purpose of these tools may have been to hammer or cut either meat or sticks. By sharpening sticks with this tool, the species could have hunted larger prey. I also think that the prehistoric antler could have been a handle in which they attached the tool to the end to use as a primitive axe. The final tools were the more advanced tools in which the hominins took a rock and distinctively made one side wider and gradually created a sharp point, spears, used to throw and pierce through skin of larger animals while hunting.
As a physical anthropologist, the two most important evidence of evolutionary change into the modern human would be the parabolic pallet and the vertical forehead. When comparing all the species skulls over the ages, a parallel pallet means that the species is more closely related to apes and a closer diet/behavior of apes. By developing a parabolic pallet that shows the species is more adapted towards an omnivorous lifestyle, increasing the chance of survival. The other big difference in evolution would be the change in skull producing a vertical forehead. Unlike all other species research in the lab, Homo sapiens were the only ones to truly produce a vertical forehead by not having prominent brow ridges. All other hominin species had somewhat or extremely prominent brow ridges. These two distinct features are specific to only Homo sapiens, making one think why are these characteristics so unique? In other hominins the skull’s look more like that of apes with a long and wide face while the human skull has a smaller more vertical skull. The change into vertical forehead may have resulted in a larger cognitive capacity along with the use of tools and adaptability of their environment to survive. These two traits, parabolic pallet and vertical forehead, may not seem to be overly important; but, with Homo sapiens being the last species to survive, and the only ones with both these traits, they had to have played a large part in our evolution.