《自然》百年科学经典(英汉对照版)(第六卷)(1973-1984) by 霍金 & 等

Author:霍金 & 等
Language: zho
Format: azw3
Published: 2014-03-31T16:00:00+00:00

　　中文

Other specimens recovered during 1973 are listed in Table 1 and will be described in detail after studies are completed.　　中文

Significance of the 1973 Collection

In previous reports1,4-7, the East Rudolf hominids were assigned to Australopithecus, Homo or indeterminate (the last category included both very fragmentary specimens and those of uncertain taxonomic rank).　　中文

The East Rudolf specimens that have been attributed to Australopithecus span a period of time from 3 million years to just over 1 million years with apparently little morphological change. This form is likely to be the same species as A. boisei8; it also shows similarities with A. robustus from southern Africa. A Pliocene origin is suggested for this specialised group.　　中文

Specimens attributed to Homo have been recovered from deposits covering a similar time span, but these show greater morphological variability. Those recovered from the Ileret Member seem to differ from those recovered from the Lower Member of the Koobi Fora Formation. The suggestion that a large brained, fully bipedal hominid was living at East Rudolf 3 million years ago was put forward after the 1972 discoveries7. This point of view is supported by the cranial fragments, KNM-ER 1590, also from below the KBS Tuff, and this specimen is provisionally attributed to Homo.　　中文

The 1973 collection from East Rudolf raises many questions. The new mandible, KNM-ER 1802, could be considered as belonging to the same genus and species as KNM-ER 1470 and 1590. There are striking similarities between the dental characters of KNM-ER 1802 and some specimens from Olduvai Gorge such as the type mandible of Homo habilis, OH 7. Although the suggested cranial capacity for H. habilis is appreciably smaller than that determined for KNM-ER 1470, the discrepancy may be due to the fragmentary material upon which the former estimates were made. I consider that the evidence for a ‘small brained’ form of Homo during the Lower Pleistocene is tenuous.　　中文

The cranium, KNM-ER 1813, may prove to be quite distinct from the robust australopithecines and from Homo, as represented by KNM-ER 1470. The dentition is ‘hominine’, yet the cranial capacity appears small. The cranium has some of the features seen in the gracile, small brained, hominid Australopithecus africanus Dart, from Sterkfontein.　　中文

I have previously questioned the validity of a distinct gracile species of Australopithecus6, but this new evidence reopens the possibility of its existence. Some authors9,10 have suggested that Homo habilis, particularly OH 24, shows features typical of Australopithecus africanus. My suggestion here, that H. habilis may have affinities with KNM-ER 1470 and 1590, refers only to OH 7 and OH 16. Features of the calvarium of OH 24 show similarities with KNM-ER 1813. The size and morphology of the teeth of the two specimens are alike and the cranial capacities may also be comparable11,12.　　中文

The skull KNM-ER 1805 is undoubtedly important, but its interpretation is enigmatic. Its relatively large cranium bears sagittal and nuchal crests but has small teeth; this combination is in contrast to all the specimens previously recovered from East Rudolf.　　中文

In any consideration of the affinities of the East Rudolf hominids, the question of sexual dimorphism must not be overlooked.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.