Brian G. Richmond

Daniel Schmitt

Tracy L. Kivell

Pierre Lemelin

This book demonstrates how the primate hand combines both primitive and novel morphology, both general function with specialization, and both a remarkable degree of diversity within some clades and yet general similarity across many others. Across the chapters, different authors have addressed a variety of specific questions and provided their perspectives, but all explore the main themes described above to provide an overarching “primitive primate hand” thread to the book. Each chapter provides an in-depth review and critical account of the available literature, a balanced interpretation of the evidence from a variety of perspectives, and prospects for future research questions. In order to make this a useful resource for researchers at all levels, the basic structure of each chapter is the same, so that information can be easily consulted from chapter to chapter. An extensive reference list is provided at the end of each chapter so the reader has additional resources to address more specific questions or to find specific data.

Anatomical, Developmental, Functional, and Paleontological Evidence

The Evolution of the Primate Hand

Bernhard Zipfel

Carol V. Ward

The Sterkfontein hominin fossils generally are attributed to the species Australopithecus africanus, because most craniodental remains from the site are attributable to that taxon (reviews in Grine, 2013, 2019). However, there may be more than one hominin represented within the sample, even within the most productive Member, Member 4, and given the complex stratigraphy of the site and challenges in dating the deposits, this may or not may be the case. In general. Several studies have suggested the presence of two or more australopith taxon within the sample, each citing more morphological variation among the craniodental remains from Sterkfontein that can be attributed to a single species, at least compared to extant hominoid taxa (Kimbel and White, 1988; Clarke 1988, 1994; Lockwood, 1997, Lockwood and Tobias, 2002). However, it is notable that none of these studies agree on which specimens comprise the different possible taxa or groups, largely due to emphasis on different aspects of morphology varying among the fossils. The likely time depth of the Sterkfontein sample, even within Member 4, (see Chapter 3, this volume), may also complicate assessment of potential taxonomic heterogeneity at the site. None of the Sterkfontein postcranial fossils can be definitively associated with any craniodental specimens (but see Thackeray et al., 2002), and so cannot be related directly to any of the proposed taxonomic divisions within the sample. However, some studies have cited variation within the postcranial fossils that may also reflect taxonomic variation, although many studies to date have not tackled this question rigorously. Even though these suggestions have been made occasionally in the literature, no clear or consistent suggestion of two or more taxa has been apparent within the postcranial samples (reviewed in Grine 2019). Taxonomic variation is one of the key questions that each chapter in this volume addresses (summarized in Chapter 18, this volume)"--

Brian G. Richmond

About

Books

Join the club