OHS2020 General questions
Why are they so many different suggestions about the different species ?
The fossils we want to classify are very incomplete, some times only a few teeth or pieces of skulls, yet we must compare the same parts of the skeleton in different fossils to see morphological differences and commonalities, and group the fossils in pertinent species. Thus we do not always have enough information to know whether a given fossil is just a member of an already known morphological species with minor abnormalities or the holotype for a newly found species. For instance, the scientists who first identified H. heidelbergensis only had a lower jawbone with specific characteristics, whereas the scientists who identified H. rhodesiensis had no lower jawbone for their species: we can not know for sure whether they were the same species, lacking homologous structures to compare. (p.110)
Another problem is that the morphological differences can very subtle and get missed for a long time. For instance, H. naledi has probably often been misclassified as part of the H. erectus species. (p.104)
Significatives morphologicals differences can also result from sexual dimorphism or an age difference or an illness, and must then not be taken for the proof of a new species. This is why the first hypothesis of the scientists when discovering H. florensis was that it was a child, further studies had first to show that it was an healthy adult before claiming it as a new species. (p.130) —JeremyS
New Question
blablabla
New Question
blablabla
New Question
blablabla
New Question
blablabla
New Question
blablabla
- retour à Our_Human_Story_2020
- retour à Accueil