DOC PREVIEW
UF ANT 3514 - Biological Anthropology

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 5 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Associated Readings: Chapters 11-12 in your textbookTerminology Issues: As you are all now well aware, things change quickly in the field of paleoanthropology! This includes various issues in terminology.Homo erectus v. Homo ergaster – Fossils attributed to these groups span a wide geographic range and an enormous span of time. In addition, the fossils include a wide range of anatomical variability. As such, many researchers (the “splitters”) claim the group should be divided into two. Since the first finds attributed to this group came from Asia, “splitters” feel that the name Homo erectus should be reserved for those fossils more closely associated with the Asian finds in geographic distribution, time range, and anatomical features. The other fossils (those from Africa) should therefore be given a new designation of Homo ergaster. Not all researchers agree, however. The “lumpers” feel that the anatomical variability found among these specimens falls in line with their wide geographic distribution, and therefore only the name Homo erectus should be retained. The author of your textbook, Bernard Campbell, is a lumper (at least concerning Homo erectus). Therefore, keeping in line with the text, those specimens originating from Africa will be denoted as “African Homo erectus (Homo ergaster).”Homo neanderthalensis v. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis – It is now generally agreed by most researchers that Neanderthals are a separate species of the genus Homo. However, you should be aware that Neaderthals are sometimes (depending on what you are reading and the publish date) referred to as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, denoting a subspecies designation within the species Homo sapiens. Keeping in line with the text, Neanderthals will be denoted as Homo neanderthalensis (or simply Neanderthals).STATION 1 – Early Homo(at home) Some scientists have argued that H. habilis and H. rudolfensis are one species. Do you think there is good reason to separate these skulls into two species or should they be collapsed into a single species? Explain your reasoning.STATION 2 – Homo ergaster vs. Homo erectusSTATION 5 –Stone Tool IndustriesANT 3514- Introduction to Biological AnthropologyEarly Homo and Homo erectusLab 10, Week of 3/21/05Purpose: The purpose of this lab is for you to examine fossil casts and information concerning transitionalhominids. You will answer questions concerning Homo erectus/ergaster, Homo neanderthalensis, andHomo heidelbergensis, as well as consider comparative questions concerning the relation of these hominidsto earlier forms (Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis).Associated Readings: Chapters 11-12 in your textbookTerminology Issues: As you are all now well aware, things change quickly in the field of paleoanthropology! This includes various issues in terminology. Homo erectus v. Homo ergaster – Fossils attributed to these groups span a wide geographic rangeand an enormous span of time. In addition, the fossils include a wide range of anatomicalvariability. As such, many researchers (the “splitters”) claim the group should be divided into two.Since the first finds attributed to this group came from Asia, “splitters” feel that the name Homoerectus should be reserved for those fossils more closely associated with the Asian finds ingeographic distribution, time range, and anatomical features. The other fossils (those from Africa)should therefore be given a new designation of Homo ergaster. Not all researchers agree,however. The “lumpers” feel that the anatomical variability found among these specimens falls inline with their wide geographic distribution, and therefore only the name Homo erectus should beretained. The author of your textbook, Bernard Campbell, is a lumper (at least concerning Homoerectus). Therefore, keeping in line with the text, those specimens originating from Africa will bedenoted as “African Homo erectus (Homo ergaster).” Homo neanderthalensis v. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis – It is now generally agreed by mostresearchers that Neanderthals are a separate species of the genus Homo. However, you should beaware that Neaderthals are sometimes (depending on what you are reading and the publish date)referred to as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, denoting a subspecies designation within thespecies Homo sapiens. Keeping in line with the text, Neanderthals will be denoted as Homoneanderthalensis (or simply Neanderthals).Although this lab is not due until next week, it might be helpful to fill in the following table before you attend your lab session.(at home) Transitional HominidsHominids Date Range CranialCapacityHolotype GeographicDistributionHomo habilisHomo rudolfensisHomo ergasterHomo erectusHomo heidelbergensisHomo neanderthalensisUseful websites:www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs Click on hominid fossils and type specimens under table of contentswww.modernhumanorigins.com/hominids.htmlSTATION 1 – Early Homo(in class) Discuss the anatomical variation between Homo habilis, African Homo erectus (Homo ergaster), and Homo rudolfensis regarding: Homo rudolfensis African Homo erectus (H.ergaster)Supraorbital TorusCranial Vault (Shape/Height)Orbit Size and ShapeOccipital Area (Torus)(at home) Some scientists have argued that H. habilis and H. rudolfensis are one species. Do you think there is good reason to separate these skulls into two species or should they be collapsed into a single species? Explain your reasoning.STATION 2 – Homo ergaster vs. Homo erectus(in class) Compare Homo erectus and Homo ergaster. Complete the table:Homo erectus (Sangiran 17) Homo ergaster (KNM-ER 3733)- long and low vault, receding frontal “squama”- angulation at rear of skull with a “transverse” occipital torus present- large supraorbital torus- high, rounded orbits- strong alveolar prognathism- canine fossa absentSTATION 3- Homo neanderthalensis(in class) Compare the “classic” Neanderthal features with the anatomically modernhuman from Cro-Magnon (France).Homo neanderthalensis Homo sapiensSkull vault(long vs. short; high vs. low)Presence/Absence of occipital bunSupraorbital torusEye orbits(shape/size)Nasal area(shape/size)Degree of PrognathismPresence/Absence of caninefossaRetromolar gap(size)Presence/Absence of chin(at home) What about these features (and other anatomical features)


View Full Document

UF ANT 3514 - Biological Anthropology

Download Biological Anthropology
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Biological Anthropology and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Biological Anthropology 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?