Associated Readings: Chapters 10-12 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).Archaic Homo sapiens v. Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis – Post-erectus specimens span a wide geographic range and are extremely variable in morphology. As such, many researchers disagree on the number of post-erectus species and their relations to one another. Until only recently (within the last 10 years), most of these specimens were thrown into a wastebasket category called “archaic Homo sapiens,” which may or may not have included Neanderthals. Most researchers now agree that at least three species are represented by “archaic Homo sapiens,” (Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens), although there is still widespread disagreement on allocation of fossils to these taxa. (And the hard core splitters argue that additional species should be recognized.) Keeping in line with your text, we will dispose of the wastebasket term, using instead Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis. (But know that you may come across numerous sources that use the old terminology, particularly if the source isn’t recent.)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 3 – Homo heidelbergensisSTATION 6 –Stone Tool IndustriesANT 3514- Introduction to Biological AnthropologyTransitional HominidsLab 10, Week of 3/22/04Purpose: The purpose of this lab is for you to examine fossil casts and informationconcerning transitional hominids. You will answer questions concerning Homoerectus/ergaster, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo heidelbergensis, as well as considercomparative questions concerning the relation of these hominids to earlier forms (Homohabilis and Homo rudolfensis).Associated Readings: Chapters 10-12 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).Archaic Homo sapiens v. Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis – Post-erectusspecimens span a wide geographic range and are extremely variable in morphology. As such,many researchers disagree on the number of post-erectus species and their relations to one another.Until only recently (within the last 10 years), most of these specimens were thrown into awastebasket category called “archaic Homo sapiens,” which may or may not have includedNeanderthals. Most researchers now agree that at least three species are represented by “archaicHomo sapiens,” (Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens), althoughthere is still widespread disagreement on allocation of fossils to these taxa. (And the hard coresplitters argue that
View Full Document