Homo erectus
Creators: name: Berger, Lee R
name: Hawks, John
name: De Ruiter, Darryl J
name: Churchill, Steven E
name: Schmid, Peter
name: Delezene, Lucas K
name: Kivell, Tracy L
name: Garvin, Heather M
name: Williams, Scott A
name: DeSilva, Jeremy M
name: Skinner, Matthew M
name: Musiba, Charles M
name: Cameron, Noel
name: Holliday, Trenton W
name: Harcourt-Smith, William
name: Ackermann, Rebecca R
name: Bastir, Markus
name: Bogin, Barry
name: Bolter, Debra
name: Brophy, Juliet
name: Cofran, Zachary D
name: Congdon, Kimberly A
name: Deane, Andrew S
name: Dembo, Mana
name: Drapeau, Michelle
name: Elliott, Marina C
name: , Elen M Feuerriegel
name: Garcia-Martinez, Daniel
name: Green, David J
name: Gurtov, Alia
name: Irish, Joel D
name: Kruger, Ashley
name: Laird, Myra F
name: Marchi, Damiano
name: Meyer, Marc R
name: Shahed Nalla
name: Enquye W Negash
name: Orr, Caley M
name: Radovcic, Davorka
name: Schroeder, Lauren
name: Scott, Jill E
name: Throckmorton, Zachary
name: Tocheri, Matthew W
name: VanSickle, Caroline
name: Walker, Christopher S
name: Pianpian Wei
name: Zipfel, Bernhard
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2015
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Primates
Hominidae
Homo
Homo erectus

description: <i>Homo erectus</i> Samples from Buia, Chemeron, Daka, Dmanisi, East and West Lake Turkana, Gona, Hexian, Konso, Mojokerto, Olduvai Gorge, Sangiran, Swartkrans, Trinil, and Zhoukoudian were included in this study. South African material is of special interest in this comparison because of the geographic proximity, and because of the difficulty of clearly identifying <i>Homo</i> specimens within the large fossil sample from Swartkrans. In particular, the following specimens from Swartkrans are considered to represent <i>H. erectus</i>: SK 15, SK 18a, SK 27, SK 43, SK 45, SK 68, SK 847, SK 878, SK 2635, SKW 3114, SKX 257/258, SKX 267/ 2671, SKX 268, SKX 269, SKX 334, SKX 339, SKX 610, SKX 1756, SKX 2354, SKX 2355, SKX 2356, and SKX 21204. It has been suggested (<i>Grine et al., 1993</i>, <i>1996</i>) that SK 847 and Stw 53 might represent the same taxon, and that this taxon is a currently undiagnosed species of <i>Homo</i> in South Africa. However, we agree with <i>Clarke (1977</i>; <i>2008)</i> that SK 847 can be attributed to <i>H</i>. <i>erectus</i>, and that Stw 53 cannot. Because there is no clear indication that more than one species of <i>Homo</i> is represented in the Swartkrans sample, we consider all this material to belong to <i>H. erectus</i>. We considered ‘ <i>Homo ergaster</i> ’ (and also ‘ <i>Homo aff. erectus</i> ’ from <i>Wood, 1991</i>) to be synonyms of <i>H. erectus</i> for this study; Turkana Basin specimens that are attributed to <i>H. erectus</i> thus include KNM-ER 730, KNM-ER 820, KNM-ER 992, KNM- ER 1808, KNM-ER 3733, KNM-ER 3883, KNM-ER 42700, KNM-WT 15000. Olduvai specimens include OH 9, OH 12 and OH 28. Original fossil materials from Chemeron, Lake Turkana, Swartkrans, Trinil, and Dmanisi were examined first-hand by the authors, while the remainder were based on casts and published reports (<i>Weidenreich, 1943</i>; <i>Wood, 1991</i>; <i>Anton´, 2003</i>; <i>Rightmire et al., 2006</i>; <i>Suwa et al., 2007</i>). A large number of postcranial specimens have been collected from the Turkana Basin and appear consistent with the anatomical range otherwise found in <i>Homo</i>, and inconsistent with known samples of <i>Australopithecus</i> and <i>Paranthropus</i> from elsewhere. These include KNM-ER 1472, KNM-ER 1481, KNM- ER 3228, KNM-ER 737, and others. We may add other fossils from other sites lacking association with craniodental material, such as the partial BOU-VP 12/1 skeleton and even the Gona pelvis. These specimens attributable to <i>Homo</i> but not necessarily to a particular species did inform our understanding of variability within the genus, but for the most part these specimens do not inform our differential diagnosis of <i>H. naledi</i> relative to particular species. For example, the key element of femoral morphology of <i>H. naledi</i> in contrast to other species is the presence of two well-defined mediolaterally running pillars in the femoral neck; the isolated specimens of early <i>Homo</i> do not contradict this apparent autapomorphy. Likewise, no isolated specimens inform us about the humanlike aspects of foot morphology in <i>H. naledi</i>. In these cases, the lack of associations for this evidence actually is less important than the lack of specimens that replicate the distinctive features of the <i>H. naledi</i> morphology.
description: Published as part of <i>Lee R Berger, John Hawks, Darryl J de Ruiter, Steven E Churchill, Peter Schmid, Lucas K Delezene, Tracy L Kivell, Heather M Garvin, Scott A Williams, Jeremy M DeSilva, Matthew M Skinner, Charles M Musiba, Noel Cameron, Trenton W Holliday, William Harcourt-Smith, Rebecca R Ackermann, Markus Bastir, Barry Bogin, Debra Bolter, Juliet Brophy, Zachary D Cofran, Kimberly A Congdon, Andrew S Deane, Mana Dembo, Michelle Drapeau, Marina C Elliott, , Elen M Feuerriegel, Daniel Garcia-Martinez, David J Green, Alia Gurtov, Joel D Irish, Ashley Kruger, Myra F Laird, Damiano Marchi, Marc R Meyer, Shahed Nalla, Enquye W Negash, Caley M Orr, Davorka Radovcic, Lauren Schroeder, Jill E Scott, Zachary Throckmorton, Matthew W Tocheri, Caroline VanSickle, Christopher S Walker, Pianpian Wei &amp; Bernhard Zipfel, 2015, Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, pp. 1-35 in eLife e 09560 4</i> on page 27, DOI: 10.7554/eLife.09560