New Human Species? Fossil Find 'Clearly Distinct' From Other Early Humans, Researchers Say | The Huffington Post New Human Species? Fossil Find 'Clearly Distinct' From Other Early Humans, Researchers Say 08/08/2012 02:46 pm ET 4.5k By: Charles Choi, LiveScience Contributor Published: 08/08/2012 01:05 PM EDT on LiveScience New fossils from the dawn of the human lineage suggest our ancestors may have lived alongside a diversity of extinct human species, researchers say. Although modern humans, Homo sapiens, are the only human species alive today, the world has seen a number of human species come and go. Other members perhaps include the recently discovered "hobbit" Homo floresiensis . The human lineage, Homo, evolved in Africa about 2.5 million years ago, coinciding with the first evidence of stone tools. For the first half of the last century, conventional wisdom was that the most primitive member of our lineage was Homo erectus , the direct ancestor of our species.

However, just over 50 years ago, scientists discovered an even more primitive species of Homo at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania they dubbed Homo habilis, which had a smaller brain and a more apelike skeleton. Now fossils between 1.78 million and 1.95 million years old discovered in 2007 and 2009 in northern Kenya suggest that early Homo were quite a diverse bunch, with at least one other extinct human species living at the same time as H. erectus and H. habilis. "Two species of the genus Homo, our own genus, lived alongside our direct ancestor, Homo erectus, nearly 2 million years ago," researcher Meave Leakey at the Turkana Basin Institute in Nairobi, Kenya, told LiveScience. Meave Leakey carefully excavates the new face KNM-ER 62000. Researchers might be able to reconstruct what this new human species might have eaten by looking at its teeth and jaws.

A skull known as KNM-ER 1470, found in 1972 in Kenya, was at the center of the debate over the number of species of early Homo living nearly 2 million years ago. It had a larger brain and a flatter face than H. habilis, leading some researchers to declare it a distinct species they dubbed Homo rudolfensis . [ See Photos of the New Homo Fossils ] However, making comparisons between these fossils was difficult, because no single purported H. rudolfensis specimen contained both the face and the lower jaw, details needed to see if it was indeed separate from H. habilis. Any supposed differences between H. habilis and H. rudolfensis might, for instance, have been due to variations between the sexes of a single species. The newly discovered face and lower-jaw fossils, uncovered within a radius of just more than 6 miles (10 kilometers) from where KNM-ER 1470 was unearthed, now suggest that KNM-ER 1470 and the novel finds are indeed members of a distinct species of early Homo that stands out from others with its uniquely built face.

"It had very flat facial features — you could draw a straight line from its eye socket to where its incisor teeth would be," researcher Fred Spoor at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, told LiveScience. "This shows east Africa about 2 million years ago was quite a crowded place with many diverse species of early Homo," Spoor said. The environment was more verdant back then than it is today, with a larger lake. "There was plenty of opportunities ecologically to accommodate more than one hominid species ," Spoor said. Other researchers suggest these new fossils are not enough evidence of a new human species . However, "these are really distinctive shape profiles — it really shows something completely different," Leakey said. "I feel pretty confident that we're not just dealing with variation in one species." In principle, researchers might be able to reconstruct what this new species might have eaten by looking at its teeth and jaws. "The incisors are really rather small compared to what you'd find in other early Homo," Spoor said. "In the back of the mouth, the teeth are large, telling us a lot of food processing was going on there ...

it may be possible it ate more tough, plantlike foods than meat." Other extinct human fossils discovered in that area are thought to belong to H. habilis. As such, at least two different species once lived in that site in northern Kenya. However, it remains possible these other fossils do not belong to H. habilis, suggesting yet another species lived there at the same time, paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood at George Washington University at Washington, D.C., who did not take part in this research, said in a review of this work. The scientists detail their findings in the Aug. 9 issue of the journal Nature. Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience . We're also on Facebook & Google+ .

1.9m-year-old pelvis suggests early humans had tiny hips and spindly legs | Daily Mail Online Strange bodies of our ancestors revealed: 1.9 million-year-old pelvis suggests early humans had tiny hips and spindly legs Fossilised pelvis and femur from early human found in Rift Valley, Kenya Scientists believe they belong to either Homo rudolfensis or Homo habilis The fossil femur and pelvis are far narrower than those of modern humans This suggests our ancestors had thinner legs and hips than Homo sapiens The fossils show early humans had varied body shapes as well as skulls The Fact Of Creation: Homo rudolfensis Friday, August 31, 2012 Homo rudolfensis This is the Latin name given to a few fossil fragments discovered in 1972. Since these were unearthed near the River Rudolf in Kenya, the species they were assumed to represent was given the name Homo rudolfensis. The majority of paleoanthropologists, however, regard these fossils not as a new species but as H. habilis—in other words, a species of monkey.

Richard Leakey, who discovered the fossils, presented the skull—which he estimated to be 2.8 million years old and which was given the official designation of KNM-ER 1470, as the greatest discovery in the history of anthropology—and thus aroused an immense reaction. According to Leakey, this creature, with a small skull volume like that of Australopithecus and with a human-type face, was the missing link betweenAustralopithecus and man. However, it was later realized that the human facial features of KNM-ER 1470, which had appeared on the covers of various scientific journals, were errors, made perhaps even deliberately in assembling the skull fragments. Professor Tim Bromage, who conducted research into the anatomy of the human face, summarized his findings produced with the aid of computer simulations in 1992: When it [KNM-ER 1470] was first reconstructed, the face was fitted to the cranium in an almost vertical position, much like the flat faces of modern humans.

But recent studies of anatomical relationships show that in life the face must have jutted out considerably, creating an ape-like aspect, rather like the faces ofAustralopithecus. 205 On the same subject, the evolutionist paleoanthropologist J. E. Cronin says this: ... its relatively robustly constructed face, flattish naso-alveolar clivus, (recalling australopithecine dished faces), low maximum cranial width (on the temporals), strong canine juga and large molars (as indicated by remaining roots) are all relatively primitive traits which ally the specimen with members of the taxon A. africanus..... KNM-ER 1470, like other early Homo specimens, shows many morphological characteristics in common with gracile australopithecines that are not shared with later specimens of the genus Homo. 206 C. Loring Brace from Michigan University arrived at the following conclusion regarding the KNM-ER 1470 skull, based on analyses of its jaw and teeth structure: . . .

from the size of the palate and the expansion of the area allotted to molar roots, it would appear that ER 1470 retained a fully Australopithecus -sized face and dentition. 207 John Hopkins University Professor of paleoanthropology Alan Walker, who has examined the KNM-ER 1470 skull at least as much as Leakey, maintains that like Homo habilis or H. rudolfensis, the creature should not be classified as Homo but should be included in the classification Australopithecus. 208 Classifications such as Homo habilis or H. rudolfensis, which evolutionists depict as transitional forms between Australopithecus and Homo erectus, are completely fictitious. Most present-day researchers accept the fact that these are members of the series Australopithecus. All their anatomical characteristics point to the fact that they were monkeys. 205 Tim Bromage, New Scientist, Vol. 133, 1992, pp. 38-41. 206 J. E. Cronin, N. T. Boaz, C. B. Stringer, Y.

Rak, "Tempo and Mode in Hominid Evolution," Nature, vol. 292, 1981, pp. 117. 207 C. L. Brace, H. Nelson, N. Korn, M. L. Brace, Atlas of Human Evolution, 2nd Edition, New York: Rinehart and Wilson, 1979. 208 Alan Walker, Scientific American, Vol. 239 (2), 1978, p. 54. Posted by Homo rudolfensis: Finally shown to be a separate species? - Filthy Monkey Men Filthy Monkey Men About Homo rudolfensis: Finally shown to be a separate species? Homo habilis is the earliest member of our genus, living from 2.3-1.4 million years ago. It was the first species to use stone tools and the first to really look more human than ape, with a face that didn’t stick out anywhere near as far Aug 09, 2012 31 Homo habilis is the earliest member of our genus, living from 2.3-1.4 million years ago.

It was the first species to use stone tools and the first to really look more human than ape, with a face that didn’t stick out anywhere near as far as chimps’ or Australopthecines’. However it isn’t directly related to us. Instead it was a sister species which ultimately died out, like the neanderthals or Paranthropines . This means that the early history of our genus is complex since the human lineage must exist somewhere, along with any other branches H. habilis was related to. One example of this complexity is Homo rudolfensis, a hominin nobody was quite sure existed. Living ~1.9 million years ago it is known from only a single skull which shares many similarities with Homo habilis. Although several potential H. rudolfensis fossils have been found over the years, few can definitely be placed within the skull’s family. This lack of data, combined with the similarities between the skull and H. habilis has resulted in many debates over whether the H. rudolfensis finds are an entirely new species or simply an example of variation within H. habilis.

Handily 3 new fossils from Kenya may shed some light on the issue by clarifying the anatomy (and thus taxonomy) of Homo rudolfensis. All three come from Koobi Fora , a famous African site which also yielded the original H. rudolfensis skull. The excavation was led by a member of the Leaky family which has been studying human evolution in Africa for 3 generations. They’re practically an evolutionary anthropology institution, uncovering the first evidence of the Oldowan industry , the first Paranthropine and Turkana boy , amongst many other things. Homo rudolfensis (right) and Homo habilis (left) The first fossil died ~1.9 million years ago and is a juvenile, about as developed as a 13/14 year old modern human. However, the life history of these hominins was shorter so this individual was likely younger than comparable modern humans, probably around 8 years old. Although most teeth were missing, there were sufficient to provide an estimate of the age range for this fossil. Like the teeth, most of the bones themselves are also missing and all that’s left is the upper jaw and a portion of the face.

Juvenile fossils are weaker and thus rare so there aren’t that many specimens this new one can be compared with. The researchers estimated what it would look like as an adult to circumvent this problem, although that does introduce a potential margin for error. Their predictions place this specimen within the genus Homo, having a flatter “human” like face than Australopithecines. The fossil itself also attests to this conclusion, being more similar to Homo finds, particularly the few juvenile ones available. Most interestingly, it contains the same features which sets the original H. rudolfensis skull apart from H. habilis. The juvenile fossil The second fossil is a lower jaw, one side of which is particularly well preserved. From this well preserved side they were able to work out what the other side looked at, removing essentially all errors that any damage would cause. The find itself dates to between 1.87 and 1.78 mya, making it younger than the juvenile. As such, questions are immediately raised over whether it belongs to the same species as the juvenile. Particularly given that there are a few differences between the two specimens. It certainly comes from the genus Homo.

Most of the teeth are preserved in the jaw which are smaller than Paranthropine teeth and fall either within or slightly below the range for early Homo, confirming its designation as a member of that genus. Is it part of the same group as the other finds? It turns out that despite the aforementioned differences, this fossil does appear to be most similar to the juvenile described above, which in turn is most similar to the original H. rudolfensis skull. The final fossil is a lower jaw fragment dating to ~1.9 mya. Like the second fossil, it is most similar to the juvenile and so is also probably a member of H. rudolfensis. The second and third (fragment in the bottom right) fossils. Most news outlets have claimed that these fossils are the discovery of some new species. However, as I mentioned, the original H. rudolfensis cranium is nearly 40 years old! This find can hardly be categorised as a new species. A more accurate headline would be “New fossils confirm suspected species exists.” Although the truth is less snappy I do not believe that justifies ignoring it. But before I go writing letters to newspapers demanding corrections, do these fossils in fact confirm H.

rudolfensis was a real, distinct species? Although they can clearly be grouped with the original cranium, does that indeed lend credence to placing this group outside of Homo habilis? These fossils show that there was a population of individuals with a unique anatomy and that the original skull was not just a funky looking individual. This certainly lends credence to the idea that H. rudolfensis was a distinct species rather than an example of individual variation. But of course, “population” does not equal “species” and so the fact there was a population of these unique creatures does not prove they were a different species. Whilst a point in favour of H. rudolfensis being distinct, it is not conclusive proof. That must come from the anatomy, from figuring out whether these creatures are different enough to be defined as a different species. Ultimately the number of examples of anatomy isn’t as important as the anatomy itself. Of course, that shouldn’t diminish the importance of these fossils. Although these finds might not be as crucial as newspapers say they are (one even reporting this “ rewrites the story of human evolution “), what we label a species is not that important.

We now know that there was definite, population wide variation within early Homo and that the story of our genus’s genesis (try saying that after a few pints) is even more complex than the single cranium suggested. It might not “rewrite” the story, but it is certainly editing a chapter. Meave G. Leakey,, Fred Spoor,, M. Christopher Dean,, Craig S. Feibel,, Susan C. Antón,, & Christopher Kiarie, Louise N. Leakey (2012). New fossils from Koobi Fora in northern Kenya confirm taxonomic diversity in early Homo Nature (488), 201-204 DOI: 10.1038/nature11322 EvoAnth joke: “What’s Santa’s favourite Hominin? Homo rudolfensis Scientists Find 2 Million-Year-Old Human Fossils from BBC Website Researchers studying fossils from northern Kenya have identified a new species of human that lived two million years ago. The discoveries suggests that at least three distinct species of humans co-existed in Africa.

The research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from early primates to modern humans. The research has been published in the journal Nature . A new species of human: One of several co-existing in Africa two million years ago Anthropologists have discovered three human fossils that are between 1.78 and 1.95 million years old. The specimens are of a face and two jawbones with teeth. The finds back the view that a skull found in 1972 is of a separate species of human, known as Homo rudolfensis . The skull was markedly different to any others from that time. It had a relatively large brain and long flat face. But for 40 years the skull was the only example of the creature and so it was impossible to say for sure whether the individual was an unusual specimen or a member of a new species. With the discovery of the three new fossils researchers can say with more certainty that H. rudolfensis really was a separate type of human that existed around two million years ago alongside other species of humans.

For a long time the oldest known human ancestor was thought to be a primitive species, dating back 1.8 million years ago called Homo erectus. They had small heads, prominent brows and stood upright. But 50 years ago, researchers discovered an even older and more primitive species of human called Homo habilis that may have coexisted with H. erectus . Now it seems H. rudolfensis was around too and raises the distinct possibility that many other species of human also existed at the time. This find is the latest in a growing body of evidence that challenges the view that our species evolved in a smooth linear progression from our primate ancestors. The human lineage Instead, according to Dr Meave Leakey of the Turkana Basin Institute in Nairobi, who led the research the find shows that there was a diversity early on in the evolution of our species. "Our past was a diverse past," she told BBC News, "our species was evolving in the same way that other species of animals evolved. There was nothing unique about us until we began to make sophisticated stone tools." In other groups of animals many different species evolve, each with new traits, such as plumage, or webbed feet.

If the new trait is better suited to the environment then the new species thrives, if not it becomes extinct. According to Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, fossil evidence is increasingly suggesting that human evolution followed the same pattern. "Humans seem to have been evolving in different ways in different regions. It was almost as if nature was developing different human prototypes with different attributes, only one of which, an ancestor of our species, was ultimately successful in evolutionary terms," he said. According to Dr Leakey, the growing body of evidence to suggest that humans evolved in the same way as other animals shows that "evolution really does work". "It leads to amazing adaptations and amazing species and we are one of them," she said. UPDATE For some additional takes, check out Erin Waymanï¿½s piece at Hominid Hunting (Smithsonian) and Zachary Cofranï¿½s great discussion of these new fossils alongside the material from Malapa, South Africa, at Lawnchair Anthropology. Meave Leakey, Fred Spoor and colleagues have a new article in Nature featuring some wonderful new fossils from Northern Kenya, dating to between 1.75 and 2.0 million years of age.

This is a critical time period in human evolutionary history, as it corresponds to the early evolution of our genus, Homo. The article has gotten a lot of attention, with stories in the New York Times, two related commentaries in Nature, and I am sure numerous other stories elsewhere. I am not sure if the actual article is behind a firewall or not, but here is the abstract : Since its discovery in 1972 (ref. 1), the cranium KNM-ER 1470 has been at the centre of the debate over the number of species of early Homo present in the early Pleistocene epoch(2) of eastern Africa. KNM-ER 1470 stands out among other specimens attributed to early Homo because of its larger size, and its flat and subnasally orthognathic face with anteriorly placed maxillary zygomatic roots(3).

This singular morphology and the incomplete preservation of the fossil have led to different views as to whether KNM-ER 1470 can be accommodated within a single species of early Homo that is highly variable because of sexual, geographical and temporal factors(4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), or whether it provides evidence of species diversity marked by differences in cranial size and facial or masticatory adaptation(3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20). Here we report on three newly discovered fossils, aged between 1.78 and 1.95 million years (Myr) old, that clarify the anatomy and taxonomic status of KNM-ER 1470. KNM-ER 62000, a well-preserved face of a late juvenile hominin, closely resembles KNM-ER 1470 but is notably smaller. It preserves previously unknown morphology, including moderately sized, mesiodistally long postcanine teeth.

The nearly complete mandible KNM-ER 60000 and mandibular fragment KNM-ER 62003 have a dental arcade that is short anteroposteriorly and flat across the front, with small incisors; these features are consistent with the arcade morphology of KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 62000. The new fossils confirm the presence of two contemporary species of early Homo, in addition to Homo erectus, in the early Pleistocene of eastern Africa. Indeed, these are wonderful new fossils, particularly the KNM-ER 62000 lower face and KNM-ER 60000 mandible. Writing for Scientific American, Kate Wong has a nice commentary on the story that includes several quotes from me, which I thought I could clarify and expand on a bit. So, Leakey, Spoor and colleagues (as well as just about all of the other commentators I have seen) feel these new fossils provide additional evidence for multiple, concurrent species of Homo at the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary (~1.6-2.0 million years ago). I suggest that might not be the case.

What makes me so crazy? To explain, it helps to have a little historical perspective on the ï¿½problemï¿½ of early Homo. The current arguments about early Homo can be viewed, in some ways, as dating back to the discovery of fossil material from Olduvai Gorge by Mary and Louis Leakey back in the 1960s. When the original Olduvai material was discovered it showed a combination of characters that appeared intermediate between already known South African Australopiths (A. africanus, in particular) and already known Asian (and to a less extent, African) Homo erectus such as those from China and Java. Philip Tobias, controversially, gave them the designation Homo habilis and placed them as a transitional species. Over time a lot more fossils from this 1.5-2.0 time period were discovered, and rather than clarifying the set of relationships, these new fossils simply added more and more variation to the picture. This is particularly true for the huge number of fossils uncovered by researchers in the Turkana/Omo basin region of Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia (e.g.

KNM ER-1470, KNM WT-15000, KNM ER-3733, KNM ER-992, KNM ER-1813, KNM ER-1805 and many many more). As a result, Homo habilis, which was already rather poorly defined on the basis of features that donï¿½t preserve well (hand morphology), are highly variable (cranial capacity, dentition size), or non-morphological (tool use), began to be viewed as representing multiple taxa. Instead of representing a transitional lineage, it came to be viewed more and more as a radiation, and the primary question of interest became how many species (Habilis?, Rudolfensis?, Ergaster?, Erectus?) and which one ultimately led to us. I had the opportunity to view most of these fossils in Nairobi in 2004 while doing my dissertation research. Indeed, while I was there, Meave Leakey and Fred Spoor were doing work on earlier published materials for Ileret, and were very kind and gracious to me in talking about their work and my own dissertation research.

One thing that made my view different was that I was not looking at the fossils from the perspective of someone who was accustomed to seeing the fossils from an African perspective. I had already been working at the site of Dmanisi for several years and had just finished a sustained period of work on the Dmanisi fossil assemblage. Dmanisi, although 2000 miles away in Georgia, is positioned smack in the middle of this critical time sequence (~1.76 Ma), but comes from a single, rapidly deposited locality, with fantastic preservation of multiple individuals and partial skeletons. And what is interesting about Dmanisi is the tremendous morphological variation present in an isolated sample. At Dmanisi we see an echo of the larger pattern of variation in the East African record, but on a smaller, more interpretable scale. For example, consider the following image (approximate scale, the Dmanisi 2600 mandible has been horizontally reflected to allow for the comparison of its better preserved side): Prior to the publication of KNM ER-60000, the Dmanisi 2600 mandible was truly exceptional in many respects relative to other mandibles assigned to early Homo.

In particular, the size of its corpus and height of its ramus stood out. This new specimen from Kenya, dating from a similar time, is the best match we have yet for its features. And yet it is being linked to a fossil, KNM ER-62000, that has notable affinities (despite a significant difference in size) with KNM ER-1470, a fossil that prior to this publication also appeared somewhat morphologically exceptional relative to its peers. The authors also note similarities between the new lower face (KNM ER-62000) and the Dmanisi 2700 individual. So in some ways, these fossils seem to be filling in a gap between earlier African material associated with habilis/rudolfensis and Dmanisi. And yet Dmanisi has already been widely associated with later African and Asian material assigned to Homo erectus, hence the description of it in various publications as basal Homo erectus.

Put simply, my initial take on these fossils is that they fill an important gap, drawing connections between two somewhat exceptional specimens (KNM ER-1470 and Dmanisi 2600) and a broader evolutionary picture of change in early Homo. Bernard Wood, in his Nature commentary on the article, makes the argument that these fossils continue to push the range of variation in early Homo too far, evidence for taxonimc diversity at this time (he also suggests several easy to do studies that would inform this debate): Finally, some researchers have suggested(9,10) that evidence from the face and jaws of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, plus what little fossil evidence we have of these speciesï¿½ other body regions, stretches the definition of the genus Homo too far. Perhaps these two taxa belonged to a different lineage from that from which H. sapiens arose? My prediction is that by 2064, 100 years after Leakey and colleaguesï¿½ description of H. habilis(3), researchers will view our current hypotheses about this phase of human evolution as remarkably simplistic.

This line or argument reminds me of my previous thoughts on the conflation of simplicity with taxonomic linearity in paleoanthropology. I do not think rapid evolutionary change within a lineage need necessarily be ï¿½simple.ï¿½ We actually have a great model for thinking about thisï¿½ ourselves. The last 100,000 years of human evolution involves fairly rapid evolutionary change. This is true for the hard-tissue elements of our anatomy that preserve as fossils, but even more so for our DNA. Yet this rapid evolutionary change was in no ways simple. It involved a massive and rapid expansion of human populations out of Africa, significant reductions in human adult mortality, a diversification and intensification of human technological production and use AND genetic exchange with at least distinct and extinct human lineages, the Neandertals and Denisovans. A model of a single lineage of early Homo need not be simple. As a starting point, we know that there are at least two other closely related lineages of hominins walking around Africa at the time in the form of Australopithecus boisei and whatever Australopithecus sediba represents (its own species, some extension of A.

africanus, or something else entirely). Thus, the presence of taxonomic diversity is already one element present to contribute potential evolutionary complexity. An even bigger factor is simply what is going on with the evolutionary transformation in early Homo. Between 2.0 and 1.5 million years there is a significant change, even within specimens that consensus assigns to a single taxon (i.e. Homo erectus) in the form of changing proportionality in the post-cranial skeleton, cranial expansion, reduction in post-canine dental size and related changes in the face and cranial base. One might conceptualize this as a fairly rapid change from something that is ecologically distinct from living humans and apes, whatever the progenitor of Homo is, to something that has all the trappings of a nascent ecological human (technologically-mediated, cooperative, ecological generalist). It is clear there is an abundance of morphological diversity in the early African fossil record for Homo. The consensus going back more than 30 years is that this must be a reflection of taxonomic diversity. I am not convinced that we are at that point.

It is quite possible that Bernard Wood is correct and we will look back in fifty years and say we had far too simple a perspective on issues of this time. However, it is not entirely clear to me that such a view necessitates the presence of multiple taxa , overlapping in range, morphology and ecology. There is a lot more that could be said of these new fossils, comparisons with other fossils, and arguments about their evolutionary significanceï¿½.all of which will hopefully take place in time. But for now I will pause and commend the whole team responsible for providing us with these great new fossils. Notes 1. Meave G. Leakey, Fred Spoor, M. Christopher Dean, Craig S. Feibel, Susan C. Antï¿½n, Christopher Kiarie & Louise N. Leakey. New fossils from Koobi Fora in northern Kenya confirm taxonomic diversity in early Homo. Nature 488, 201ï¿½204 (09 August 2012) doi: 10.1038/nature11322 Homo habilis is the earliest member of our genus, living from 2.3-1.4 million years ago.

It was the first species to use stone tools and the first to really look more human than ape, with a face that didnï¿½t stick out anywhere near as far as chimpsï¿½ or Australopthecinesï¿½. However it isnï¿½t directly related to us. Instead it was a sister species which ultimately died out, like the Neanderthals or Paranthropines. This means that the early history of the genus Homo is quite complex since the human lineage must exist somewhere, along with any other branches H. habilis was related to. This complexity is further compounded by Homo rudolfensis, a hominin nobody was quite sure existed. Living ~1.9 million years ago it is known from only a single skull which shares many similarities with Homo habilis. Although several potential H. rudolfensis fossils have been found over the years, few can definitely be placed within the skullï¿½s family. This lack of data, combined with the similarities between the skull and H. habilis has resulted in many debates over whether the H. rudolfensis finds are an entirely new species or simply an example of variation within H. habilis.

Handily 3 new fossils from Kenya may shed some light on the issue by clarifying the anatomy (and thus taxonomy) of Homo rudolfensis. All three come from Koobi Fora, a famous African site which also yielded the original H. rudolfensis skull. The excavation was led by a member of the Leaky family which has been studying human evolution in Africa for 3 generations. Theyï¿½re practically an evolutionary anthropology institution, uncovering the first evidence of the Oldowan industry, the first Paranthropine and Turkana boy, amongst many other things. Homo rudolfensis (right) and Homo habilis (left) The first fossil died ~1.9 million years ago and is a juvenile, about as developed as a 13/14 year old modern human. However, the life history of these hominins was shorter so this individual was likely younger than comparable modern humans, probably around 8 years old. Although most teeth were missing, there were sufficient to provide an estimate of the age range for this fossil. Like the teeth, most of the bones themselves are also missing and all thatï¿½s left is the upper jaw and a portion of the face.

Juvenile fossils are weaker and thus rare so there arenï¿½t that many specimens this new one can be compared with. The researchers estimated what it would look like as an adult to circumvent this problem, although that does introduce a potential margin for error. Their predictions place this specimen within the genus Homo, having a flatter ï¿½humanï¿½ like face than Australopithecines. The fossil itself also attests to this conclusion, being more similar to Homo finds, particularly the few juvenile ones available. Most interestingly, it contains the same features which sets the original H. rudolfensis skull apart from H. habilis. The second fossil is a lower jaw, one side of which is particularly well preserved. From this well preserved side they were able to work out what the other side looked at, removing essentially all errors that any damage would cause. The find itself dates to between 1.87 and 1.78 mya, making it younger than the juvenile. As such, questions are immediately raised over whether it belongs to the same species as the juvenile. Particularly given that there are a few differences between the two specimens. It certainly comes from the genus Homo.

Most of the teeth are preserved in the jaw which are smaller than Paranthropine teeth and fall either within or slightly below the range for early Homo, confirming its designation as a member of that genus. Is it part of the same group as the other finds? It turns out that despite the aforementioned differences, this fossil does appear to be most similar to the juvenile described above, which in turn is most similar to the original H. rudolfensis skull. The final fossil is a lower jaw fragment dating to ~1.9 mya. Like the second fossil, it is most similar to the juvenile and so is also probably a member of H. rudolfensis. The second and third (fragment in the bottom right) fossils. Most news outlets have claimed that these fossils are the discovery of some new species. However, as I mentioned, the original H. rudolfensis cranium is nearly 40 years old! This find can hardly be categorized as a new species. A more accurate headline would be ï¿½New fossils confirm suspected species exists.ï¿½ Although the truth is less snappy I do not believe that justifies ignoring it. But before I go writing letters to newspapers demanding corrections, do these fossils in fact confirm H.

rudolfensis was a real, distinct species? Although they can clearly be grouped with the original cranium, does that indeed lend credence to placing this group outside of Homo habilis? These fossils show that there was a population of individuals with a unique anatomy and that the original skull was not just a funky looking individual. This certainly lends credence to the idea that H. rudolfensis was a distinct species rather than an example of individual variation. But of course, ï¿½populationï¿½ does not equal ï¿½speciesï¿½ and so the fact there was a population of these unique creatures does not prove they were a different species. Whilst a point in favor of H. rudolfensis being distinct, it is not conclusive proof. That must come from the anatomy, from figuring out whether these creatures are different enough to be defined as a different species. Ultimately the number of examples of anatomy is moot, so the fact weï¿½ve found more fossils is not conclusive proof. Of course, that shouldnï¿½t diminish the importance of these fossils.

Although these finds might not be as crucial as newspapers say they are (one even reporting this ï¿½rewrites the story of human evolutionï¿½) these finds are still very important. What we label a species is not that important. We now know that there was definite, population wide variation within early Homo and that the story of our genusï¿½s genesis (try saying that after a few pints) is even more complex than the single cranium suggested. It might not ï¿½rewriteï¿½ the story, but it is certainly editing a chapter. Meave G. Leakey,, Fred Spoor,, M. Christopher Dean,, Craig S. Feibel,, Susan C. Antï¿½n,, & Christopher Kiarie, Louise N. Leakey (2012).

New fossils from Koobi Fora in northern Kenya confirm taxonomic diversity in early Homo Nature (488), 201-204 DOI: 10.1038/nature11322 1.9mn-yr-old fossils reveal greater diversity in early humans than previously thought | Zee News 1.9mn-yr-old fossils reveal greater diversity in early humans than previously thought ANI | Last Updated: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - 00:31 0 Follow @ZeeNews Washington: A new study of ancient fossils has revealed that species of early human ancestors differed throughout other parts of their skeletons and had distinct body forms. The University of Missouri researchers found 1.9 million-year-old pelvis and femur fossils of an early human ancestor in Kenya, revealing greater diversity in the human family tree than scientists previously thought. Researcher Carol Ward said that what these new fossils are telling them is that the early species of human genus, Homo, were more distinctive than they thought, adding that they differed not only in their faces and jaws, but in the rest of their bodies too.

Ward added that the old depiction of linear evolution from ape to human with single steps in between is proving to be inaccurate. They are finding that evolution seemed to be experimenting with different human physical traits in different species before ending up with Homo sapiens. Three early species belonging to the genus Homo have been identified prior to modern humans, or Homo sapiens. Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis were the earliest versions, followed by Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens. Because the oldest erectus fossils that have been found are only 1.8 million years old, and have different bone structure than the new fossil, Ward and her research team conclude that the fossils they have discovered are either rudolfensis or habilis. Ward says these fossils show diversity in the physical structures of human ancestors that has not been seen before. This new specimen has a hip joint like all other Homo species, but it also has a thinner pelvis and thighbone compared to Homo erectus, said Ward, adding that this doesn't necessarily mean that these early human ancestors moved or lived differently, but it does suggest that they were a distinct species that could have been identified not just from looking at their faces and jaws, but by seeing their body shapes as well.

Ward noted that their new fossils, along with the other new specimens reported over the past few weeks, tell them that the evolution of human genus goes back much earlier than they thought, and that many species and types of early humans coexisted for about a million years before our ancestors became the only Homo species left. First Published: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - 13:13 New human species identified from Kenya fossils - BBC News BBC News New human species identified from Kenya fossils By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News 8 August 2012 Close share panel Image caption A new species of human: One of several co-existing in Africa two million years ago Researchers studying fossils from northern Kenya have identified a new species of human that lived two million years ago. The discoveries suggests that at least three distinct species of humans co-existed in Africa. The research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from early primates to modern humans. The research has been published in the journal Nature . Anthropologists have discovered three human fossils that are between 1.78 and 1.95 million years old.

The specimens are of a face and two jawbones with teeth. Nature was developing different human prototypes only one of which, our species, was ultimately successful Professor Chris Stringer, Natural History Museum, London The finds back the view that a skull found in 1972 is of a separate species of human, known as Homo rudolfensis. The skull was markedly different to any others from that time. It had a relatively large brain and long flat face. But for 40 years the skull was the only example of the creature and so it was impossible to say for sure whether the individual was an unusual specimen or a member of a new species. With the discovery of the three new fossils researchers can say with more certainty that H.rudolfensis really was a separate type of human that existed around two million years ago alongside other species of humans. For a long time the oldest known human ancestor was thought to be a primitive species, dating back 1.8 million years ago called Homo erectus. They had small heads, prominent brows and stood upright. But 50 years ago, researchers discovered an even older and more primitive species of human called Homo habilis that may have coexisted with H. erectus. Now it seems H.

rudolfensis was around too and raises the distinct possibility that many other species of human also existed at the time. This find is the latest in a growing body of evidence that challenges the view that our species evolved in a smooth linear progression from our primate ancestors. The human lineage Instead, according to Dr Meave Leakey of the Turkana Basin Institute in Nairobi, who led the research the find shows that there was a diversity early on in the evolution of our species. "Our past was a diverse past," she told BBC News, "our species was evolving in the same way that other species of animals evolved. There was nothing unique about us until we began to make sophisticated stone tools." Image caption The March of Progress had many dead ends In other groups of animals many different species evolve, each with new traits, such as plumage, or webbed feet. If the new trait is better suited to the environment then the new species thrives, if not it becomes extinct. According to Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, fossil evidence is increasingly suggesting that human evolution followed the same pattern. "Humans seem to have been evolving in different ways in different regions.

It was almost as if nature was developing different human prototypes with different attributes, only one of which, an ancestor of our species, was ultimately successful in evolutionary terms," he said. According to Dr Leakey, the growing body of evidence to suggest that humans evolved in the same way as other animals shows that "evolution really does work". "It leads to amazing adaptions and amazing species and we are one of them," she said.

Question: In 2012 fossils of 1.9m years-old Homo rudolfensis were discovered in?
Answer: Kenya