Instead, it may well preserve some of the characteristics of the last chimp-human ancestor. Analysis of the skeleton reveals that humans did not evolve from knuckle-walking apes, as was long believed. It also indicates that chimpanzee evolution underwent high degrees of specialisation since diverging from the last common ancestor and thus these apes are poor models for understanding the appearance of this ancestor.
What the name means The name is derived from the local Afar language. Distribution Fossils belonging to this species were found in eastern Africa in the Middle Awash valley, Ethiopia. Relationships with other species This species position as a direct ancestor of humans is unclear and scientists are still debating where it should be placed relative to our direct line. Key physical features This species was a facultative biped and stood upright on the ground but could move on all four limbs in trees.
Brain about cc, similar in size to modern female chimpanzees and bonobos Body size and shape similar in size to modern chimpanzees. The most complete specimen, a female, stood about cm tall males were only slightly larger than females the body shape was more ape-like than humans, but differed from living African apes in a number of significant features Limbs mix of primitive and derived features suggest this species was able to walk upright on the ground yet efficiently climb trees long powerful arms that were not used for weight-bearing or knuckle-walking as with quadrupedal apes bones in the wrist particularly the midcarpal joint provided flexibility and the palm bones were short.
These features suggest this species was not a knuckle-walker and that the palms could support the body weight when moving along branches finger bones were long and curving, both features useful for grasping branches upper and lower legs bones femur and tibia have features consistent with bipedalism feet were relatively flat and lacked arches, indicating this species could probably not walk or run long distances they had grasping abducted toe characteristic of gorillas and chimps the foot was more rigid than chimpanzees with the bases of the four toe bones oriented to reinforce the forefoot when pushing off.
Chimps have a highly flexible midfoot that improves their ability to grasp and climb but are less effective for propulsion when walking on ground Pelvis has a mix of features useful for both climbing and upright walking and suggests the species still spent significant time in the trees shape of the upper blades ilium appear short and broad like Australopithecus afarensis , indicating that the gluteal muscles had been repositioned.
This lowered the body's centre of mass so to balance on one leg when walking the lower pelvis is large and the angle of the ischial surface does not face upward as it does in humans and Australopithecus. These are primitive features that suggest this species had massive hindlimb muscles for climbing and did not walk like A.
This is a derived feature and is not found in chimpanzees Jaws and teeth much of the dentition is ape-like including relatively large canines and molars tooth enamel thickness is intermediate between that of chimpanzees and Australopithecus canines are less projecting and smaller than those of all other known apes and there is no evidence of honing.
The base of the canines in both sexes are similar in size to female chimpanzees and male bonobos, but have shorter crown heights upper canines are shaped like diamonds, rather than the pointed shape seen in African apes, whch is a derived feature shared with Australopithecus afarensis. Lower canines appear to have less derived features. These may have been used for a variety of simple tasks including obtaining food.
These tools may have been used to process hard foods such as nuts. Environment and diet Associated animal and plant fossils indicate this species lived a in relatively moist and heavily forested woodland.
How They Survived: Ardipithecus ramidus individuals were most likely omnivores, which means they enjoyed more generalized diet of both plants, meat, and fruit. How do we know they were omnivores? Evolutionary Tree Information: Over specimens of Ardipithecus ramidus have been recovered in Ethiopia.
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Ardipithecus ramidus that may be answered with future discoveries : Does the pelvis of Ar. The pelvis was reconstructed from crushed fossils and, according to some scientists, is only suggestive of bipedalism.
What is the average size of male Ar. If more fossils support the original finding of relatively low sexual dimorphism, how does this relate to male and female size differences in other early humans at the base of our family tree -- and what does it mean?
References: First paper: White, T. Other recommended readings: Gibbons, A. A new kind of ancestor: Ardipithecus unveiled. Chickens, chimpanzees, and you - what do they have in common?
Grandparents are unique to humans How strong are we? Humans are handy! Humans: the running ape Our big hungry brain! Our eyes say it! The early human tool kit The short-haired human! What does gut got to do with it? The extensive fossil record of Ar. For instance, the dental remains suggest the Ar. The relatively small incisors and large molars may indicate Ar. Furthermore, dental wear indicates Ar. The small size of the canines relative to living apes suggests male-male competition using canines in fighting or threat displays was less important in Ar.
The locomotor behavior behavior involved with traveling from place to place of Ar. In particular, scientists argue that the forelimb of Ar. In particular, these researchers argue Ar. Instead, these researchers suggest that the Ar. The shape and size of the ischium suggest that the hamstring muscles were well-developed, a condition seen in living primates that emphasize climbing in their locomotor behaviors. Based on these observations, researchers argue that Ar.
The evolutionary relationships between Ar. An older hominin taxon, Ardipithecus kadabba , which is also found in the Middle Awash of Ethiopia, is argued by some researchers to be a direct ancestor of Ar. Furthermore, some researchers argue Ar.
This hypothesis, however, would imply that a large amount of morphological change would have had to occur between Ar.
Many scientists do not believe this amount of morphological change could occur in a single lineage in such a short time. Paleoanthropologists are also interested in Ar. Scientists argue that the morphology of Ar.
This argument also implies that living great apes evolved suspensory adaptations separately and that none is a good model of the anatomy and behavior of the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans. The two sites from which Ar.
0コメント