general information

Australopithecus(lat. Australopithecus, from lat. “australis” – “southern” and other Greek. “pithekos” - “monkey”) is a genus of extinct upright (“bipedal” or bipedal) hominids. Its name is somewhat misleading, because... although it is translated as "southern monkey", in fact the species of this genus are considered to be more advanced than any monkeys. Evidence collected by paleontologists and paleoanthropologists suggests that the genus Australopithecus arose in East Africa approximately 4.2 million years ago, spread across the continent, and ultimately disappeared just under 2 million years ago. Currently, six species of australopithecines are known to have existed during this time, the most famous of them being the afarensis and the african.

It is widely believed among archaeologists and paleontologists that australopithecus played a significant role in human evolution, and that one species of australopithecus eventually formed the genus Homo (Humans) in Africa about 2.5 million years ago.

Apparently, Paranthropus or “robust” australopithecus, which lived simultaneously with early species of people, also descended from Australopithecus proper.

History of the study

The first discovered and documented find was the skull of an individual ape-like creature about 3-4 years old, found in 1924 by workers in a limestone quarry near Taung (South Africa). Raymond Dart, an Australian anatomist and anthropologist who was working at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, became interested in the skull. He discovered that the skull had features similar to those of humans. In particular, the opening for the spinal cord is located below, and not behind, as in monkeys, which indicates upright posture. Dart concluded that these were the remains of an early human predecessor (the so-called "missing link") and published his findings in the February 1925 issue of the journal Nature. He named the species he discovered Australopithecus africanus.

Initially, other anthropologists were hostile to the idea that these were the remains of something other than simple apes. Dart's discovery directly contradicted the then prevailing hypothesis that brain development should precede upright walking, especially since it was confirmed by the Piltdown Man. However, in the 1940s, their opinion began to change. And in November 1953, the falsification of the “Piltdown Man” was finally proven.

The first trace of an Australopithecus discovered in East Africa was the skull of Paranthropus Beuys, which was excavated by Mary Leakey in 1959 in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. The Leakey family continued to excavate the gorge, uncovering subsequent remains of both Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Discoveries of the Leakey family in 1959-1961. were a turning point in the recognition of Australopithecines as a link between apes and humans, and Africa as the cradle of humanity.

On November 24 (or 30), 1974, Donald Johanson discovered the most complete remains of an australopithecus ever found in the Hadar Desert (Ethiopia, East Africa), which was named by members of the Lucy expedition. The temporal bones, lower jaw, ribs, vertebrae, bones of the arms, legs and pelvis - in total about 40% of the skeleton - have been preserved. Total in 1973-1977. More than 240 different hominid remains were found, belonging to at least 35 individuals. Based on these findings, the species Australopithecus afarensis was described. In 2000, the skeleton of another young Australopithecus of this species was discovered in Ethiopia, most likely belonging to a 3-year-old cub who lived about 3.3 million years ago (the so-called “Lucy’s daughter”).

Recently, scientists found the remains of a new species of australopithecus in South Africa. The fossil remains of Australopithecus sediba, who lived about 1.98 million years ago, were discovered in Malapa Cave. Some scientists believe that it was A. sediba (which in turn evolved from A. africanus) that may have evolved into H. erectus.

Origin and evolution

According to the Chimpanzee Genome Project, the lineages of humans (Ardipithecus, Australopithecus and Homo) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus), descending from a common ancestor, separated about 5-6 million years ago (assuming a constant rate of evolution). One theory suggests that although the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged initially, some populations then interbred for a million years after this divergence.

Classification and known species

There is still debate among scientists as to whether some African hominid species from this time, such as aethiopicus, boisei and robustus, are members of the genus Australopithecus. If this is so, then they (according to Western European terminology) can be classified into the group of “robust” (from the English “robust” - strong, strong, reliable) australopithecines, while the rest form the group of “gracile” (from the English “ gracile" - slender, thin).

And, although the opinions of various scientists regarding the inclusion of "robust" species in the genus Australopithecus differ, the current consensus of the scientific community as a whole is that they should be separated into a separate genus Paranthropus. It is believed that Paranthropus is a further development of Australopithecus. Morphologically, Paranthropus differs markedly from Australopithecus, and the features of their morphology give reason to believe that they also differed significantly in behavior from their ancestors.

Currently, the remains of about 500 individuals of Australopithecus and Paranthropus are known, which belong to the following species:

Russian name	Latin name	Alternative and legacy options	Period of existence, million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis	Australopithecus anamensis		3,9-4,2
Australopithecus afarensis	Australopithecus afarensis		2,9-3,9
Australopithecus bahr el-ghazal	Australopithecus bahrelghazali		3,6
Australopithecus africanus	Australopithecus africanus	Plesianthropus transvaalensis	3,03-2,04
Australopithecus gari	Australopithecus garhi		2,6
Australopithecus sediba	Australopithecus sediba		1,98
Paranthropus Ethiopian	Paranthropus aethiopicus	Australopithecus aethiopicus	2,7-2,39
Beuys' Paranthropus	Paranthropus boisei	Australopithecus boisei, Zinjanthrop	2,3-1,2
Paranthropus massive (robustus)	Paranthropus robustus	Australopithecus robustus	2,0-1,2

Morphology

The common and defining characteristics for all (“gracile” and “robust”) australopithecines are:

1. Anatomy adapted for upright walking.
2. High value of the brachial index (the ratio of the length of the forearm and shoulder).
3. Sexual dimorphism, more pronounced than in humans and chimpanzees, but weaker than in gorillas.
4. Height 1.2-1.5 m, weight 29-55 kg (estimated).
5. The capacity of the skull is 350-600 cm3.
6. The molars are relatively large with thicker enamel than in humans and modern monkeys.
7. The incisors and canines are relatively small, and sexual dimorphism in the structure of the canines is less pronounced than in modern monkeys.

Adaptation to upright walking is of particular importance in human evolution. All australopithecines have anatomical features of the skull, spine, pelvis and legs that promote upright walking. The hole in the occipital bone is at the bottom of the skull, indicating the angle at which the spinal cord extends inward. The S-shape of the spine helps maintain balance when walking on two legs and absorbs vibrations. The pelvis is wide and short. The femoral neck lengthens, increasing leverage for the muscles attached to the femur. The hip and knee joints provide the necessary weight distribution when walking.

The high value of the brachial index suggests that, despite clear morphological evidence of adaptation to life on land, australopithecines were still able to use arboreal habitats. Perhaps they slept in the trees, ate, or escaped from terrestrial predators.

The extent of sexual dimorphism present in australopithecines is hotly debated. For some skeletal specimens, there is debate as to whether the size difference is due to dimorphism or the presence of two different species. Despite the lack of certainty in estimating body size from fossil specimens, it is currently believed that the sexual dimorphism of australopithecines is noticeably more pronounced than that of humans and chimpanzees. In particular, in humans, men outnumber women by an average of 15%. At the same time, among Australopithecines, males could be up to 50% heavier than females. However, the dimorphism in the structure of the fangs, characteristic of monkeys, is much weaker. The importance of the degree of dimorphism is important because Social organization and reproduction depend on it.

As noted, estimating body size from fragmentary fossil specimens is very difficult. In addition, some species are known from very small sets of fragments, which makes the task even more difficult. However, other species are well represented and their height and weight can be estimated relatively reliably. In terms of body mass, Australopithecines are comparable to chimpanzees, but due to their upright posture they are taller.

The general trend of human evolution is an increase in brain volume, but over the millions of years of Australopithecus existence there was very little progress in this direction. The brain volume of most australopithecus species was approximately 35% of that of modern humans. This is only slightly more than that of chimpanzees. A noticeable increase in the volume of the primate brain occurred only with the advent of the genus Homo.

The cognitive abilities of Australopithecines are unknown, but there is evidence that at least some species produced and used simple tools made of stone around 2.6 million years ago. It is possible that the tools were made from other materials (for example, wood), but the processes of destruction of organic materials do not allow us to detect them. There were no signs of Australopithecus speaking or controlling fire.

Studying the structure of teeth is very important because... isolated teeth are the most common fossils. The study of their structure can be used for phylogenetic relationships, diet and social organization. The molars of Australopithecines are large and have thick enamel (it is especially thick in Paranthropus).

Living primates with a similar dental structure feed on solid plant foods - nuts, seeds, etc. Therefore, it is believed that such food constituted a significant part of the diet of australopithecines. In addition, some “gracile” australopithecines probably also ate meat and bone marrow from animals killed by predators. To separate meat from bones and extract bone marrow, some of them, according to the results of individual studies, even used primitive stone tools. Perhaps animal foods rich in protein and microelements also served as one of the reasons for the enlargement of the brain and the development of intelligence.

In addition to the characteristics described above, certain species of australopithecines could have others that bring them closer to humans. These include a developed hand, with a long and strong opposable thumb, a foot with an arch (in contrast to the flat feet of monkeys), etc.

Evolutionary role

The study of the remains shows that Australopithecus is the common ancestor of a separate group of hominids called paranthropes (“robust” australopithecus) and most likely the genus Homo, which includes modern humans. The key feature of all these primates is bipedalism. The morphology of Australopithecus refuted the previously widespread opinion that it was the large brain that preceded upright walking.

The earliest evidence of upright walking hominids was found in Laetoli (Tanzania). In this area, traces were found that are surprisingly similar to the footprints of modern humans, and dated to about 3.6-3.8 million years ago. It is believed that these are footprints of Australopithecus, because. these are the only human ancestors living there at that time.

Such evidence makes it abundantly clear that large brains developed much later than the transition to upright walking. At the same time, the reason for the debate remains the question of how and why millions of years ago it appeared in the first place. The advantages of upright walking are freeing up the hands for manipulating objects (carrying food and young, using and making tools), high eye level (above the grass in the savannah) to see possible food sources or predators. However, many anthropologists believe that these advantages are not sufficient to cause its appearance.

New studies of the evolution and morphology of primates have shown that all apes (modern and fossil) have skeletal adaptations to an upright body position. Orrorin was upright already about 6 million years ago, during the separation of the human and chimpanzee lines (according to the results of genetic studies). This means that walking in an upright position on straight legs originally appeared as an adaptation to the lifestyle in the trees. Studies of modern orangutans in Sumatra show that they use all four limbs when walking on large, stable branches. Under branches of smaller diameter they move by clinging to them with their hands, but on flexible thin (less than 4 cm in diameter) branches they walk on straightened legs, using their arms for balance and additional support. This allows them to move closer to the edge of the forest canopy to forage for food or move to another tree.

The ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees became more specialized in climbing vertical tree trunks using bent knees, consistent with their knuckle-based way of walking on the ground. This was due to climate changes around 11-12 million years ago that affected forests in East and Central Africa, when the resulting treeless areas made it impossible to move only along the forest canopy. At this time, ancestral hominids may have adapted to walking upright to move around on land. Man is closely related to these apes, and shares features with them, including wrist bones that are reinforced for their walking style.

However, the opinion that human ancestors used this method of walking is now in question, because The anatomy and biomechanics of such movement are different between gorillas and chimpanzees. This means that such a feature arose independently after the separation of the human line. Further comparative analysis suggests that these bone changes arose in order to adapt to moving through trees with the help of hands.

Introduction

1. General characteristics of Australopithecus

2. Varieties of Australopithecus

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The development of the science of human origins was constantly stimulated by the search for a “transitional link” between man and ape, or more precisely, his ancient ancestor. For a long time, the Pithecanthropus (“monkey people”) of Indonesia, first discovered by the Dutch physician E. Dubois in Java at the end of the last century, was considered such a transitional form. With a completely modern locomotor apparatus, Pithecanthropus had a primitive skull and a brain mass approximately 1.5 times less than that of a modern person of the same height. However, this group of hominids turns out to be quite late. Most of the finds in Java date back from 0.8 to 0.5 million years ago, and the earliest known reliable Pithecanthropus of the Old World is still no older than 1.6-1.5 million years ago.

On the other hand, from the previous review of hominid finds of Miocene age it follows that among them paleontologically representatives of the hominid line of evolution have not yet been identified. Obviously, the “transitional link” must be sought at the boundary of the Tertiary and Quaternary periods, in the Pliocene and Pliopleistocene eras. This is the time of the existence of the oldest bipedal hominids, Australopithecus.

Hominids are the most highly organized family of apes. Includes modern man, his predecessors - paleoanthropes and archanthropes, and also, according to most scientists, australopithecines.

Some scientists limit the hominid family to humans themselves, starting with the archanthropes.

Proponents of an expanded interpretation of the family include two subfamilies: Australopithecines and people themselves (Homininae) with one genus of man (Homo) and three species - Homo habilis (H. habilis), Homo erectus (H. erectus) and Homo sapiens (H. sapiens ).

Of greatest importance for creating a clear picture of the immediate ancestors of the hominid family are the numerous and well-preserved finds in South Africa (the first was made by Raymond Dart in 1924, the number continues to increase). Now in Southern and Eastern Africa, several fossil species of anthropomorphic primates have been discovered, which are grouped into three genera - Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Plesianthropus - and are classified into the subfamily or family Australopithecus.

Of the three possible centers of origin of the original human ancestor (Africa, Asia, Europe), the most complete connection between the Miocene and later hominids can be traced in Africa. Asia and Europe have fairly late Miocene apes, but no very ancient hominids. Thus, Africa is most likely the ancestral home of hominids.

1. General characteristics of Australopithecus

The history of the study of Australopithecus dates back to 1924, with the discovery of the skull of a 3-5 year old hominoid baby in the South-Eastern Transvaal (now South Africa) near Taung. The fossil hominoid was named Australopithecus africanus - Avstralopitecus africanus Dagt, 1925 (from “avstralis” - southern). In subsequent years, other sites of australopithecines in South Africa were discovered - in Sterkfontein, Makapansgat, Swart Krans, Kromdraai. Their remains were usually found in caves: they lay in travertine deposits of carbon dioxide springs flowing from limestones, or directly in the rocks of the dolomite strata. Initially, new finds received independent generic designations: Plesianthropus and Paranthropus, but, according to modern ideas, among the South African australopithecus only one genus, Avstralopithecus, is distinguished with two species: the more ancient (“classical”) gracile australopithecus and the later massive, or paranthropus.

In 1959 Australopithecines have also been found in East Africa. The first discovery was made by the spouses M. and L. Leakey in the oldest layer of the Olduvai Gorge on the outskirts of the Serengeti plateau in Tanzania. This hominoid, represented by a rather theromorphic skull with crests, was named East African man because stone artifacts (Zinjanthropus boisei Leakey) were also discovered in its immediate vicinity. Subsequently, the remains of Australopithecines were found in a number of places in East Africa, concentrated mainly in the East African Rift region. They are usually more or less open sites, including areas of grassy forest-steppe.

To date, the remains of at least 500 individuals are already known from the territories of Southern and Eastern Africa. Australopithecus apparently could have been found in other regions of the Old World: for example, the so-called Gigantopithecus from Bilaspur in India or the Javan Meganthropus to some extent resemble the massive African Australopithecus. However, the position of these forms of hominoids is not entirely clear. Thus, although the diffusion of Australopithecus into the southern regions of Eurasia cannot be ruled out, the bulk of them are closely related in their distribution to the African continent, where they are found as far south as Hadar in northeast Africa.

The main part of the finds of East African australopithecines dates back to the period from 4 to 1 million years ago, but the oldest bipeds apparently appeared here even earlier, 5.5-4.5 million years ago.

Australopithecines were a very peculiar group. They appeared about 6-7 million years ago, and the last of them died out only about 900 thousand years ago, during the existence of much more advanced forms. As far as is known, Australopithecines never left Africa, although some finds made on the island of Java are sometimes attributed to this group.

The complexity of the position of australopithecines among primates lies in the fact that their structure mosaically combines features characteristic of both modern apes and humans. The Australopithecus skull is similar to that of a chimpanzee. Characterized by large jaws, massive bony ridges for attachment of chewing muscles, a small brain and a large, flattened face. Australopithecus teeth were very large, but the fangs were short, and the structural details of the teeth were more human-like than ape-like.

The skeletal structure of Australopithecines is characterized by a wide, low pelvis, relatively long legs and short arms, a grasping hand and non-grasping foot, and a vertical spine. This structure is already almost human, the differences are only in the details of the structure and in the small size.

The height of Australopithecus ranged from one to one and a half meters. It is characteristic that the brain size was about 350-550 cm³, that is, like that of modern gorillas and chimpanzees. For comparison, the modern human brain has a volume of about 1200-1500 cm³. The structure of the Australopithecus brain was also very primitive and differed little from that of chimpanzoids. Already at the Australopithecus stage, the process of hair loss probably began. Coming out of the shadows of the forests, our ancestor, in the words of the Soviet anthropologist Ya. Ya. Roginsky, found himself in a “warm fur coat” that needed to be taken off as quickly as possible.

The lifestyle of australopithecines was apparently unlike that known among modern primates. They lived in tropical forests and savannas, eating mainly plants. However, late australopithecines hunted antelopes or took prey from large predators - lions and hyenas.

Australopithecus lived in groups of several individuals and, apparently, constantly wandered across the expanses of Africa in search of food. Australopithecines hardly knew how to make tools, although they certainly used them. Their hands were very similar to humans, but the fingers were more curved and narrower. The oldest tools are known from layers in Ethiopia dating to 2.7 million years ago, that is, 4 million years after the appearance of Australopithecus. In South Africa, Australopithecines or their immediate descendants used bone fragments to catch termites from termite mounds about 2-1.5 million years ago.

Australopithecines can be divided into three main groups, each of which has several species: early australopithecines - existed from 7 to 4 million years ago, had the most primitive structure. There are several genera and species of early australopithecines. Gracile Australopithecines - existed from 4 to 2.5 million years ago, had relatively small sizes and moderate proportions. Massive Australopithecus - existed from 2.5 to 1 million years ago, were very massively built specialized forms with extremely developed jaws, small front and huge back teeth. Let's take a closer look at each of them.

2. Varieties of Australopithecus

The remains of the oldest primates, which can be classified as early australopithecines, were found in the Republic of Chad in Toros Menalla and named Sahelanthropus tchadensis. The whole skull received the popular name "Tumai". The finds are dated to about 6-7 million years ago. More numerous finds in Kenya in the Tugen Hills date back to 6 million years ago. They were named Orrorin (Orrorin tugenensis). In Ethiopia, in two localities - Alayla and Aramis - numerous bone remains were found, named Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (about 5.5 million years ago) and Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus (4.4 million years ago). Finds from two localities in Kenya - Kanapoi and Allia Bay - were named Australopithecus anamensis. They date back to 4 million years ago.

Their height was not much more than one meter. The brain size was the same as that of a chimpanzee. Early australopithecines lived in wooded or even swampy places, as well as in forest-steppes.

Obviously, it is these creatures that are most suitable for the role of the notorious “intermediate link” between ape and man. We know practically nothing about their way of life, but every year the number of finds is growing, and knowledge about the environment of that distant time is expanding.

Not much is known about early australopithecines. Judging by the skull of Sahelanthropus, the femurs of Orrorin, skull fragments, limb bones and the remains of the pelvis of Ardipithecus, early australopithecines were already upright primates.

However, judging by the hand bones of Orrorin and Australopithecus anamensis, they retained the ability to climb trees or were even quadrupedal creatures, resting on the phalanges of their fingers, like modern chimpanzees and gorillas. The dental structure of early australopithecines is intermediate between apes and humans. It is even possible that Sahelanthropus were relatives of gorillas, Ardipithecus - the immediate ancestors of modern chimpanzees, and the Australopithecus anamensis died out without leaving descendants. The history of the description of the Ardipithecus skeleton is a striking example of scientific integrity. After all, between its discovery - in 1994. and description - at the end of 2009, 15 years had passed!

All these many years, an international group of researchers, including the discoverer, Johannes Haile-Selassie, worked to preserve the crumbling bones, reconstruct the skull crushed into a shapeless lump, describe the morphological features and search for a functional interpretation of the smallest details of the bone structure.

Scientists did not take the path of presenting the world with another hasty sensation, but actually deeply and carefully studied various aspects of the find. To do this, scientists had to explore such subtleties of the comparative anatomy of modern apes and humans that until now remained unknown. Naturally, data from a variety of fossil primates and australopithecines were also included in the comparison.

Moreover, the geological conditions of burial of fossil remains, ancient flora and fauna were examined in detail, which made it possible to reconstruct the habitat of Ardipithecus more reliably than for many later australopithecines.

The newly described skeleton of Ardipithecus provides a remarkable example of confirmation of a scientific hypothesis. In his appearance, he perfectly combines the characteristics of a monkey and a human. In fact, the image that has excited the imagination of anthropologists and everyone who cares about our origins for a century and a half has finally become a reality.

The finds at Aramis are numerous - the remains belong to no less than 21 individuals, but the most important is the skeleton of an adult female, from which about 45% of the bones remain (more than from the famous "Lucy" - a female Australopithecus afarensis from Hadar with an antiquity of 3.2 million years ago ), including almost the entire skull, although in an extremely deformed state. The individual was about 1.2 m tall. and could weigh up to 50 kg. It is significant that the sexual dimorphism of Ardipithecus was much less pronounced than in chimpanzees and even later australopithecines, that is, males were not much larger than females. The brain volume reached 300-350 cm³ - the same as that of Sahelanthropus, but less than usual for chimpanzees. The structure of the skull is quite primitive. It is remarkable that Ardipithecus has a face and dental system that do not have the specialized features of australopithecines and modern apes. Based on this feature, it has even been suggested that Ardipithecus could be the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, or even only the ancestors of chimpanzees, but the ancestors of upright walkers. That is, chimpanzees could have bipedal ancestors. However, a more thorough study showed that this probability is still minimal.

The upright posture of Ardipithecus is quite obvious, given the structure of its pelvis (combining, however, ape and human morphology) - wide, but also quite high and elongated. However, such signs as the length of the arms reaching to the knees, the curved phalanges of the fingers, the big toe set far to the side and retaining the grasping ability, clearly indicate that these creatures could spend a lot of time in the trees. The authors of the original description especially emphasize the fact that Ardipithecus lived in fairly closed habitats, with a large number of trees and thickets. In their opinion, such biotopes exclude the classical theory of the development of bipedalism in conditions of climate cooling and the reduction of tropical forests. O. Lovejoy, based on the weak sexual dimorphism of Ardipithecus, develops his old hypothesis about the development of bipedality on the basis of social and sexual relationships, without direct connection with climatic and geographical conditions. However, the situation can be viewed differently, because approximately the same conditions that were reconstructed for Aramis were assumed by supporters of the hypothesis of the origin of bipedia in conditions of displacement of forests by savannas. It is clear that tropical forests could not disappear instantly, and monkeys could not develop the savannah within one or two generations. It is remarkable that this particular stage has now been studied in such detail using the example of Ardipithecus from Aramis.

These creatures could live both in trees and on the ground, climb branches and walk on two legs, and sometimes, perhaps, go down on all fours. They apparently ate a wide range of plants, both shoots with leaves and fruits, avoiding any specialization, which became the key to future human omnivory. It is clear that the social structure is unknown to us, but the small size of the fangs and weak sexual dimorphism indicate a low level of aggression and weak inter-male competition, apparently less excitability, which resulted over millions of years in the ability of modern man to concentrate, learn, carefully, accurately and harmoniously perform work activity, cooperate, coordinate and coordinate their actions with other members of the group. It is these parameters that distinguish humans from monkeys. It is curious that many morphological features of modern monkeys and humans are apparently based on behavioral characteristics. This applies, for example, to the large jaw size of chimpanzees, which is caused not by any specific need for nutrition, but by increased inter-male and intra-group aggressiveness and excitability. It is noteworthy that bonobo pygmy chimpanzees, much friendlier than their ordinary counterparts, have shortened jaws, relatively small fangs and less pronounced sexual dimorphism.

Based on comparative studies of Ardipithecus, chimpanzees, gorillas, and modern humans, it was concluded that many features of the apes arose independently.

This applies, for example, to such a specialized feature as movement on the bent phalanges of the fingers of chimpanzees and gorillas.

Until now, it was believed that a single line of apes first separated from the hominid line, which then split into gorillas and chimpanzees.

However, chimpanzees are, in a number of ways, more similar to Ardipithecus than to gorillas, so the separation of the gorilla lineage must have occurred before the moment when specialization for locomotion on the phalanges appeared, because Ardipithecus does not have it. However, this hypothesis has its weaknesses; if desired, the matter can be presented differently.

A comparison of Ardipithecus with Sahelanthropus and later australopithecines once again showed that the evolution of human ancestors proceeded in some jerks.

The general level of development in Sahelanthropus 6-7 million years ago and Ardipithecus 4.4 million years ago is almost the same, while after only 200 thousand years (4.2 million years ago), the Australopithecines of Anama acquired many new features, which, in turn, , changed little until the appearance of “early Homo” 2.3-2.6 million years ago. Such leaps or turns in evolution were known before, but now we have the opportunity to determine the exact time of another one of them; You can try to explain them by linking them, for example, with climate change.

One of the most surprising conclusions that can be drawn from the study of Ardipithecus is that humans differ in many ways from their common ancestor with chimpanzees less than chimpanzees or gorilla. Moreover, this concerns, first of all, the size of the jaws and the structure of the hand and foot - parts of the body, the structural features of which in humans are most often paid attention to.

In Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia, fossils of gracile australopithecus, called Australopithecus afarensis, have been discovered in multiple localities. This species existed approximately from 4 to 2.5 million years ago. The most famous finds are from the Hadar site in the Afar Desert, including a skeleton nicknamed Lucy. Also, in Tanzania, fossilized traces of upright walking creatures were discovered in the same layers in which the remains of Australopithecus afarensis were found.

In addition to Australopithecus afarensis, other species probably lived in East and North Africa between 3 and 3.5 million years ago. In Kenya, a skull and other fossils described as Kenyanthropus platyops were found at Lomekwi. In the Republic of Chad, in Koro Toro (East Africa), a single jaw fragment was discovered, described as Australopithecus bahrelghazali. In South Africa, numerous fossils known as Australopithecus africanus have been discovered in a number of localities - Taung, Sterkfontein and Makapansgat. The first find of an australopithecus belonged to this species - the skull of a cub known as Baby from Taung (R. Dart, 1924). Australopithecus Africanus lived from 3.5 to 2.4 million years ago. The latest gracile australopithecus - dating back to about 2.5 million years ago - was discovered in Ethiopia in Bowri and named Australopithecus garhi.

All parts of the skeleton from many individuals are known from gracile australopithecines, so reconstructions of their appearance and lifestyle are very reliable. Gracile australopithecines were upright creatures about 1-1.5 meters tall. Their gait was somewhat different from the gait of a person. Apparently, Australopithecus walked with shorter steps, and the hip joint did not fully extend when walking. Along with the fairly modern structure of the legs and pelvis, the arms of Australopithecus were somewhat elongated, and the fingers were adapted for climbing trees, but these features can only be an inheritance from ancient ancestors.

During the day, Australopithecines roamed the savannah or forests, along the banks of rivers and lakes, and in the evening they climbed trees, as modern chimpanzees do. Australopithecines lived in small herds or families and were capable of moving quite long distances. They ate mainly plant foods, and usually did not make tools, although scientists found stone tools and antelope bones crushed by them not far from the bones of Australopithecus gari. Also, for the South African Australopithecines (Makapansgat Cave), R. Dart put forward the hypothesis of an osteodontokeratic (literally “bone-tooth-horn”) culture. It was assumed that Australopithecines used bones, horns and teeth of animals as tools. Later studies showed that most of the wear marks on these bones were the result of gnawing by hyenas and other predators.

Like early members of the genus, gracile australopithecines had an ape-like skull combined with a nearly modern rest of the skeleton. The Australopithecus brain was similar to that of apes in both size and shape. However, the ratio of brain mass to body mass in these primates was intermediate between that of a small ape and that of a very large human.

Approximately 2.5-2.7 million years ago, new species of hominids arose that had a large brain and were already assigned to the genus Homo. However, there was another group of late australopithecines that deviated from the line leading to humans - the massive australopithecines

The oldest massive australopithecines are known from Kenya and Ethiopia - Lokalea and Omo. They date back to about 2.5 million years ago and are named Paranthropus aethiopicus. Later massive australopithecines from East Africa - Olduvai, Koobi Fora - with dates ranging from 2.5 to 1 million years ago are described as Paranthropus boisei. In South Africa - Swartkrans, Kromdraai, Drimolen Cave - massive Paranthropus robustus is known. The massive Paranthropus was the second species of Australopithecine to be discovered.

When examining the skull of Paranthropus, one notices the huge jaws and large bone ridges that served to attach the chewing muscles. The maxillary apparatus reached its maximum development in East African Paranthropus. The first discovered skull of this species even received the nickname “Nutcracker” due to the size of the teeth.

Paranthropus were large - weighing up to 70 kg - specialized herbivorous creatures that lived along the banks of rivers and lakes in dense thickets. Their lifestyle was somewhat reminiscent of the lifestyle of modern gorillas. However, they retained a bipedal gait and may even have been able to make tools. In the layers with Paranthropus, stone tools and bone fragments were found, which hominids used to tear up termite mounds. Also, the hand of these primates was adapted for the manufacture and use of tools.

Paranthropus "bet" on size and herbivory. This led them to ecological specialization and extinction. However, in the same layers with paranthropes, the remains of the first representatives of hominins were found - the so-called “early Homo” - more progressive hominids with a large brain

Conclusion

As studies of recent decades have shown, Australopithecines were the direct evolutionary predecessors of humans. It was from among the progressive representatives of these bipedal fossil primates that about three million years ago in East Africa, the creatures emerged that made the first artificial tools, created the most ancient Paleolithic culture - the Olduvai culture, and thereby laid the foundation for the human race.

Bibliography

1. Alekseev V.P. Man: evolution and taxonomy (some theoretical issues). M.: Nauka, 1985.

2. Human biology /ed. J. Harrison, J. Weicker, J. Tenner et al. M.: Mir, 1979.

3. Bogatenkov D.V., Drobyshevsky S.V. Anthropology / Ed. T.I. Alekseeva. - M., 2005.

4. Large illustrated atlas of primitive man. Prague: Artia, 1982.

5. Boriskovsky P.I. The emergence of human society /The emergence of human society. Paleolithic of Africa. - L.: Science, 1977.

6. Bunak V.V. The genus Homo, its origin and subsequent evolution. - M., 1980.

7. Gromova V.I. Hipparions. Proceedings of the Paleontological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952. T.36.

8. Johanson D. Eady M. Lucy: the origins of the human race. M.: Mir, 1984.

9. Zhedenov V.N. Comparative anatomy of primates (including humans) / Ed. M.F.Nesturkha, M.: Higher School, 1969.

10. Zubov A.A. Dental system /Fossil hominids and human origins. Edited by V.V. Bunak. Proceedings of the Institute of Ethnography. N.S. 1966, T.92.

11. Zubov A.A. Odontology. Methods of anthropological research. M,: Nauka, 1968.

12. Zubov A.A. On the taxonomy of Australopithecines. Questions of Anthropology, 1964.

14. Reshetov V.Yu. Tertiary history of higher primates//Results of Science and Technology. Series Stratigraphy. Paleontology M., VINITI, 1986, T.13.

15. Roginsky Ya.Ya., Levin M.G. Anthropology. M.: Higher School, 1978.

16. Roginsky Ya.Ya. Problems of anthropogenesis. M.: Higher School, 1977.

17. Sinitsyn V.M. Ancient climates of Eurasia. L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1965 Part 1.

18. Khomutov A.E. Anthropology. - Rostov n/d.: Phoenix, 2002.

19. Khrisanfova E.N. The most ancient stages of hominization//Results of Science and Technology. Anthropology series. M.: VINITI, 1987, T.2.

20. Yakimov V.P. Australopithecines./Fossil hominids and the origin of man/Edited by V.V.Bunak//Proceedings of the Institute of Ethnography, 1966. T.92.

Bogatenkov D.V., Drobyshevsky S.V. Anthropology / Ed. T.I. Alekseeva. - M., 2005.

Khomutov A.E. Anthropology. - Rostov n/d.: Phoenix, 2002

Bunak V.V. The genus Homo, its origin and subsequent evolution. - M., 1980.

Zubov A.A. On the taxonomy of Australopithecines. Questions of Anthropology, 1964.

Australopithecus is the name of the great apes that moved with two legs. Most often, Australopithecus is considered to be one of the subfamilies of the family called hominids. The first find was the skull of a 4-year-old cub found in South Africa. To talk in more detail about these representatives of the Ancient world, you need to study the lifestyle of australopithecines.

http://autoprofispb.ru/

Where did Australopithecus live?

Scientists believe that the way of life of australopithecines differed in many ways from the features of the existence of modern primates. Australopithecines lived in savannas and tropical forests and ate mainly a variety of plants. If we talk about later australopithecines, they hunted antelopes. Another option for finding food, common among such representatives of the Ancient World, was to take it away from hyenas and lions (other large predators living nearby).

Many people are interested in the question: where did Australopithecus live? It is worth noting that the early representatives of these primates lived mainly in forests of various kinds. There were also gracile Australopithecines of Africa, which could be seen in a wide variety of places - from wet forests to dry open-plan savannas.

The rather massive South African Australopithecus also lived in a variety of natural environments. Scientists suggest that these primates lived in places that were closer to water, although there are completely opposite points of view. Scientists agree on one thing: Australopithecines are primates that tried to stick to open areas, for example, savannas.

http://biznes-sekrret.ru/

What is the lifestyle of Australopithecus?

It is worth noting that the great apes lived in their own small groups. As a rule, several individuals could be seen in each group. Scientists suggest that Australopithecines led a nomadic lifestyle, as they were constantly looking for food. These individuals probably used special tools to search for food, but they most likely did not know how to make them themselves.

The primates' hands resembled those of humans, although the fingers were different in many ways: they were narrower, but also more curved. It is worth noting that the oldest tools were known from layers in Ethiopia that date back to 2.7 million years ago. This means that 4 million years have passed since the appearance of Australopithecus. If we talk about South Africa, here Australopithecus about 1.5 million years ago used special bone fragments to catch insects from termite mounds.

Important information that relates to the topic “Australopithecus lived” is the question of the remains of primates. So, the remains of the most ancient primates (early australopithecines) were found in Toros Menalla (Republic of Chad). The skull that scientists managed to put together was named Tumay. These finds are about 7 million years old.

The Australopithecus base site is a fairly important part of their life, since it was a place of fairly long habitation, albeit temporary. Such long stops are most likely justified by the period of lack of independence of the youngest members of the team. It is known that Australopithecines became dependent on adults, and especially on their mothers. Such dependence is in many ways similar to human relationships, and the time frame was approximately the same. Scientists made this conclusion based on the timing of teething in these primates.

http://chinatourr.ru/

Video: Evolution: the life of Australopithecus

Read also:

• 

  It is no secret that the inhabitants of the North were mainly engaged in fishing, hunting forest animals, etc. Local hunters shot bears, martens, hazel grouse, squirrels and other animals. In fact, the northerners went hunting for several months. Before the trip, they loaded their boats with various edibles

• 

  Indigenous peoples are peoples who lived on their lands before the time period when national boundaries began to appear. In this article we will look at which indigenous peoples of Russia are known to scientists. It is worth noting that the following peoples lived on the territory of the Irkutsk region:

• 

  If we talk about the Old Russian state, then it was a state located in Eastern Europe. It is worth noting that the history of Rus' from ancient times dates back to the 9th century as a result of the unification of the Finno-Ugric and East Slavic tribes under a single government

• 

  The religion of Ancient Rus' had its own characteristic features, and this is not surprising. The basis of the religion of that time was the gods of ancient Rus', and more specifically, we are talking about such a direction as paganism. In other words, the ancient Russian inhabitants were pagans, that is, they

• 

  Russian medieval architecture represents the most striking page in the history of Ancient Rus'. It is worth noting that it is cultural monuments that provide the opportunity to fully become familiar with the history of a particular time. Today, the monument of ancient Russian architecture of the 12th century is reflected in many

• 

  Archaeological excavations are a thorough examination of a specific cultural layer that is located below the surface of the earth. It is worth noting that archaeological excavations in Russia are quite an interesting, exciting and dangerous activity. Why dangerous? The point is that in

In history books they write that the monkey became a man from the very moment when he not only picked up a stick, but used it as a tool. True, human evolution and development lasted for many millennia and even millions of years. But what motivates researchers in their desire to understand the secret of the development of their own kind? Most likely, this is not ordinary curiosity, but an intention to better understand our nature and explain many of the mysteries of history.

The first unique group of hominids to embark on the path of humanization was Australopithecus(Fig. 1), in the description of which one can equally well use the definition of two-legged monkeys and people with a monkey’s head. These creatures, like a mosaic, combined the characteristics of humans and apes. By our human standards, the time when Australopithecus existed is somewhere on the outskirts of history, since it is 7 million - 900 thousand years away from us, which indicates the thickness of the historical period of existence of hominids of this form.

Rice. 1 - Australopithecus

Anatomical features of Australopithecus

What did he look like? ancient man australopithecus, more similar to a monkey than to you and me? Looking at his skull, one cannot help but notice the similarity with gorillas and chimpanzees. Noteworthy is not only the combination of a tiny, primitively structured brain of 350-550 cm 3, with a large, flattened face. Australopithecus is characterized by the development of chewing muscles attached to massive bony ridges. The large size of the jaws is also noticeable. But the teeth, even with all their size, are already close to human forms in the structure and length of the fangs. But the thickness of the enamel, which exceeds this indicator characteristic of modern humans and monkeys, leads to a reduction in the risk of dental diseases and the duration of their use.

In short, everything indicates that Australopithecus was an omnivore, and his body was adapted to eating rough food in the form of nuts, seeds and tough raw meat. There is an assumption that the presence of bone marrow and animal protein in the diet of these creatures became the basis for the development of intelligence.

The height of our ancient relatives, even with a vertical spine, almost never exceeded 1.2 - 1.5 meters (with a body weight of 20-55 kg). From the point of view of a modern person, his physique with a wide pelvis, short legs and arms, with the characteristics of grasping hands and non-grasping feet, did not look particularly attractive. But already at this evolutionary link there is a restructuring of the skeleton towards upright posture and a change in the brachial index in the form of the ratio of the length of the forearm and the shoulder itself. Moreover, Australopithecus has pronounced sexual dimorphism, consisting in external differences between male and female individuals. For example, the body size of the weaker sex Australopithecus was 15% lower than that of the male, and the weight was even 50% lower, which could not but affect the social structure of life and the intricacies of reproduction.

In the evolutionary development of man, at this historical stage, it is not so much important Australopithecus brain, how much adaptation to upright walking. This fact is evidenced by the angle of entry of the spinal cord, which is confirmed by the features of the opening in the occipital part of the skull, located below, and not behind, as in monkeys. An S-shaped spine helps ensure balance and shock-absorbing capabilities to absorb the effects of body vibrations. Balance while walking is ensured by the hip and knee joints. But, despite the short length of the wide pelvis, the increase in the muscle lever connected to the femur is ensured by lengthening the femoral neck.

Rice. 2 - Australopithecus skeleton

The straightening of the torso was also facilitated by the attachment of the gluteal and spinal muscles to the broad bones of the pelvis. The abdominal muscles served to support the torso and internal organs while walking. Additionally, the energetic benefits of bipedal gait have been demonstrated experimentally. Judging by the imprint of Australopithecus feet preserved in volcanic ash, we can talk about incomplete extension of the hip joint and crossing of the feet during walking. These creatures are similar to humans in their formed heel, pronounced arch of the foot and big toe. But the similarity with the genus of monkeys is preserved in the immobility of the tarsus.

Lifestyle

Existence of Australopithecus not much different from the lifestyle of their primate ancestors. Since the habitat of this anthropoid species was hot tropical forests, they hardly had to worry about optimal living conditions and shelter over their heads. Despite adaptation to living conditions on land, Australopithecus does not abandon the usual way of life on a tree, as evidenced by the ratio of the length of the shoulder and forearm. Apparently, at this stage of life, the humanoid creature was forced to escape from predators and other dangers in tall trees, settling on them to sleep and eat food.

Due to the abundance of vegetation in a favorable climate, which formed the basis of the diet of australopithecines, there were no special problems with the search for food. But with the passage of time and the increased need to fully replenish their energy supply, these ancient people were forced to hunt antelope. But since they cannot act as quickly as predatory animals, they often simply take prey from lions and hyenas.

Australopithecines do not attempt to limit their habitat to any one environment: their habitats were both wet forests and arid savannas, which indicates the high ecological plasticity of these creatures. Settlements in relatively open places made it possible to see in advance the danger from wild animals or aggressive relatives. But the most important condition for life was water, which explains the proximity of the remains of Australopithecus to near-water ecosystems (mainly lakes).

Exploring Australopithecus lifestyle, one cannot help but draw a conclusion regarding their nomadic lifestyle, when ancient man was forced to change his habitat in search of better conditions and food. Typically, these creatures lived in small groups consisting of only a few individuals. And the connection between mother and baby among these australopithecines is no less close than among people in our time.

Main groups of Australopithecus

Considering the length of time required for the existence of a given species, as well as the breadth of the geographical range of habitat entailed by changes in natural conditions, it would be foolish to exclude the possibility of the emergence of new species and genera related to the ancient history of human development. To confirm the above, it is worth mentioning 3 main groups of Australopithecus, with the flow of passing time taking up each other’s baton:

1. Early australopithecines lived on Earth 7-4 million years ago. Their features can be described as extremely primitive.
2. The period of dominance of gracile australopithecines is considered to be from 4 to 2.5 million years ago. These humanoids are characterized by moderate proportions of the body structure and its small size.
3. Massive australopithecus trampled paths across our planet 2.5 - 1 million years ago. This species is characterized by massive build, specialized shapes, developed jaws with relatively small front and simply huge rear, chewing teeth.

It is worth noting that history does not know the facts of the existence of different species of australopithecus in the same territory, while there is sufficient fossil evidence of the proximity of australopithecus with more developed forms of humans discovered in eastern Africa.

Tools for work as an aid to survival

Despite the presence of arms and fingers, these creatures were overly curved and narrow, which did not provide sufficient dexterity and mobility. Based on this fact, Australopithecus tools could not be made by their hands, but the use of suitable objects donated by nature still took place. In this capacity, sticks, stone fragments and bone fragments were used, without which it would have been impossible to squeeze termites out of a termite mound, dig up edible roots and perform other operations necessary for survival. Ordinary stones could be used as throwing weapons. But all of the above is also true of monkeys.

Judging by the structure of the skull, there is no reason to assume that Australopithecus had at least some signs of speech. In addition, there is no evidence to judge the ability to handle fire and use it for one’s benefit.

The path of Homo sapiens or the great ape?

Like the division of the human and chimpanzee genomes, over the course of even a very long existence, the development of Australopithecus moved along different branches. If some subspecies went in a dead-end direction, then others became the predecessors of the genus Homo. Apes had no choice but to adapt to life in the trees, which led to lengthening of the forelimbs and shortening of the lower ones. This should include the reduction of the thumb on the hand, the development of the crests of the skull, the lengthening and narrowing of the pelvis, as well as the predominance of the facial part of the skull over the brain.

The human branch in evolution is characterized by adaptation to terrestrial life, which inevitably leads to upright walking, the use of hands to use tools and work on their manufacture. Here everything was the other way around: the hind limbs became longer, and the front limbs became shorter. The foot lost its grasping function, but served to provide reliable support for the body. With the development of the brain, ancient creatures lost their crests and supraorbital ridges. In addition, the formation of a chin protrusion can be observed. Advancement into the human ranks is also confirmed by a change in defensive function, when instead of teeth, Australopithecus begins to use artificial tools.

According to neurological experts, the activation of the brain activity of Australopithecus is indicated not only by structural changes in different parts of the brain (parietal, occipital and temporal), but also by restructuring at the cellular level.

Evidence for the existence of Australopithecus

The existence of Australopithecus 6-7 million years ago is evidenced by artifacts discovered in Toros Menalla (Republic of Chad). Some evidence of the existence of this species dates back to remains in Swartkrans (South Africa), going back 900 thousand years in history. But these were already more progressive forms of creatures. It is generally accepted that Australopithecus never went beyond the African continent, and the territory of their possession was the entire area located south of the Sahara, as well as some areas of northern latitudes.

Rice. 3 - Australopithecus skull

There is heated scientific debate regarding finds outside Africa (Tel Ubeidia from Israel, Meganthropus 1941 and Mojokerto from Java). The regions of East Africa (Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia) and the southern part of the continent boast the densest concentration of australopithecine habitats.

Among the first confirmations of the existence of Australopithecus is the documented discovery of the skull of a creature that combined the characteristics of an ape and a human. These remains, belonging to an individual 3-4 years old, were found by workers at a limestone quarry in 1924 near the village. Taungom (South Africa). In an article written for the February 1925 issue of Nature, Australian anatomist and anthropologist Raymond Dart called the find evidence of a missing link in evolution. True, scientists of that time did not want to abandon the theory of primacy in brain development, which, in their opinion, was ahead of upright walking. But over time, under the pressure of new evidence (by 1940), the views of pundits were changed.

The turning point in the recognition of Australopithecus as the missing link in human civilization was the discoveries of Mary Leakey (from 1959 to 1961), made as a result of excavations at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. The remains that have come down to us in the greatest safety and integrity are considered to be the remains from the Hadar Desert (Ethiopia, East Africa), found on November 24, 1974. In this case, scientists got the temporal bones, lower jaw, ribs, vertebrae, bones of the arms, legs and pelvis, which accounted for about 40% of the entire skeleton. These remains were named Lucy, and the skeleton of a 3-year-old cub discovered here was named Lucy’s daughter. This period is considered one of the most fruitful, since from 1973 to 1977 the remains of 35 individuals, consisting of 240 different parts, were found.

Anthropology and concepts of biology Kurchanov Nikolay Anatolievich

Origin and evolution of Australopithecus

Currently, most anthropologists believe that the genus Homo originates from the group of Australopithecus (although it should be said that some scientists deny this path). Australopithecines themselves evolved from Dryopithecuses through an intermediate group, conventionally called “preaustralopithecines.” This group includes the latest finds - Ardipithecus, Orrorina And Sahelanthropa, which allow us to trace the evolution of hominids for 6–7 million years. Any one of them can lay claim to the original form leading to modern man, and there is no consensus among anthropologists on this issue. However, the most likely “candidate” for the role of the ancestral form of Australopithecus is Ardipithecus.

At the end of the Pliocene, Australopithecines were a thriving group of the primate order. Currently, 8 species have been identified among them. About 3 million years ago, Australopithecines split into two branches: “gracile” and “massive”. The latter were a group that specialized in feeding on coarse plant foods. Most anthropologists classify them as a separate genus Paranthropus.

Since the first discovery of the Australopithecus skull by R. Dart in 1924, numerous discoveries have been made of various representatives of this genus. However, all of them cannot compare in their social resonance with the discovery in 1974 by anthropologist D. Johanson in Ethiopia of an almost complete female skeleton of an Australopithecus, who lived about 3.5 million years ago. The find, which, according to the old tradition of anthropologists, received the name Lucy, became the most “loud” and popular anthropological discovery of the 20th century. Lucy was given the role of “progenitor of humanity.” Songs were dedicated to her, ships and cafes were named after her. Africa established the priority of the ancestral home of man.

Lucy's scientific name Australopithecus afarensis. This species lived approximately 3–3.5 million years ago, and is considered by most scientists to be the parent species for all subsequent Australopithecus species. Its representatives were significantly smaller than modern humans and were distinguished by pronounced sexual dimorphism: men had a height of about 150 cm and a body weight of about 45 kg, and women, respectively, had a height of 110 cm and 30 kg. The brain volume was 380–440 cm 3 (about the same as that of a chimpanzee). Lucy's relatives were characterized by a stable bipedal gait. From this same species, many researchers trace a direct line to modern man. Perhaps, as an intermediate form, the ancestor of the genus Homo served opened in Ethiopia in 1997 Australopithecus garhi. The find, whose age is 2.5 million years, contains a number of unique characteristics that make it possible to imagine it as a human ancestor (Vishnyatsky L. B., 2004).

Australopithecus afarensis, probably descended from a primitive form discovered in Kenya in 1995 and called Australopithecus anamensis. This species, which lived more than 4 million years ago, can be considered an intermediate form between ancient primates and australopithecines. Although the structure of the teeth and jaws of this australopithecus is similar to fossil apes, the structure of the leg bones allows it to be considered bipedal.

In 1999, the skull of a peculiar hominid, Kenyanthropus, was found in Kenya ( Kenyanthropus platyops). The age of the find is 3.5 million years. Together with another species ( Kenyanthropus rudolfensis) it forms an independent genus among the Australopithecines. The skull structure of representatives of this genus has an even more “human” appearance than that of contemporary australopithecines. But, possessing a bizarre mixture of primitive and progressive features, Kenyanthropes represented a dead-end branch of evolution. Such findings clearly show that human evolution did not have a consistently progressive and unidirectional character. There were several directions in the evolution of hominids, and the path to modern man was only one of them.

The dead-end branch was also the very first Australopithecus discovered by R. Darth ( A. africanus), widespread about 3 million years ago, and all "massive" forms ( Paranthropus), formed 2.7 million years ago from the original form Paranthropus aefiopicus. The latter were extremely specialized forms, adapted to feeding on coarse plant foods. They had large jaws and teeth. The top of their skull had a special crest to which powerful chewing muscles were attached. The “massive” ones outlived all other australopithecines, and their largest species was P. boisei(“zinjanthropus”) – coexisted with the first representatives of the genus Homo almost a million years.

The phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus can be represented in this way (Fig. 8.2).

Figure 8.2. Phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus

There are other options for the initial stages of hominid evolution. Thus, some authors place Orrorin at the base of the line leading to man ( Orrorin tugenensis), considering Australopithecus a lateral branch.

From the book The Sex Question by Trout August

Chapter II Evolution or Origin (Pedigree) of Living Creatures We must discuss this question here, because incredible confusion has recently arisen due to the confusion of hypotheses with facts, while we wish to base our assumptions not on hypotheses, but

From the book Dogs. A new look at the origin, behavior and evolution of dogs author Coppinger Lorna

Part I The origin and evolution of dogs: commensalism Wherever I have been, I have seen stray dogs feeding on the streets, backyards, and landfills. They are usually small, and quite similar to each other in size and appearance: they rarely weigh more

From the book Man in the Labyrinth of Evolution author Vishnyatsky Leonid Borisovich

The origin of primates The appearance of the first primates on the evolutionary arena occurs at the turn of the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras, and this is not accidental. The fact is that at the end of the Cretaceous period, which ended the Mesozoic, the previously dominant forces on land and in water disappeared from the face of the earth.

From the book The Human Genome: An Encyclopedia Written in Four Letters author

Origin and evolution of apes Around the turn of the Oligocene and Miocene (23 million years ago), or a little earlier (see Fig. 2), the hitherto single trunk of narrow-nosed apes split into two branches: cercopithecoids, or dog-like (Cercopithecoidea) and hominoids,

From the book The Human Genome [Encyclopedia written in four letters] author Tarantul Vyacheslav Zalmanovich

Origin of neoanthropes Until the early 80s. XX century It was almost generally accepted that people of the modern physical type first appeared about 35–40 thousand years ago. Numerous examples clearly testify in favor of precisely this antiquity of our species.

From the book Evolution author Jenkins Morton

From the book The Search for Life in the Solar System author Horowitz Norman H

PART III. ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN GENOME

From the book Amazing Stories about Various Creatures author Obraztsov Petr Alekseevich

ORIGIN OF LIFE The main theories proposed on this subject can be reduced to four hypotheses: 1. Life has no beginning. Life, matter and energy coexist in an infinite and eternal universe.2. Life was created as a result of a supernatural event in a special

From the book Theory of Adequate Nutrition and Trophology [tables in text] author

Chapter 3. The Origin of Life: Chemical Evolution Insignificant nothingness is the beginning of all beginnings. Theodore Roethke, "Lust" The theory of chemical evolution - the modern theory of the origin of life - also rests on the idea of ​​spontaneous generation. However, it is not based on sudden (de novo)

From the book Theory of Adequate Nutrition and Trophology [tables with pictures] author Ugolev Alexander Mikhailovich

1. The origin of the mind Next in order of importance after the question of the origin of life in general is the question of the origin of man. Where did such a creature come from, moreover thinking, that is, aware of its own mortality, able to solve algebraic problems?

From the book Masters of the Earth by Wilson Edward

From the book Anthropology and Concepts of Biology author Kurchanov Nikolay Anatolievich

From the author's book

1.8. The origin and evolution of endo- and exotrophy Trophics and the origin of life In the light of modern knowledge, it is clear that the mechanisms of endotrophy and exotrophy are related, and not opposite, as previously thought, when exotrophy was considered as heterotrophy, and

From the author's book

9.5. Structure, origin and evolution of cycles and trophic chains Life since its origin has been formed as a chain process. As for trophic chains, as we mentioned earlier, they were formed “from the end,” that is, from decomposers - organisms

From the author's book

From the author's book

The Origin of Life As already noted, the theory of biochemical evolution is the only theory within the framework of scientific methodology on the issue of the origin of life. It was first proposed by A.I. Oparin (1894–1980) in 1924. Subsequently, the author repeatedly introduced into it