Blogs

  • News
  • |
  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science
Dinosaur Tracking

Where paleontology meets pop culture

Hominid Hunting

Meet the members of the tangled human family tree

Innovations

How human ingenuity is changing the way we live

Surprising Science

Ideas, news and discoveries from the world of science


March 19, 2012

Top Ten Hominid Fantasy Finds

The skull of Sahelanthropus. What does its body look like? Image courtesy of Wikicommons

Hominid Hunting went on an unexpected hiatus in January. I’m finally back. For my first post, I thought I’d share what I’ve been thinking about for the past couple months: my fantasy fossil finds, or the hominid discoveries I’d most like to see. In no particular order:

1. The skeleton of Sahelanthropus: In 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a new hominid (PDF): Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Unearthed in Chad, the find was exciting because it was the first—and still only—hominid found west of Africa’s Rift Valley. And at six million to seven million years old, it was the earliest known hominid. But the species’ place in the hominid family tree is not secure. The original discovery consisted of a skull, jaw and a few isolated teeth. (Since then, researchers have found (PDF) a few additional jaws and teeth.) The position of the skull’s foramen magnum—the hole near the base of the skull where the spinal cord exits—is like that of a hominid, more forward under the skull, indicating an erect posture and upright walking. But to confirm Sahelanthropus‘ hominid status, and convince the skeptics that it’s not a non-hominid ape, scientists need to find the species’ post-cranial bones.

2. The skull of Orrorin: Around the same time that Sahelanthropus was discovered, researchers dug up another new hominid species, Orrorin tugenensis, in Kenya. Like Sahelanthropus, the hominid was very ancient, about six million years old. The discovery consisted of 13 fossils, including thigh bones, finger bones and isolated teeth and jaw fragments. The thigh bones show the telltale signs of walking upright while the rest of the known body looks more apelike, which is expected for a very early hominid. But to get a fuller picture of the species it would be nice to have a complete skull.

3. Hobbit DNA: Almost ten years after Homo floresiensis was discovered on the island of Flores in Indonesia, anthropologists still disagree about whether the hobbit was a distinct species of Homo or a diminutive modern human with a genetic growth disorder, perhaps microcephaly. Extracting DNA from one of the hobbit fossils would help resolve the debate, revealing whether or not its genetic blueprints match our own.

4. Fossils of a Denisovan: The study of the Denisovans has the opposite problem. A couple years ago, researchers discovered a potentially new hominid species based purely on its DNA. The DNA came from an isolated finger bone found in a cave in Siberia. The bone dates to between 30,000 and 48,000 years ago, a time when modern humans and Neanderthals could have lived in the area. But the genetic material didn’t match either species. So now anthropologists know there was a third type of hominid in Eurasia at this time—but they have no idea what it looked like.

5. Australopithecus skin: When researchers stumbled upon Australopithecus sediba in a South African cave, they found more than just a possible link between australopithecines and the genus Homo. Some of the 1.977-million-year-old fossils are covered in a thin layer that might be skin. If so, it would be the first time anyone has ever found fossilized soft tissue from an ancient hominid. To investigate the matter, a pair of scientists has started the open-access Malapa Soft Tissue Project to gather ideas on the best way to analyze the possible skin.

6. More Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis fossils: Homo habilis is the earliest known member of the genus Homo, living 2.4 million to 1.4 million years ago in East and South Africa. It was given its Homo status largely because its brain was bigger than the Australopithecus brain. The species is somewhat controversial, however, with some researchers believing it really was a species of Australopithecus. The issue became even more confused when scientists decided that at least one Homo habilis fossil was different from all the others. A 1.8-million-year-old skull found in Kenya’s Lake Turkana region had a much larger brain size than any other Homo habilis—nearly 200 cubic centimeters bigger. Now some researchers place this and a few other specimens in the species Homo rudolfensis. But many questions remain. Are the two really different species or part of one variable species? Finding more of the big-brained skulls, with associated post-cranial bones, might help researchers determine how different the two forms really were.

7. The skeleton of Gigantopithecus: The largest ape that ever lived went extinct about 300,000 years ago. All researchers know about Gigantopithecus comes from a few jaws and teeth. Based on that scant evidence, some anthropologists think the ape might have stood 10 feet tall and weighed a whopping 1,200 pounds. But to more accurately determine how gargantuan the ape was, and how it moved, someone needs to find some of its post-cranial parts.

8. More Kenyanthropus fossils: In 1999, anthropologists found the skull of the 3.5-million-year-old Kenyanthropus platyops. Researchers classified the skull as a new hominid species because of its unique mix of apelike and humanlike traits. For example, the species had small earholes like a chimp’s but a much flatter face. Many anthropologists don’t agree with this classification. The skull was in bad condition when it was found, and some researcher think it is just a distorted Australopithecus afarensis skull. The only way to settle the matter is to find more skulls that look like the original, if Kenyanthropus really ever existed.

9. A chimp relative: Almost nothing is known about the evolution of chimpanzees after they split away from the human lineage. The lack of fossil evidence may be due to where chimpanzee ancestors likely lived—warm, wet forests where fossils are not often preserved. But in 2005, a pair of anthropologists reported they had found three isolated chimp teeth dated to 500,000 years ago. Whether these teeth belonged to modern chimpanzees (which would imply they are a very long-lived species) or a chimpanzee ancestor is unknown. But what’s interesting about the teeth is where they were found: the Rift Valley of Kenya. Half a million years ago this part of Africa was largely a savannah, indicating ancient chimps were not restricted to forests. Still, even with this discovery, next to nothing is known about chimp ancestry. More fossils, from an even older period, would be a great find.

10. Something unexpected: Of course, the most exciting fossil discoveries are the ones you don’t anticipate and make scientists rethink some aspect of human evolution.

This is just my personal wish list. What’s on yours?



***

Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.

11 Comments »

  1. Noni Mausa says:

    I was pretty thrilled to read about the Chinese find of the Red Deer People, discovered in ’79 and ’89 but only recently determined to be a mere 13,000 to 11,000 years old. [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0031918?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+plosone%2FPLoSONE+%28PLoS+ONE+Alerts%3A+New+Articles%29]

    Of course, it wouldn’t be surprising to find remains of non-human hominids concurrent in age with modern H. sap, since the world is big and we can’t be everywhere. What might be interesting would be to find solid evidence of them coexisting in a human community, although knowing H. sap I’m pretty sure such a relationship wouldn’t be a very good deal for the more archaic hominid involved.

    Noni

  2. Number one on my list: a naturally-dead sasquatch, or a substantial piece of one.

  3. Rob Gargett says:

    Welcome back, Erin. Fun stuff. This’ll probably blow what little cred I have, but I’ve often thought that knuckle walking could have arisen from a bipedal precursor. Maybe we’ll find that, at the end of the day, all those six and seven million year old relatives were, all along, candidates for the last common ancestor of the African great apes–the chimps, the gorillas, and us.

  4. Deborah says:

    Pardon my lack of knowledge on this subject. My dream was always and still is to be an anthropologist. But I think 61 is too late to begin….. If chimpanzees split from human lineage, when did evolution stop? My dad used to say if a person believed in evolution, then somewhere at this very moment a ‘monkey was turning into a human.’ Of course I know that’s not how it works. If we were once them and them once us, did evolution just stop or are they still becoming us?

  5. Erin Wayman says:

    Rob, thanks. This is a wish list, so you should dream big.

    Deborah, the idea is that the human lineage and chimp lineage descended from a common ancestor. Once both groups separated some 7 million years ago, each lineage continued to evolve for millions of years and eventually modern humans and modern chimpanzees emerged. Based on the fossil recored, it appears that modern humans originated about 200,000 years ago. We don’t really know when the modern chimpanzee originated. But evolution never stopped.

  6. Jonathan says:

    A Texan genetisist named Melba Ketchum is claiming she will prove that a large upright human off shoot is still living in the Paific Northwest today this year. She says she has DNA evidence from multible indiduals, and the study is currently undergoing peer review. Thoughts?

  7. Jason Cain says:

    I agree with Cliff Barackman that finding the body of a sasquatch would be by far the most important thing on my list.

    Being a retired police officer, I myself am not 100% convinced that they exist. I also know that there are MANY hoaxers seeking attention. But there is a wide body of evidence that points to the probability of its existence — and that warrants a look. If not by courageous scientists, then by a old retired cop with some time on his hands.

    Respectfully,

    Jason Cain

  8. Matthew Cappetta says:

    Cool list Erin, I just discovered this blog a couple days ago and I love it.

    Deborah- I think the theory of evolution is rejected by so many because they lack a true of understanding of the process and the evidence we have to justify it. Lots of people misunderstand it to be some isolated event that just sort of happens randomly to individual members of a species, like one generation of Miocene apes came down from the trees and just decided to start walking upright, thus evolving and creating humanity. It is really more of a tendency constantly present in the natural world; a tendency for traits in organisms to be shaped to best suit the environment around them. Development takes place over massive amounts of time during which genetic variation is either favored or not favored by selective pressures present in the environment. Evolution is never over. Presently humans are still evolving. In one paleoanthropology class I took we read an interesting article claiming that because of more specific selective factors, factors which are oftentimes unnatural; human populations are diversifying and evolving at a more rapid rate than they ever have before, to the point where in the not so distant future, differing speciation’s could occur between geographically separated Homo Sapien gene pools.

    An excellent example of the evolutionary process in action is with sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is prevalent in equatorial regions where malaria is frequent. Sickle cell is the biological trait, malaria is the selective factor. In short, mosquitoes don’t go for sickle cell anemics because of the sickled shape of their blood cells. Thus people with sickle cell don’t get malaria. Generations and generations of this trait being selected for(aka lots of those in the population without SCA dying of malaria before they can pass on their genes)makes the genetic trait increasingly frequent in these equatorial populations. Now clearly SCA is not overall a “beneficial” trait for a human to have. But since it prevents death from malaria long enough for the people who have it to reproduce and pass on their genes, the trait spreads. Natural selection does not taking into account the overall well-being or comfort of a trait present within an organism, only the traits effect on the organisms reproductive success in the context of the environment it habituates.

    Cliff+Jason- I know this is a fantasy list but I have always had hard time believing that there is a large hominid living in a rapidly developing America right under our noses; a lineage that inexplicably remains completely absent from the fossil record throughout the world. And if they do exist and were not snuffed out by the Homo Sapien spread, the way all other non-Sapien hominids probably were, it seems implausible that such a limited population would still be able to find one another to reproduce, due to scarcity and also urban obstructions like highways, suburbs etc… Nothing is outside the realm of possibility but I have never heard a compelling defense to explain these anomalies.

  9. sasquatch probably is a neanderthal, finding him would give a lot of clues.

    What I would love is a 6 million year old human to turn up, and leave the archaeologist in an uproar.

  10. jojo john says:

    nice good work guys

  11. jojo john says:

    good work,good work good work good work very intelligent guys u are

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement



Follow Us

Travel with Smithsonian






Advertisement