Contents

Introduction
TM 266-01-060-1
ARA-VP-6/500
BOU-VP-11/1 & 12/1
KNM-ER 20419
AL 288-1
KNM-WT 40000
Taung 1
Sts 5
Stw 431
MH1
KNM-ER 3735
KNM-ER 1813
KNM-ER 1470
KNM-WT 15000
Trinil 2
D. J. Scott

Fossil Hominid Specimens

The Bare-Bones Evidence.
Copyright © 2016-2017 by Dustin Jon Scott
[Last Update: June 4th, 2017]


Introduction

With


TM 266-01-060-1

Toros-Menalia specimen 266-01-060-1 (TM 266-01-060-1), or “Tomai”


Classification
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Homo tchadensis


ARA-VP-6/500

Aramis Vertebrate Paleontology specimen 6/500 (ARA-VP-6/500), or “Ardi”

Classification
Ardipithecus ramidus
Homo ramidus & Homo ramidus ramidus



KNM-ER 20419

Kenya National Museum, East Rudolf specimen 20419 (KNM-ER 20419)


Classification
Australopithecus anamensis
Præanthropus anamensis
Homo anamensis, Homo africanus anamensis, or Homo afarensis anamensis


AL 288-1

Afar Locality specimen 288-1 (AL 288-1), or “Lucy”

Classification
Australopithecus afarensis
Præanthropus afarensis
Homo afarensis or Homo africanus afarensis



KNM-WT 40000

Kenya National Museum, West Turkana specimen 40000 (KNM-WT 40000)


Classification
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus platyops
Præanthropus platyops
Homo platyops
Præanthropus africanus platyops
Homo afarensis
Homo africanus afarensis


Taung 1

Taung specimen 1 (Taung 1), or “The Taung Child”

Classification
Australopithecus africanus
Homo africanus & Homo africanus africanus



Sts 5

Sterkfontein specimen 5 (Sts 5), or “Mrs. Ples”

Classification
Australopithecus africanus
Homo africanus & Homo africanus africanus



Stw 431

Sterkfontein specimen 431 (Stw 431)

Classification
Australopithecus africanus
Homo africanus & Homo africanus africanus



BOU-VP-11/1 & BOU-VP-12/1

Bouri Vertebrate Palaeontology specimens 11/1 and 12/1 (BOU-VP-11/1 & BOU-VP-12/1)

Bouri skeleton, BOU-VP 12/1

“The humerofemoral index of BOU-VP-12/1 differs significantly from both OH 62 and AL 288-1, but not from KNM-WT 15000. Published length estimates, if correct, suggest that the relative forearm length of BOU-VP-12/1 is unique among hominins, exceeding those of the African apes and resembling the proportions in Pongo.”
J Hum Evol. 2002 Oct;43(4):529-48.
Early hominin limb proportions.
Richmond BG1, Aiello LC, Wood BA.
(Richmond et al., 2002)

Classification
Australopithecus garhi
Homo garhi or Homo africanus garhi


MH1

Malapa Hominid specimen 1 (MH1)


Classification
Australopithecus sediba
Under classification schemes which merge Pan with Homo, Australopithecus sediba becomes Homo sediba or Homo africanus sediba


OH 62

Olduvai Hominid specimen 62 (OH 62), or “Dik-dik hominid”

“Although the difference in humerofemoral proportions between OH 62 and AL 288-1 does not exceed variation in the extant samples, it is rare. When humerofemoral midshaft circumferences are compared, the difference between OH 62 and AL 288-1 is fairly common in extant species. This, in combination with error associated with the limb lengths estimates, suggests that it may be premature to consider H. (or Australopithecus) habilis as having more apelike limb proportions than those in A. afarensis.”
J Hum Evol. 2002 Oct;43(4):529-48.
Early hominin limb proportions.
Richmond BG1, Aiello LC, Wood BA.
(Richmond et al., 2002)
“The humerus and femur of the fossil hominid OH 62 are badly damaged and their lengths are not directly measurable (Johanson et al., 1987). Nevertheless, using relatively intact reference materials from another early hominid, AL 288-1, Johanson et al. (1987) reconstructed the bones to estimate the humerofemoral index, which falls well above the range for modern Homo, above the estimate for AL 288-1, and within the range for Pan paniscus. The reconstruction of missing bone by the method originally employed for OH 62 is broadly reproducible in a representative modern sample of Homo, making possible the estimation of an associated error term intrinsic to this method. Using the approximate variance of the ratio mean (Kish, 1965), shown here to be a good estimator of the sample variance of the humerofemoral index, the analysis of this modern sample extrapolated to other living hominoids gives quite acceptable results. Applied to OH 62, it suggests an error term associated with the estimated humerofemoral index so substantial that it is only possible to situate the index somewhere between the distributions for Homo and Gorilla, and quite possibly not above the index for AL 288-1. On the other hand, the predicted distribution for the humerofemoral index of AL 288-1 is more securely placed between the distributions for Homo and Pan paniscus.”
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1990 Sep;83(1):25-33.
Deconstructing reconstruction: the OH 62 humerofemoral index.
Korey KA1.
(Korey, 1990)

Classification
Homo habilis
Australopithecus habilis
Under classification schemes which merge Pan with Homo, Australopithecus habilis reverts back to Homo habilis, unless the various species within genus Australopithecus are re-analyzed as subspecies of Homo africanus, in which case Australopithecus habilis becomes Homo africanus habilis


KNM-ER 3735

Kenya National Museum, East Rudolf specimen 3735 (KNM-ER 3735)



KNM-ER 1470

Kenya National Museum, East (Lake) Rudolf specimen 1470 (KNM-ER 1470)


Classification
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo africanus rudolfensis
Homo africanus habilis
Australopithecus rudolfensis
Australopithecus habilis rudolfensis


KNM-ER 1813

Kenya National Museum, East (Lake) Rudolf specimen 1813 (KNM-ER 1813)


Classification
Homo habilis
Australopithecus habilis
Australopithecus habilis habilis
Homo africanus habilis


KNM-WT 15000

Kenya National Museum, West (Lake) Turkana specimen 15000 (KNM-WT 15000), also known as “Nariokotome Boy” or “Turkana Boy”


Classification
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo sapiens erectus


Trinil 2

Trinil specimen 2 (Trinil 2), or “Java Man”


Classification
Homo erectus & Homo erectus erectus
Homo sapiens erectus