Op maandag 24 oktober 2022 om 22:09:31 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297007639_Homo_naledi_or_Australopithecus_naledi_Anthropocentric_Anthropology
Definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely NOT "Homo" naledi.
Yes, that was indeed the conclusion.
There was never ever any reason to suspect "Homo" naledi.
The only question is: Australopithecus or Pan? Which is more correct?
Both are:
Australopithecus s.s. is a fossil subgenus of Pan:
MORPHOLOGICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN AUSTRALOPITHECINE, HUMAN AND APE SKULLS Hum.Evol.11:35-41, 1996
This paper attempts to quantify the morphological difference between fossil & living spp of hominoids. The comparison is based upon a balanced list of cranio-dental characters, corrected for size (Wood & Chamberlain 1986). Conclusions:
- cranio-dentally, the australopithecine sppare a unique & rather uniform group, much nearer to the great apes than to humans;
- overall, their skull & dentition do not resemble the human more than the chimpanzee’s do.
AUSTRALOPITHECINES: ANCESTORS OF THE AFRICAN APES?
Hum.Evol. 9:121-139, 1994
Since australopithecines display humanlike traits (e.g. short ilia, rel.small front teeth, thick molar enamel), they are usu.assumed to be related to Homo rather than to Pan or Gorilla. However, this assumption is not supported by many other of their
features.
This paper briefly surveys the literature concerning cranio-dental comparisons of australopith spp with bonobos, common chimps, humans & gorillas, adult & immature.
It will be argued, albeit on fragmentary data:
- the large australopiths of E.Africa were in many instances anatomically & therefore possibly also evolutionarily nearer to Gorilla than to Pan or Homo,
- the S.African australopiths nearer to Pan & Homo than to Gorilla.
An example of a possible evolutionary tree is provided. ...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)