Who is the closest possible ancestor of Australopithecus? Origin and evolution of Australopithecus. New skills are the basis for survival in the wild

|
Australopithecus
Australopithecus R. A. Dart, 1925

• †Australopithecus anamensis
• †Australopithecus afarensis
• †Australopithecus africanus
• † Australopithecus bahr el-ghazal
• †Australopithecus gari
• †Australopithecus sediba

Australopithecus(from Latin australis - southern and other Greek πίθηκος - monkey) - a genus of fossils great apes, whose bones were first discovered in the Kalahari Desert (South Africa) in 1924, and then in the Eastern and Central Africa. They are the ancestors of the Human race.

• 1 Origin, biology and behavior
• 2 Anatomy
• 3 Development of forms within the genus
• 4 Known forms
• 5 Place in hominid evolution
• 6 See also
• 7 Notes
• 8 Links

Origin, biology and behavior

Australopithecines lived during the Pliocene from about 4 million years ago until less than a million years ago. On the time scale, 3 long eras of the main species are clearly visible, approximately a million years per species. Most Australopithecus species were omnivores, but there were subspecies that specialized in plant foods. The ancestor of the basal species was most likely the species anamensis, and the first basal species known from this moment became the species afarensis, which existed for approximately 1 million years. Apparently, these creatures were nothing more than monkeys, walking humanly on two legs, although hunched over. Perhaps in the end they knew how to use available stones to crack, for example, nuts. It is believed that afarensis eventually split into two subspecies: the first branch went towards humanization and Homo habilis, the second continued to improve in australopithecus, forming the new kind africanus. Africanus had slightly less developed limbs than afarensis, but they learned to use available stones, sticks and sharp bone fragments and, in turn, another million years later formed two new higher and last known subspecies of Australopithecus boisei and robustus, which existed up to 900 thousand years BC. e. and could already independently make the simplest bone and wooden tools. Despite this, most australopithecines were part of the food chain of more progressive people, who overtook them in development along other branches of evolution, and with whom they overlapped in time, although the duration of coexistence indicates that there were also periods of peaceful coexistence.

In terms of taxonomy, Australopithecus is classified as a member of the family Hominidae (which also includes humans and modern great apes). The question of whether any australopithecines were the ancestors of humans, or whether they represent a “sister group” to humans, is not fully understood.

Anatomy

Australopithecines are similar to humans due to the weak development of the jaws, the absence of large protruding fangs, a grasping hand with a developed thumb, a supporting foot and a pelvic structure adapted for upright walking. The brain is relatively large (530 cm³), but in structure it differs little from the brain of modern apes. In volume, it was no more than 35% of the average size of the modern human brain. The body size was also small, no more than 120-140 cm in height, with a slender build. It is assumed that the difference in size between male and female Australopithecines was greater than that of modern hominids. For example, at modern people men on average only 15% larger than women, while in Australopithecines they could be 50% taller and heavier, which gives rise to discussions about the fundamental possibility of such strong sexual dimorphism in this genus of hominids. One of the main characteristic features for Paranthropus there is a bony arrow-shaped crest on the skull, characteristic of males of modern gorillas, therefore it cannot be completely ruled out that the robust/paranthropic forms of Australopithecus are males, and the gracile forms are females; an alternative explanation may be the assignment of forms different sizes to different species or subspecies.

Development of forms within the genus

The main candidate for the ancestor of australopithecines is the genus Ardipithecus. Moreover, the most ancient of the representatives of the new genus, Australopithecus anamensis, descended directly from Ardipithecus ramidus 4.4-4.1 million years ago, and 3.6 million years ago gave rise to Australopithecus afarensis, to which the famous Lucy belongs. With the discovery in 1985 of the so-called “black skull”, which was very similar to Paranthropus boisei, with a characteristic bone crest, but was 2.5 million older, official uncertainty appeared in the pedigree of Australopithecus, since although the test results may vary greatly depending on many circumstances and the environment where the skull was located, and, as usual, will be rechecked dozens of times for decades to come, but at the moment it turns out that Paranthropus boisei could not have descended from Australopithecus africanus, since it lived before them, and at least lived at the same time with Australopithecus afarensis, and, accordingly, also could not have descended from them, unless, of course, we do not take into account the hypothesis that the paranthropic forms of Australopithecus and Australopithecus are males and females of the same species.

Known forms

• Australopithecus afarensis (Australopithecus afarensis)
• Australopithecus africanus
• Australopithecus sediba
• Australopithecus prometheus

Previously, three more representatives were included in the genus Australopithecus, but nowadays they are usually classified as a special genus of Paranthropus.

• Ethiopian paranthropus (Paranthropus aethiopicus)
• Zinjanthropus boisei, now Paranthropus boisei
• Robustus (Australopithecus robustus, now Paranthropus robustus)

Place in hominid evolution

The genus Australopithecus is considered the ancestor of at least two groups of hominids: Paranthropus and humans. Although Australopithecines differed little from monkeys in terms of intelligence, they were upright, while most monkeys are quadrupeds. Thus, upright walking preceded the development of intelligence in humans, and not vice versa, as previously assumed.

How Australopithecines transitioned to upright walking is not yet clear. Reasons considered include the need to grasp objects, such as food and young, with the front paws, and to scan the surrounding area over the top. tall grass in search of food or to spot danger in time. It is also suggested that the common ancestors of upright hominids (including humans and australopithecines) lived in shallow waters and fed on small aquatic inhabitants, and upright walking developed as an adaptation to movement in shallow waters. This version is supported by a number of anatomical, physiological and ethological features, in particular the ability of people to voluntarily hold their breath, which not all swimming animals are capable of.

According to genetic data, signs of upright walking appeared in some extinct species of monkeys about 6 million years ago, during the era of divergence between humans and chimpanzees. This means that not only the Australopithecines themselves, but also the species that was their ancestor, for example, Ardipithecus, could already be upright. Perhaps upright walking was an element of adaptation to life in the trees. Modern orangutans use all four legs to move only along thick branches, while they either cling to thinner branches from below or walk along them on their hind legs, preparing to grab onto other higher branches with their front legs or balancing for stability. This tactic allows them to approach fruits located far from the trunk, or jump from one tree to another. Climate changes that occurred 11-12 million years ago led to a reduction in forest areas in Africa and the emergence of large open spaces, which could have pushed the ancestors of Australopithecus to transition to upright walking on the ground. In contrast, the ancestors of modern chimpanzees and gorillas specialized in climbing vertical trunks and vines, which is responsible for their bow-legged and clubbed gait on the ground. However, humans have inherited many similarities to these apes, including the structure of hand bones, which are reinforced for knuckle-supported walking.

It is also possible that Australopithecines were not the direct ancestors of humans, but represented a dead-end branch of evolution. Such conclusions are prompted, in particular, by recent discoveries of Sahelanthropus, an even more ancient ape that was more similar to Homo erectus than Australopithecus. In 2008, a new species of australopithecine, A. sediba, was discovered, which lived in Africa less than two million years ago. Although, according to certain morphological characteristics, it is closer to humans than the more ancient species of australopithecus, which gave grounds for its discoverers to declare it transitional form from Australopithecus to humans, at the same time, apparently, the first representatives of the genus Homo, such as Rudolf man, already existed, which excludes the possibility that this species of Australopithecus could be the ancestor of modern humans.

Most species of australopithecus used tools no more than modern apes. Chimpanzees and gorillas are known to be able to crack nuts with stones, use sticks to extract termites, and use clubs for hunting. How often Australopithecines hunted is a controversial issue, as their fossil remains are rarely associated with the remains of killed animals.

see also

• Anoyapithecus
• Gryphopithecus
• Sivapithecus
• Nakalipithecus
• Afropithecus
• Dryopithecus
• Morotopithecus
• Kenyapithecus
• Oreopithecus

Notes

1. Australopithecus gracile
2. 1 2 Antonov, Egor. Australopithecines are measured by age: Littlefoot turned out to be older than Lucy. A new “cosmic” technique dates the remains of Littlefoot to about 3.67 million years ago. “Science and Life” (April 13, 2015). Retrieved April 14, 2015.
3. Beck Roger B. World History: Patterns of Interaction. - Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell. - ISBN 0-395-87274-X.
4. BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man. Mother of man - 3.2 million years ago. Retrieved November 1, 2007. Archived from the original on February 9, 2012.
5. Thorpe S.K.S.; Holder R.L., and Crompton R.H. PREMOG - Supplementary Info. Origin of Human Bipedalism As an Adaptation for Locomotion on Flexible Branches(inaccessible link - history).Primate Evolution & Morphology Group (PREMOG), the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Liverpool (24 May 2007). Retrieved November 1, 2007. Archived from the original on July 17, 2007.
6. New human-like species unveiled

Links

• Australopithecines on the Evolution of Man website
• Australopithecus on the portal Anthropogenesis.ru
• South Africa has finally found the missing link

Australopithecus

Australopithecus Information About

Australopithecine bones were first discovered in the Kalahari Desert (South Africa) in 1924, and then in East and Central Africa. They are the probable ancestors of the Human genus.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  Due to the complexities of morphological division within the family Hominidae, as well as to better understand the evolutionary development of hominids, scientists distinguish large group fossil primates - Australopithecines, or australopithecus, where besides the actual gender Australopithecus, other genera are also included. As a result, in the literature Australopithecus can be considered both in the narrow (genus) and broad sense of the word (evolutionary group). In this context, modern paleoanthropology conventionally divides australopithecus into three groups:

  • early australopithecus (3.9-7.0 million years ago)
  • gracile australopithecus (1.8-3.9 million years ago)
  • massive australopithecus (0.9-2.6 million years ago)

  Early Australopithecus includes one species of the genus Australopithecus - Australopithecus anamensis(Leakey, Feibel, McDougal et Walker, 1995), and Sahelanthropus tchadensis(Brunet at al., 2002), Orrorin tugenensis(Senut, Pickford, Gommery, Mein, Cheboi et Coppens, 2001) and Ardipithecus ramidus(White, Suwa et Asfaw, 1995). Gracile Australopithecines include the following species: Australopithecus afarensis(Johanson, White et Coppens, 1978) Australopithecus bahrelghazali(Brunet, Beauvilain, Coppens, Heintz, Moutaye et Pilbeam, 1996), Australopithecus africanus(Dart, 1925), Australopithecus garhi(Asfaw, White, Lovejoy, Latimer, Simpson et Suwa, 1999), Australopithecus sediba(Berger, 2010) and also Kenyanthropus platyops(Leakey, Spoor, Brown, Gathogo, Kiarie, Leakey et McDougalls, 2001). The last group, due to its specific anatomy, is classified as a separate genus - Paranthropus, numbering three types: Paranthropus aethiopicus(Arambourg et Coppens, 1968), Paranthropus boisei(Leakey, 1959) and Paranthropus robustus(Broom, 1939).

  There are several more controversial species that can be classified as Australopithecus, but this is beyond the scope of this article.

  Origin, biology and behavior

  Australopithecines lived during the Pliocene, from approximately 4 million years ago, to less than a million years ago. On the time scale, 3 long eras of the main species are clearly visible, approximately a million years per species. Most Australopithecus species were omnivores, but there were subspecies that specialized in plant foods. The ancestor of the main species was most likely the species anamensis, and the first main species known at the moment was the species afarensis, which existed for approximately 1 million years. Apparently, these creatures were nothing more than monkeys, walking humanly on two legs, although hunched over. Perhaps in the end they knew how to use available stones to crack, for example, nuts. It is believed that afarensis in the end it was divided into two subspecies: the first branch went towards humanization and Homo habilis, the second continued to improve in Australopithecus, forming a new species africanus. U africanus had slightly less developed limbs than afarensis, but they learned to use available stones, sticks and sharp fragments of bones and, in turn, another million years later they formed two new higher and last known subspecies of australopithecus boisei And robustus, which existed until 900 thousand years BC. e. and could already independently make the simplest bone and wooden tools. Despite this, most australopithecines were part of the food chain of more progressive people, who overtook them in development along other branches of evolution, and with whom they overlapped in time, although the duration of coexistence indicates that there were also periods of peaceful coexistence.

  In terms of taxonomy, Australopithecus is classified as a member of the family Hominidae (which also includes humans and modern great apes). The question of whether any australopithecines were the ancestors of humans, or whether they represent a “sister group” to humans, is not fully understood.

  Anatomy

  Template:Biophoto What makes Australopithecines similar to humans is the weak development of the jaws, the absence of large protruding fangs, a grasping hand with a developed thumb, a supporting foot and a pelvic structure adapted for upright walking. The brain is relatively large (530 cm³), but in structure it differs little from the brain of modern apes. In volume, it was no more than 35% of the average size of the modern human brain. The body size was also small, no more than 120-140 cm in height, with a slender build. It is assumed that the difference in size between male and female Australopithecines was greater than that of modern hominids. For example, among modern humans, men are on average only 15% larger than women, while among Australopithecines they could be 50% taller and heavier, which gives rise to discussions about the fundamental possibility of such strong sexual dimorphism in this genus of hominids. One of the main characteristic features for Paranthropus is the bony arrow-shaped crest on the skull, inherent in the males of modern gorillas, so it cannot be completely ruled out that the robust/paranthropic forms of Australopithecus are males, and the gracile forms are females; an alternative explanation may be that forms of different sizes belong to different species or subspecies.

  Development of forms within the genus

  The leading candidate for the ancestor of australopithecines is the genus Ardipithecus. Moreover, the most ancient of the representatives of the new genus, Australopithecus anamensis, descended directly from Ardipithecus ramidus 4.4-4.1 million years ago, and 3.6 million years ago gave rise to Australopithecus afarensis, to which the first one found by modern people belongs - “Lucy " With the discovery in 1985 of the so-called “black skull”, which was very similar to Paranthropus boisei, with a characteristic bone crest, but at the same time was 2.5 million older, official uncertainty appeared in the pedigree of Australopithecus, since although test results can vary greatly depending on many circumstances and the environment where the skull was located, and, as usual, will will be rechecked dozens of times over the next decades, but at the moment it turns out that Paranthropus boisei could not have come from Australopithecus africanus, since he lived before them, and at least lived at the same time as Australopithecus afarensis, and, accordingly, also could not have originated from them, unless, of course, we do not take into account the hypothesis that the paranthropic forms of australopithecus and australopithecus are males and females of the same species.

  Place in hominid evolution

  Template:Biophoto Rod Australopithecus is considered the ancestor of at least two groups of hominids: Paranthropus and humans. Although Australopithecines differed little from monkeys in terms of intelligence, they were upright, while most monkeys are quadrupeds. Thus, upright walking preceded the development of intelligence in humans, and not vice versa, as previously assumed.

  How Australopithecines transitioned to upright walking is not yet clear. Reasons considered include the need to grasp objects such as food and young with the front paws, and to scan the surrounding area over tall grass for food or to spot danger. It is also suggested that the common ancestors of upright hominids (including humans and australopithecines) lived in shallow waters and fed on small aquatic inhabitants, and upright walking developed as an adaptation to movement in shallow waters. This version is supported by a number of anatomical, physiological and ethological features, in particular the ability of people to voluntarily hold their breath, which not all swimming animals are capable of.

  According to genetic data, signs of upright walking appeared in some extinct species of monkeys about 6 million years ago, during the era of divergence between humans and chimpanzees. This means that not only the australopithecines themselves, but also the species that was their ancestor, for example, ardipithecus, could already be upright. Perhaps upright walking was an element of adaptation to life in the trees. Modern orangutans use all four legs to move only along thick branches, while they either cling to thinner branches from below or walk along them on their hind legs, preparing to grab onto other higher branches with their front legs or balancing for stability. This tactic allows them to approach fruits located far from the trunk, or jump from one tree to another. Climate changes that occurred 11-12 million years ago led to a reduction in forest areas in Africa and the emergence of large open spaces, which could have pushed the ancestors of Australopithecus to transition to walking upright on the ground. In contrast, the ancestors of modern chimpanzees discovered a new species of australopithecus, A. sediba, who lived in Africa less than two million years ago. Although, according to certain morphological characteristics, it is closer to humans than the more ancient species of australopithecus, which gave grounds for its discoverers to declare it a transitional form from Australopithecus to humans, at the same time, apparently, the first representatives of the genus already existed Homo, such as Rudolphian man, which excludes the possibility that this species of australopithecus could be the ancestor of modern humans.

  Most species of australopithecus used tools no more than modern apes. Chimpanzees and gorillas are known to be able to crack nuts with stones, use sticks to extract termites, and use clubs for hunting. How often Australopithecines hunted is a controversial issue, as their fossil remains are rarely associated with the remains of killed animals.

  
  

  Australopithecines are bipedal apes.

  First finds. For the first time, the name Australopithecus appeared in the scientific literature in connection with the fossil finds of Raymond Dart; in 1924, he discovered in the dolomite deposits of the South-Eastern Transvaal, near the town of Taung, the skull of a 3-5 year old hominoid calf (“baby from Taung”). The skull bones had more “monkey” features with very minor manifestations of “human” features in the structure of the jaws. The internal capacity of the skull was also more in line with the average for most fossil and modern apes - 380-450 cm 3.

  Australopithecus afarensis - this is what R. Dart called his find, determining the age of Australopithecus at 1.7-2.0 million years. Subsequently, in a number of places in South Africa, in addition to the skull bones, remains of the postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus were found, from which it was possible to establish the ability for bipedal locomotion. Taxonomy of Australopithecines. Sometimes Australopithecines are separated into a separate family or classified as pongidae. In this case, they will be considered as true hominids. Anthropologists have different ideas about the number of species within the genus Homo. The position of Australopithecus in the family of hominids can be considered quite reasonable: firstly, some species of Australopithecus probably participated in the origin of later human ancestors; secondly, it is quite difficult to draw a line separating Australopithecus from the first “real” Homo.

  Diversity of Australopithecines. To determine the physical type of Australopithecus, the main features can be distinguished: bipedality, small brain, large teeth with thick enamel (megadontia), small fangs, the absence of a pronounced set of features in the structure of the upper limbs associated with the production of artificial stone tools. At the same time, depending on the antiquity and biological specialization, morphological characteristics can vary quite significantly. The most recent discoveries have determined the chronological framework for the existence of all known types Australopithecus from 1 to 7 million years.
  In general, Australopithecus can be divided into three main groups, different in morphology and relatively consistent in succession over time:

  a) early australopithecus;

  b) gracile australopithecus;

  c) massive australopithecines.

  Morphology of Australopithecus

  A detailed study of the morphology of all currently known species of australopithecus makes it possible to understand the most complex problems of the formation of upright walking, enhanced development of the brain and the emergence of culture in subsequent hominids. Upright walking, as the oldest system of hominization, began to take shape, apparently, already in preaustralopithecine forms and can be seen quite well in the earliest australopithecines about 7 million years ago. To the greatest extent, upright walking affects the structure of the pelvic girdle:

  The ilium expands anteriorly, its middle part strengthens;
  The sacroiliac and hip joints are strengthened and brought closer together;
  Elements of the muscular-ligamentous apparatus develop, fixing the extension of the leg in the hip and knee joints;
  Australopithecines had a pelvic shape and hip joint that were generally similar to those of humans, and they had a permanent bipedal gait, which fundamentally distinguished them from all known fossil and modern apes.

  The brain of Australopithecines in absolute size corresponded to variations in its mass in modern apes. Individual brain volume values ​​ranged from 300 to 570 cm 3 . There is no clear idea of ​​changes in the structure of the brain (for this, endocranes are used - internal casts of the brain). There is an opinion about the pongid type of brain structure of australopithecines.

  At the same time, progressive changes are noted while maintaining a small volume of the brain itself: an increase in the parietal and temporal association zones. The structure of the skull and dental system of Australopithecines also has many ape-like features. The face was large with pronounced prognathism, there was no chin, the nose was flat and wide, the base of the skull was slightly curved, which indicated the primitiveness of the vocal apparatus. The stages of development of permanent teeth in Australopithecines were more similar to those of modern apes than to humans.

  

  1. Gorilla; 2. Australopithecus; 3. Pithecanthropus; 4. Neanderthal; 5. Modern man.

  Habitat of Autralopithecines. Environmental conditions, against the background of which the evolution of australopithecines took place for more than 6 million years, changed quite significantly. In Africa, the general cooling of that time affected a gradual decrease in humidity and changes in the landscape to more open and drier ones. The driest conditions known in Africa characterize the location of the massive Australopithecus in Peninge (Tanzania), where the landscape was an open grass savanna.

  

  The name "australopithecus" comes from the Latin word meaning "southern". At the beginning of the twentieth century, anatomy professor Raymond Dart found a skull near Taung. It consisted of a perfectly preserved facial part with jaws and teeth, as well as the right skull. The researcher decided that this skull belonged to an ape about six or seven years old. But, looking closer, Dart noticed the signs of an adult. This is the large foramen magnum for connection spinal cord with the head It was located so that the owner of this skull should have had a more or less straightened body. Thus, the scientist came to the conclusion that the skull belongs to the cub of a human ancestor. He named the creature Australopithecus Africanus or affectionately “baby from Taung.” Australopithecus, or " southern monkey", replaced Ramapithecus. He actually still looked like a monkey. However, the teeth of australopithecines were already much more like human ones, and the brain volume reached 650 cubic centimeters (like those of modern gorillas). But Australopithecines were almost half the size, so they had twice as many brain cells per unit of body weight as ordinary monkeys. Australopithecus lived in the savannas of Eastern and Southern Africa near limestone cliffs, in caves and crevices. There they hid from danger and spent the night. They hunted baboons and antelopes, using stones, animal horns, and large giraffe bones as weapons. Like most of us, Australopithecines were right-handed - the skulls of baboons discovered in the areas of the most ancient sites were pierced on the left, that is, a blow was struck with a stone or a club right hand. In addition, Australopithecines used their hands to carry loads and make stone tools used for cutting meat. When hunting, Australopithecines united in packs, set up ambushes and drove herds of ungulates into precipices and ravines. They did not refuse to eat ripe fruits, edible herbs and roots. It is clear that Australopithecines had much more than simple animal intelligence. However, at the same time as Australopithecus, Paranthropus lived, which differed from Australopithecus by much more impressive growth and powerful physique. They lived in the forest thickets that survived here and there and ate exclusively plant foods. But here’s the thing: paranthropes did not show any signs of intelligence and did not use tools. After them there was not the slightest trace of activity even remotely resembling intelligence. Today, scientists count several species of australopithecines. Scientists have about five hundred bone remains of these individuals. They all come from African continent. There are no known finds in other parts of the world that could be attributed to Australopithecines. Although sometimes there are reports of finds from East Asia. These are individual bone fragments, so it is very difficult to say for sure whether they belong to this species.

  Today, scientists count several species of australopithecines.

  Beauty Lucy Anthropologist Donald Johanson, during excavations in Ethiopia, discovered the remains of a skull, a piece of a humerus and a femur, as well as fifty more skeletal fragments. Among them were lower jaw , vertebrae, sacrum, ribs, arm and pelvic bones. It was truly a sensational find. The bones belonged to a female individual approximately twenty years old. Scientists named her Lucy. The woman was one hundred and ten centimeters tall and weighed about thirty kilograms. Its size corresponded to the height and size of a six-year-old child. The brain volume was small. No one doubted it. That she walked on two legs, but also climbed trees well. It was determined that Lucy lived approximately three million years ago. The most complete and ancient (3.6 million years old) Australopithecus skeleton was discovered in Ethiopia. Scientists nicknamed this lady Lucy. On the left are the remains of Lucy as they were discovered during excavations, on the right is the Australopithecus skeleton reconstructed on their basis. Australopithecus africanus settled on Earth three million years ago. It was as small as the Afar one, but had noticeably fewer apelike characteristics. And the structure of his brain is more complex than that of apes. Meat food was of great importance for the development of the brain of primitive man. After all, it is rich in protein, and it is necessary for growth and development. And getting meat food is more difficult; this is a task for the brain. Compared to its predecessors, Australopithecus has a larger brain volume. It amounted to approximately five hundred cubic centimeters. Australopithecines were slightly smaller in size than chimpanzees. Although among them there were individuals of large sizes. Australopithecus robusta For example, Australopithecus robusta had an impressive size. His skull was “decorated” with a huge crest from the back of his head to his forehead. Very powerful muscles were probably attached to it. The mighty Australopithecus was much larger and physically better developed. With a height of 160 centimeters, he weighed up to 50 kilograms. Appeared about 2.5 million years ago. With a larger brain than other australopithecines, the “mighty” skull is closer to that of an ape - with a high crest on the crown and a massive jaw. Primitive man was already quite intelligent and showed the first signs of Homo Sapiens. Anthropologists have identified several species of australopithecines from small to massive. It is not known for certain from which species man began his genus. Australopithecines are the first creatures known for sure to have walked on two legs. Their gait, of course, was still rather uncertain, bouncing; while walking, their legs were bent at the knees and hip joints. They spent a lot of time in the trees. They lived on the border of the tropical forest and savannah. They ate edible roots and insects. Australopithecines could also crack skulls and bones to obtain nutritious bone marrow. It is unlikely that they could hunt on their own. Most likely, they finished their food after predators.

  Scientists have not yet agreed whether Australopithecines can be considered hominids. For this purpose, important finds can be considered the tools that were discovered along with the remains of the ancient inhabitants of the Earth. First stone tools labor is associated with Homo habilis, who inhabited the planet about two million years ago. Although representatives of Homo Sapiens are so smart that they receive education in England. After graduating from a British college or university, people have many opportunities to make a good life.

  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 long years international group researchers, including the discoverer, Johannes Haile-Selassie, worked to preserve the crumbling bones, reconstruct the skull crushed into a shapeless lump, describe morphological features and the search for a functional interpretation of the smallest details of 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 the knees, curved phalanges of the fingers, set far to the side and retaining grasping ability thumb feet 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 big amount 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's clear that rainforests could not disappear instantly, and the monkeys could not master 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 labor 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, large sizes jaws in chimpanzees, 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 own weak sides, the matter can be presented differently if desired.

  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, in Eastern and North Africa in the period of time 3-3.5 million years ago, other species probably lived. 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, in a number of localities - Taung, Sterkfontein and Makapansgat - numerous fossils known as Australopithecus africanus have been discovered. 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 enough modern structure 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. Massive paranthropes were the second open view Australopithecus.

  When examining the skull of Paranthropus, one notices the huge jaws and large bone ridges that served to attach the chewing muscles. The jaw 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 - up to 70 kg in weight - 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 two-legged fossil primates that, about three million years ago, in the territory of 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 to 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.