David J. Tyler (D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk)
Tue, 7 May 1996 17:13:32 GMT
I would be interested in comments on the current status of
_Australopithecus ramidus_.
In the 22 September 1994 issue of _Nature_, Tim White and
colleagues published a report of the "long-sought potential root
species for the Hominidae" (Volume 371, pages 306-312). This
created no small stir in the media, with enthusiastic reports of
the "missing link" being found.
The latest twist in the story of _A. ramidus_ appears to be in
the March 1996 issue of _National Geographic_. Donald Johanson
provides readers with an update on the Australopithecenes: "Face-
to-face with Lucy's family" (pages 96-117). On page 117, he has
this paragraph:
"Also, in late 1994 an international team led by Tim White
announced that it had found bones of an even earlier hominid at
a site in Ethiopia called Aramis. Tim and his Ethiopian
colleagues have since unearthed a nearly complete skeleton of the
same creature, which dates back to 4.4 million years ago. Its
position on the human tree is in question. It has many chimplike
features - enough that Tim decided to create an entirely new
genus for it, naming the animal _Ardipithecus ramidus_. Over the
next year or two, as the new skeleton is studied, this hominid's
lineage will become more clear."
The renaming of the hominid find is highly significant - the root
species for the Hominidae no longer has an identity.
Certainly significant, but we don't really know why, and the few people
who might know aren't telling yet. No matter what ramidus is (common
ancestor, an early chimp, or an early hominid, something else?), it's a
*tremendously* important find. Even in 1994, although it was being
called a missing link, it was readily admitted that its precise position
on the family tree was uncertain, so the "root species" is as vague as
it was when A.ramidus was first identified.
When A. anamensis was announced, some people were saying that it was on
the human line, and that A.ramidus was off it. But one
paleoanthropologist has told me that he thinks the reverse is true. Of
course, those analyses were based only on the original ramidus find.
The skeleton should clear things up. The commonest perception is that
the new name indicates that it is likely to be a bit more different from
the australopithecines than first thought, and maybe off the human line.
Tim White's announcement of the change of name has escaped me -
does anyone know where he has published the new name?
Nature, 4 May, 1995, page 88. There is very little info on the skeleton
itself; it is little more than a note which makes the name Ardipithecus
available.
As I remember well the media interest in the 1994 announcement
of the "missing link", I would like to think that the revised
interpretation of the fossils would get a significant amount of
space - but I know of nothing! Has anyone seen a magazine,
newspaper, radio or TV article drawing attention to the non-
existence of this "missing link"?
No-one has enough information to comment, until a description of the
fossil is published. I originally heard that would happen late last
year, but the latest word is that it may well be 1998 before White et al
publish on it. When it does burst into the light of day, you will
definitely hear about it; it will be as big as Lucy.
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***
I will probably unsubscribe again in a few days. However, anyone who
wishes is welcome to contact me, especially on topics concerning the
human fossil record. (I recently re-released my hominids FAQ, now at
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/fossil-hominids.html)
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (970) 223-5100 x9765 I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder