SANParks.org Forums

For such a significant discovery it seems awful quiet
on this thread. Or are you pro's still divulging in all the information at hand.
Now these discoveries need to be named. It will be
interesting to know what these hominids will be called.

Pro? Nope, just pro vita.

Will be interesting to hear what their name will be, and how everything slots in with the greater picture.

mmmmm provita and marmite

They have already proposed a name for this and placed it into Australopithecus, as A.sediba. Sediba meaning "natural spring" or "well" in the Sotho language (wiki). 2 million years old!

Already controversial with some scientists calling it a transitional species and others refuting this. Latest article I read suggests that there might be some soft tissue in the skull - if that is the case there may be some interesting DNA studies done.

Wow, DNA studies! That could reveal a packet of info! Maybe we won't feel so elevated as the "wise" Homo after finding out more from our ancestors? I still think we underestimate the abilities of our primeval parents, and probably by a long way.

I would love to see this quiz take off agaon - I, in particular, found it fascinating to the extreme. Any possibility, TP?

OWN, if people are interested I will happily carry on. I must admit to having been very short of time over the last month or so and have let this lapse a bit

Yes, I would be interested too - as you have time.

Great TP! Whenever you're ready ... and you take your time as you find it appropriate.

I doubt they will recover any DNA worth investigating, after all, they really battle with mammoth DNA, and still have to fill a load of sequences in...

And they (mammoths)date up to 30 000yrs ago (Possibly 15 000 to 10 000yr ago) - and that includes specimins with flesh etc.

How old is this skeleton ? 2mil ?

resonance dating will show how old it is, and that will be teh best guess, coupled with comparative anatomy as to where in the line it fits it, or even on which offshoot it may be.


Time will tell....methods, and technology improve from time to time.

What we do know, is that it physically differs overall in appearance to warrant a new genus....

Interesting NickyG. I suppose it's all hanging at the moment, awaiting further clarification. Are our techniques, do you think, relatively advanced, or do we have a way to go to elicit appropriate and accurate info?

Would be great if you carry on ith the quiz TP, very interesting stuff

who had the chance to go and look at A. sediba?

OWN i know the question was not directed at me but i beleive that our techniques are relatively advanced we are able to do amazing thingswith the technology at our disposal but if you consider that PCR (polymerase chain reaction) was only created in the late 1980's and by 1990 it was still a VERY long process. Then a few years later with machines the process takes under two hours. Its unbeleivable how important PCR actually is. So with that much advancement who knows what is possible in another 2 decades.

With the DNA some beleive that DNA will cease to exist in a useable form after about 100 000 years but the thing to consider is that motst information used comes from morphometrics and if you create a phylogeny using morphological data, and then when DNA is found a phylogeny using this information can be overlayed to look for differences and often they are surprisingly similar proving that out technology does a prety good job of sequencing the bases correctly. A good example is the phylogeny of vertebrates the only large divergence is evident in the chelonians (turtles, tortoises etc). Most scientists also use the molecular data to refine relationships based on the morphological data, basically they try to iron out the polytomy. I did a small study recently using cranial morphological data of the hominins (apes and humans) to see how well morphometrics can create species distinctions and it did surprisingly well.

Nice information Ods - what are you studying?

Ok, just a quick Q to keep things rolling:

We'll move back a little further in time to HOMO HABILIS:

1. When and where was H. habilis discovered?
2. Who discovered this species?
3. How long ago did H.habilis live?
4. What is the meaning of this species name?
5. Why was this species placed in the genus Homo and not as an Australopithecene?

Oddesy, fascinating information - thanks! Glad things are on the move again ...

1./2. The first fossils were found in 1959 and 1960 at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania by the team of Louis Leakey and Jonathan Leakey.
3. Homo habilis lived from approximately 2.5 million to 1.5 million years ago, appearing first in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene.
4. The name is taken from the latin and means “able, handy, mentally skilful, vigorous”.
5. The classification of H. habilis into the Homo genus was controversial. H. habilis lacked many of the things that were unique to later hominins, such as slim hips for walking long distances, a sophisticated sweating system, narrow birth canal, and legs longer than arms. Whether H. habilis was the first hominin to master stone tool technology remains controversial. But it was more humanlike because of expanded cranial capacity, reduced postcanine tooth size and the presence of a precision grip.
In 1964 the new species was declared: Leakey, L. S. B., P. V. Tobias und J. R. Napier: A new species of the genus Homo from Olduvai Gorge. Nature, Band 202, 1964, S. 7–9;
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/krigbaum/ ... e_1964.pdf

Great to have you around on these quizzes, Klippspringer! Great research there! Let's wait for TP ...