Advertisement

Cladistic Concepts and the Species Problem in Hominoid Evolution

  • Terry Harrison
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Primatology book series (AIPR)

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, since the initial application of Hennigian phylogenetic principles to the study of human evolution, the usage of cladistic concepts has become increasingly popular in paleoanthropology (Eldredge and Tattersall, 1975; Delson et al., 1977; Tattersall and Eldredge, 1977; Bonde, 1977; Olson, 1978; White et al., 1981; Skelton et al., 1986; Wood and Chamberlain, 1986; Stringer, 1987; Chamberlain and Wood, 1987; Kimbel et al., 1988; Tobias, 1988; Groves, 1989). The rigorous operational framework, in conjunction with its potential for the application of Popperian deductive reasoning in testing inferences about character states and morphocline polarities upon which phylogenetic hypotheses are based, has made cladistics an attractive methodological approach, even among some of its initial antagonists (Nelson, 1970, 197la,b); Bonde, 1977; Bock, 1977; Szalay, 1977; Platnick, 1977, 1978, 1979; Platnick and Gaffney, 1977; Patterson, 1978; Mayr, 1968, 1981; but see Cartmill, 1981 for a critique of the utility of Popper’s model of scientific enquiry for testing phylogenetic interpretations).

Keywords

Cladistic Analysis Species Recognition Fossil Species Stem Group Modern Species 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, P. J. 1974. New species of Dryopithecus from Kenya. Nature 249:188–190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, P. J. 1978. A revision of the Miocene Hominoidea of East Africa. Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. (Geol.). 30:85–224.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, P. J. 1980. Ecological adaptations of the smaller fossil apes. Z. Morph. Anthropol. 71:164–173.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, P. J. 1984a. An alternative interpretation of characters used to define Homo erectusCour. Forsch. Inst. Senckenberg 69:167–175.Google Scholar
  5. Andrews, P. J. 1984b. The descent of man. New Scientist May 3, 1984:24–25.Google Scholar
  6. Andrews, P. J. 1985. Family group systematics and evolution among catarrhine primates, in: E. Delson (ed.), Ancestors. The Hard Evidence, pp. 14–22. Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Andrews, P. J. 1988. Hominoidea, in: I. Tattersall, E. Delson, and J. Van Couvering (eds.), Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory, pp. 248–255. Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Andrews, P. J., and Martin, L. B. 1987. Cladistic relationships of extant and fossil hominoids. J. Hum. Evol. 16:101–118.Google Scholar
  9. Andrews, P. J., and Simons, E. L. 1977. A new African Miocene gibbon-like genus, Dendropithecus (Hominoidea, Primates) with distinctive postcranial adaptations: Its significance to origin of Hylobatidae. Folia Pnmatol. 28:161–170.Google Scholar
  10. Arambourg, C. 1954. L’hominien fossile de Ternifine (Algerie). C. R. Seanc. Acad. Sci. Pans 239:893–895.Google Scholar
  11. Ashlock, P. D. 1971. Monophyly and associated terms. Syst. Zool. 20:63–69.Google Scholar
  12. Ashlock, P. D. 1972. Monophyly again. Syst. Zool. 21:430–437.Google Scholar
  13. Ashlock, P. D. 1974. The uses of cladistics. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:81–99.Google Scholar
  14. Ashlock, P. D. 1979. An evolutionary systmatist’s view of classification. Syst. Zool. 28:441–450.Google Scholar
  15. Ax, P. 1987. The Phylogenetic System. The Systematization of Organisms on the Basis of their Phylogenesis. John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  16. Bilsborough, A., and Wood, B. A. 1986. The nature and fate of Homo erectus, in: B. Wood, L. Martin, and P. Andrews (eds), Major Topics in Primate and Human Evolution, pp. 295–316. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Bock, W.J. 1977. Foundations and methods of evolutionary classification, in: M. Hecht, P. C. Goody, and B. M. Hecht (Eds.), Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution, pp. 851–895. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Bonde, N. 1977. Cladistic classification as applied to vertebrates, in: M. Hecht, P. C. Goody, and B. M. Hecht (eds.), Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution, pp. 741–804. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Brauer, G. 1990. The occurrence of some controversial Homo erectus cranial features in the Zhoukou-dian and East African hominids. Acta Anthrop. Sinica 9:350–358.Google Scholar
  20. Broom, R. 1917. Fossil man in South Africa. Am. Mus. J. 17:141–142.Google Scholar
  21. Broom, R., and Robinson, J. T. 1949. A new type of fossil man. Nature 164:322–323.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Cartmill, M. 1981. Hypothesis testing and phylogenetic reconstruction. Z. Zool. Syst. Evolut.-Forsch. 19:73–96.Google Scholar
  23. Chamberlain, A. T, and Wood, B. A. 1987. Early hominid phylogeny. J. Hum. Evol. 16:119–133.Google Scholar
  24. Clarke, R. J. 1990. The Ndutu cranium and the origin of Homo sapiensJ. Hum. Evol. 19:699–736.Google Scholar
  25. Coppens, Y. 1965. L’hominien du Tchad. C. R Acad. Sci. (Paris) 260D:2869–2871.Google Scholar
  26. Crowson, R. A. 1970. Classification and Biology. Heinemann Educational Books, London.Google Scholar
  27. Delson, E. 1975. Evolutionary history of the Cercopithecidae, in: F. S. Szalay (ed.), Approaches to Primate Paleobiology, Contributions to Primatology, Volume 5. pp. 167–217. Karger, Basel.Google Scholar
  28. Delson, E. 1988. Catarrhini, in: I. Tattersall, E. Delson, and J. Van Couvering (eds.), Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory, pp. 111–116. Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Delson, E., and Andrews, P.J. 1975. Evolution and interrelationships of the catarrhine primates, in: W. P. Luckett and F. S. Szalay (eds.), Phylogeny of the Pnmates: A Multidisciplinary Approach, pp. 405–446. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Delson, E., Eldredge, N., and Tattersall, I. 1977. Reconstruction of hominid phylogeny: A testable framework based on cladistic analysis. J. Hum. Evol. 6:263–278.Google Scholar
  31. Eldredge, N., and Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Eldredge, N., and Tattersall, I. 1975. Evolutionary models, phylogenetic reconstruction, and another look at hominid phylogeny, in: F. S. Szalay (ed.), Approaches to Primate Paleobiology, Contributions to Primatology, Volume 5. pp. 218–242 Karger, Basel.Google Scholar
  33. Eldredge, N., and Tattersall, I. 1982. The Myths of Human Evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Farris, F. S. 1976. Phylogenetic classification of fossils with recent species. Syst. Zool. 25:271–282.Google Scholar
  35. Feldesman, M. R. 1986. The forelimb of the newly “rediscovered” Proconsul africanus from Rusinga Island, Kenya: Morphometrics and implications for catarrhine evolution, in: R. Singer and J. K. Lundy (eds.), Variation, Culture and Evolution in African Populations, pp. 179–193. Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
  36. Fleagle, J. G. 1983. Locomotor adaptations of Oligocene and Miocene hominoids and their phyletic implications, in: R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini (eds.), New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, pp. 301–324. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Fleagle, J. G. 1988. Primate Adaptation & Evolution. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Fleagle, J. G., and Kay, R. F. 1985. The paleobiology of catarrhines, in: E. Delson (ed.), Ancestors. The Hard Evidence, pp. 23–36. Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Ford, S. M. 1986. Systematics of the New World monkeys, in: D. R. Swindler and J. Erwin (eds.), Comparative Primate Biology, Volume 1. Systematics, Evolution and Anatomy, pp. 73–135. Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Grine, F. E. 1988. Evolutionary History of the “Robust” Australopithecines Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Groves, C. P. 1989. A Theory of Human and Primate Evolution. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  42. Groves, C. P., and Mazék, V. 1975. An approach to the taxonomy of the Hominidae: Gracile Villafranchian hominids of Africa. Casopis pro Mineralogn Geologn 20:225–247.Google Scholar
  43. Habgood, P. J. 1989. An investigation into the usefulness of a cladistic approach to the study of the origin of anatomically modern humans. Hum Evol. 4:241–252.Google Scholar
  44. Harrison, T. 1981. New finds of small fossil apes from the Miocene locality of Koru in Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 10:129–137.Google Scholar
  45. Harrison, T 1982. Small-Bodied Apes from the Miocene of East Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
  46. Harrison, T. 1986. New fossil anthropoids from the middle Miocene of East Africa and their bearing on the origin of the Oreopithecidae. Am. J Phys. Anthropol. 71:265–284.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Harrison, T. 1987a. The phylogenetic relationships of the early catarrhine primates: a review of the current evidence. J . Hum. Evol. 16:41–80Google Scholar
  48. Harrison, T. 1987b. A reassessment of the phylogenetic relationships of Oreopithecus bamboln Gervais. J. Hum. Evol. 15:541–583.Google Scholar
  49. Harrison, T. 1988. A taxonomic revision of the small catarrhine primates from the early Miocene of East Africa. Folia Pnmatol. 50:59–108.Google Scholar
  50. Harrison, T. 1991. The implications of Oreopithecus bamboln for the origins of bipedalism, in: B. Senut and Y. Coppens (eds.), Origine(s) de la Bipédie Chez les Hominidés, Cahiers de Paléoanthropologie, pp. 235–244. CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
  51. Heberer, G. 1963. Über einen neuen archanthropinen Typus aus der Oldoway-Schlucht. Z. Morph. Anthropol. 53:171–177.Google Scholar
  52. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  53. Hopwood, A. T. 1933. Miocene primates from Kenya. J. Linn. Soc. London Zool. 38:437–464.Google Scholar
  54. Howell, F. C. 1978. Hominidae, in: V. J. Maglio and H. B. S. Cooke (eds.), Evolution of African Mammals, pp. 154–248. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  55. Hublin, J. J. 1986. Some comments on the diagnostic features of Homo erectus. Anthropos (Brno) 23:175–187.Google Scholar
  56. Hull, D. L. 1970. Cladism gets sorted out. Paleobiology 6:131–136.Google Scholar
  57. Kennedy, G. E. 1991. On the autapomorphic traits of Homo erectus. J Hum. Evol 20:375–412.Google Scholar
  58. Kimbel, W. H., White, T. D., and Johanson, D. C. 1988. Implications of KNM-WT 17000 for the evolution of “Robust” Australopithecus, in: F. E. Grine (ed.), Evolutionary History of the “Robust” Australopithecines. pp. 259–268. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  59. Leakey, R. E., and Leakey, M. G. 1986a. A new Miocene hominoid from Kenya. Nature 324:143–146.Google Scholar
  60. Leakey, R. E., and Leakey, M. G. 1986b. A second new Miocene hominoid from Kenya. Nature 324:146–148.Google Scholar
  61. Leakey, R. E., and Leakey, M. G. 1987. A new Miocene small-bodied ape from Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 16:369–387.Google Scholar
  62. Leakey, R. E., Leakey, M. G., and Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1978. The hominid catalogue, in: M. G. Leakey and R. E. Leakey (eds.), Koobi Fora Project, Volume 1: The Fossil Hominids and an Introduction to their Context, 1968–1974, pp. 86–182. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  63. Le Gros Clark, W. E. 1964. The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  64. Le Gros Clark, W. E., and Leakey, L. S. B. 1951. The Miocene Hominoidea of East Africa. Fossil Mammals of Africa. No. 1. British Museum (Natural History), London.Google Scholar
  65. Le Gros Clark, W. E., and Thomas, D. P. 1952. Associated Jaws and Limb Bones of Limnopithecus macinnesi. Fossil Mammals of Africa. No. 5. British Museum (Natural History), London.Google Scholar
  66. Løvtrup, S. 1977. The Phylogeny of Vertebrata. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  67. Martin, R. D. 1981. Phylogenetic reconstruction versus classification: the case for clear demarcation. Biologist 28:127–132.Google Scholar
  68. Mayr, E. 1968. Theory of biological classification. Nature 220:545–548.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Mayr, E. 1974. Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? . Z. Zool. Syst. Evolut.-Forsch. 12:94–128.Google Scholar
  70. Mayr, E. 1981. Biological classification: Toward a synthesis of opposing methodologies. Science 214:510–516.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Nelson, G.J. 1970. Outline of a theory of comparative biology. Syst. Zool. 19:373–384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Nelson, G.J. 1971a. “Cladism” as a philosophy of classification. Syst. Zool. 20:373–376.Google Scholar
  73. Nelson, G.J. 1971b. Paraphyly and polyphyly: redefinitions. Syst. Zool. 20:471–472.Google Scholar
  74. Nelson, G. J. 1972. Phylogenetic relationship and classification. Syst. Zool. 21:227–231.Google Scholar
  75. Nelson, G.J. 1974a. Classification as an expression of phylogenetic relationships. Syst. Zool. 22:344–359.Google Scholar
  76. Nelson, G. J. 1974b. Darwin-Hennig classification: A reply to Ernst Mayr. Syst. Zool. 23:452–458.Google Scholar
  77. Olson, T. R. 1978. Hominid phylogenetics and the existence of Homo in Member I of the Swartkrans Formation, South Africa. J . Hum. Evol. 7:159–178.Google Scholar
  78. Paterson, T. T. 1940. Geology and early man: II. Nature 146:49–52.Google Scholar
  79. Patterson, C. 1978. Verifiability in systematics. Syst. Zool. 27:218–222.Google Scholar
  80. Patterson, C. 1980. Cladistics. Biologist 27:234–240.Google Scholar
  81. Patterson, C., and Rosen, D. E. 1977. Review of the ichthydectiform and other mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bull Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 158:81–172.Google Scholar
  82. Platnick, N. I. 1977. Cladograms, phylogenetic trees, and hypothesis testing. Syst. Zool. 26:438–442.Google Scholar
  83. Platnick, N. I. 1978. Classifications, historical narratives and hypotheses. Syst. Zool. 27:365–369.Google Scholar
  84. Platnick, N. I. 1979. Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Syst Zool. 28:537–546.Google Scholar
  85. Platnick, N. I., and Gaffney, E. S. 1977. Systematics: a Popperian perspective. Syst. Zool. 26:360–365.Google Scholar
  86. Rafferty, K. L. 1990. The Functional and Phylogenetic Significance of the Carpometacarpaljoint of the Thumb in Anthropoid Primates. MA thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
  87. Rightmire, G. P. 1984. Comparisons of Homo erectus from Africa and Southeast Asia. Cour. Forsch.-Inst. Senckenberg 69:83–98.Google Scholar
  88. Rightmire, G. P. 1987. Species recognition and Homo erectus. J. Hum. Evol. 15:823–826.Google Scholar
  89. Rightmire, G. P. 1990. The Evolution of Homo erectus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  90. Rose, M. D. 1983. Miocene hominoid postcranial morphology: Monkey-like, ape-like, neither, or both? in: R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini (eds.), New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, pp. 405–420. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  91. Rose, M. D. 1988. Another look at the anthropoid elbow. J . Hum. Evol 17:193–224.Google Scholar
  92. Rose, M. D. in press. Locomotor anatomy of Miocene hominoids, in: D. Gebo (ed.), Postcranial Adaptation in Nonhuman Primates. Northern Illinois Press, DeKalb.Google Scholar
  93. Rose, M. D. 1992. Kinematics of the trapezium-1st metacarpal joint in extant anthropoids and Miocene hominoids. J. Hum. Evol. 22:255–266.Google Scholar
  94. Rose, M. D., Leakey, M. G., Leakey, R. E. F., and Walker, A. C. 1992. Postcranial specimens of Simiolus enjiessi and other primitive catarrhines from the early Miocene of Lake Turkana, Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 22:171–237.Google Scholar
  95. Rosenberger, A. L. 1977. Xenothnx and ceboid phylogeny. J . Hum. Evol. 6:461–481.Google Scholar
  96. Schwartz, J. H. 1986. Primate systematics and a classification of the order, in: D. Swindler and J. Erwin (eds.), Comparative Primate Biology, Volume 1: Systematics, Evolution and Anatomy, pp. 1–41. Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  97. Schwartz, J. H., and Tattersall, I. 1985. Evolutionary relationships of living lemurs and lorises (Mammalia, Primates) and their potential affinities with European Eocene Adapidae. Anthropol. Pap. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 60:1–100.Google Scholar
  98. Schwartz, J. H., and Tattersall, I. 1987. Tarsiers, adapids and the integrity of the Strepsirhini.y. Hum. Evol. 16:23–40.Google Scholar
  99. Senut, B. 1989. Le Coude des Primates Hominoides- Anatomie, Fonction, Taxonomie, Évolution Cahiers de Paléoanthropologie. CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
  100. Skelton, R. R., McHenry, H. M., and Drawhorn, G. R. 1986. Phylogenetic analysis of early hominids. Curr. Anthropol. 27:21–43.Google Scholar
  101. Simons, E. L. 1972. Primate Evolution. MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  102. Simons, E. L., and Pilbeam, D. R. 1965. Preliminary revision of the Dryopithecinae (Pongidae, Anthropoidea). Folia Pnmatol. 3:81–152.Google Scholar
  103. Simons, E. L., Pilbeam, D., and Ettel, P. C. 1969. Controversial taxonomy of fossil hominids. Science 166:258–259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Simpson, G. G. 1945 The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 85:1–350.Google Scholar
  105. Simpson, G. G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  106. Simpson, G. G. 1975. Recent advances in methods of phylogenetic inference, in: W. P. Luckett and F. S. Szalay (eds.), Phylogeny of the Primates- A Multidisciplinary Approach, pp. 1–31. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  107. Stringer, C. B. 1984. The definition of Homo erectus and the existence of the species in Africa and Europe. Cour Forsch.-Inst Senckenberg 69:131–143.Google Scholar
  108. Stringer, C. B. 1986. The credibility of Homo habihs, in: B. Wood, L. Martin, and P. Andrews (eds.), Major Topics in Primate and Human Evolution, pp. 266–294. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  109. Stringer, C. B. 1987. A numerical cladistic analysis for the genus HomoJ. Hum. Evol. 16:135–146.Google Scholar
  110. Stringer, C. B. in press. “Homo erectus” et “Homo sapiens archaique”: Peut on définir Homo erectus? in: J. J. Hublin and A. M. T. Tillier (eds.), Aux origines d’Homo sapiens. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.Google Scholar
  111. Szalay, F. S. 1977. Ancestors, descendants, sister groups and testing of phylogenetic hypotheses. Syst. Zool. 26:12–18.Google Scholar
  112. Szalay, F. S., and Bock, 1991. Evolutionary theory and systematics: relationships between process and patterns. Z Zool Syst. Evolut.-Forsch. 29:1–39.Google Scholar
  113. Szalay, F. S., and Delson, E. 1979. Evolutionary History of the Primates. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  114. Tattersall, I. 1986. Species recognition in human paleontology. J . Hum. Evol. 15:165–176.Google Scholar
  115. Tattersall, I. 1992. in: W. H. Kimbel and L. B. Martin (eds.), Species, Species Concepts and Primate Evolution Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  116. Tattersall, I., and Eldredge, N. 1977. Fact, theory and fantasy in human paleontology. Am. Sci. 65:204–211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Tattersall, I., and Schwartz, J. H. 1991. Phylogeny and nomenclature in the Lewwr-group of Malagasy strepsirhine primates. Anthrop Pap. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 69:1–18.Google Scholar
  118. Tattersall, I., Delson, E., and Van Couvering, J. 1988. Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory. Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  119. Tobias, P. V. 1968. Middle and early Upper Pleistocene members of the genus Homo in Africa, in: G. Kurth (ed.), Evolution and Hominization, pp. 176–194 G. Fischer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  120. Tobias, P. V. 1988. Numerous apparently synapomorphic features in Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei und Homo habilis: Support for the Skelton-McHenry-Drawhorn hypothesis, in: F. E. Grine (ed.), Evolutionary History of the “Robust” Australopithecines, pp. 293–308. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  121. Trinkaus, E. 1990. Cladistics and the hommid fossil record. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 83:1–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Turner, A. 1986. Species, speciation and human evolution. Hum. Evol. 1:419–430.Google Scholar
  123. Turner, A., and Chamberlain, A. 1989. Speciation, morphological change and the status of African Homo erectus J. Hum Evol. 18:115–130.Google Scholar
  124. Walker, A., and Pickford, M. 1983. New postcranial fossils of Proconsul africanus and Proconsul nyanzae, in: R. L. Ciochon and R. S. Corruccini (eds.), New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry, pp. 325–351. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  125. Walker, A., and Teaford, M. 1989. The hunt forProconsulSci. Am. 260:76–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. Weidenreich, F. 1936. The manibles of Sinanthropus pekinensis. A comparative study. Palaeont. Sin. Series D, 7:1–162.Google Scholar
  127. Weidenreich, F. 1943. The skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis: a comparative study of a primitive hominid skull. Palaeont. Sin. New Series D, 10:1–484.Google Scholar
  128. Weinert, H. 1950. Über die neuen Vor- und Fruhmenschenfunde aus Afrika, Java, China und Frankreich. Z. Morphol. Anthropol. 42:113–148Google Scholar
  129. White, T. D., Johanson, D. C., and Kimbel, W H. 1981 Australopithecus africanus its phyletic position reconsidered. 5 Afr. J. Sci. 77:445–470Google Scholar
  130. Wood, B A. 1984. The origin of Homo erectus Cour Forsch -Inst Senckenberg 69:99–111.Google Scholar
  131. Wood, B. A., and Chamberlain, A. T. 1986 Australopithecus: grade or clade?, in. B. Wood, L. Martin, and P. Andrews (eds.), Major Topics in Primate and Human Evolution, pp. 220–248. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry Harrison
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations