Phylogeny of hominids

Phylogeny of hominids DEFAULT

Alexeev, V. P. The Origin of the Human Race. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1986.

Baab, K. L., McNulty, K. P., et al. A comprehensive comparison of the Homo floresiensis cranium to pathological humans and extinct hominins. PLOS One8, e69119.

Bilsborough, A., & Wood, B. A. Cranial morphometry of early hominids I. Facial region. American Journal of Physical Anthropology76, 61-86 (1988).

Caccone, A., & Powell, J. R. DNA divergence among hominoids. Evolution43, 925-942 (1989).

Chamberlain, A.T. Variations within Homo habilis. In Hominidae: Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology. ed. Giacobini, G. (Milan: Jaca Books, 1989). 175-181.

Green, R. E., Krause, J., et al. A draft sequence of the neandertal genome. Science328, 710-722 (2010).

Harvati, K., Frost, S. R., et al. Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: Implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA101, 1147-1152 (2004).

Howell, F. C. Hominidae. In Evolution of African Mammals. eds. Maglio, V. J., & Cooke, H.B.S. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978). 154-258.

Kelley, J. Taxonomic implications of sexual dimorphism in Lufengpithecus. In Species, Species Concepts and Primate Evolution. eds. Kimbel, W. H. & Martin, L. B. (New York: Plenum Press, 1993). 429-458.

Kimbel, W. H. , Lockwood, C. A., et al. Was Australopithecus anamensis ancestral to A. afarensis? A case of anagenesis in the hominin fossil record. Journal of Human Evolution51, 134-152 (2006).

Kramer, A., Donnelly, S. M., et al. Craniometric variation in large-bodied hominoids: testing the single-species hypothesis for Homo habilis. Journal of Human Evolution29, 443-462 (1995).

Krings, M., Stone, A., et al. Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell90, 19-30 (1997).

Leakey, L. S. B., Tobias, P. V., et al. New species of the genus Homo from Olduvai Gorge. Nature202, 7-9 (1964).

Leakey, M. G., Spoor, F., et al. New hominin genus from Eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene lineages. Nature410, 433-440 (2001).

Lieberman, D. E., Pilbeam, D. R., et al. A probabilistic approach to the problem of sexual dimorphism in Homo habilis: a comparison of KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813. Journal of Human Evolution B, 503-511 (1988).

McNulty, K. P. Geometric morphometric analyses of extant and fossil hominoid craniofacial morphology. Unpubl. Ph.D. thesis. City University of New York, New York (2003).

McNulty, K. P. A geometric morphometric assessment of the hominoid supraorbital region: Affinities of the Eurasian Miocene hominoids Dryopithecus, Graecopithecus, and Sivapithecus. In Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology. ed. Slice, D. (New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2005). 349-373.

Ruvolo, M. Molecular evolutionary processes and conflicting gene trees: the hominoid case. American Journal of Physical Anthropology94, 89-113 (1994).

Sarich, V. M. A molecular approach to the question of human origins. In Background for Man. ed. Dolhinow, P. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971). 60-81.

Smith, H. F., & Grine, F. E. Cladistic analysis of early Homo crania from Swartkrans and Sterkfontein, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution54, 684-704 (2008).

Strait, D., Grine, F. E. et al. Analyzing hominid phylogeny. In Handbook of Paleoanthropology, vol. 3. eds. Henke, W., & Tattersall, I. ( Berlin: Springer, 2007). 1781-1806.

Stringer, C. B. The credibility of Homo habilis. In Major Topics in Primate and Human Evolution . eds. Wood, B. A., Martin, L. B., et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). 266-294.

Wood, B. A., & Collard, M. The changing face of the genus Homo. Evolutionary Anthropology, 8, 195-207 (1999).

Wood, B. A., Yu, L., et al. Intraspecific variation and sexual dimorphism in cranial and dental variables among higher primates and their bearing on the hominid fossil record. Journal of Anatomy174, 185-205 (1991).


Analyzing Hominin Phylogeny

Handbook of Paleoanthropology pp 1-23 | Cite as

  • David StraitEmail author
  • Frederick E. Grine
  • John G. Fleagle
Living reference work entry

First Online:


An understanding of the phylogenetic relationships among organisms is critical for evaluating the evolutionary history of their adaptations and biogeography as well as forming the basis for systematics. As the numbers of hominin fossils and hominin taxa have increased over the past 40 years, controversies over phylogeny have expanded and have become a hallmark of paleoanthropology. Concordant with the rise in taxonomic diversity, the increased use of phylogenetic systematics, or cladistics, has provided a valuable tool for reconstructing hominin phylogeny. Despite the widespread view that hominin phylogeny is a source of endless debate, there is a broad consensus regarding many aspects of hominin phylogeny.


Sister Taxon Cladistic Analysis Genus Homo Extinct Taxon Postcranial Character 

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Ackermann RR, Cheverud JM (2000) Phenotypic covariance structure in tamarins (genus Saguinus): a comparison of variation patterns using matrix correlation and common principal component analysis. Am J Phys Anthropol 111:489–501PubMedGoogle Scholar

  2. Andrews P (1984) An alternative interpretation of the characters used to define Homo erectus. Cour Forsch Inst Senckenb 69:99–111Google Scholar

  3. Argue D, Morwood MJ, Sutikna T, Jatmiko SEW (2009) Homo floresiensis: a cladistic analysis. J Hum Evol 57:623–639PubMedGoogle Scholar

  4. Arsuaga JL, Martinez I, Garcia A, Lorenzo C (1997) The Sima de los Huesos crania (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). A comparative study. J Hum Evol 33:533–559Google Scholar

  5. Asfaw B, White TD, Lovejoy O, Latimer B, Simpson S, Suwa G (1999) Australopithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284:629–635PubMedGoogle Scholar

  6. Berger LR, de Ruiter DJ, Churchill SE, Schmid P, Carlson KJ, Dirks PHGM, Kibii JM (2010) Australopithecus sediba: a new species of Homo-like australopith from South Africa. Science 328:195–204PubMedGoogle Scholar

  7. Bermudez de Castro JM, Martinon-Torres M, Carbonell E, Sarmiento S, Rosas A, vander Made J, Lozano M (2004) The Atapuerca sites and their contributions to the knowledge of human evolution in Europe. Evol Anthropol 13:25–41Google Scholar

  8. Brace CL (1967) The stages of human evolution. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar

  9. Bräuer G (1982) Early anatomically modern man in Africa and the replacement of the Mediterranean and European Neanderthals. In H. de Lumley (Ed.) I. Congrès International de Paléontologie Humaine (Resumés: 112). Nice: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Louis-Jean Scientific and Literary PublicationsGoogle Scholar

  10. Bräuer G (1994) How different are Asian and African Homo erectus. In: Franzen JL (ed) 100 years of Pithecanthropus; The Homo erectus problem., pp 301–318, Cour Forsch Inst SenckenbergGoogle Scholar

  11. Brunet M, Beauvillain A, Coppens Y, Heintz E, Moutaye AHE, Pilbeam DR (1996) Australopithecus bahrelghazali, une nouvelle espece d’Hominide ancien de la region Koro Toro. CR Acad Sci Paris 322:907–913Google Scholar

  12. Brunet M, Guy F, Pilbeam D, Mackaye HT, Likius A, Ahounta D, Beauvillain A, Blondel C, Bocherens H, Boisserie JR, De Bonis L, Coppens Y, Dejax J, Denys C, Duringer P, Eisenmann V, Fanone G, Fronty P, Geraads D, Lehmann T, Lihoreau F, Louchart A, Mahamat A, Merceron G, Mouchelin G, Otero O, Campomanes PP, De Leon MP, Rage JC, Sapanet M, Schuster M, Sudre J, Tassy P, Valentin X, Vignaud P, Viriot L, Zazzo A, Zollikofer C (2002) A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa. Nature 418:145–151PubMedGoogle Scholar

  13. Buettner-Janusch J (1966) Origins of man. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

  14. Chamberlain AT, Wood BA (1987) Early hominid phylogeny. J Hum Evol 16:119–133Google Scholar

  15. Delson E (1985) Ancestors: the hard evidence. Alan R Liss, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar

  16. Delson E (1986) Human phylogeny revised again. Nature 322:496–497Google Scholar

  17. Delson E, Eldredge N, Tattersall I (1977) Reconstruction of hominid phylogeny: a testable framework based on cladistic analysis. J Hum Evol 6:263–278Google Scholar

  18. Dobzhansky T (1944) On species and races of living and fossil man. Am J Phys Anthropol 2:251–265Google Scholar

  19. Eldredge N, Tattersall I (1975) Evolutionary models, phylogenetic reconstruction, and another look at hominid phylogeny. In: Szalay FS (ed) Approaches to primate paleobiology. Karger, Basel, pp 218–242Google Scholar

  20. Fleagle JG, Jungers WL (1982) Fifty years of higher primate phylogeny. In: Spencer F (ed) A history of American physical anthropology 1930–1980. Academic, New York, pp 187–230Google Scholar

  21. Fleagle JG, Kay RF (1987) The phyletic position of the Parapithecidae. J Hum Evol 16:483–532Google Scholar

  22. Green RE, Krause J, Briggs AW, Maricic T, Stenzel U, Kircher M, Patterson N, Li H, Weiwei Z, Fritz MH-Y, Hansen NF, Durand EY, Malaspinas A-S, Jensen JD, Marques-Bonet T, Alkan C, Prüfer K, Meyer M, Burbano HA, Good JM, Schultz R, Aximu-Petri A, Butthof A, Höber B, Höffner B, Siegemund M, Weihmann A, Nusbaum C, Lander ES, Russ C, Novod N, Affourtit J, Egholm M, verna C, Rudan P, Brajkovic D, Kucan Z, GušicI DVB, Golovanova LV, Lalueza-Fox C, de la Rasilla M, Fortea Jm Rosas A, Schmitz RW, Johnson PLF, Eichler EE, Falush D, Birney E, Mullikin JC, Slatkin M, Nielsen R, Kelso J, Lachmann M, Reich D, Pääbo S (2010) A draft sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science 328:710–722PubMedGoogle Scholar

  23. Grine FE (1988) Evolutionary history of the “robust” australopithecines: a summary and historical perspective. In: Grine FE (ed) Evolutionary history of the “robust” australopithecines. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp 223–246Google Scholar

  24. Grine F, Fleagle JG, Martin LB (1987) Primate phylogeny. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar

  25. Gundling T (2005) First in line: tracing our ape ancestry. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar

  26. Haile-Selassie Y (2001) Late Miocene hominids from the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 412:178–181PubMedGoogle Scholar

  27. Haile-Selassie Y, Suwa G, White TD (2004) Late Miocene teeth from Middle Awash, Ethiopia, and early hominid dental evolution. Science 303:1503–1505PubMedGoogle Scholar

  28. Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

  29. Hawks J (2005) How much can Cladistics tell us about early Hominid relationships. Am J Phys Anthropol 125:207–219Google Scholar

  30. Henke W, Hardt T (2011) The genus Homo: origin, speciation and dispersal. In: Condemi S, Weniger G-C (eds) Continuity and discontinuity in the peopling of Europe: one hundred fifty years of Neanderthal study. Springer Science + Business Media BV, Dordrecht, pp 17–45Google Scholar

  31. Hennig W (1966) Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar

  32. Hooton EA (1931) Up from the Ape. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar

  33. Howells WW (1975) Neanderthal man: facts and figures. In: Tuttle RH (ed) Paleoanthropology: morphology and paleoecology. Mouton Publishers, The Hague, pp 389–407Google Scholar

  34. Hublin JJ (1998) Climatic changes, paleogeography, and the evolution of the Neandertals. In: Akazawa T, Aoki K, Bar-Yosef O (eds) Neandertals and modern humans in Western Asia. Plenum Press, New York, pp 295–310Google Scholar

  35. Johanson DC, White TD (1979) A systematic assessment of early African hominids. Science 203:321–329PubMedGoogle Scholar

  36. Johanson DC, White TD, Coppens Y (1978) A new species of the genus Australopithecus (Primates: Hominidae) from the Pliocene of eastern Africa. Kirtlandia 28:1–11Google Scholar

  37. Jungers WL, Harcourt-Smith WEH, Wunderlich RE, Tocheri MW, Larson SG, Sutikna T, Rhokus AD, Morwood MJ (2009) The foot of Homo floresiensis. Nature 459:81–84PubMedGoogle Scholar

  38. Kay RF, Ross CF, Williams BA (1997) Anthropoid origins. Science 275:797–804PubMedGoogle Scholar

  39. Kimbel WH, Rak Y (1993) The importance of species taxa in paleoanthropology and an argument for the phylogenetic concept of the species category. In: Kimbel WH, Martin LB (eds) Species, species concepts and primate evolution. Plenum, New York, pp 461–484Google Scholar

  40. Kimbel WH, White TD, Johanson DC (1984) Cranial morphology of Australopithecus afarensis: a comparative study based on a composite reconstruction of the adult skull. Am J Phys Anthropol 64:337–388PubMedGoogle Scholar

  41. Kimbel WH, White TD, Johanson DC (1988) Implications of KNM-WT 17000 for the evolution of “robust” australopithecines. In: Grine FE (ed) Evolutionary history of the “robust” australopithecines. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp 259–258Google Scholar

  42. Kimbel WH, Rak Y, Johanson DC (2004) The skull of Australopithecus afarensis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

  43. Kimbel WH, Lockwood C, Ward C, Leakey M, Rak Y, Johanson D (2006) Was Australopithecus anamensis ancestral to A. afarensis? A case of anagenesis in the early hominin fossil record. J Hum Evol 51:134–152PubMedGoogle Scholar

  44. Kitching IJ, Forey PL, Humphries CJ, Williams DM (1998) Cladistics: the theory and practice of parsimony analysis, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

  45. Leakey REF (1969) Faunal remains from the Omo Valley. Nature 222:1132–1133PubMedGoogle Scholar

  46. Leakey REF, Walker AC (1976) Australopithecus, Homo erectus and the single species hypothesis. Nature 261:572–574PubMedGoogle Scholar

  47. Leakey MG, Feibel CS, McDougall I, Ward C, Walker AC (1995) New four-million-year-old hominid species from Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya. Nature 376:565–571PubMedGoogle Scholar

  48. Leakey MG, Spoor F, Brown FH, Gathogo PN, Kiarie C, Leakey LN, McDougall I (2001) New hominin genus from eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene lineages. Nature 410:433–440PubMedGoogle Scholar

  49. Lieberman DE (2001) Another face in our family tree. Nature 410:419–420PubMedGoogle Scholar

  50. Lieberman DE, Wood BA, Pilbeam DR (1996) Homoplasy and early Homo: an analysis of the evolutionary relationships of H. habilis sensu stricto and H. rudolfensis. J Hum Evol 30:97–120Google Scholar

  51. Lordkipanidze D, Ponce de Leon MS, Margvelashvili A, Rak Y, Rightmire GP, Vekua A, Zollikofer PE (2013) A complete skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the evolutionary biology of early Homo. Science 342:326–331PubMedGoogle Scholar

  52. Luckett WP, Szalay FS (eds) (1975) Phylogeny of the primates: a multidisciplinary approach. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar

  53. Manzi G (2004) Human evolution at the Matuyama-Brunhes boundary. Evol Anthropol 13:11–24Google Scholar

  54. Martinón-Torres M, Bermúdez de Castro JM, Gómez-Robles A, Arsuaga JL, Carbonell E, Lordkipanidze D, Manzi G, Margvelashvili A (2007) Dental evidence on the hominin dispersals during the Pleistocene. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:13279–13282PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

  55. Mayr E (1950) Taxonomic categories in fossil hominids. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 15:109–118PubMedGoogle Scholar

  56. McCollum MA (1999) The robust australopithecine face: a morphogenetic perspective. Science 284:301–305PubMedGoogle Scholar

  57. Mellars P, Stringer C (1989) The human revolution: behavioral and biological perspectives on the origin of modern humans. Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar

  58. O’Keefe FR, Sander PM (1999) Paleontological paradigms and inferences of phylogenetic pattern: a case study. Paleobiology 25:518–533Google Scholar

  59. Olson TR (1978) Hominid phylogenetics and the existence of Homo in member I of the Swartkrans formation. S Afr J Hum Evol 7:159–178Google Scholar

  60. Olson TR (1981) Basicranial morphology of the extant hominoids and Pliocene hominids: the new material from the Hadar formation, Ethiopia, and its significance in early human evolution and taxonomy. In: Stringer CB (ed) Aspects of human evolution. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 99–128Google Scholar

  61. Olson TR (1985) Cranial morphology and systematics of the Hadar formation hominids and “Australopithecusafricanus. In: Delson E (ed) Ancestors: the hard evidence. Alan R Liss, Inc., New York, pp 102–119Google Scholar

  62. Organ C, Nunn CL, Machanda Z, Wrangham RW (2011) Phylogenetic rate shifts in feeding time during the evolution of Homo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:14555–14559PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

  63. Plavcan JM, Cope DA (2001) Metric variation and species recognition in the fossil record. Evol Anthropol 10:204–222Google Scholar

  64. Purvis A, Webster AJ (1999) Phylogenetically independent comparisons and primate phylogeny. In: Lee PC (ed) Comparative primate socioecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 44–70Google Scholar

  65. Rak Y (1983) The Australopithecine face. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar

  66. Reich D, Green RE, Kircher M, Krause J, Patterson N, Durand EY, Viola B, Briggs AW, Stenzel U, Johnson PLF, Maricic T, Good JM, Marques-Bonet T, Alkan C, Fu Q, Mallick S, Li H, Meyer M, Eichler EE, Stoneking M, Richards M, Talamo S, Shunkov MV, Derevianko AO, Hublin J-J, Kelso J, Slatkin M, Pääbo S (2010) Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature 468:1053–1060PubMedGoogle Scholar

  67. Rightmire GP (1992) Homo erectus: ancestor or evolutionary side branch. Evol Anthropol 1:43–49Google Scholar

  68. Rightmire GP (1998) Human evolution in the Middle Pleistocene. Evol Anthropol 6:218–227Google Scholar

  69. Ross CF, Williams BA, Kay RF (1998) Phylogenetic analysis of anthropoid relationships. J Hum Evol 35:221–306PubMedGoogle Scholar

  70. Senut B, Pickford M, Gommery D, Mein P, Cheboi K, Coppens Y (2001) First hominid from the Miocene (Lukeino formation, Kenya). CR Acad Sci Paris Sci Terre Plan 332:137–144Google Scholar

  71. Skelton RR, McHenry HM (1992) Evolutionary relationships among early hominids. J Hum Evol 23:309–349Google Scholar

  72. Skelton RR, McHenry HM (1998) Trait list bias and a reappraisal of early hominid phylogeny. J Hum Evol 34:109–113PubMedGoogle Scholar

  73. Skelton RR, McHenry HM, Drawhorn GM (1986) Phylogenetic analysis of early hominids. Curr Anthropol 27:329–340Google Scholar

  74. Smith AB (1994) Systematics and the fossil record. Blackwell Scientific, LondonGoogle Scholar

  75. Smith F (1997) Modern human origins. In: Spencer F (ed) History of physical anthropology, vol 2. Garland Publishing Inc, New York, pp 661–672Google Scholar

  76. Smith F, Spencer F (1982) The origins of modern humans: a world survey of the fossil evidence. Alan R Liss, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar

  77. Strait DS (2001) Integration phylogeny and the hominid cranial base. Am J Phy Anthropol 14:273–297Google Scholar

  78. Strait DS, Grine FE (1998) Trait list bias? A reply to Skelton and McHenry. J Hum Evol 34:115–118Google Scholar

  79. Strait DS, Grine FE (1999) Cladistics and early hominid phylogeny. Science 285:1210PubMedGoogle Scholar

  80. Strait DS, Grine FE (2001) The systematics of Australopithecus garhi. Ludus Vitalis 9:17–82Google Scholar

  81. Strait DS, Grine FE (2004) Inferring Hominoid and early Hominid phylogeny using craniodental characters. J Hum Evol 47:399–452PubMedGoogle Scholar

  82. Strait DS, Grine FE, Moniz MA (1997) A reappraisal of early hominid phylogeny. J Hum Evol 32:17–82PubMedGoogle Scholar

  83. Stringer CB (1974) Population relationships of later Pleistocene hominids: a multivariate study of available crania. J Archaeol Sci 1:317–342Google Scholar

  84. Stringer CB (1978) Some problems in Middle and Upper Pleistocene hominid relationships. In: Chivers D, Joysey K (eds) Recent advances in primatology 3: evolution. Academic, London, pp 395–418Google Scholar

  85. Stringer CB (1987) A numerical cladistic analysis for the genus Homo. J Hum Evol 16:135–146Google Scholar

  86. Stringer C (2002) Modern human origins: progress and prospects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 357:563–579Google Scholar

  87. Stringer C (2012a) Lone survivors. Times Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar

  88. Stringer CB (2012b) The status of Homo heidelbergensis (Schoetensack 1908). Evol Anthropol 21:101–107PubMedGoogle Scholar

  89. Suwa G, White TD, Howell FC (1996) Mandibular postcanine dentition from the Shungura Formation, Ethiopia: crown morphology, taxonomic allocations and Plio-Pleistocene hominid evolution. Am J Phys Anthropol 101:247–282PubMedGoogle Scholar

  90. Szalay FS (1977) Ancestors, descendants, sister groups, and testing of phylogenetic hypotheses. Syst Zool 26:12–18Google Scholar

  91. Tattersall I (1986) Species recognition in human paleontology. J Hum Evol 15:165–175Google Scholar

  92. Tattersall I (1992) Species concepts and species identification in human evolution. J Hum Evol 22:341–349Google Scholar

  93. Tattersall I (1996) Paleoanthropology and preconception. In: Meikle WE, Howell FC, Jablonski NG (eds) Contemporary issues in human evolution. Calif Acad Sci Mem 21: 47–54Google Scholar

  94. Tattersall I (1999) Paleoanthropology: the last half-century. Evol Anthropol 7:2–16Google Scholar

  95. Tattersall I, Eldredge N (1977) Fact, theory, and fantasy in human paleontology. Am Sci 65(2):204–211PubMedGoogle Scholar

  96. Tobias PV (1980) “Australopithecus afarensis” and A. africanus: critique and an alternative hypothesis. Palaeontol Afr 23:1–17Google Scholar

  97. Trinkaus E (1989) The emergence of modern humans. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

  98. Trinkaus E (1990) Cladistics and the hominid fossil record. Am J Phys Anthropol 83:1–11PubMedGoogle Scholar

  99. Vrba ES (1988) Late Pliocene climatic events and hominid evolution. In: Grine FE (ed) Evolutionary history of the “robust” australopithecines. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp 405–426Google Scholar

  100. Wagner PJ, Erwin DH (1995) Phylogenetic tests of speciation models. In: Erwin DH, Antsy RL (eds) New approaches to speciation in the fossil record. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 87–122Google Scholar

  101. Walker AC, Leakey REF, Harris JM, Brown FH (1986) 2.5-Myr Australopithecus boisei from west of Lake Turkana, Kenya. Nature 322:517–522Google Scholar

  102. Ward CV, Leakey MG, Walker A (2001) Morphology of Australopithecus anamensis from Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya. J Hum Evol 41:255–368PubMedGoogle Scholar

  103. Weidenreich F (1946) Apes, giants, and man. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

  104. White TD (2002) Earliest hominids. In: Hartwig WC (ed) The primate fossil record. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp 407–417Google Scholar

  105. White TD (2003) Early hominids: diversity or distortion? Science 299:1194–1197Google Scholar

  106. White TD, Johanson DC, Kimbel WH (1981) Australopithecus africanus: its phyletic position reconsidered. S Afr J Sci 77:445–470Google Scholar

  107. White TD, Suwa G, Asfaw B (1994) Australopithecus ramidus, a new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopia. Nature 371:306–312PubMedGoogle Scholar

  108. White TD, Asfaw B, Beyene Y, Haile-Selassie Y, Lovejoy CO, Suwa G, WoldeGabriel G (2009) Ardipithecus ramidus and the paleobiology of early hominids. Science 326:75–86PubMedGoogle Scholar

  109. Wolpoff MH (1971) Competitive exclusion among lower Pleistocene hominids: the single species hypothesis. Man 6:601–614Google Scholar

  110. Wolpoff MH, Thorne AG, Jelinek J, Yinyum Z (1994) The case for sinking Homo erectus 100 years of Pithecanthropus is enough! Cour Forsch Inst Senckenb 171:341–361Google Scholar

  111. Wolpoff MH, Senut B, Pickford M, Hawks J (2002) Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus’? Nature 419:581–582PubMedGoogle Scholar

  112. Wood BA (1988) Are “robust” australopithecines a monophyletic group? In: Grine FE (ed) Evolutionary history of the “robust” australopithecines. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp 269–284Google Scholar

  113. Wood BA (1991) Koobi Fora research project. vol 4: Hominid cranial remains. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar

  114. Wood BA (1992) Early hominid species and speciation. J Hum Evol 22:351–365Google Scholar

  115. Wood BA (1994) Taxonomy and evolutionary relationships of Homo erectus. In: Franzen JL (ed) 100 years of Pithecanthropus; The Homo erectus problem. Cour Forusch Inst Senckenberg 171:159–165Google Scholar

  116. Wood BA, Collard M (1999a) The human genus. Science 284:65–71PubMedGoogle Scholar

  117. Wood BA, Collard M (1999b) The changing face of Genus Homo. Evol Anthropol 8:195–207Google Scholar

  118. Wood B, Lonergan N (2008) The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades. J Anat 212(4):354–376PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

  119. Wood B, Martin LB, Andrews P (1986) Major topics in primate and human evolution. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar

  120. Zipfel B, DeSilva JM, Kidd RS, Carlson KJ, Churchill SE, Berger LR (2011) The foot and ankle of Australopithecus sediba. Science 333:1417–1420PubMedGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  • David StraitEmail author
  • Frederick E. Grine
  • John G. Fleagle
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyState University of New YorkStony BrookUSA
  3. 3.Department of Anatomical SciencesStony Brook University, School of MedicineStony BrookUSA
  1. Christmas wrapping lyrics
  2. Toilet clipart
  3. Sunburn relief walgreens
  4. Downtown charleston studio apartments

The Evolutionary Radiation of Hominids: a Phylogenetic Comparative Study


Over the last 150 years the diversity and phylogenetic relationships of the hominoids have been one of the main focuses in biological and anthropological research. Despite this, the study of factors involved in their evolutionary radiation and the origin of the hominin clade, a key subject for the further understanding of human evolution, remained mostly unexplored. Here we quantitatively approach these events using phylogenetic comparative methods and craniofacial morphometric data from extant and fossil hominoid species. Specifically, we explore alternative evolutionary models that allow us to gain new insights into this clade diversification process. Our results show a complex and variable scenario involving different evolutionary regimes through the hominid evolutionary radiation –modeled by Ornstein-Uhlenbeck multi-selective regime and Brownian motion multi-rate scenarios–. These different evolutionary regimes might relate to distinct ecological and cultural factors previously suggested to explain hominid evolution at different evolutionary scales along the last 10 million years.


The origin and evolution of humans have been the main focus of biological and anthropological research during the last 150 years1,2,3. Most of the previous studies have focused on species diversity and the phylogenetic history of humans and its relatives (i.e., the hominids4,5,6). Particularly, during the last years the studies on these topics have thrown a relatively large species diversity within Hominoidea7 (but see ref.8) and a well-supported pattern of phylogenetic relationships for both extant and fossil species9,10,11. However, less attention has been placed to formally explore the factors involved in the hominid evolutionary radiation12.

Previous studies have shown that along its evolutionary radiation, hominids have mainly diversified in body size, locomotor apparatus and cranial size and shape3,13,14,15, together with ecological and behavioural characteristics12,16. Within this radiation, humans differentiated considerably from the rest of the species mainly in cranial size and shape (e.g. refs13,15). In this context, it has been suggested that the hominids, and particularly the hominins, experimented one or several adaptive radiations —i.e., the rapid diversification of an ancestral species in morphologically and ecologically diverse ones16,17,18—, in contrast with the more traditional view of a continuous and gradual process where Homo sapiens was the last stage12,13,14,19,20.

Changes in cranial size and shape were important for the evolutionary radiation of a clade as Hominoidea because they are believed to be related to numerous aspects of primate biology. Particularly, variation in ecological and behavioural characteristics —such as locomotion, diet or social organization— is related to the variation in specific cranial traits in the clade21. Specifically, in Primates there seems to be a close relationship between the locomotion and the relative position of the foramen magnum, the diet and the size and shape of the arcade, the social group size and the size and shape of the brain endocast, among others22,23,24,25,26. In this context, studies interested in the evolutionary radiation of hominids have hypothesized some of these behavioural or ecological factors as the responsible for, or related with, the morphological changes observed in their crania12,16.

Here we approach the evolutionary radiation of hominids by analyzing extant and fossil species of this family. We explore alternative models on hominid diversification in cranial size and shape, employing 3D images, geometric morphometric and phylogenetic comparative methods27,28,29,30. Specifically, we fit random and non-random evolutionary models to the morphometric data, testing for a continuous-gradual (Brownian motion; BM) versus a non-gradual radiation process in the clade (Ornstein Uhlenbeck; OU)31. Our approach combines a detailed description of morphometric changes with a rigorous evaluation of alternative evolutionary models including extant and fossils species and using a maximum-likelihood model selection framework. The main goal of this work is to gain new insights into the pattern of cranial diversification in hominid’s —with special emphasis on hominins— evolutionary radiations by using a full quantitative approach, and to compare the magnitude and pattern of variation with the closest relative clade, Hylobatidae family.


Morphometric variation among species

Changes in craniofacial shape in extant and fossil Hominoidea species were studied by means of geometric morphometric techniques28,30, using landmarks and semilandmarks on cranial surfaces obtained from computed tomographies (Fig. 1). Landmarks and semilandmarks were aligned with Procrustes Generalized Analysis, in order to obtain shape variables, and the shape differences were explored by means of Principal Component Analyses (PCA), together with the projection of the phylogeny onto the morphospace (henceforth called phylomorphospace)32. Figure 1 shows the ordination of Hominoidea along the phylomorphospace corresponding to the first two principal components (PC 1 and 2), representing more than 63% of total variation in cranial shape.

Morphometric analyses of hominoid primate’s craniofacial shape. (Top) Ordination of 21 extant and 12 fossil hominoid species in the phylomorphospace determined by the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) of craniofacial variation. Together, they account for ~63% of total variance. Subtribe Hominina clade is defined by the filled gray line. Cranium at mid-right shows the located landmarks (red), curves (yellow) and surface (cyan) semilandmarks on each individual. Each species endocranial volume relative to its cranial base centroid size (rECV) is defined by the color on each data point. The two hominoid families are indicated. (Bottom) Craniofacial shape changes correspondent to PC1. These were obtained by warping the minimum and maximum PC1 scores in R software (for a visualization of shape changes in PC2 see Fig. S1).

Full size image

A large morphological variation was depicted on such ordination, especially regarding the cranial vault shape, the maxilla length and the proportional size of the orbits and the zygomatic arches. Towards the positive values of PC1 we find specimens with a more globular shape of the cranial vault, together with an increase in the proportional size of the orbits, and a correlated anteroposterior shortening of the facial region —specifically seen as a retrusion of the maxilla— and a reduction of the zygomatic arches relative size (Fig. 1). Hominidae family displays most of its shape variation along PC1. Homo sapiens and the rest of the genus Homo are located on the positive extreme of this PC; while on the opposite extreme we find Gorilla and Paranthropus genus, with a more robust craniofacial shape. A clear distinction between Hominidae and Hylobatidae families can be seen along PC2, associated to shape changes in the cranial base and differences in the maxilla orientation (Fig. S1). Hylobatidae family is located towards negative values of PC2, with less flexed crania and less intra-clade variation relative to hominins.

Phylogenetic pattern of diversification

The colours of the tips in Fig. 1 show the variation in the relative endocranial volume, obtained by mapping species’ endocranial volume values relative to its cranial base centroid size (rECV), depicting that positive values of PC1 and PC2 coincide with higher values of rECV. This correlation was tested by a Phylogenetic Generalized Least Squares analyses (PGLS), showing a low association (Adjusted R2 = 0.019; p-value = 0.210). Moreover, although the phylomorphospace seems to be indicating a lack of influence of size, we performed PGLS analyses in order to test for correlation between these variables33. The shape variation of hominoid crania (PC1-9 [~90% of total variation]), as seen in the PGLS results, is not associated to the log centroid size (log CS; Adjusted R2 = 0.164; p-value = 0.0112). This shows that shape variation explained by size is low, ca. 16%, and, thus, points out that the allometric component of shape variation is very small. Particularly, the tendency to a relative increase in the facial skeleton in respect of a larger cranial size, generally observed in mammals, is not observed in the hominoid clade. For example, Gorilla gorilla, Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens are large species but show different relative sizes of the facial skeleton in regard to the neurocranium, as well as variation in the relative position of both structures.

With the objective of assessing the phylogenetic structure present in the shape and rECV data, we performed phylogenetic signal analyses34,35. The results showed high K values for PC2 (KPC2 = 1.89; p = 0.001), indicating a strong phylogenetic signal, while K values for PC1 and rECV were lower (KPC1 = 0.64; p = 0.001; KrECV = 0.41 p = 0.001). Therefore, shape variation explained by PC2 surpassed what was expected by Brownian motion. This corresponds with the ordination shown in Fig. 1, where PC2 separates Hylobatidae and Hominidae families. The phylogenetic signal analysis for Procrustes coordinates of the aligned landmarks and semilandmarks showed a low phylogenetic signal (Kmult = 0.29; p = 0.001).

To visualize the phenotypic variation pattern of cranial shape and rECV within and among Hominoidea clades through their evolutionary history we used disparity-through-time (DTT)36 plots (Fig. 2), employing a chronophylogenetic tree, PC1-9 scores, PC1-2 scores and rECV values. PC1-9 DTT-plot depicts a pattern of progressive increase of among-clade disparity slightly above Brownian motion model expectations, with three main peaks of within-clade disparity growth. The two first of these took place ca. 4-3 million years (myr; also seen in PC1 phenotypic variation pattern; see Fig. S2) and they may coincide with the appearance of australopithecines and the Paranthropus species, while the second peak (ca. 1 myr) seems to concur with the shape changes related to the most recent Homo species. PC1-2 DTT-plot displays a similar pattern, within values of disparity expected for a BM model, but presenting only a major increase of the among-clade disparity, ca. 4 myr. Moreover, the DTT-plot corresponding to rECV, also follows the trend marked by a BM model expectations, but presenting two main peaks of among-clade disparity between ca. 2–0.5 myr, near the appearance and diversification of Homo genus. Figure 2 shows that there might have been a slight decoupling between the disparity patterns for shape and rECV, suggesting that some morphological changes, such as those observed in the facial region, may have occurred earlier (ca. 4–3 myr) than those in the cranial vault related to the increase of rECV.

Disparity-through-time (DTT) plot using PC1-2 (red) and PC1-9 (green) scores, estimated from the hominoid species morphometric data, and rECV (purple). Average value at a given point in time is the average disparity of subclades whose ancestral lineages were present at that time relative to the disparity of the entire clade. Higher values of relative disparity correspond to greater variance values within subclades relative to the morphological disparity of the whole subclade. Dashed lines depict the mean of simulated disparity under a Brownian motion model. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals of the simulated data.

Full size image

An evolutionary scenario for the hominid radiation

These previous results suggest that the studied traits might have evolved mainly following a Brownian motion scenario, despite there seem to have been moments of deviation from the expectations under this model. In order to further elucidate the evolutionary processes driving the morphological diversification in the clade, we compared the fit of several evolutionary models to the PC and rECV data: single-rate Brownian motion (BM), Early Burst (EB) and single-selective regime Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) processes, together with OU and BM multi-selective regime and multi-rate models based on Foley’s12 hypothesis about hominid diversification (Foley’s OUM and BMM, respectively)31,37. These models allow to explicitly test for a random continuous-gradual (BM) versus a discontinuous radiation (OU) process in the clade based on previous hypotheses. Additionally, we generated data-driven models to better explore the characteristics of the hypothesized discontinuous OU process, employing the SURFACE approach38 (Fig. 3). All the models were fitted to the datasets employing the multivariate functions of mvMORPH package37. By means of Likelihood and Akaike Information Criteria (AIC and AICc), used to select the best evolutionary model, we concluded that Foley’s successive radiations hypothesis following BMM and OUM models showed a better fit than the simplest model without shifts (Table 1). However, SURFACE-based scenarios (Surface’s OUM and BMM) depicted slightly better fits than Foley’s model. Specifically, PC1-2 and rECV SURFACE hypotheses showed their best fit for a multi-selective regime OU process (AICcPC1-2 = −300.418; AICcrECV = 71.177). This suggests that there is some relevant aspect in our data that it is not entirely explained by Foley’s hypothesis or the scenario without shifts. Additionally, the PC1-9 dataset displays more variable results, with Likelihood supporting a multi-rate BM model and AIC supporting a multi-rate OU model, whereas AICc values suggest a simple BM model for shape evolution (Table 1). These inconsistencies in the PC1-9 dataset model fit values are probably related to the large number of variables in relation to the number of species studied.

Time-calibrated phylogenetic trees of the Hominoid clade with colored branches, according to the evolutionary hypotheses used for model-fitting tests. (a) Foley’s (2002) hypothesis, where each color determines an adaptive radiation. (b) Data-driven hypothesis estimated via SURFACE analysis using rECV values. (c,d) Data-driven hypotheses estimated via SURFACE analyses using PC1-2 and PC1-9 scores, respectively. Colors in (b–d) refer to different adaptive regimes.

Full size image

Full size table


In the present work we approached the evolutionary radiation of hominids, exploring alternative models for this clade’s cranial size and shape diversification and testing for a continuous-gradual versus non-random models of diversification in the family. We also compared the disparity of this family relative to their sister family: Hylobatidae. Our morphometric analyses showed a large morphological variation in hominoids regarding the cranial vault shape, the maxilla length and the proportional size of the orbits and zygomatic arches. It is remarkable that hominids display larger dispersion in the shape space than the hylobatids, suggesting the occurrence of more complex processes ‒such as going through more adaptive peaks‒ in the former clade. Analyses of the patterns of diversification on these characteristics depicted that disparity changed through time mostly gradually, following expectations under a Brownian motion model, but also presenting different deviations in the last 4 myr. This suggests that our studied traits evolved in a more complex scenario than that previously pointed out in other works. In fact, complex OU multi-selective regime and BM multi-rate scenarios were the models that fitted best to the morphometric data, in concordance with some previous hypotheses (e.g. ref.12).

In this sense, many studies discuss the factors driving the evolutionary diversification of hominoids, and there is an ongoing debate about the tempo and mode of such process. Some authors suggest a gradualistic view of hominid evolution. Freidline et al.39 studied craniofacial morphological change in Pleistocene hominins as a continuous process that allows them to be separated into distinct temporal clusters, based on the differences and resemblances between their allometric trajectories. On the same direction, Neubauer et al.15 interpreted that the evolution of the morphology of the modern human brain was marked by a directional and gradual change as a result of the appearance of modern craniofacial morphology and key behavioral innovations. Nevertheless, Du et al.14 suggested that gradualism in hominid evolution is apparent due to the scale dependence of evolutionary patterns. Using brain size data, they proposed that hominid macroevolution is marked by periods of stasis and/or drift driven by directional selection and other climatic and ecological factors. These factors are believed to have played a key role on hominin evolution16,40. Our results conform to a non-gradualistic scenario of hominid cranial evolution, from a macroevolutionary scale. Whilst we see a rather continuous trend in the Miocene, there seem to have been abrupt changes in facial and neurocranial morphology through Plio-Pleistocene times, particularly in the hominoid clade, with an increase in shape diversity between all hominoid subclades. Conversely, the hylobatids probably diversified by random processes, occupying a single adaptive peak through the last 10 myr (Fig. 3).

Within what seems to be a non-continuous process, close to the punctuated equilibrium model, for hominid craniofacial evolution, it is still unclear if these extinct and extant species originated as a result of a single adaptive radiation or successive adaptive radiations due to climate and ecological shifts and/or behavioral and morphological key innovations. Delson and Rosenberger19 proposed a pattern of differentiation for Old World monkeys consisting in a set of sequential radiations replacing sister-taxa. In this sense, Foley12 suggested the occurrence of distinct successive events with different trends happening at variable rate, rather than a single punctuated radiation event or a continuous process. This author proposed that these adaptive radiations were due to the appearance of adaptive novelties and responses to a shifting environmental context. Furthermore, our morphometric analyses depict that there is a considerable amount of craniofacial size and shape variation in hominoid primates. These results may be an indicator of distinct adaptive radiations as new diverse morphologies might have rapidly evolved with the occupation of emergent niches in a relatively short time41,42,43. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that if the fossil sample is not representative enough, the gaps in the phylomorphospace that have been interpreted as the occurrence of punctuated events could be just a consequence of missing data.

Specifically, our results partly concur with Foley’s hypothesis as they support the occurrence of successive regime shifts with different rates, but differing in the amount and location of the events that took place. A non-continuous process is largely supported by the fit of OUM and BMM models to our morphometric data (Table 1). Foley12 proposed at least five different adaptive radiations, adding two more possible for the Middle and Late Pleistocene hominins (African apes and earliest hominins, early australopithecines, Paranthropus species, earliest Homo species, larger-brained Homo species and finally Homo sapiens), while our data-driven SURFACE hypotheses suggest distinct adaptive radiations with regime shifts relative to the origin of each genus (Hylobatidae, Pan species, australopithecids plus Paranthropus species, and Homo species). SURFACE hypothesis estimated using rECV data suggested mainly an adaptive regime involving Hylobatidae family and two other regimes for the first Homo species and H. sapiens, H. neanderthalensis and H. heiderlbergensis, respectively (Fig. 3).

What factors could have driven these radiations in the hominid evolution? In the last 10 myr, Eastern and Southern Africa have been through periods of extreme climate variability motivated by global climate shifts (i.e. glaciations, changes in oceanic currents), local effects like volcanic and tectonic changes in the Rift Valley and the dynamics of the lake basins originated by such changes16,44,45,46,47,48. During this time, as a result of these climatic shifts, there has been an alternating trend between high tree density and the expansion of grasslands and savanna in the African tropical regions. This is the likely scenario for the moment of divergence between Pan and the hominin lineage. Eastern Africa displayed a patchy distribution of forests, woodlands and grasslands, together with altitudinal gradients that configured the appearance of humid and dry habitats in the region45,47. This large spectrum niche was occupied ca. 4 myr ago by the generalist lineage Australopithecus, which was able to take profit of diverse food resources available at that time along a large geographical distribution, as the fossil record suggests. An expansion of the grasslands may be also associated with a key adaptive trait in this clade: bipedalism, which is also related to changes in neurocranial morphology as the foramen magnum relocated towards a more anteroinferior region in the basicranium (Fig. 1; although this displacement is associated to changes in brain size too)47,49,50,51.

Further, a strong shift to aridification took place around 3 and 2.5 myr, causing an expansion of the savanna in East Africa, corresponding to a peak of a northern hemisphere glaciation and the origins of Homo genus. Moreover, numerous cultural innovations took place in Africa during this period, such as the beginning of fire management and the manufacture of lithic artifacts, optimizing the exploitation of resources through, for example, scavenging, hunting and cooking meat52,53,54,55,56,57. Such changes might have allowed an increase in the amount and diversity of consumed resources, together with the occupation of a large range of niches and habitats, within and outside the African continent47,58,59.

Climatic changes and cultural innovations might have been paramount factors related to the hominid morphological diversification, this being caused by or causing them. However, the existence of geographic variation underlying the evolutionary radiation of the hominids (Fig. 4), also possibly related to climate and cultural innovations, suggests that, in some cases within Hominoidea, allopatry might have been one of the main causes for the emergence of new species. In this context, the complexity of factors related to hominid’s radiation suggests that it is an example of a multifarious evolutionary radiation process, including geographic and adaptive factors43. However, more paleoclimatic and archaeological data are necessary to establish with confidence the factors driving the observed macroevolutionary pattern.

Geographical distribution of the sampled extant (circles) and fossil (triangles) Hominoid species. Distinct colors were used for Hominidae (orange) and Hylobatidae (dark cyan) families. Extant species distribution was obtained from IUCN redlist ( database, while fossil locations were extracted from bibliographical sources.

Full size image

Summarizing, our results seem to imply that the hominid evolutionary diversification was not a gradual and continuous process, but a more complex and variable scenario involving different evolutionary regimes and factors shifting along the last 10 million years. Although several recent studies have focused on the diversification of the genus Homo, our results indicate that, for a better understanding of human evolution, future studies explicitly addressing the complexity of processes at different evolutionary scales are needed. Whereas the small scale patterns are probably linked to microevolutionary processes, the patterns at macroevolutionary scale are probably related to developmental, ecological and evolutionary processes acting across multiple clades14. Finally, our results show the importance of adding paleontological data to evolutionary studies exploring macroevolutionary diversifications. Such as previous previous works have demonstrated, the inclusion of fossil variation from periods previous to large extinctions increase our capability for understanding clade evolution60,61,62,63. In this context it is important to remark that phylogenetic comparative methods using extant species constitute only a preliminary approach to these issues.

Material and Methods


A set of 135 hominoid crania CT scans from twenty-one extant (eight belonging to Hominidae family, thirteen to Hylobatidae family) and 12 fossil species (all of them hominids) was used for carrying out the analyses (Table S1). These scans were obtained from the collections of the Museo de La Plata (MLP), the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution; USNM), the Max Planck Institute (MXP), the Royal Museum for Central Africa (RMCA), the Kyoto University Primate Research Institute (KUPRI) and the online repositories African Fossils ( and MorphoSource (

Geometric morphometric analyses

In order to analyze and describe extant and fossil species craniofacial shape variation, we employed geometric morphometric techniques. One of the authors (GR) digitized, manually and semi-automatically, 207 three-dimensional landmarks and semilandmarks on.PLY format surfaces obtained from the primate skull CT scans (Figs 1; S3). We explore alternative landmarks and semilandmarks configurations, by example including more surface semilandmarks in the facial skeleton, but the ordination were significantly similar to our final dataset (PROTEST pseudo-correlation = 0.99; P = 0.001; see Fig. S4). These landmarks and semilandmarks were then transformed into shape variables (Procrustes coordinates) through a Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), sliding the semilandmarks with bending energy criterion28,30. Thus, variation due to differences in scale, rotation and position of the specimens was eliminated. Shape variables, or Procrustes coordinates, from the consensus of each species were used to perform a Principal Component Analysis (PCA). In addition, centroid size values were used as the size variable. In some cases, fossils showed structural damage and lacked specific cranial structures (mostly zygomatic arches or foramen magnum); this issue was solved by estimating the missing landmarks and semilandmarks with thin-plate spline method using estimate.missing function from geomorph64 package for R. CT scans were processed by means of 3DSlicer and MeshLab software, landmarks and semilandmarks were recorded using Landmark v3.065 together with geomorph and Morpho66 packages for R software. These two R packages were also used in order to perform GPA and PCA analyses.

Phylogenetic comparative methods

As species originate by a divergence or branching process that can be depicted as a hierarchically structured phylogeny, statistically speaking, they should not be considered as units extracted independently from a same distribution27. For such reason, it is necessary to take into account the phylogenetic structure in our analyses. This is the basis of the so-called phylogenetic comparative methods. Here, we use as phylogeny a modified version of the hominoid chronophylogenetic hypothesis used in Grabowsky and Jungers3, considering also the fossil-calibrated chronophylogenetic tree obtained by Perelman et al.9. It is important to remark that the divergence times in our chronophylogenetic tree are based both in Perelman et al.9 and Grabowsky and Jungers3 (modified from Dembo et al.11), which constrain a Bayesian phylogenetic estimations using the date of first appearance of the fossils.

First, we projected the phylogeny onto the multivariate morphospace obtained by PCA (PC1 and PC2), in order to visualize the morphometric diversity of specific clades (Homo genus, Hominidae family, Hylobatidae family). This graph shows clearly how certain clades vary in morphology more than others32. This was carried out using phylomorphospace function from phytools package67 for R. In addition, we mapped and plotted rECV values onto the phylogeny using contMap function of phytools package for R software68. ECV values for each species were obtained from Isler et al.69 and Du et al.14, and the cranial base was defined using a subset of the digitized landmarks and semilandmarks (see Fig. S3). We used the colour-coded values of rECV obtained with contMap to visualize the distribution of this trait along the first two components morphospace.

With the purpose of checking the association between the craniofacial shape variation and size, as well as with rECV, we performed PGLS analyses, which consider the expected lack of independence among species by introducing in the error term of the regression a covariance matrix derived from the phylogeny70,71. We fitted the PC scores representing more than 90% of total shape variation (PC1 to PC9) to the log-Centroid Size (logCS) through a regression model (PC1-9 ~ logCS), using the package CAPER72 for R software.

In order to assess the phylogenetic structure of our data, we ran phylogenetic signal analyses. Firstly, we estimated Blomberg’s34K values for PC1-2 and rECV and, secondly, calculated the degree of phylogenetic signal from the set of Procrustes coordinates, obtained from our digitized landmarks and semilandmarks, using the multivariate version of K (Kmult)35. K statistic measures the tendency of related species to resemble each other, distinguishing it from random expectations based only on the tree structure and Brownian motion character evolution. K values lower that one imply less resemblance between species than expected under a Brownian motion scenario, perhaps due to uncorrelation between adaptive evolution and the phylogeny. While K values greater than one should be interpreted as close relatives that resemble to each other more than expected under Brownian motion context34. These analyses were performed by means of packages geomorph64 and picante73 for R.

The patterns of shape (PC1-2), PC90% (PC1-9) and rECV changes within and among the clades along their evolutionary history were depicted by disparity-through-time plots36. Disparity is first estimated for the clade as a whole, and then for each subclade defined by a node in the phylogeny. Relative disparity is obtained by dividing each subclade’s disparity values by the total disparity of the clade. Then, mean relative disparity is estimated for every subclade present at the time of each divergence moment. When values are close to zero, it means that the variation is partitioned among the different subclades, while values near to one indicate that a major proportion of the total variation is contained by the subclades36. DTT-plots were obtained by using dtt function of geiger74 package for R.

As previously said, with the intention of assessing which evolutionary processes drove morphological changes in the hominoid clade we tested the fit of a set of evolutionary models to distinct hypotheses. Foley12 stated that human evolution was the result of several different events with distinct trends happening at distinct rates (which he interpreted as a series of adaptive radiations), rather than a single punctuated event or a continuous process. The author states that such adaptive radiations (Fig. 3) were mainly driven by the ecology and behavior of hominins, as a response to their environmental context and the appearance of adaptive novelties. We also tested the fit of these evolutionary models to a hypothetical scenario without regime shifts. Particularly, we estimated and compared to our PC and rECV data the fit of single-rate Brownian motion (BM), Early Burst (EB) and single-selective regime Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) processes, together with OU and BM multi-selective regime and multi-rate models (OUM and BMM, respectively; Fig. 3)31. These fits were estimated by means of mvBM, mvEB and mvOU functions of mvMORPH package37. We used Likelihood, simple and corrected Akaike Information Criterion (AIC and AICc, respectively)75 to statistically compare the fits of each model to each hypothesis. In addition, we generated data-driven models to better explore the characteristics of the hypothesized discontinuous OU process, employing the SURFACE approach implemented with the surface package for R38. This technique allows us to estimate a macroevolutionary adaptive landscape for our rECV and PC data, assigning selective regimes to the branches of a tree in forward/backward stepwise phases26,38. We finally tested the fit of the previously described evolutionary models to the adaptive landscape hypotheses obtained with SURFACE analyses, and compared these to the two previous hypotheses. All models were fitted to the datasets employing the multivariate functions of mvMORPH package37.


  1. 1.

    Darwin, C. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. (Murray, London, UK, 1871).

  2. 2.

    Foley, R. Adaptive radiations and dispersals in Hominin Evolutionary Ecology. Evol Anthropol.1, 32–37 (2002).

    Google Scholar

  3. 3.

    Grabowski, M. & Jungers, W. L. Evidence of a chimpanzee-sized ancestor of humans but a gibbon-sized ancestor of apes. Nat Commun.8(880), 1–10 (2017).

    CAS Google Scholar

  4. 4.

    Pilbeam, D. & Young, N. Hominoid evolution: synthesizing disparate data. C. R. Palevol.3, 305–321 (2004).

    Article Google Scholar

  5. 5.

    Wood, B. & Constantino, P. In Assembling the Tree of Life (eds Cracraft, J. & Donoghue, M. J.) 517–535 (Oxford University Press, New York, USA, 2004).

  6. 6.

    González-José, R., Escapa, I., Neves, W. A., Cúneo, R. & Pucciarelli, H. M. Cladistic analysis of continuous modularized traits provides phylogenetic signals in Homo evolution. Nature.453, 775–778 (2008).

    ADSPubMedArticleCASPubMed Central Google Scholar

  7. 7.

    Wood, B. & Boyle, E. K. Hominin Taxic Diversity: Fact or Fantasy? Am J Phys Anthropol.159(S61), 37–78 (2016).

    Article Google Scholar

  8. 8.

    Hunt, K. D. The single species hypothesis: truly dead and pushing up bushes, or still twitching and ripe for resuscitation? Hum Biol.75(4), 485–502 (2003).

    MathSciNetPubMedArticle Google Scholar

  9. 9.

    Perelman, P. et al. A molecular phylogeny of living primates. PLoS Genet.7(3), 1–17 (2011).

    MathSciNetArticleCAS Google Scholar

  10. 10.

    Scally, A. et al. Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence. Nature.483, 169–175 (2012).

    ADSCASPubMedPubMed CentralArticle Google Scholar

  11. 11.

    Dembo, M. et al. The evolutionary relationships and age of Homo naledi: An assessment using dated Bayesian phylogenetic methods. J Hum Evol.97, 17–26 (2016).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  12. 12.

    Foley, R. Adaptive Radiations and Dispersals in Hominin Evolutionary Ecology. Evol Anthropol.11(1), 32–37 (2002).

    Google Scholar

  13. 13.

    Bookstein, F. et al. Comparing frontal cranial profiles in archaic and modern Homo by morphometric analysis. Anat Rec.257, 217–224 (1999).

    CASPubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  14. 14.

    Du, A. et al. Pattern and process in hominin brain size evolution are scale-dependent. Proc R Soc B. 285 (2018).

  15. 15.

    Neubauer, S., Hublin, J.-J. & Gunz, P. The evolution of modern human brain shape. Sci Adv. 4(1) (2018).

  16. 16.

    Maslin, M. A., Shultz, S. & Trauth, M. H. A synthesis of the theories and concepts of early human evolution. Phil Trans R Soc B. 370 (2015).

  17. 17.

    Simpson, G. G. The major features of evolution. (Columbia University Press, New York, USA, 1953).

  18. 18.

    Gavrilets, S. & Losos, J. B. Adaptive radiation: contrasting theory with data. Science.323(5915), 732–737 (2009).

    ADSCASPubMedArticle Google Scholar

  19. 19.

    Delson, E. & Rosenberger, A. L. In Living Fossils (eds Eldredge, N. & Stanley, S. M.) 50–61 (Springer, New York, USA, 1984)

  20. 20.

    Foley, R. A. In The Palaeobiology of Australopithecus (eds Reed, K. E., Fleagle, J. G., Leakey, R. E.) 163–174 (Springer, Dordtrecht, Netherlands, 2013).

  21. 21.

    Lieberman, D. E. The evolution of the human head. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA, 2011).

  22. 22.

    Dunbar, R. I. M. The social brain hypothesis. Evol Anthropol.6(5), 178–190 (1998).

    Article Google Scholar

  23. 23.

    Ravosa, M. J., Noble, V. E., Hylander, W. L., Johnson, K. R. & Kowalski, E. M. Masticatory stress, orbital orientation and the evolution of the primate postorbital bar. J Hum Evol.38(5), 667–693 (2000).

    CASPubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  24. 24.

    Russo, G. A. & Kirk, E. C. Foramen magnum position in bipedal mammals. J Hum Evol.65(5), 656–670 (2013).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  25. 25.

    Aristide, L. et al. Encephalization and diversification of the cranial base in platyrrhine primates. J Evol Hum.81, 29–40 (2015).

    Article Google Scholar

  26. 26.

    Aristide, L. et al. Brain shape convergence in the adaptive radiation of New World monkeys. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA113(8), 2158–2163 (2016).

    ADSCASPubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  27. 27.

    Felsenstein, J. Phylogenies and the Comparative Method. Am Nat.125(1), 1–15 (1985).

    MathSciNetArticle Google Scholar

  28. 28.

    Mitteroecker, P. & Gunz, P. Advances in Geometric Morphometrics. Evol Biol.36, 235–247 (2009).

    Article Google Scholar

  29. 29.

    Freckleton, R. P., Harvey, P. H. & Pagel, M. Phylogenetic Analysis and Comparative Data: A Test and Review of Evidence. Am Nat.160(6), 712–726 (2002).

    CASPubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  30. 30.

    Weber, G. W. Virtual Anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol.156, 22–42 (2015).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  31. 31.

    Butler, M. A. & King, A. A. Phylogenetic Comparative Analysis: A Modeling Approach for Adaptive Evolution. Am Nat.164(6), 683–695 (2004).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  32. 32.

    Sidlauskas, B. Continuous and arrested morphological diversification in sister clades of Characiform fishes: a phylomorphospace approach. Evolution.62(12), 3135–3156 (2008).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  33. 33.

    Symonds, M. R. E. & Blomberg, S. P. In Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods and Their Application in Evolutionary Biology: Concepts and Practice (ed. Garamszegi, L. Z.) 105–130 (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2014).

  34. 34.

    Blomberg, S. P., Garland, T. Jr. & Ives, A. R. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution.57(4), 717–745 (2003).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  35. 35.

    Adams, D. C. A Generalized K Statistic for Estimating Phylogenetic Signal from Shape and Other High-Dimensional Multivariate Data. Syst Biol.63(5), 685–697 (2014).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  36. 36.

    Harmon, L. J., Schlute, J. A. II, Larson, A. & Losos, J. B. Tempo and Mode of Evolutionary Radiation in Iguanian Lizards. Science.301, 961–964 (2003).

    ADSCASPubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  37. 37.

    Clavel, J., Escarguel, G. & Merceron, G. mvMORPH: an R package for fitting multivariate evolutionary models to morphometric data. Methods Ecol Evol.6, 1311–1319 (2015).

    Article Google Scholar

  38. 38.

    Ingram, T. & Mahler, L. SURFACE: detecting convergent evolution from comparative data by fitting Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models with stepwise Akaike Information Criterion. Methods Ecol Evol.4, 416–425 (2013).

    Article Google Scholar

  39. 39.

    Freidline, S. E., Gunz, P., Harvati, K. & Hublin, J.-J. Middle Pleistocene human facial morphology in an evolutionary and developmental context. J Hum Evol.63, 723–740 (2012).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  40. 40.

    Maslin, M. A. & Christensen, B. Tectonics, orbital forcing, global climate change, and human evolution in Africa: introduction to the African paleoclimate special volume. J Hum Evol.53(5), 443–464 (2007).

    PubMedArticle Google Scholar

  41. 41.

    Schluter, D. The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation. (Oxford University Press, New York, USA, 2000).

  42. 42.

    Fleagle, J. G. Primate Adaptation and Evolution(Third Edition). (Academic Press, San Diego, USA, 2013).

  43. 43.

    Simões, M. et al. The Evolving Theory of Evolutionary Radiations. Trends Ecol Evol.31(1), 27–34 (2016).

    MathSciNetPubMedArticle Google Scholar

  44. 44.

    deMenocal, P. B. African climate change and faunal evolution during the Pliocene-Pleistocene. Earth Planet Sc Lett.220, 3–24 (2004).

    ADSCASArticle Google Scholar

  45. 45.

    Trauth, M. H. et al. Human evolution in a variable environment: The amplifier lakes of Eastern Africa. Quaternary Sci Rev.29(23–24), 2981–2988 (2010).

    ADSArticle Google Scholar

  46. 46.

    Bonnefille, R. Cenozoic vegetation, climate changes and hominid evolution in tropical Africa. Global Planet Change.72, 390–411 (2010).

    ADSArticle Google Scholar

  47. 47.

    Wilson, K. E. Plio-Pleistocene reconstruction of East African and Arabien Sea Paleoclimate. PhD thesis (University College, London, UK, 2011).

  48. 48.

    Wilson, K. E. et al. East African lake evidence for Pliocene millenial-scale climate variability. Geology.42, 955–958 (2014).

    ADSArticle Google Scholar

  49. 49.

    Dean, M. C. Comparative myology of the hominoid cranial base II. The muscles of the prevertebral and upper pharyngeal region. Folia Primatol.44, 40–21 (1985).

    CASPubMedArticle Google Scholar

  50. 50.

    Reno, P. L., Meindl, R. S., McCollum, M. A. & Lovejoy, C. O. The case is unchanged and remains robust: Australopithecus afarensis exhibits only moderate skeletal dimorphism. A reply to Plavcan et al. (2005). J Hum Evol.49(2), 279–288 (2005).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  51. 51.

    Villamil, C. I. Locomotion and basicranial anatomy in primates and marsupials. J Hum Evol.111, 163–178 (2017).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  52. 52.

    Bunn, H. T. & Ezzo, J. A. Hunting and scavenging by Plio-Pleistocene Hominids: Nutritional constraints, archaeological patterns, and behavioral implications. J Archaeol Sci.20, 365–398 (1993).

    Article Google Scholar

  53. 53.

    Plummer, T. Flaked stones and old bones: biological and cultural evolution at the dawn of technology. Am J Phys Anthropol.39, 118–164 (2004).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  54. 54.

    de la Torre, I. The Early Stone Age lithic assemblages of Gadeb (Ethiopia) and the Developed Oldowan/early Acheulan in East Africa. J Hum Evol.60, 768–812 (2011).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  55. 55.

    Shimelmitz, R. et al. ‘Fire at will’: The emergence of habitual fire use 350,000 years ago. J Hum Evol.77, 196–203 (2014).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  56. 56.

    Smith, A. R., Carmody, R. N., Dutton, R. J. & Wrangham, R. W. The significance of cooking for early hominin scavenging. J Hum Evol.84, 62–70 (2015).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  57. 57.

    Rosell, J. & Blasco, R. The early use of fire among Neanderthals from a zooarchaeological perspective. Quaternary Sci Rev. In press. Available online at, (2019).

    ADSArticle Google Scholar

  58. 58.

    Stringer, C. Human evolution: Out of Ethiopia. Nature.423, 693–695 (2003).

    ADSArticleCAS Google Scholar

  59. 59.

    Lieberman, D. E. Speculations about the selective basis for modern human craniofacial form. Evol Anthropol.1781, 55–68 (2008).

    Article Google Scholar

  60. 60.

    Gunz, P. et al. Early modern human diversity suggests subdivided population structure and a complex out-of-Africa scenario. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA106(15), 6094–6098 (2009).

    ADSCASPubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  61. 61.

    Alvarez, A., Perez, S. I. & Verzi, D. H. Early evolutionary differentiation of morphological variation in the mandible of South American caviomorph rodents (Rodentia, Caviomorpha). J Evol Biol.24, 2687–2695 (2011).

    CASPubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  62. 62.

    Fleagle, J. G., Gilbert, C. C. & Baden, A. L. Comparing primate crania: The importance of fossils. Am J Phys Anthropol.161, 259–275 (2016).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  63. 63.

    Aristide, L. et al. Cranial and endocranial diversity in extant and fossil atelids (Platyrrhini: Atelidae): A geometric morphometric study. Am J Phys Anthropol.169(2), 322–331 (2019).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  64. 64.

    Adams, D. C., Collyer, M. L. & Kaliontzopoulou, A. Geomorph: Software for geometric morphometric analyses (2018).

  65. 65.

    Wiley, D. F. et al. Evolutionary morphing. Proceedings of IEEE Visualization. 431–438 (2005).

  66. 66.

    Schlager, S. In Statistical Shape and Deformation Analysis (eds Zheng, G., Li, S. & Szekely, G.) 217–256 (Academic Press, San Diego, USA, 2017).

  67. 67.

    Revell, L. J. phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol Evol.3, 217–223 (2012).

    Article Google Scholar

  68. 68.

    Revell, L. J. Two new graphical methods for mapping trait evolution on phylogenies. Methods Ecol Evol.4, 754–759 (2013).

    Article Google Scholar

  69. 69.

    Isler, K. et al. Endocranial volumes of primate species: scaling analyses using a comprehensive and reliable data set. J Hum Evol.55(6), 967–978 (2008).

    PubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  70. 70.

    Martins, E. P. & Hansen, T. F. Phylogenies and the Comparative Method: A general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am Nat.149(4), 646–667 (1997).

    Article Google Scholar

  71. 71.

    Rohlf, F. J. Comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables: geometric interpretations. Evolution.55(11), 2143–2160 (2001).

    CASPubMedArticlePubMed Central Google Scholar

  72. 72.

    Orme, D. et al. caper: Comparative Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R. v1.0.1 (2018).

  73. 73.

    Kembel, S. W. et al. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics.26, 1463–1464 (2010).

    CASPubMedArticlePubMed Central

Evolution from ape to man. From Proconsul to Homo heidelbergensis

Inferring hominoid and early hominid phylogeny using craniodental characters: the role of fossil taxa

Recent discoveries of new fossil hominid species have been accompanied by several phylogenetic hypotheses. All of these hypotheses are based on a consideration of hominid craniodental morphology. However, Collard and Wood (2000) suggested that cladograms derived from craniodental data are inconsistent with the prevailing hypothesis of ape phylogeny based on molecular data. The implication of their study is that craniodental characters are unreliable indicators of phylogeny in hominoids and fossil hominids but, notably, their analysis did not include extinct species. We report here on a cladistic analysis designed to test whether the inclusion of fossil taxa affects the ability of morphological characters to recover the molecular ape phylogeny. In the process of doing so, the study tests both Collard and Wood's (2000) hypothesis of character reliability, and the several recently proposed hypotheses of early hominid phylogeny. One hundred and ninety-eight craniodental characters were examined, including 109 traits that traditionally have been of interest in prior studies of hominoid and early hominid phylogeny, and 89 craniometric traits that represent size-corrected linear dimensions measured between standard cranial landmarks. The characters were partitioned into two data sets. One set contained all of the characters, and the other omitted the craniometric characters. Six parsimony analyses were performed; each data set was analyzed three times, once using an ingroup that consisted only of extant hominoids, a second time using an ingroup of extant hominoids and extinct early hominids, and a third time excluding Kenyanthropus platyops. Results suggest that the inclusion of fossil taxa can play a significant role in phylogenetic analysis. Analyses that examined only extant taxa produced most parsimonious cladograms that were inconsistent with the ape molecular tree. In contrast, analyses that included fossil hominids were consistent with that tree. This consistency refutes the basis for the hypothesis that craniodental characters are unreliable for reconstructing phylogenetic relationships. Regarding early hominids, the relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Ardipithecus ramidus were relatively unstable. However, there is tentative support for the hypotheses that S. tchadensis is the sister taxon of all other hominids. There is support for the hypothesis that A. anamensis is the sister taxon of all hominids except S. tchadensis and Ar. ramidus. There is no compelling support for the hypothesis that Kenyanthropus platyops shares especially close affinities with Homo rudolfensis. Rather, K. platyops is nested within the Homo + Paranthropus + Australopithecus africanus clade. If K. platyops is a valid species, these relationships suggest that Homo and Paranthropus are likely to have diverged from other hominids much earlier than previously supposed. There is no support for the hypothesis that A. garhi is either the sister taxon or direct ancestor of the genus Homo. Phylogenetic relationships indicate that Australopithecus is paraphyletic. Thus, A. anamensis and A. garhi should be allocated to new genera.


Of hominids phylogeny


Your Place in the Primate Family Tree


You will also like:


925 926 927 928 929