Species resilience in Pleistocene hominids that traveled far and ate widely: An analogy to the wolf-like canids

Primate Behavior and the Importance of Comparative Studies in Biological Anthropology

Biological anthropology seeks to understand humans from an evolutionary perspective. Namely, what makes humans different from other animals, and how did we get this way? Many relevant traits are physical, but many others are behavioral. For example, when and why did our species develop complex cognition, enduring bonds, and intense cooperation? Given the importance of behavior, biological anthropologists have a long history of turning to our primate relatives to generate hypotheses about the evolutionary processes shaping humans. Indeed, primate behavior is foundational to our field. But not all biological anthropologists appreciate the value of primate behavior for understanding human evolution. Beyond lip service in introductory paragraphs and grant proposals, many primatologists do not make explicit how their work is relevant to human evolution. In this review, we have three main goals: (1) emphasize how comparative studies of primate behavior are crucial to biological anthropology; (2) outline how primatologists and biological anthropologists can improve their work by avoiding common problems that arise when making such comparisons; and (3) provide a primer on the concepts and methods underlying comparative analyses of traits. We provide examples to highlight these points related to cognition, sociality, and diet. We conclude with several recommendations including (1) detailed, high-quality studies of behavior that allow for appropriate comparisons within and across species; (2) using primates as a "gateway clade" and expanding our research to any relevant taxa; and (3) careful attention to the ethical implications of making comparisons to other primates given racist tropes and a history of eugenics.

The evolution of the human trophic level during the Pleistocene

The human trophic level (HTL) during the Pleistocene and its degree of variability serve, explicitly or tacitly, as the basis of many explanations for human evolution, behavior, and culture. Previous attempts to reconstruct the HTL have relied heavily on an analogy with recent hunter-gatherer groups' diets. In addition to technological differences, recent findings of substantial ecological differences between the Pleistocene and the Anthropocene cast doubt regarding that analogy's validity. Surprisingly little systematic evolution-guided evidence served to reconstruct HTL. Here, we reconstruct the HTL during the Pleistocene by reviewing evidence for the impact of the HTL on the biological, ecological, and behavioral systems derived from various existing studies. We adapt a paleobiological and paleoecological approach, including evidence from human physiology and genetics, archaeology, paleontology, and zoology, and identified 25 sources of evidence in total. The evidence shows that the trophic level of the Homo lineage that most probably led to modern humans evolved from a low base to a high, carnivorous position during the Pleistocene, beginning with Homo habilis and peaking in Homo erectus. A reversal of that trend appears in the Upper Paleolithic, strengthening in the Mesolithic/Epipaleolithic and Neolithic, and culminating with the advent of agriculture. We conclude that it is possible to reach a credible reconstruction of the HTL without relying on a simple analogy with recent hunter-gatherers' diets. The memory of an adaptation to a trophic level that is embedded in modern humans' biology in the form of genetics, metabolism, and morphology is a fruitful line of investigation of past HTLs, whose potential we have only started to explore.

The utility of domestic dogs in assessing human morphological variation

Although distantly related to us, dogs are a highly variable cohabitating taxon that may provide clues relevant to hypotheses of human variation, evolution, and development. Here we first propose the utility of domestic dogs as a heuristic model for the study of human variation and evolution. Next we provide a case study of variation in a mandibular relationship previously suggested to distinguish Neanderthals from modern humans taxonomically. We show that for dogs varying greatly in size and form, this character (the relative heights of the condyle and coronoid process) does not produce useful group divisions. While this result cannot disprove the taxonomic value of this character for humans/hominids, it does indicate that caution is warranted in accepting it as genetically constrained. Similar explorations of other features of domestic dogs may prove fruitful in elucidating aspects of human variation and evolution not readily highlighted by primate and fossil hominid studies. Expected ranges of variation and degrees of plasticity are key questions to be investigated.