Static allometry of a small-bodied omnivore: body size and limb scaling of an island fox and inferences for Homo floresiensis

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.

Further analyses of the structural organization of Homo luzonensis teeth: Evolutionary implications

The species Homo luzonensis has recently been described based on a set of dental and postcranial elements found at Callao Cave (Northern Luzon, Philippines) and dated to at least 50-67 ka. Seven postcanine maxillary teeth are attributed to this taxon, five of them belonging to the same individual (CCH6) and representing the holotype of H. luzonensis, whereas the isolated upper premolar CCH8 and the upper third molar CCH9 are paratypes of the species. The teeth are characterized by their small dimensions associated with primitive features, as also found in Homo floresiensis, another hominin having evolved in an insular environment of Southeast Asia. Postcranial bones of the hands and feet of H. luzonensis and H. floresiensis show Homo habilis-like or australopith-like features, whereas cranial and dental morphology are more consistent with the Asian Homo erectus morphology. Due to this mosaic morphology, the origin and phylogenetic relationships of both H. luzonensis and H. floresiensis are still debated. To test the hypotheses that H. luzonensis derives from H. erectus or from an earlier small-brained hominin, we analyzed the µCT scans of the teeth. We investigated both external and internal tooth structure using morphometric methods including: crown outline shape, tooth crown tissue proportions, enamel-dentine junction shape, and pulp morphology. Homo luzonensis external crown morphology aligns more with H. erectus than with H. habilis/H. rudolfensis. The internal structural organization of H. luzonensis teeth exhibits more affinities with that of H. erectus and H. floresiensis than with Neanderthals and modern humans. Our results suggest that both H. floresiensis and H. luzonensis likely evolved from some H. erectus groups that dispersed in the various islands of this region and became isolated until endemic speciation events occurred at least twice during the Pleistocene in insular environments.