Lucy's length: Stature reconstruction in Australopithecus afarensis (A.L.288–1) with implications for other small‐bodied hominids

Abstract

New stature estimates are provided for A.L.288-1 (Australopithecus afarensis) based on (1) the relationship between femur length and stature in separate samples of human pygmies and pygmy chimpanzees and (2) model II regression alternatives to standard least-squares methods. Estimates from the two samples are very similar and converge on a value of approximately 3'6" for "Lucy." These results are compared to prior estimates and extended to other small-bodied hominids such as STS-14 and O.H.62. A new foot-to-stature ratio is also estimated for A.L.288-1, and its potential biomechanical significance for gait is evaluated in comparison to other groups.

Patterns of size sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis: Another look

“…Several methods have been proposed to estimate the degree of sexual dimorphism in samples of unknown sex, from relatively simple methods using range, mean/ median, or coefficient of variation (Arsuaga et al, 1997;Fleagle et al, 1980;Johanson and White, 1979;Jungers, 1988a;Kay, 1982a;Kimbel and White, 1988;Leutenegger and Shell, 1987;Lockwood et al, 1996;McHenry, 1986McHenry, , 1991Plavcan and van Schaik, 1994;Richmond and Jungers, 1995;Wood, 1976;Zihlman, 1985), to more complex methods (Bennett, 1981;Josephson et al, 1996). These methods have been shown to have various levels of precision and accuracy, with simple methods performing as well as, if not better than, more complex methods (Cope and Lacy, 1995;Godfrey et al, 1993;Plavcan, 1994).…”

The evolution of body size and shape in the human career

“…Stature reconstruction is no less complicated that body mass estimation [9,11]. We rely here on stature estimates derived from calibrations using femoral lengths in human pygmies [9,55,56]; this small-bodied reference sample is preferred here for the same reasons discussed with respect to our preferred body mass regressions. We limit our comparisons with eight fossils: A.L.288-1, LB1, A.L.827-1, D4167/3901, KNM-ER 15000, KNM-ER 1481, KNM-ER 1472 and H. naledi (table 2).…”

The role of plantigrady and heel-strike in the mechanics and energetics of human walking with implications for the evolution of the human foot

“…1) and hip excursion data collected here, it is possible to predict how increased foot length would have altered L′ in these early bipeds. Based on fossil limb lengths and estimates of foot length (Jungers, 1988;Sellers et al, 2005;Wang et al, 2004), A. afarensis (AL 288-1) had an L′ of ≈0.725 m when using HS gaits, an increase of ≈40.4% from L for this species (≈0.516 m). In our sample of modern humans, calculations of L′ increased effective limb length by 32.6±3.3% compared with L. Thus, the relatively long feet of A. afarensis led to a greater increase in L′ compared with modern humans.…”