Pedomorphism in the pre‐Bushman skull

Drennan, M. R.

doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330160214

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not the case in human females. A comparable argument must be made concerning the long debate by Bolk (1929), Drennan (1931), Keith (19491, Montagu (1962, 19811, and many others, including even Gould (1977), over neoteny as a process of differentiation among modern human populations or races. Features extracted from a compilation by Montagu (1962) and illustrative of the general failure to control for simple allometric effects of smaller body size include small face, small mastoid processes, small cranial sinuses, bulging forehead, relatively large brain, larger braincase, brachycephalism, lack of brow ridges, and greater gracility of bones.…”

Section: Size-related Shape Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous morphological attributes of this group have been characterized by anthropologists (e.g., Drennan, 1931;Dart, 1940;Tobias, 1957) as the result of neotenic paedomorphosis. To the extent that these morphologies are truly paedomorphic, and until it is clearly demonstrated otherwise, virtually all of them should be interpreted as the result of the small body size and reduced growth rates (i.e., rate hypomorphosis) that also characterize this group.…”

Section: 'Anthropometric Variables Are Height (Ht) Weight (Wt) Heigmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Heterochrony in human evolution: The case for neoteny reconsidered

Shea

1989

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

193

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the evidence for the claim that neoteny, or morphological juvenilization resulting from dissociation and retardation of ancestral rates of shape change, has played a key role in human evolution. Accepted categories and processes of heterochrony are reviewed, and the available data on human growth, variation, and evolution are analyzed in light of expected results. Relatively weak concordance with predictions is found. Mistakes of fact and interpretation fall into several categories, including 1) confusion of neoteny with paedomorphosis resulting from other heterochronic processes; 2) conflation of growth prolongation in time with morphological shape retardation; 3) failure to move beyond superficial shape similarities to underlying homologous growth processes and patterns; 4) failure to identify a paedomorphic basis for key anatomical novelties in human evolution; and 5) establishing an essentially untestable framework for analysis of the hypothesis. Key areas that might contribute new data to this debate are discussed, particularly the genetic and epigenetic control of the covariation of morphology and development during ontogeny and evolution. The primary reasons that arguments in favor of neoteny in human evolution have persisted probably relate to anthropocentric factors and the search for a single basis for the important morphological and behavioral transformations characterizing our lineage.The claim that neoteny has played a central role in human evolution has spawned one of the most persistent and vexing debates in physical anthropology over the past century. Treatments ranging from focused morphological investigations to major theoretical treatises have been produced, but little in the way of consensus and resolution has emerged. How, therefore, can we justify yet another review of this problem? I attempt such a justification along several lines. First, the volume of ink spilled over this topic is hardly evenly divided between pro and con-advocates outnumber detractors, at least in the published literature of the past several decades. I will argue here that there are numerous inconsistencies in these arguments that have never been pointed out, sufficiently stressed, or synthesized. Second, there is a considerable amount of new information germane to this issue that has been produced in the decade since the last major review of human neoteny, that by Gould (1977). Most of this information comes from outside the study of human evolution, but it is directly relevant to the question of human neoteny nonetheless. Finally, rather than simply attempting to offer a resolution or the "final word" on this topic, I will try to point out the areas of critical knowledge that are lacking and that would contribute to a better understanding of this and related issues. Because most previous authors have strongly and defensively 0 1989 Alan R. Liss, Inc. YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY[Vol. 32, 1989 advocated a particular view in this debate, there has been relatively little consideration...

show abstract

Section: Size-related Shape Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 'Anthropometric Variables Are Height (Ht) Weight (Wt) Heigmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterochrony in human evolution: The case for neoteny reconsidered

Shea

1989

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

193

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Facial depth is correlated with the ascending mandibular rami (DRENNAN, 1931), and all herbivores have high rami (P1LBEAM, 1972). Australopithecines are presumed herbivores with high rami and deep faces.…”

Section: Reconstruction Left Lateral Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstruction and re-evaluation of the skull ofHomo antiquus (hominoidea: Homininae) from Hadar

Ferguson

1987

Primates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bryantaspis Poraspidae Moy-Thomas 1940A (for Cryptaspis Bryant, 1934, preocc.) Bryantolepis Phlyctaenaspidae (for Bryantaspis Camp, Taylor, and Welles 1942, preocc., proposed Takai 1941B bainii Shapiro, M., 1943 bubulis palaeindicus Pilgrim 1939A brevicornis Young, C., 1939D 258 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF FOSSIL buckneri (Gnathobelodon, Gomphotherium) buczacziensis (Kujdanowiaspis, Phlyctaenaspis) budensis (Comubonisous) Budoroadina [Ovibovinil Bovidae Pilgrim 1939A (generic group of Caprinae) Buettneria Metoposauridae perfecta Sternberg, C. W. 1941 (Buettnaria); Bufo Bufonidae Taylor, E. 1942 arenarius Taylor, E. 1941C hibbardi Taylor Drennan 1931 Buteo Accipitridae fluviaticus Miller, A. and Sibley 1942A butovi (Gyroplacosteus) buwaldi (Braehycrus) buxtoni (Strepsiceros) Byssacanthidae (= Ceraspidae, = Ceratolepidae) Asterolepiformes caama (Alcelaphus) caballus (Equus) Cacops Dissorhophidae Nilsson, T. 1939 (of Metoposauroideae) cadlei (Leontocephalus) caelatum (Brachydegma) Caenagnathidae Caenagnathiformes Sternberg, R. M. 1940 (incl. Caenagnathus) Caenagnathus Caenagnathiformes Palaeognathae Sternberg, R. M. 1940 (of Neornithes, incl. Caenagnathidae); Wetmore 1940E Caenagnathus Caenagnathidae Sternberg, R. M. 1940 collinsi Abderitinae, Caenolestinae consols Scott 1940B cristatus Scott 1940B calverleyi (Dicynodon) Camarasauridae Sauropoda Omeisaurus Cambayella Bovidae Pilgrim 1939A watsoni Pilgrim 1939A Camelidae Tylopoda Friant 1939C (incl.…”

Section: Author Cataloguementioning

confidence: 99%