Diagnosing heterochronic perturbations in the craniofacial evolution of Homo (Neandertals and modern humans) and Pan (P. troglodytes and P. paniscus)

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511542565.012

12 - Diagnosing heterochronic perturbations in the craniofacial evolution of Homo (Neandertals and modern humans) and Pan (P. troglodytes and P. paniscus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 August 2009

L. R. Godfrey and

Edited by

G. E. Krovitz and

F. L. Williams: Affiliation:
Georgia State University
L. R. Godfrey: Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts
M. R. Sutherland: Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts
J. L. Thompson: Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
G. E. Krovitz: Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
A. J. Nelson: Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

A number of researchers have suggested that neoteny played an important role in the craniofacial evolution of the genus Homo and its close relatives (Abbie, 1947; Bolk, 1926; Brothwell, 1975; de Beer, 1958; Gould, 1977, 2000; Montagu, 1989; Privratsky, 1981; Verhulst, 1999). The same has also been suggested, at least in part, for the evolution of Pan paniscus (the “pygmy chimpanzee” or bonobo) (Rice, 1997; Shea, 1983, 1989, 2000, 2002; see also Coolidge, 1933). Comparisons of fossil as well as extant taxa have been brought to bear on the problem. Rozzi (2000) suggested that changes in molar morphology, from Australopithecus afarensis to the robust australopithecines, may be attributed to neoteny. Antón & Leigh (1998) held that neoteny helps to explain the evolution of craniofacial form from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens. Czarnetzki et al. (2001) invoked neoteny to explain the development of adult Neandertal traits. Finally, Alba et al. (2001) and Alba (2002) characterized the reduced canine size and facial prognathism in both bonobos and Oreopithecus as “paedomorphic,” and Shea (1984, 2000) characterized the “paedomorphic” facial skeletons of bonobos as “neotenic,” relative to a hypothetical Pan troglodytes-like ancestor.

The notion that modern humans and bonobos are neotenic has also come under severe criticism. Shea (1989) contested the neoteny hypothesis for human evolution (as did McKinney & McNamara, 1991 and McNamara, 2002) while upholding neoteny for bonobos. Godfrey & Sutherland (1995, 1996) challenged the evidence brought to bear on the arguments for and against neoteny in both humans and bonobos.

Type: Chapter
Information: Patterns of Growth and Development in the Genus Homo , pp. 295 - 319

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542565.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbie, A. A. (1947). Head form and human evolution. Journal of Anatomy, 81, 233–258Google Scholar

Alba, D. M. (2002). Shape and stage in heterochronic models. In Human Evolution through Developmental Change, eds. N. Minugh-Purvis and K. McNamara, pp. 28–50. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Alba, D. M., Moya-Solá, S., & Kohler, M. (2001). Canine reduction in the Miocene hominoid Oreopithecus bambolii: Behavioural and evolutionary implications. Journal of Human Evolution, 40, 1–16CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Alberch, P. (1985). Problems with the interpretation of heterochronic processes. Systematic Zoology, 34, 46–58CrossRef Google Scholar

Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., & Wake, D. B. (1979). Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology, 5, 296–317CrossRef Google Scholar

Antón, S., & and Leigh, S. (1998). Paedomorphosis and neoteny in human evolution. Journal of Human Evolution, 34, A2Google Scholar

Anemone, R. L., Mooney, M. P., & Siegel, M. I. (1996). Longitudinal study of dental development in chimpanzees of known chronological age: Implications for understanding the age at death of Plio-Pleistocene hominids. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 99, 119–1333.0.CO;2-W>CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bolk, L. (1926). On the problem of anthropogenesis. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, 29, 465–475Google Scholar

Brothwell, D. R. (1975). Adaptive growth rate changes as a possible explanation for the distinctiveness of Neanderthalers. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2, 161–163CrossRef Google Scholar

Coolidge, H. J. (1933). Pan paniscus: Pigmy chimpanzee from south of the Congo River. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 18, 1–59CrossRef Google Scholar

Czarnetzki, A., Gaudzinski, S., & Pusch, C. M. (2001). Hominid skull fragments from Late Pleistocene layers in Leine Valley (Sarstedt, District of Hildesheim, Germany). Journal of Human Evolution, 41, 133–140CrossRef Google Scholar

Dean, M. C., & Wood, B. A. (1981). Developing pongid dentition and its use for ageing individual crania in comparative cross-sectional growth studies. Folia Primatologica, 36, 111–127CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Dean, M. C., Leakey, M. G., Reid, D., Schrenk, F., Schwartz, G. T., Stringer, C., & Walker, A. (2001). Growth processes in teeth distinguish modern humans from Homo erectus and earlier hominids. Nature, 414, 628–631CrossRef Google Scholar

de Beer, G. R. (1958). Embryos and Ancestors. Oxford: Clarendon Press

de Bruin, R. (1993). A mathematical model applied to craniofacial growth. PhD dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

German, R. Z., & Myers, L. L. (1989a). The role of time and size in ontogenetic allometry. I: Review. Growth, Development and Aging, 53, 101–106Google Scholar

German, R. Z., & Myers, L. L. (1989b). The role of time and size in ontogenetic allometry. II: An empirical study of human growth. Growth, Development and Aging, 53, 107–115Google Scholar

Godfrey, L. R., & Sutherland, M. R. (1995). What's growth got to do with it? Process and product in the evolution of ontogeny. Journal of Human Evolution, 29, 405–431CrossRef Google Scholar

Godfrey, L. R., & Sutherland, M. R. (1996). Paradox of peramorphic paedomorphosis: Heterochrony and human evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 99, 17–42CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Godfrey, L. R., King, S. J., & Sutherland, M. R. (1998). Heterochronic approaches to the study of locomotion. In Primate Locomotion, eds. E. Strasser, J. Fleagle, A. Rosenberger, & H. M. McHenry, pp. 277–307. New York: Plenum PressCrossRef

Gould, S. J. (1977). Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge: Belknap Press

Gould, S. J. (2000). Of coiled oysters and big brains: How to rescue the terminology of heterochrony now gone astray. Evolution and Development, 2, 241–248CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hall, B. K. (2001). Foreword. In Beyond Heterochrony: The Evolution of Development, ed. M. L. Zelditch, pp. ⅶ–ⅸ. New York: John Wiley & SonsCrossRef

Hauspie, R. C. (1989). Mathematical models for the study of individual growth patterns. Revue d'Epidémiologie et Santé, 37, 461–476Google Scholar

Hauspie, R. C. (1998). The human growth curve. In Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Growth and Development, eds. S. J. Ulijaszek, F. E. Johnston, & M. A. Preece, pp. 108–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Klingenberg, C. P. (1998). Heterochrony and allometry: The analysis of evolutionary change in ontogeny. Biological Reviews, 72, 79–123CrossRef Google Scholar

Krovitz, G. E. (2000). Three-dimensional comparisons of craniofacial morphology and growth patterns in Neandertals and modern humans. PhD dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

Kuykendall, K. L., & Conroy, G. C. (1996). Permanent tooth calcification in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Patterns and polymorphisms. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 99, 159–1743.0.CO;2-W>CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Leigh, S. R., & Terranova, C. J. (1998). Comparative perspectives on bimaturism, ontogeny, and dimorphism in lemurid primates. International Journal of Primatology, 19, 723–749CrossRef Google Scholar

Lieberman, D. E., McBratney, B. M. & Krovitz, G. E. (2002). The evolution and development of cranial form in Homo sapiens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 99, 1134–1139CrossRef Google Scholar

McKinney, M. L. (1998). The juvenilized ape myth: Our “overdeveloped' brain. BioScience, 48, 109–123CrossRef Google Scholar

McKinney, M. L., & McNamara, K. J. (1991). Heterochrony: The Evolution of Ontogeny. New York: Plenum Press

McNamara, K. J. (2002). Sequential hypermorphosis: Stretching ontogeny to the limit. In Human Evolution through Developmental Change, eds. N. Minugh-Purvis & K. McNamara, pp. 102–121. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Minugh-Purvis, N. (1988). Patterns of craniofacial growth and development in Upper Pleistocene hominids. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

Minugh-Purvis, N. (2002). Heterochronic change in the neurocranium and the emergence of modern humans. In Human Evolution through Developmental Change, eds. N. Minugh-Purvis & K. McNamara, pp. 479–498. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Minugh-Purvis, N. & McNamara, K. J. (eds.) (2002). Human Evolution through Developmental Change. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Montagu, M. F. A. (1989). Growing Young, 2nd edn. Granby: Bergin & Garvey

Pilbeam, D. R. (2002). Perspectives on the Miocene Hominoidea. In The Primate Fossil Record, ed. W. C. Hartwig, pp. 303–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Ponce de León, M. S., & Zollikofer, C. P. E. (2001). Neanderthal cranial ontogeny and its implications for late hominid diversity. Nature, 412, 534–538CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Privratsky, V. (1981). Neoteny and its role in the process of hominization. Anthropologie, 19, 219–230Google Scholar

Rice, S. H. (1997). The analysis of ontogenetic trajectories: When a change in size or shape is not heterochrony. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 94, 907–912CrossRef Google Scholar

Rozzi, F. V. R. (2000). Heterochronic process in hominid evolution: The dental development in “robust' australopithecines. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris, 331, 571–577Google Scholar

Schultz, A. H. (1933). Chimpanzee fetuses. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 18, 61–80CrossRef Google Scholar

Shea, B. T. (1983). Paedomorphosis and neoteny in the pygmy chimpanzee. Science, 222, 521–522CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Shea, B. T. (1984). An allometric perspective on the morphological and evolutionary relationships between pygmy (Pan paniscus) and common (Pan troglodytes) chimpanzees. In The Pygmy Chimpanzee: Evolutionary Behavior and Biology, ed. R. Susman, pp. 89–130. New York: Plenum PressCrossRef

Shea, B. T. (1989). Heterochrony in human evolution: The case for neoteny reconsidered. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 32, 69–101CrossRef Google Scholar

Shea, B. T. (2000). Current issues in the investigation of evolution by heterochrony, with emphasis on the debate over human neoteny. In Biology, Brains and Behavior, eds. S. T. Parker, J. Langer, & M. L. McKinney, pp. 181–214. Sante Fe: School of American Research Press

Shea, B. T. (2002). Are some heterochronic transformations likelier than others? In Human Evolution through Developmental Change, eds. N. Minugh-Purvis & K. McNamara, pp. 79–101. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Smith, B. H. (1991). Dental development and the evolution of life history in Hominidae. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 86, 157–174CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, B. H., Crummett, T. L., & Brandt, K. L. (1994). Ages of eruption of primate teeth: A compendium for aging individuals and comparing life histories. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 37, 177–232CrossRef Google Scholar

Stringer, C. B., Dean, M. C., & Martin, R. (1990). A comparative study of cranial and facial development in a recent British population and Neandertals. In Primate Life History and Evolution, ed. C. J. DeRousseau, pp. 115–152. New York: Wiley-Liss

Tillier, A-m. (1989). The evolution of modern humans: Evidence from young Mousterian individuals. In The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, eds. P. Mellers & C. B. Stringer, pp. 286–297. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Ubelaker, D. H. (1978). Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis and Interpretation. Chicago: Aldine

Verhulst, J. (1999). Bolkian and bokian retardation in Homo sapiens. Acta Biotheoretica, 47, 7–28CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Weaver, D. S. (1986). Forensic aspects of fetal and neonatal specimens. In Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains, ed. K. J. Riechs, pp. 90–100. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas

Williams, F. L. (2001). Heterochronic perturbations in the craniofacial evolution of Homo (Neandertals and modern humans) and Pan (Pan troglodytes and P. paniscus). PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Williams, F. L., Godfrey, L. R., & Sutherland, M. R. (2001). Diagnosing heterochronic perturbations in the craniofacial evolution of Homo and Pan. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Suppl. 32, 165Google Scholar

Williams, F. L., Godfrey, L. R., & Sutherland, M. R. (2002). Heterochrony and the evolution of Neandertal and modern human craniofacial form. In Human Evolution through Developmental Change, eds. N. Minugh-Purvis & K. McNamara, pp. 405–441. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Winkler, L. A., Schwartz, J. H., & Swindler, D. R. (1996). Development of the orangutan permanent dentition: Assessing patterns and variation in tooth development. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 99, 205–2203.0.CO;2-R>CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wolpoff, M. H. (1979). The Krapina dental remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 50, 67–114CrossRef Google Scholar

Zelditch, M. L. (2001). Beyond Heterochrony: The Evolution of Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons