Homo erectus,

Lee R Berger, John Hawks, Darryl J de Ruiter, Steven E Churchill, Peter Schmid, Lucas K Delezene, Tracy L Kivell, Heather M Garvin, Scott A Williams, Jeremy M DeSilva, Matthew M Skinner, Charles M Musiba, Noel Cameron, Trenton W Holliday, William Harcourt-Smith, Rebecca R Ackermann, Markus Bastir, Barry Bogin, Debra Bolter, Juliet Brophy, Zachary D Cofran, Kimberly A Congdon, Andrew S Deane, Mana Dembo, Michelle Drapeau, Marina C Elliott, , Elen M Feuerriegel, Daniel Garcia-Martinez, David J Green, Alia Gurtov, Joel D Irish, Ashley Kruger, Myra F Laird, Damiano Marchi, Marc R Meyer, Shahed Nalla, Enquye W Negash, Caley M Orr, Davorka Radovcic, Lauren Schroeder, Jill E Scott, Zachary Throckmorton, Matthew W Tocheri, Caroline VanSickle, Christopher S Walker, Pianpian Wei & Bernhard Zipfel, 2015, Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, eLife e 09560 4, pp. 1-35: 27

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.7554/eLife.09560

persistent identifier


treatment provided by


scientific name

Homo erectus


Homo erectus 

Samples from Buia, Chemeron, Daka, Dmanisi, East and West Lake Turkana, Gona, Hexian, Konso, Mojokerto, Olduvai Gorge, Sangiran, Swartkrans, Trinil, and Zhoukoudian were included in this study. South African material is of special interest in this comparison because of the geographic proximity, and because of the difficulty of clearly identifying Homo  specimens within the large fossil sample from Swartkrans. In particular, the following specimens from Swartkrans are considered to represent H. erectus  : SK 15, SK 18a, SK 27, SK 43, SK 45, SK 68, SK 847, SK 878, SK 2635, SKW 3114, SKX 257/258, SKX 267/ 2671, SKX 268, SKX 269, SKX 334, SKX 339, SKX 610, SKX 1756, SKX 2354, SKX 2355, SKX 2356, and SKX 21204. It has been suggested (Grine et al., 1993, 1996) that SK 847 and Stw 53 might represent the same taxon, and that this taxon is a currently undiagnosed species of Homo  in South Africa. However, we agree with Clarke (1977; 2008) that SK 847 can be attributed to H. erectus  , and that Stw 53 cannot. Because there is no clear indication that more than one species of Homo  is represented in the Swartkrans sample, we consider all this material to belong to H. erectus  . We considered ‘ Homo ergaster  ’ (and also ‘ Homo  aff. erectus  ’ from Wood, 1991) to be synonyms of H. erectus  for this study; Turkana Basin specimens that are attributed to H. erectus  thus include KNM-ER 730, KNM-ER 820, KNM-ER 992, KNM- ER 1808, KNM-ER 3733, KNM-ER 3883, KNM-ER 42700, KNM-WT 15000. Olduvai specimens include OH 9, OH 12 and OH 28. Original fossil materials from Chemeron, Lake Turkana, Swartkrans, Trinil, and Dmanisi were examined first-hand by the authors, while the remainder were based on casts and published reports (Weidenreich, 1943; Wood, 1991; Anton´, 2003; Rightmire et al., 2006; Suwa et al., 2007).

A large number of postcranial specimens have been collected from the Turkana Basin and appear consistent with the anatomical range otherwise found in Homo  , and inconsistent with known samples of Australopithecus  and Paranthropus  from elsewhere. These include KNM-ER 1472, KNM-ER 1481, KNM- ER 3228, KNM-ER 737, and others. We may add other fossils from other sites lacking association with craniodental material, such as the partial BOU-VP 12/1 skeleton and even the Gona pelvis. These specimens attributable to Homo  but not necessarily to a particular species did inform our understanding of variability within the genus, but for the most part these specimens do not inform our differential diagnosis of H. naledi  relative to particular species. For example, the key element of femoral morphology of H. naledi  in contrast to other species is the presence of two well-defined mediolaterally running pillars in the femoral neck; the isolated specimens of early Homo  do not contradict this apparent autapomorphy. Likewise, no isolated specimens inform us about the humanlike aspects of foot morphology in H. naledi  . In these cases, the lack of associations for this evidence actually is less important than the lack of specimens that replicate the distinctive features of the H. naledi  morphology.