Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa
Author
Lee R Berger
Author
John Hawks
Author
Darryl J de Ruiter
Author
Steven E Churchill
Author
Peter Schmid
Author
Lucas K Delezene
Author
Tracy L Kivell
Author
Heather M Garvin
Author
Scott A Williams
Author
Jeremy M DeSilva
Author
Matthew M Skinner
Author
Charles M Musiba
Author
Noel Cameron
Author
Trenton W Holliday
Author
William Harcourt-Smith
Author
Rebecca R Ackermann
Author
Markus Bastir
Author
Barry Bogin
Author
Debra Bolter
Author
Juliet Brophy
Author
Zachary D Cofran
Author
Kimberly A Congdon
Author
Andrew S Deane
Author
Mana Dembo
Author
Michelle Drapeau
Author
Marina C Elliott
Author
, Elen M Feuerriegel
Author
Daniel Garcia-Martinez
Author
David J Green
Author
Alia Gurtov
Author
Joel D Irish
Author
Ashley Kruger
Author
Myra F Laird
Author
Damiano Marchi
Author
Marc R Meyer
Author
Shahed Nalla
Author
Enquye W Negash
Author
Caley M Orr
Author
Davorka Radovcic
Author
Lauren Schroeder
Author
Jill E Scott
Author
Zachary Throckmorton
Author
Matthew W Tocheri
Author
Caroline VanSickle
Author
Christopher S Walker
Author
Pianpian Wei
Author
Bernhard Zipfel
text
eLife e 09560
2015
4
1
35
journal article
10.7554/eLife.09560
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.