The History of Our Tribe Hominini Textbook Part IV Pleistocene Epoch Chapter 24 Homo rudolfensis

24 . Homo Homo ( human I from Lake Rudolf ) SITES Fora , Kenya Beds , possibly Gorge , PEOPLE Richard and , Bernard Figure Home 1470 from Fem , Kenya . Homo , by is licensed under . 153 INTRODUCTION The second species of Early Homo to be discovered is now known as Homo , since it was ered at the site of Fora on the east side of Lake , which was formerly known as Lake Rudolf . PHYLOGENY Homo may be a descendent of . Those who favor that scenario would either assign to genus or move into genus Homo . There are proponents on both sides of the argument as to whether habilis or gave rise to the earliest member of the erectus grade , Homo in Africa , and its four descendent species erectus in Asia , in Western Europe , in the Republic of Georgia , and on the island of Flores . DISCOVERY AND GEOGRAPHIC RANGE The majority of Homo material comes from the Fora site where Richard discovered the type specimen , see Figure ) Kenya National Museum East Rudolf ) as well as material . Material has also been recovered from the Beds of , and there is possible material at Gorge . Thus , the species ranged from northern Kenya down through and into , along the corridor . originally called the material Homo . indeterminate ) because he did not know in what , if any , group to include it . The use of species began to gain in popularity as researchers came to they were dealing with two distinct species . For a while , some were content with the two species being geographic species , habilis at and at Fora . However , material was discovered at Fora ( 1813 ) and some material at resembled . The two species went through a tumultuous period when the species names were abandoned by some , in favor of Early However , critics complained that it had become a wastebasket species . During that time , visited , and I had the opportunity to chat with him about the taxonomic . He was frustrated with the state of things and wished that would work out exactly what characterized the two species . Over time , have seemingly become more comfortable with the designation for the majority of fossils from Gorge , even if some of them genus . The same is true for the type specimen , 1470 , as . PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS to , was larger and more robust , with a heavier face and jaws and larger dentition . Their faces were long , and the lower face was thought to be somewhat orthognathic based on the type specimen , 1470 . New material discovered at Fora was thought to support the facial morphology of and elucidate heretofore unknown aspects of the face and jaw . et al . 2008 ) have conducted architectural constraints analyses demonstrating that the degree of orthognathism would be impossible . The molars were large with complex crowns and thick enamel like other contemporary and descendant species , but they were mesiodistally long and more primitive than . The brain averaged 751 , but their quotient may have only , versus the range estimated for habilis . As mentioned , it is not known for certain that any of the material that some researchers assign to the species is justified . If the material belongs in the , the following can be stated about the species their innominate , femur ( larger head , shorter neck , and robust shaft ) and limb proportions were more modern , with longer legs and shorter arms , and the femoral robusticity corresponds to increased strain generated by a wider pelvic aperture . 154 The History of Our Tribe

Review of Primitive Characteristics Robust characteristics . Primitive temporal region . Long molars ( mesiodistally ) Review of Derived Characteristics Long orthognathic face ?

Large brain limb proportions , innominate , and femora ?

ENVIRONMENT AND WAY OF LIFE While their environment did not differ from that of habilis , they may have been able to process tougher food items with their more robust masticatory apparatus . While tools are known from the time period and geographic region occupied by the species , tools have not been found in association with fossil material . It is possible that the more gracile masticatory apparatus of habilis could have resulted from tool use in activities and relaxed selection for robust features . 24 . Home 155