Fossil Hominid Specimens

ARA-VP-6/500
“Ardi”

Classification
Ardipithecus ramidus
Homo ramidus & Homo ramidus ramidus

AL 288-1
“Lucy”

Classification
Australopithecus afarensis
Præanthropus afarensis
Homo afarensis or Homo africanus afarensis

Taung 1
“The Taung Child”

Classification
Australopithecus africanus
Homo africanus & Homo africanus africanus

Sts 5
“Mrs. Ples”

Classification
Australopithecus africanus
Homo africanus & Homo africanus africanus

Stw 431

Classification
Australopithecus africanus
Homo africanus & Homo africanus africanus

BOU-VP-11/1
BOU-VP-12/1

Bouri skeleton, BOU-VP 12/1

“The humerofemoral index of BOU-VP-12/1 differs significantly from both OH 62 and AL 288-1, but not from KNM-WT 15000. Published length estimates, if correct, suggest that the relative forearm length of BOU-VP-12/1 is unique among hominins, exceeding those of the African apes and resembling the proportions in Pongo.”
J Hum Evol. 2002 Oct;43(4):529-48.
Early hominin limb proportions.
Richmond BG1, Aiello LC, Wood BA.
(Richmond et al., 2002)

OH 62
“Dik-dik hominid”

“Although the difference in humerofemoral proportions between OH 62 and AL 288-1 does not exceed variation in the extant samples, it is rare. When humerofemoral midshaft circumferences are compared, the difference between OH 62 and AL 288-1 is fairly common in extant species. This, in combination with error associated with the limb lengths estimates, suggests that it may be premature to consider H. (or Australopithecus) habilis as having more apelike limb proportions than those in A. afarensis.”
J Hum Evol. 2002 Oct;43(4):529-48.
Early hominin limb proportions.
Richmond BG1, Aiello LC, Wood BA.
(Richmond et al., 2002)

“The humerus and femur of the fossil hominid OH 62 are badly damaged and their lengths are not directly measurable (Johanson et al., 1987). Nevertheless, using relatively intact reference materials from another early hominid, AL 288-1, Johanson et al. (1987) reconstructed the bones to estimate the humerofemoral index, which falls well above the range for modern Homo, above the estimate for AL 288-1, and within the range for Pan paniscus. The reconstruction of missing bone by the method originally employed for OH 62 is broadly reproducible in a representative modern sample of Homo, making possible the estimation of an associated error term intrinsic to this method. Using the approximate variance of the ratio mean (Kish, 1965), shown here to be a good estimator of the sample variance of the humerofemoral index, the analysis of this modern sample extrapolated to other living hominoids gives quite acceptable results. Applied to OH 62, it suggests an error term associated with the estimated humerofemoral index so substantial that it is only possible to situate the index somewhere between the distributions for Homo and Gorilla, and quite possibly not above the index for AL 288-1. On the other hand, the predicted distribution for the humerofemoral index of AL 288-1 is more securely placed between the distributions for Homo and Pan paniscus.”
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1990 Sep;83(1):25-33.
Deconstructing reconstruction: the OH 62 humerofemoral index.
Korey KA1.
(Korey, 1990)