The plot to kill Homo habilis

<p>To make the case that the Olduvai Gorge&nbsp;<em>habilis</em>&nbsp;fossils belonged in&nbsp;<em>Homo</em>, Leakey, Tobias, and Napier had focused on the teeth and jaws, a bit more&nbsp;<em>erectus</em>-like than the more primitive&nbsp;<em>Australopithecus africanus.&nbsp;</em>They had partial skulls as well, and although the brain sizes were smaller than any&nbsp;<em>erectus</em>&nbsp;skull then known, they seemed a bit bigger than the small-brained&nbsp;<em>africanus</em>. With a partial hand skeleton and stone tools nearby, they had enough for the textbooks to enshrine it as ancestor:&nbsp;<em>habilis</em>&nbsp;begat&nbsp;<em>erectus</em>&nbsp;which begat&nbsp;<em>sapiens</em>.</p> <p>But by the 1990s, anthropologists couldn&rsquo;t ignore the small size of supposed&nbsp;<em>habilis</em>&nbsp;body fragments &mdash; especially the fragmented but clearly tiny OH 62 skeleton discovered by Tim White and Donald Johanson at Olduvai in 1986. Around the same time, Bernard Wood began to argue that the largest and most complete skull attributed to&nbsp;<em>habilis</em>, the KNM-ER 1470 skull from Koobi Fora, Kenya, should really belong to a different species entirely,&nbsp;<em>Homo rudolfensis</em>. In light of these changes, many scientists began to revisit the old idea that&nbsp;<em>habilis</em>&nbsp;might not be so different from&nbsp;<em>Australopithecus</em>&nbsp;after all.</p> <p><a href="https://medium.johnhawks.net/the-plot-to-kill-homo-habilis-94a33bee2adf"><strong>Read More</strong></a></p>
Tags: Homo habilis