Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Morphological affinities of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Late Miocene hominid from Chad) cranium

Franck Guy, Daniel E. Lieberman, David Pilbeam, Marcia Ponce de León, Andossa Likius, Hassane T. Mackaye, Patrick Vignaud, Christoph Zollikofer, and Michel Brunet
PNAS December 27, 2005 102 (52) 18836-18841; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509564102
Franck Guy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel E. Lieberman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Pilbeam
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marcia Ponce de León
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andossa Likius
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hassane T. Mackaye
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick Vignaud
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christoph Zollikofer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michel Brunet
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Contributed by David Pilbeam, November 5, 2005

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The recent reconstruction of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis cranium (TM 266-01-60-1) provides an opportunity to examine in detail differences in cranial shape between this earliest-known hominid, African apes, and other hominid taxa. Here we compare the reconstruction of TM 266-01-60-1 with crania of African apes, humans, and several Pliocene hominids. The results not only confirm that TM 266-01-60-1 is a hominid but also reveal a unique mosaic of characters. The TM 266-01-60-1 reconstruction shares many primitive features with chimpanzees but overall is most similar to Australopithecus, particularly in the basicranium. However, TM 266-01-60-1 is distinctive in having the combination of a short subnasal region associated with a vertical upper face that projects substantially in front of the neurocranium. Further research is needed to determine the evolutionary relationships between Sahelanthropus and the known Miocene and Pliocene hominids.

  • geometric morphometric
  • 3D reconstruction
  • Homo
  • Australopithecus
  • African apes

Discoveries in Chad by the Mission Paleoanthropologique Franco-Tchadienne from the Late Miocene Toros-Menalla 266 fossiliferous locality (≈7 million years ago) have substantially added to our understanding of early human evolution in Africa (1–3). Among the material recovered is a nearly complete cranium (TM 266-01-60-1) assigned to a new hominid∥ species Sahelanthropus tchadensis (1). Despite its relative completeness, the TM 266-01-60-1 specimen exhibits partial distortion from fracturing, displacement, and plastic deformation. The hypothesis that TM 266-01-60-1 is an ape (4–6) has been once again refuted by the recent virtual reconstruction (2), which confirms the presence of many hominid features in S. tchadensis and indicates that it was likely some kind of biped. However, questions remain about the species' systematic relationship to extant apes, other known Late Miocene hominids, and later hominids from the Pliocene. Although we do not believe it yet possible to resolve reliably the phylogenetic position of S. tchadensis and other early hominids, a first step is to consider in what ways the TM 266-01-60-1 cranium shares primitive features with extant apes and derived features with various known hominids. Thus, we assess here the morphological similarities and differences of the reconstructed TM 266-01-60-1 cranium with ape and other hominid taxa by using geometric morphometric methods (7, 8) along with comparative quantitative data on variables that reflect key similarities and differences in hominid craniofacial morphology.

Our analysis uses the maximum number of three-dimensional landmarks we could reliably obtain from the reconstruction of TM 266-01-60-1 (2) (see Table 2, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). Landmark coordinates (26 facial, 11 neurocranial, and 15 basicranial) were acquired by using a Microscribe digitizer on a stereolithographic replica of the virtual reconstruction. The landmarks were also digitized on cross-sectional ontogenetic samples of Pan troglodytes (n = 40), Gorilla gorilla (n = 41), and Homo sapiens (n = 24) (see Table 3, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). In addition, we digitized as many of the same landmarks as possible on a sample of available relatively complete fossil hominid crania: the stereolithograhic replica of AL 444-2 (Australopithecus afarensis) (9); CT scans of Sts 5 and Sts 71 (Australopithecus africanus) and KNM-ER 1813 (Homo habilis); and a cast of OH 5 (Paranthropus boisei). Rigorously, it has to be noted that the restorations, reconstructions, and/or deformations associated with some fossil hominid crania (e.g., AL 444-2, OH5, and Sts 71) are potential sources of bias because the changes represent approximations, even if they are accurate, of the proper morphology.

To compare overall cranial shape in TM 266-01-60-1 with that of other taxa, we first performed a principal components analysis of shape by using the maximum shared set of 29 cranial landmarks (see Table 4, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site) for TM 266-01-60-1, the above fossil sample, and pooled-sex samples of adult P. troglodytes, G. gorilla, and H. sapiens crania following a generalized least squares (GLS) superimposition using morphologika software (10) (Fig. 1A ). The first principal component (PC1), which accounts for 78% of total variance, quantifies shape changes that primarily describe facial length and projection, the relative anteroposterior position of the foramen magnum and mandibular fossae, and the length and height of the cranial vault. This component discriminates humans, early hominids, and great apes, and it places TM 266-01-60-1 within the shape space occupied by the australopiths. Compared with Pan and Gorilla, TM 266-01-60-1 has a more vertical face with a relatively anteroposteriorly shorter rostrum, and a posterior cranial base** in a more anterior position. The second principal component (PC2), which explains only 5% of the variance, separates TM 266-01-60-1, AL 444-2 (A. afarensis), OH 5 (P. boisei), and Sts 5 (A. africanus) from other crania in the analysis. PC2 quantifies shape changes that primarily describe the midsagittal contour of the neurocranium and the relative height and projection of the upper face.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

S. tchadensis cranial reconstruction and comparative fossil hominid/African ape morphology. (A) PC1 (78% of variance) versus PC2 (5% of variance) of adult P. troglodytes (triangles), G. gorilla (circles), H. sapiens (squares), and various hominids including TM 266-01-60-1. The wire-framed crania (lateral view) indicate pattern and magnitude of shape change associated with PC1. Dotted symbols indicate females. (B) PC1 (74% of variance) vs. centroid size of cross-sectional ontogenetic samples of H. sapiens (squares), P. troglodytes (triangles), G. gorilla (circles), and various hominids including TM 266-01-60-1. Red symbols indicate adults, white symbols indicate subadults, orange symbols indicate juveniles, and green symbols indicate infants. The shaded areas encompass adult P. troglodytes and G. gorilla, with male adult G. gorilla in the area within the dashed line. For G. gorilla, the dashed line is the female reduced major axis regression; arrows indicate the reduced major axis regression line when males are included.

To quantify the allometric differences between TM 266-01-60-1 and other taxa, Fig. 1B graphs the first principal component of shape variation following a GLS superimposition of the same 29 landmark configurations against centroid size in an expanded sample that includes juvenile apes and humans (see Tables 3 and 4). The shape changes described by PC1, which explains 74% of the variance, are essentially the same as PC1 in Fig. 1 A . TM 266-01-60-1 falls within the same range of values on PC1 as the other adult hominids, but well above the ontogenetic allometries (calculated by reduced major axis regression) between size and shape for the African apes. This result suggests that, like other hominids, TM 266-01-60-1 is paedomorphic for PC1, primarily because of its shorter rostrum and its projected upper face relative to overall cranial size.

To explore further the key morphological similarities and differences between TM 266-01-60-1, African apes, and other hominid taxa for which sufficient data are available, we compared in lateral view the TM 266-01-60-1 reconstruction with G. gorilla (consensus adult), P. troglodytes (consensus adult), AL 444-2 (A. afarensis), Sts 5 (A. africanus), and KNM-ER 1813 (H. habilis). Each comparison, shown in Fig. 2, was computed by using a GLS superimposition of the maximum possible set of landmarks. In terms of cranial vault shape, TM 266-01-60-1 resembles P. troglodytes and G. gorilla in having a low, long superior contour of the neurocranium, particularly anterior to the apex of the vault. The nuchal plane in TM 266-01-60-1, however, is relatively long, flat, and rotated toward the horizontal as in A. africanus and A. afarensis (11). Relative facial height (from nasion to prosthion) in TM 266-01-60-1 is similar to that of AL 444-2 and Sts 5 (respectively, A. afarensis and A. africanus) and KNM-ER 1813 (H. habilis) but shorter than that in G. gorilla and P. troglodytes.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

GLS superimposition (left column), lateral view, of TM 266-01-60-1 with female adult consensus of G. gorilla (A), pooled-sex adult consensus P. troglodytes (B), AL 444-2 (A. afarensis)(C), Sts 5 (A. africanus)(D), and KNM-ER 1813 (H. habilis)(F). TM 266-01-60-1 configuration of landmarks is figured in red. Dots indicate location of main cranial landmarks deviations. Each comparison is associated to lateral view (right column) of G. gorilla (female) cranium (A), P. troglodytes cranium (B), AL 444-2 (A. afarensis)(C), Sts 5 (A. africanus)(D), virtual reconstruction of the TM 266-01-60-1 cranium (E), and KNM-ER 1813 (H. habilis) (F). Inferior and superior dashed line, respectively, correspond to alveolare–porion and nasion–porion; the solid line is alveolare–porion minus nasion–porion distance (see Table 1 for data on relative facial projection).

The GLS superimposition in Fig. 2 also suggests that TM 266-01-60-1 exhibits some possibly derived differences from crania of Australopithecus and African apes, notably in the upper face (including the orbital superstructures, glabella and nasion), which projects substantially in front of the neurocranium. Upper facial projection in the TM 266 cranium most likely accounts for its long and flat frontal squama and its elongated supraorbital torus (12, 13). In addition, the Sahelanthropus face has a relatively short premaxilla with no diastema and reduced subnasal prognathism compared not only to Pan and Gorilla but also to some cranial representatives of Australopithecus (e.g., AL 444-2). Subnasal prognathism, partly a function of premaxilla length, varies within Australopithecus (9, 14), but no known crania attributed to A. afarensis or A. africanus show evidence of the association of a shortened rostrum with a substantial projection of the upper face relative to neurocranium seen in TM 266-01-60-1. Aspects of the overall structure of the TM 266-01-60-1 face (i.e., projecting upper face and reduced subnasal prognathism) resemble the configuration seen in KNM-ER 1813 (H. habilis) (Fig. 2F ). However, further research is necessary to determine the structural bases of this apparent similarity. For instance, TM 266-01-60-1 contrasts with KNM-ER 1813 in its frontal squama morphology, which is flat, long and low, possibly because of its small endocranial capacity relative to the length and flexure of the cranial base (15). The TM 266 cranium also has a distinctive midfacial conformation with an anteroinferiorly sloping midfacial contour in the midsagittal plane (see ref. 2, Fig. 2).

To clarify the similarities and differences between the reconstructed S. tchadensis cranium and other hominid crania, Table 1 summarizes some of the features that TM 266-01-60-1 shares with African apes, and those it shares with a selected sample of several Pliocene hominid representatives (all of which are at least 3 million years younger). We currently lack sufficient data to compare the overall cranial morphology of TM 266-01-60-1 with specimens close in age such as Ardipithecus (16–19), and there are no cranial remains attributed to Orrorin (20).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Cranial features of S. tchadensis compared with African apes and representative hominids

Table 1 indicates that, as might be expected for a Late Miocene hominid (21), TM 266-01-60-1 shares many apparently primitive features with Pan and Gorilla, particularly in the palate andregions of the cranial vault other than the nuchal plane (e.g., Table 1, n, o, and w). TM 266-01-60-1 also has an estimated endocranial volume of 360–370 ml (2), which is the smallest yet documented for an adult hominid but within the chimpanzee range (22).

The TM 266-01-60-1 reconstruction exhibits several widely recognized hominid synapomorphies, including a long, flat nuchal plane that is more horizontally oriented than in African apes (contra ref. 4); a shortened basioccipital; and a more anteriorly positioned foramen magnum (1) (e.g., Table 1, t, x, and y). In addition, as discussed in Brunet et al. (1, 6, 30), the dentition of TM 266-01-60-1 and referred specimens resembles those of Ardipithecus and later hominids compared with Pan in several respects such as reduced canines, a C/P3 nonhoning complex, and postcanine teeth with thicker enamel. TM 266-01-60-1 also shares several derived cranial features with later hominids, especially in the posterior cranial vault and the cranial base (e.g., Table 1, r, s, t, v, and z). However, as noted above, some aspects of the overall facial structure of TM 266-01-60-1 are unlike those of any known published Australopithecus, including AL 444-2 (A. afarensis). Several of these features, such as subnasal height, palatal protrusion, and relative upper facial projection (Table 1, b, c, and j), may be derived differently than those in Australopithecus. Others are probably either primitive or convergent with Homo. For example, the upper and middle portions of the face in TM 266-01-60-1 are similar in width, as in Pan and Homo, but unlike the hexagonal-shaped configuration in Australopithecus, in which the midface is wider than the upper face because of masticatory-related expansion of the zygomatic region (Table 1, k) (9).

The mosaic of primitive and derived features in TM 266-01-60-1 poses some interesting questions about early hominid systematics. A preliminary study, derived from the three-dimensional cranial shape data (31), suggests that S. tchadensis groups phenetically with later hominids rather than Pan but is not overall more similar to any other, more derived hominid species (Fig. 3). This affinity stems from the many basicranial and neurocranial similarities discussed above and is supported by previous results derived from more classical data (32). However, further research is needed to determine the evolutionary relationship between Sahelanthropus and known Miocene and Pliocene hominids. First, we currently lack sufficient cranial data to include other key taxa such as Ardipthecus (16–19), Orrorin (20), and Australopithecus bahrelghazali (3) in a comprehensive analysis. Second, we do not yet understand the developmental bases of most cranial features that allow us to define independent characters known to be phylogenetically informative (33–36), and it has sometimes proven difficult to derive robust, reliable phylogenetic relationships from morphological data (31, 32). As suggested above, a reasonable possibility is that Sahelanthropus is part of a clade of primitive hominids that is ancestral to all later genera, including Australopithecus and Homo. Other members of this clade potentially include Ardipithecus and Orrorin, but further research is necessary to test the hypothesis. Derived features that support this phylogenetic hypothesis include the many basicranial and neurocranial similarities between TM 266-01-60-1 and Australopithecus (see Table 1, r–t, v, and x–z), along with the additional derived features of the vault, palate, and expanded brain shared exclusively by Australopithecus and Homo (see Table 1, d, n, o, w, and ecv).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Phenetic analysis of affinities between S. tchadensis (TM 266-01-60-1), living apes, and representative hominids generated from three-dimensional cranial shape data. Raw data consist of Euclidean distances calculated from Procrustes coordinates of each taxon in the overall generalized Procrustes analysis. Mean Procrustes coordinates have been used for G. gorilla (pooled sex), P. troglodytes (pooled sex), H. sapiens (pooled sex), and A. africanus (Sts 5 and Sts 71). Taxa were clustered by using the neighbor-joining method (31).

However, the picture is more complicated and less easy to resolve. Critical answers will probably come from detailed study of the upper Miocene hominids biogeography. Hence, although Ardipithecus and Orrorin are both known from eastern Africa (respectively, Ethiopia and Kenya), Sahelanthropus is known from central Africa (Chad), 2,500 km west of the Rift Valley. This pattern raises intriguing questions about hominid phylogeny with, for instance, potamophile mammals (Anthracotheriid and Hippopotamid) attesting, around 7 million years ago, to faunal exchanges between Libya and Chad but not with eastern Africa (37).

Although Sahelanthropus tchadensis is clearly a hominid, its complex mosaic of features poses some interesting systematic questions about early hominid evolution that can be resolved only with more data of four types. First, more information is needed to compare Orrorin, Ardipithecus, and Sahelanthropus in detail. Second, additional hominid fossil material is needed from Late Miocene deposits in different parts of Africa. Third, we need a better understanding of the developmental and functional bases of cranial morphology that are necessary to hypothesize phylogenetically informative characters. Fourth, we particularly need a better understanding of the vertebrate and hominid biogeographical relationships through Africa during the upper Miocene.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to many colleagues for their help and access to comparative data, as well as for helpful comments, especially from W. Kimbel, M. Leakey, E. Mbua, Y. Rak, F. Spoor, and T. White. We thank M. Harman (Powell-Cotton Museum, Birchington, U.K.) and M. Morgan (Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA) for their help. We also thank all of the Mission Paleoanthropologique Franco-Tchadienne members, and S. Riffaut, X. Valentin, G. Florent, and C. Noël for technical support and administrative guidance. For support we thank the Chadian Authorities (Ministère de l'Education Nationale de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Université de N′Djamena, Centre National d'Appuià la Recherche), the Ministère Français de l'Education Nationale (Faculté des Sciences, Université de Poitiers), the Ministère de la Recherche (Départment Sciences de la Vie and Environments et Climats du Passé: Histoire et Evolution, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), the Ministère des Affaires Etrangères e (Direction de la Coopération Scientifique et Universitaire, Paris, and Service de Coopération et d'Action Culturelle, N′Djamena), the Région Poitou-Charentes, the National Science Foundation/Revealing Hominid Origins Initiative (co-principal investigators F. C. Howell and T. D. White), the American School of Prehistoric Research (Harvard University), and the Armée Française (Mission d'Assistance Militaire and Epervier) for logistical support.

Footnotes

  • ↵ ‡ To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: pilbeam{at}fas.harvard.edu or michel.brunet{at}univ-poitiers.fr.

  • Author contributions: F.G., D.E.L., D.P., and M.B. designed research; F.G. performed research; F.G., D.E.L., M.P.d.L., A.L., H.T.M., P.V., and C.Z. analyzed data; and F.G. wrote the paper.

  • Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.

  • Abbreviations: GLS, generalized least squares; PC1 and PC2, first and second principal components.

  • ↵ ∥ The term hominid is used here for convenience to denote all taxa that are closer to humans than chimpanzees and does not connote any taxonomic scheme; similarly, australopithecine is used as a generic term sensu lato to refer to all Pliocene hominid taxa that do not belong to the genera Ardipithecus and Homo.

  • ↵ ** Posterior cranial base is defined as the portion of the cranial base posterior to the division between pre- and postchordal portions of the sphenoid.

  • Copyright © 2005, The National Academy of Sciences
View Abstract

References

  1. ↵
    Brunet, M., Guy, F., Pilbeam, D., Mackaye, H. T., Likius, A., Ahounta, D., Beauvilain, A., Blondel, C., Bocherens, H., Boisserie, J.-R., et al. (2002) Nature 418, 145–151. pmid:12110880
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Zollikofer, C. P. E., Ponce de León, M. S., Lieberman, D. E., Guy, F., Pilbeam, D., Likius, A., Mackaye, H. T., Vignaud, P. & Brunet, M. (2005) Nature 434 , 754–759.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    Brunet, M., Beauvillain, A., Coppens, Y., Heintz, E., Moutaye, A. H. E. & Pilbeam, D. (1995) Nature 378 , 273–274. pmid:7477344
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Wolpoff, M. H., Senut, B., Pickford, M. & Hawks, J. (2002) Nature 419 , 581–582. pmid:12374970
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. Senut, B. (2004) in Miscelanea en Homenaje a Emiliano Aguirre, eds. Baquedano, E. & Rubio, S. (Museo Arqueológico de la Comunidad de Madrid, Madrid), Vol. 3.
  6. ↵
    Brunet, M. (2002) Nature 419 , 582.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    Bookstein, F. L. (1991) Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology (Cambridge Univ. Press, London).
  8. ↵
    Dryden, I. L. & Mardia, K. V. (1998) Statistical Shape Analysis (Wiley, Chichester, U.K.).
  9. ↵
    Kimbel, W. H., Rak, Y. & Johanson, D. C. (2004) The Skull of Australopithecus afarensis (Oxford Univ. Press, New York).
  10. ↵
    O'Higgins, P. & Jones, N. (1999) morphologika: Tools for Shape Analysis (University College, London), available at www.york.ac.uk/res/fme/resources/software.htm.
  11. ↵
    Kimbel, W. H., White, T. D. & Johanson, D. C. (1984) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 64 , 337–388. pmid:6435455
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Bilsborough, A. & Wood, B. A. (1988) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 76 , 61–86. pmid:3136656
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Lieberman, D. E. (2000) in Development, Growth and Evolution: Implications for the Study of Hominid Skeletal Evolution, eds. O'Higgins, P. & Cohn, M. (Academic, London), pp. 85–122.
  14. ↵
    Kimbel, W. H., Johanson, D. C. & Coppens, Y. (1982) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 57 , 453–499.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    Lieberman, D. E., Ross, C. F. & Ravosa, M. J. (2000) Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 31 , 117–169.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    White, T. D., Suwa, G. & Asfaw, B. (1994) Nature 371 , 306–312. pmid:8090200
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. White, T. D., Suwa, G. & Asfaw, B. (1995) Nature 375 , 88. pmid:7677838
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. Haile-Selassie, Y. (2001) Nature 412 , 178–181. pmid:11449272
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Haile-Selassie, Y., Suwa, G. & White, T. D. (2004) Science 303 , 1503–1505. pmid:15001775
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Senut, B., Pickford, M., Gommery, D., Mein, P. & Cheboi, K. (2001) C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 332 , 137–144.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    Pilbeam, D. (1996) Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 5 , 155–168. pmid:8673283
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Tobias, P. V. (1971) The Brain in Hominid Evolution (Columbia Univ. Press, New York).
  23. Kimbel, W. H., Johanson, D. C. & Rak, Y. (1997) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 103 , 235–262. pmid:9209580
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. Asfaw, B. (1999) Science 284 , 629–635. pmid:10213683
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. Dean, M. C. & Wood, B. A. (1981) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 54 , 63–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. Kappelman, J. (1996) J. Hum. Evol. 30 , 243–276.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. De Miguel, C. & Henneberg, M. (2001) Homo 52 , 2–56.
    OpenUrl
  28. Conroy, G. C., Weber, G. W., Seidler, H., Tobias, P. V., Kane, A. & Brundsen, B. (1998) Science 280 , 1730–1731. pmid:9624045
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. Elton, S. (2001) J. Hum. Evol. 41 , 1–27. pmid:11414771
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Brunet, M., Guy, F., Pilbeam, D., Lieberman, D. E., Likius, A., Mackaye, H. T., Ponce de León, M. S., Zollikofer, C. P. E. & Vignaud, P. (2005) Nature 434 , 752–754. pmid:15815627
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Lockwood, C. A., Kimbel, W. H. & Lynch, J. M. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101 , 4356–4360. pmid:15070722
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    Strait, D. S & Grine, F. E. (2004) J. Hum. Evol. 47 , 399–452. pmid:15566946
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Lieberman, D. E., Pilbeam, D. R. & Wood, B. A. (1996) J. Hum. Evol. 30, 97–120.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. Collard, M. & Wood, B. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97 , 5003–5006. pmid:10781112
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. Lieberman, D. E. (1999) Evol. Anthropol. 7 , 142–151.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. ↵
    McCollum, M. A. (1999) Science 284 , 301–305. pmid:10195892
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    Vignaud, P., Duringer, P., Mackaye, H. T., Likius, A., Blondel, C., Boisserie, J.-R., de Bonis, L., Eisenmann, V., Geraads, D., Guy, F., et al. (2002) Nature 418, 152–155. pmid:12110881
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Morphological affinities of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Late Miocene hominid from Chad) cranium
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Morphological affinities of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Late Miocene hominid from Chad) cranium
Franck Guy, Daniel E. Lieberman, David Pilbeam, Marcia Ponce de León, Andossa Likius, Hassane T. Mackaye, Patrick Vignaud, Christoph Zollikofer, Michel Brunet
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2005, 102 (52) 18836-18841; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0509564102

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Morphological affinities of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Late Miocene hominid from Chad) cranium
Franck Guy, Daniel E. Lieberman, David Pilbeam, Marcia Ponce de León, Andossa Likius, Hassane T. Mackaye, Patrick Vignaud, Christoph Zollikofer, Michel Brunet
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2005, 102 (52) 18836-18841; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0509564102
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: 102 (52)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Anthropology

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Scientist looking at an electronic tablet
Opinion: Standardizing gene product nomenclature—a call to action
Biomedical communities and journals need to standardize nomenclature of gene products to enhance accuracy in scientific and public communication.
Image credit: Shutterstock/greenbutterfly.
One red and one yellow modeled protein structures
Journal Club: Study reveals evolutionary origins of fold-switching protein
Shapeshifting designs could have wide-ranging pharmaceutical and biomedical applications in coming years.
Image credit: Acacia Dishman/Medical College of Wisconsin.
White and blue bird
Hazards of ozone pollution to birds
Amanda Rodewald, Ivan Rudik, and Catherine Kling talk about the hazards of ozone pollution to birds.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490