These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Metric and non-metric randomization methods, geographic variation, and the single-species hypothesis for Asian and African Homo erectus.
    Author: Villmoare B.
    Journal: J Hum Evol; 2005 Dec; 49(6):680-701. PubMed ID: 16202442.
    Abstract:
    This paper proposes a statistical test of the single-species hypothesis using non-metric characters as a complement to statistical tests using more traditional metric characters. The sample examined is that of Asian and African Homo erectus. The paleoanthropological community is divided on the taxonomic distinction of these fossils, with workers arguing both for and against the species-level distinction between Asian and African populations. Previous arguments have focused on patterns of apparent morphological differentiation between the African and Asian cranial samples. To assess this question, three tests were performed that compared the range of variation in the fossil sample to a single-species group with a similar geographic distribution; this comparative sample was composed of 221 modern humans from Africa and Asia. For the first test, 23 metric characters were analyzed on the fossil and comparative samples. Using resampling procedures, the variation for these characters was examined, recreating 1000 samples from the human analogs and comparing the CV distributions of these samples to the CVs of the fossil group. The second test used the metric data to calculate a Euclidean distance between the African and Asian fossil samples. This distance was compared to a distribution of Euclidean distances calculated between 1000 randomly selected samples of African and Asian modern humans. For the third test, a grading scale was created for ten non-metric characters that encompassed the total morphological variation found in the fossil and modern human samples. The Manhattan distance between the Asian and African fossil samples was calculated and compared to a distribution of distances calculated between 1000 randomly selected samples of African and Asian moderns. The first two tests, using the metric data, failed to falsify the null hypothesis. However, in the third test, using non-metric data, the total Manhattan distance for the fossil sample approached the 100th percentile of the resampled distances calculated from the moderns. The implications of the contrasting results are discussed.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]