International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 7, pp 975–980 | Cite as

The genital prolapse of Australopithecus Lucy?

  • Gautier CheneEmail author
  • Gery Lamblin
  • Karine Lebail-Carval
  • Philippe Chabert
  • Pierre Marès
  • Yves Coppens
  • Georges Mellier
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

The female bony pelvis has to fulfil opposing functions: it has to be sufficiently closed to support the pelvic viscera in the upright position, while remaining sufficiently open to allow vaginal delivery. We aim to give an evolutionary perspective and the possible evolution of the bony pelvis from Lucy to the modern female with the implications in terms of genital prolapse.


Thirteen pelvimetric measurements were performed on 178 bony pelves: 1 fossil pelvis from Australopithecus Lucy, 128 female Caucasian modern adult pelves and 49 female Catarrhine pelves (29 gorillas and 20 chimpanzees).


Lucy’s pelvis shape was the most transversely oval, short and broad, termed platypelloid. Modern female pelves were transversely oval only at the inlet. A protruding ischial spine, fairly small ischial tuberosities and a sacral concavity made Lucy closer to Homo sapiens and less like the great apes. In the last group, pelvic planes were anteroposteriorly oval, except in the gorilla, where the outlet was round or slightly transversely oval. The subpubic angle was narrowest in Lucy, whereas it was greater than 90° in the great apes.


The female pelvis is involved in both visceral support and parturition and represents a compromise. The narrower pelvis of Australopithecus Lucy provided protection against genital prolapse, but resulted in complex obstetrical mechanics. From an evolutionary perspective, the pelvis of Homo sapiens became modified to make parturition easier, but increased the risk of genital prolapse: the ilia became wide open laterally and the sacrum broadened with a shorter distance between the sacroiliac and coxofemoral joints.


Pelvis Anthropology Evolution Lucy Australopithecus afarensis Genital prolapse Pelvic floor 



We’d like to thank: Dr Anne-Sylvie Tardieu for data collection and Dr Stéphanie Moret for statistical analysis; Dr Alain Froment, Mr Philippe Mennecier and Mrs Véronique Laborde, Collections-Anthropology of the French National History Museum (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle-Musée de l’Homme), Paris; Mrs Christine Lefèvre and Mrs Aurélie Fort of the Comparative Anatomy Laboratory of the French National History Museum, Paris; Dr Amélie Vialet and Mrs Stéphanie Renault, Human Paleontology Institute, Fondation Albert Ier de Monaco, Paris.

Conflicts of interest


Disclosure of funding



  1. 1.
    Schimpf M, Tulikangas P (2005) Evolution of the female pelvis and relationships to pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 16:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sze EHM, Kohli N, Miklos JR, Roat T, Karram MM (1999) Computed tomography comparison of bony pelvis dimensions between women with and without genital prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 93:229–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baragi RV, DeLancey JOL, Caspari R, Howard DH, Ashton-Miller JA (2002) Differences in pelvic floor area between African American and European American Women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:111–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tague RG, Lovejoy CO (1986) The obstetric pelvis of A.L. 288–1 (Lucy). J Hum Evol 15:237–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chene G, Tardieu AS, Trombert B, Amouzougan A, Lamblin G, Mellier G, Coppens Y (2014) A species’ odyssey: evolution of obstetrical mechanics from Australopithecus Lucy to nowadays. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Med 181C:316–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Häusler M, Schmid P (1995) Comparisons of the pelves of Sts 14 and AL 288–1: implications for birth and sexual dimorphism in Australopithecines. J Hum Evol 29:363–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tague RG, Lovejoy CO (1998) AL 288--1—Lucy or Lucifer: gender confusion in the Pliocene. J Hum Evol 35:75–94Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouhallier J, Berge C, Penin X (2004) Procustes analysis of the pelvic cavity in Australopithecines (AL 288, Sts 14), humans and chimpanzees: obstetrical consequences. C R Palevol 3:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abitbol MM (1988) Evolution of the ischial spine and of the pelvic floor in the Hominoidea. Am J Phys Anthropol 75:53–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fossey D (2001) Gorillas in the mist. New Ed, PhoenixGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oelrich TM (1978) Pelvic and perineal anatomy of the male gorilla: selected observations. Anat Rec 191:433–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berge C, Goularas D (2010) A new reconstruction of Sts 14 pelvis (Australopithecus africanus) from computed tomography and three-dimensional modeling techniques. J Hum Evol 58:262–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abitbol MM (1987) Evolution of the lumbosacral angle. Am J Phys Anthropol 72:361–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nguyen JK, Lind LR, Choe JY, McKindsey F, Sinow R, Bhatia NN (2000) Lumbosacral spine and pelvic inlet changes associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 95:332–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mattox TF, Lucente V, McIntyre P, Miklos JR, Tomezsko J (2000) Abnormal spinal curvature and its relationship to pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:1381–1384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lind LR, Lucente L, Kohn N (1996) Thoracic kyphosis and the prevalence of advanced uterine prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 87:605–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Melli MS, Alizadeh M (2007) Abnormal spinal curvature as a risk factor for pelvic organ prolapse. Pak J Biol Sci 10:4218–4223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raia-Barjat T, Tardieu AS, Amouzougan A, Trombert B, Chauleur C, Varlet MN, Patural H, Seffert P, Chene G (2011) Anthropometric analysis of obstetrical pelvis from Neolithic era: obstetrical consequences. Preliminary study. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 39:614–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Green DJ, Alemseged Z (2012) Australopithecus afarensis scapular ontogeny, function, and the role of climbing in human evolution. Science 338:514–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gautier Chene
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gery Lamblin
    • 1
  • Karine Lebail-Carval
    • 1
  • Philippe Chabert
    • 1
  • Pierre Marès
    • 2
  • Yves Coppens
    • 3
  • Georges Mellier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gynecology, HFMEUniversity Hospital of LyonLyonFrance
  2. 2.Department of GynecologyUniversity Hospital of NîmesNîmesFrance
  3. 3.Department of PaleoanthropologyCollège de FranceParisFrance

Personalised recommendations