Advertisement

Neanderthals and modern humans — chimps and bonobos: similarities and differences in development and evolution

  • M. S. Ponce De León
  • C. P. E. Zollikofer
Part of the Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology book series (VERT)

Being our closest living relatives, chimps and bonobos provide the best available comparative evidence to study the evolutionary split between our sister taxon — the Neanderthals — and ourselves. Here, we analyze craniofacial development in these taxa from birth to adulthood using geometric morphometric methods. In both Homo and Pan, ontogenetic trajectories of sister taxa differ by their length, position and/or direction in shape space, as well as in the relationship between cranial size and shape. Modern human and bonobo ontogenies represent “abridged” versions of Neanderthal and chimp spatiotemporal developmental patterns, respectively, where “shortening” of trajectories is likely to represent evolutionary novelty. When examined in detail, however, the Neanderthal-human and chimp-bonobo splits do not represent equivalent forms of evolutionary developmental diversification. Rather, it appears that each bifurcation is the result of a different unique evolutionary event, during which the ancestral mode of growth and development was modified in a taxon-specific manner.

Keywords

Homo neanderthalensis Homo sapiens Pan paniscus Pan troglodytes allometry geometric morphometrics allometry heterochrony heterotopy human evolution ontogeny phylogeny 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akazawa, T., Muhesen, S., Dodo, Y., Kondo, O., Mizoguchi, Y., 1995. Neanderthal infant burial. Nature 377, 585-586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, S.E., 2002. A closer look at Neanderthal post-canine dental morphology: the mandibular den-tition. Anat. Rec. 269, 148-156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, S.E., 2004. A morphometric analysis of maxil-lary molar crowns of Middle-Late Pleistocene hominins. J. Hum. Evol. 47, 183-198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barriel, V., 1997. Pan paniscus and hominoid phy-logeny: morphological data, molecular data and “total evidence.” Folia Primatol. 68, 50-56. Bjorklund, D.F., 1997. The role of immaturity in human development. Psychol. Bull. 122, 153-169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bookstein, F.L., 1989. “Size” and “shape”: a comment on semantics. Syst. Zool. 38, 173-180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bookstein, F.L., 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Churchill, S.E., 1998. Cold adaptation, heterochrony, and Neandertals. Evol. Anthropol. 7, 46-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobb, S.N., O’Higgins, P., 2004. Hominins do not share a common postnatal facial ontogenetic shape trajectory. J. Exp. Zool. B (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 302, 302-321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Aout, K., Vereecke, E., Schoonaert, K., De Clercq, D., Van Elsacker, L., Aerts, P., 2004. Locomotion in bonobos (Pan paniscus): differences and similarities between bipedal and quadrupedal terrestrial walking, and a comparison with other locomotor modes. J. Anat. 204, 353-361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dean, M.C., Wood, B.A., 1984. Phylogeny, neoteny and growth of the cranial base in hominoids. Folia Primatol. 43, 157-180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doran, D.M., 1993. Comparative locomotor behavior of chimpanzees and bonobos: the influence of morphology on locomotion. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 91, 83-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dryden, I.L., Mardia, K., 1998. Statistical Shape Analysis. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Franciscus, R.G., 1999. Neandertal nasal structures and upper respiratory tract “specialization”. Proc. Natl. Acad.Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 1805-1809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franciscus, R.G., 2003. Internal nasal floor configura-tion in Homo with special reference to the evo-lution of Neandertal facial form. J. Hum. Evol. 44, 701-729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franciscus, R.G., Churchill, S.E., 2002. The costal skeleton of Shanidar 3 and a reappraisal of Neandertal thoracic morphology. J. Hum. Evol. 42, 303-356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gagneux, P., Wills, C., Gerloff, U., Tautz, D., Morin, P.A., Boesch, C., Fruth, B., Hohmann, G., Ryder, O.A., Woodruff, D.S.,1999. Mitochondrial sequences show diverse evolu-tionary histories of African hominoids. Proc. Natl. Acad.Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 5077-5082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godfrey, L.R., Sutherland, M.R., 1995. Flawed infer-ence: why size-based tests of heterochronic processes do not work. J. Theor. Biol. 172, 43-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godfrey, L.R., Sutherland, M.R., 1996. Paradox of per-amorphic paedomorphosis: heterochrony and human evolution. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 99, 17-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Godfrey, L.R., King, S.J., Sutherland, M.R., 1998.Heterochronic approaches to the study of loco-motion. In: Strasser, S. (Ed.), Primate Locomotion. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 277-307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Golovanova, L.V., Hoffecker, J.F., Kharitonov, V.M., Romanova, G.P., 1999. Mezmaiskaya cave: A Neanderthal occupation in the Northern Caucasus. Curr. Anthropol. 40, 77-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gould, S.J., 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Gould, S.J., 2000. Of coiled oysters and big brains: how to rescue the terminology of heterochrony, now gone astray. Evol. Dev. 2, 241-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gould, S.J., Lewontin, R.C., 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205, 581-598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guatelli-Steinberg, D., Reid, D.J., Bishop, T.A., Larsen, C.S., 2005. Anterior tooth growth periods in Neandertals were comparable to those of mod-ern humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 14197-14202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harvati, K., 2003. The Neanderthal taxonomic posi-tion: models of intra-and inter-specific cranio-facial variation. J. Hum. Evol. 44, 107-132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harvati, K., Frost, S.R., McNulty, K.P., 2004. Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: implica-tions of 3D primate models of intra-and inter-specific differences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 1147-1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ishida, H., Kondo, O., Muhesen, S.Akazawa, T., 2000. A new Neanderthal child recovered at Dederiyeh Cave, Syria, in 1997–1998. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol 30, 186-187.Google Scholar
  28. Jolliffe, I.T., 1986. Principal Component Analysis. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klingenberg, C.P., 1998. Heterochrony and allometry: the analysis of evolutionary change in ontogeny. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 73, 79-123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kondo, O., Dodo, Y., 2000. Estimation of stature from the skeletal reconstruction of an immature Neandertal from Dederiyeh Cave, Syria. J. Hum. Evol. 38, 457-473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R.W., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M., Pääbo, S., 1997. Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell 90, 19-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krings, M., Geisert, H., Schmitz, R.W., Krainitzki, H., Pääbo, S., 1999. DNA sequence of the mito-chondrial hypervariable region II from the Neandertal type specimen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 5581-5585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krings, M., Capelli, C., Tschentscher, F., Geisert, H., Meyer, S., von Haeseler, A., Grossschmidt, K., Possnert, G., Paunovic, M., Pääbo, S., 2000. A view of Neandertal genetic diversity. Nat. Genet. 26, 144-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krovitz, G.E., 2000. Three-dimensional comparisons of craniofacial morphology and growth patterns in Neandertals and modern humans. Ph.D. Dissertation. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  35. Krovitz, G.E., 2003. Shape and growth differences between Neanderthals and modern humans: grounds for a species level distinction. In: Thompson, J., Krovitz, G., Nelson, A., (Eds.), Patterns of Growth and Development in the Genus Homo. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 320-342.Google Scholar
  36. Lele, S., Richtsmeier, J., 2001. An Invariant Approach to the Statistical Analysis of Shapes. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lieberman, D.E., Carlo, J.O.S., Ponce de León, M.S., Zollikofer, C.P.E., 2007. A geometric morpho-metric analysis of heterochrony in the cranium of chimpanzees and bonobos. J. Juman. Evol. 52, 647-662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Connor, C.F., Franciscus, R.G., Holton, N.E., 2005. Bite force production capability and efficiency in Neandertals and modern humans. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 127, 129-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ovchinnikov, I.V., Gotherstrom, A., Romanova, G.P., Kharitonov, V.M., Liden, K., Goodwin, W., 2000. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature 404,490–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parish, A.R., De Waal, F.B., 2000. The other “closest living relative”. How bonobos (Pan paniscus) challenge traditional assumptions about females, dominance, intra-and intersexual inter-actions, and hominid evolution. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 907, 97-113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Penin, X., Berge, C., Baylac, M., 2002. Ontogenetic study of the skull in modern humans and the common chimpanzees: neotenic hypothesis reconsidered with a tridimensional Procrustes analysis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 118, 50-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ponce de León, M.S., Zollikofer, C.P.E., 2001. Neanderthal cranial ontogeny and its implica-tions for late hominid diversity. Nature 412, 534-538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Poti, P., 2005. Chimpanzees’ constructional praxis (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes). Primates 46, 103-113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rak, Y., 1986. The Neanderthal: a new look at an old face. J. Hum. Evol. 15, 151-164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramirez Rozzi, F.V., Bermudez De Castro, J.M., 2004. Surprisingly rapid growth in Neanderthals. Nature 428, 936-939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rogers Ackermann, R., Krovitz, G.E., 2002. Common patterns of facial ontogeny in the hominid line-age. Anat. Rec. 269, 142-147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rohlf, F.J., Slice, D., 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of land-marks. Syst. Zool. 39, 40-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sept, J., 1998. Shadows on a changing landscape: com-paring nesting patterns of hominids and chim-panzees since their last common ancestor. Am. J. Primatol. 46, 85-101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Serre, D., Langaney, A., Chech, M., Teschler-Nicola, M., Paunovic, M., Mennecier, P., Hofreiter, M., Possnert, G.G., Paabo, S., 2004. No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA contribution to early mod-ern humans. PLoS Biol. 2, E57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shea, B.T., 1983. Paedomorphosis and neoteny in the pygmy chimpanzee. Science 222, 521-522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. She a, B.T., 1984. An allometric perspective on the mor-pholo gical and evolutionary relationships between pygmy (Pan paniscus) and common (Pan troglodytes) chimpanzees. In: Susman, R.L. (Ed.), The Pygmy Chimpanzee: Evolutionary Biology and Behavior. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 89-130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shea, B.T., 1988. Heterochrony in primates. In: McKinney, M.L. (Ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 237-266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shea, B.T., 1989. Heterochrony in human evolution: the case for neoteny reconsidered. Yrbk. Phys. Anthropol. 32, 69-101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith, K.K., 2002. Sequence heterochrony and the evo-lution of development. J. Morphol. 252, 82-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stringer, C.B., Gamble, C., 1993. In Search of the Neanderthals: Solving the Puzzle of Human Origins. Thames and Hudson, London.Google Scholar
  56. Susman, R.L., (Ed.) 1984. The Pygmy Chimpanzee: Evolutionary Biology and Behavior. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  57. Trinkaus, E., 1987. The Neandertal face: evolutionary and functional perspectives on a recent hominid face. J. Hum. Evol. 16, 429-443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Trinkaus, E., 2003. Neandertal faces were not long; modern human faces are short. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100, 8142-8145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Verhulst, J., 1999. Bolkian and Bokian retardation in Homo sapiens. Acta Biotheor. 47, 7-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vidarsdottir, U.S., O’Higgins, P., Stringer, C., 2002. A geometric morphometric study of regional dif-ferences in the ontogeny of the modern human facial skeleton. J. Anat. 201, 211-229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Williams, F.L., 2000. Heterochrony and the human fossil record: comparing Neandertal and modern human craniofacial ontogeny. In: Stringer, C.B., Barton, R.N.E., Finlayson, J.C. (Eds.), Neanderthals on the Edge. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 257-267.Google Scholar
  62. Williams, F.L., Godfrey, L.R., Sutherland, M.R., 2002. Heterochrony and the evolution of Neandertal and modern human craniofacial form. In: Minugh-Purvis, N., McNamara, K. (Eds.), Human Evolution through Developmental Change. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 405-441.Google Scholar
  63. Williams, F.L., Godfrey, L.R., Sutherland, M.R., 2003. Diagnosing heterochronic perturbations in the craniofacial evolution of Homo (Neanderthals and modern humans) and Pan (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus). In: Thompson, J., Krovitz, G., Nelson, A. (Eds.), Patterns of Growth and Development in the Genus Homo. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 295-319.Google Scholar
  64. Won, Y.J., Hey, J., 2005. Divergence population genet-ics of chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 297-307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yu, N., Jensen-Seaman, M.I., Chemnick, L., Kidd, J.R., Deinard, A.S., Ryder, O., Kidd, K.K., Li, W.H., 2003. Low nucleotide diversity in chimpanzees and bonobos. Genetics 164, 1511-1518.Google Scholar
  66. Zihlman, A.L., Cramer, D.L., 1978. Skeletal differences between pygmy (Pan paniscus) and common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Folia Primatol. 29, 86-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zollikofer, C.P.E., Ponce de León, M.S., 2002. Visualizing patterns of craniofacial shape varia-tion in Homo sapiens. Proc. R. Soc. B 269, 801-807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zollikofer, C.P.E., Ponce de León, M.S., 2004. Kinematics of cranial ontogeny: Heterotopy, heterochrony, and geometric morphometric analysis of growth models. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 302B, 322-340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zollikofer, C.P.E., Ponce de León, M.S., 2005. Virtual Reconstruction: A Primer in Computer-assisted Paleontology and Biomedicine. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  70. Zollikofer, C.P.E., Ponce de León, M., Ishida, H., Suzuki, H., Kobayashi, Y., Tsuchiya, K., Akazawa, T., 2002. Computer-assisted recon-struction of the Dederiyeh Neanderthal infants. I: cranium and mandible. In: Ishida, H., Nakatsukasa, M., Ogiwara, N. (Eds.), Recent Advances in Physical Anthropology and Primatology. Kinsei-sha, Kyoto, pp. 35-40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. S. Ponce De León
    • 1
  • C. P. E. Zollikofer
    • 2
  1. 1.Anthropologisches Institut und MuseumUniversität Zürich-IrchelZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Anthropologisches Institut und MuseumUniversität Zürich-IrchelZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations