FOSSILS ATTRIBUTED TO GENUS HOMO: SOME GENERAL NOTES 601
The Florisbad fossil lacks a bipartite brow, having
instead a continuous supraorbital surface that thins
laterally. The coronal suture is lightly, and the sagittal
suture deeply, interdigitated. This latter feature yields
some similarity to Homo sapiens, as does the back-
wardly sloping infraorbital plane. However, in general,
the form of the face as reconstructed is not particularly
Homo sapiens-like, having an “aviator glasses”-shaped
orbit and a very broad nasal aperture. It is possible that
this individual could be a member of a species (Homo
helmei?) that is related to Homo sapiens although not
necessarily an extremely close relative. More material
of this form is clearly required.
The Ndutu partial cranium may need further
reconstruction that would make it more “modern look-
ing” than it currently is; but there is no evident reason to
include it in Homo sapiens, even as an archaic version.
The left supraorbital torus is continuous and moderately
thick, and would have projected up and forward (much
as in KNM-ER 3733); and the frontal apparently rises
close behind a narrow posttoral sulcus. The parietomas-
toid suture is relatively long and horizontal, and the
occipital plane is relatively broad. The junction between
the occipital and nuchal planes is delineated not just by
the highest nuchal line, but by a horizontal depres-
sion that is continuous across its upper surface. Still, the
posterior portion of the occipitomastoid suture lies ver-
tically, truncating the maximum width of the nuchal
plane. This is a shared possession with Homo sapiens,
although it is a conformation found in OH9 as well.
The Ngaloba (LH18) cranium is long and narrow, with
a very long frontal a/p; and in front profile the braincase
peaks slightly along the sagittal suture. However, the
supraciliary regions, although relatively thick, do bear
shallow grooves on their anterior surfaces that run
laterally up and away from the equally shallow supraor-
bital notches. The apparent broad glabellar butterfly is
hence undercut by a lateral plate, yielding a bipartite
supraciliary conformation, even if one that is not exactly
like the typical Homo sapiens bipartite brow. As in Homo
sapiens the low vaginal process continues to the lateral
edge of the ectotympanic tube (which, however, is
short); but, unlike what is seen in Homo sapiens, this
process does not contact the mastoid. The styloid
process lies quite far medially, and the stylomastoid
foramen lies well away from this process. Internally, the
petrosals bear well-defined arcuate eminences (as in
Homo sapiens), and the subarcuate fossa is not entirely
closed over. The lambdoid suture rises steeply from
asterion, but curves smoothly across lambda. This
specimen thus bears an intriguing combination of simi-
larities to, as well as differences from, Homo sapiens.
However, it is doubtful that it can usefully be considered
a variant of the latter, even though it is clearly a poten-
tial relative.
The Sale calotte has a low, wide occipital plane
with a shallowly sloping lambdoid suture. There is
little about this specimen to suggest specific affinities
with Homo sapiens. In contrast, the Tighenif mandi-
bles, which have more commonly been associated
with Homo erectus than with Homo sapiens, are more
suggestive in this connection. Most interestingly, these
three lower jaws, and particularly Tighenif 2, show an
external symphyseal morphology that is reminiscent of
what is seen in Homo sapiens (Schwartz and Tattersall,
2000b). There is, in these specimens, a vertical midline
keel that emerges just below the alveolar region, fan-
ning out as it runs inferiorly. On either side of the keel,
there is a small, shallow depression. However, despite
the presence of what would, in Homo sapiens, be recog-
nized readily as a chin, the mandibular bone of the
Tighenif specimens is more or less uniformly thick
right around the symphysis, and thickens along the cor-
pora in a conformation that is not typical of our
species. Furthermore, there are no other features in the
Tighenif mandibles that would suggest a particularly
close relationship with Homo sapiens. When one
compares these specimens with, for example, those
from Skhiil, it becomes evident that the distinctive
symphyseal conformation typical of Homo sapiens is
not simply a consequence of increasing gracility
(“gracilization”).CONCLUSION
We are fully aware that species consist of individuals
that vary from one another morphologically as well as
otherwise. In this short review of some of the mor-
phologies that we have encountered in compiling these
first two volumes of The Human Fossil Record, it has
certainly not been our intention to suggest that all mor-
phologies are of equal systematic significance, or that all
species that we might ultimately wish to recognize
within this large group of specimens are invariant in
the characters that they present. Neither do we advo-
cate the notion that all recognizable morphological
entities are necessarily species, or that any particular