598 FOSSILS ATTRIBUTED TO GENUS HOMO: SOME GENERAL NOTES
Neanderthal-like morphologies. In the cranium, these
include the bilaterally arced supraorbital tori with tall,
rounded anterior surfaces; a large nasal aperture with a
prenasal fossa bounded by a continuous internal mar-
gin; some anterior projection of the frontal processes
in the region of the nasal aperture; orbits of “aviator
glasses” shape; angulation of the anterior squamous
suture; a long, horizontal parietomastoid suture; ecto-
tympanic tubes not fully ossified laterally; and a pitted
suprainiac depression. In the mandible, Skull 5 shares
with Neanderthals a series of medial pterygoid tuber-
cles and a sigmoid notch crest running just lateral to
the midline of the condyle. We have been unable to
examine the teeth in the Sima series, but from illus-
trations it appears that the preserved upper molars are
generally similar to those from Steinheim in showing
a strongly reduced upper third molar, and some elon-
gation of first and second upper molars possessing
expanded hypocone regions. Skull 5 is unlike Nean-
derthals in these features: uninflated infraorbital
region (although not as flat as Steinheim); absence of
an occipital “torus” well defined by nuchal undercut-
ting; vertical braincase sides that peak superiorly when
seen from behind; deep zygomatic arches; midface
does not sharply retreat; face does not taper inferiorly,
and inferior margins of the anterior zygomatic roots
are angled farther out laterally; no distinct anterior
lambdoid suture. Puzzlingly, this specimen has in
common with Homo sapiens the segmented and (in its
C2 segment) deeply interdigitated coronal suture that
is primitively lacking in Neanderthals. In view of this
pattern of resemblance it appears permissible to re-
gard the Sima population as representing the sister
taxon of the Neanderthal-plus-Steinheim-plus-
Reilingen clade. Where exactly the Montmaurin
mandible fits into this picture is not entirely clear,
although this specimen clearly shares with the Nean-
derthals features such as its large medial pterygoid
tubercle; a (very small) retromolar space; ovoid lower
molars with narrow, well-defined talonid basins; and
an extension of the metaconid into the talonid basin
in the position of a centroconid.
Given the pattern of resemblances sketched above
among this European hominid group, it makes little
sense to analyze them in terms of “Neanderthal” vs.
“Pre-Neanderthal” features, as has often been done.
Instead, it appears that the European hominids of the
past half-million years form an endemic and quite
diverse clade of species that is probably linked with at
least some of the forms that are currently included in
Homo heidelbergensis. Homo neanderthalensis, as we
have already suggested, is simply the best-known and
latest-surviving member of this clade. It would be
interesting, moreover, to investigate whether or how
such forms as Maba and Narmada that also boast
large and smoothly rolled supraorbital tori fit into this
picture. It is also worth noting in passing that the
Guomde hominid, while not being at all typically
Neanderthal, is very broadly reminiscent of this group
in its brow shape; by the same token, it departs in this
feature (and in external petrosal configuration) from
the Homo sapiens conformation. Thus, at the very least,
we are glimpsing here yet more morphological and
potentially taxic diversity that future studies ultimately
will have to recognize and to address.HOMO SAPIENS AND
“ARCHAIC HOMO SAPIENS”“Archaic Homo sapiens” has become a fixture in the
paleoanthropological literature, apparently largely be-
cause it provides a convenient if untidy receptacle for
an unwieldy assortment of fossils. Within the linear
human evolutionary construct favored by the Evolu-
tionary Synthesis, this assortment contains virtually all
of the hominid fossils that lie subsequent to H. erectus,
and before anatomically modern Homo sapiens. Clearly,
though, while it certainly served heroically in support
of the elegant simplicity of the evolutionary progres-
sion preferred by most paleoanthropologists of the
mid-to-late twentieth century, the major role of this
inelegant entity has been to eliminate the need to ex-
amine closely the extraordinary morphological variety
existing among the fossils it embraced. Once again,
though, it seems inevitable that this variety must even-
tually be confronted. And, since Homo sapiens is the
sole surviving species of its once-diverse clade, it seems
to make sense to start with ourselves.HOMO SAPIENS AND SUGGESTED
CLOSE RELATIVES
With some six billion examples in the world today,
Homo sapiens should be an exceptionally easily diag-
nosible species. Alas, this has proved not to be the
case. From a foundation based on living humans, our
species has gradually been expanded, from Huxley