Embedded Files
What was Australopithecus africanus?
What was Australopithecus africanus?
The Southern Ape of Africa
The Southern Ape of Africa
First discovered by Raymond Dart in 1924, the hominid species Australopithecus africanus is defined by smaller teeth, a more rounded cranium, and an ape-like upper body with long limbs and joints well adapted for climbing. ¹
When did Australopithecus africanus exist?
When did Australopithecus africanus exist?
About 3.3 to 1.5 million Years Ago¹
(This makes it the oldest known species of hominid in South Africa) ¹
Where were Australopithecus africanus found?
Where were Australopithecus africanus found?
South Africa, hence, the name "The Southern Ape of Africa"¹
Where did Australopithecus africanus live?
Where did Australopithecus africanus live?
Mostly in Grassy woodlands and savannah type environments¹
Should Australopithecus africanus be its own species?
Should Australopithecus africanus be its own species?
What defines a hominid species? ²
What defines a hominid species? ²
When thinking of early humans many people think of neanderthals, or if they are a fan of National Geographic they may think of the October 2015 magazine cover of Homo nadali which makes almost 10 years since this iconic magazine last featured a hominid discovery, and while neanderthals and Homo nadali are related to modern Homo sapiens the taxon that leads to modern humans is much longer and more convoluted than the general population realizes. Premodern humans are also known as Hominids or Hominins based on what exactly is being described. This is important to understand as the Hominid taxon includes both modern Homo sapiens, all of their extinct ancestors that may or may not be direct ancestors, and several species of great apes including Australopithecus africanus. Hominins refers only to modern humans and their direct ancestors, Au. africanus was at one point defined by this term but as more specimens and information are discovered they have been moved firmly to the hominid category.
The hominid taxon includes species that are closer to modern humans than they are to any other currently living species. Then they are broken down into clades, genera, species, etc. This is done in several manners but the two primary routes that paleoanthropologists take are the splitter route or the lumper route.
Splitters versus Lumpers ², ³
Splitters versus Lumpers ², ³
There are many different ways to classify a single species and many times small differences in a specimen can lead to an entirely new species. This practice of differentiating species by differences such as time, geographic range, characteristics, or inferred behavior is known as Splitting taxonomy. The practice of Splitting specimens seems like it would be pretty straight forward: if it meets the criteria for a species, then it's part of that species. But just as with modern humans there is a lot of variation in a single species that has to be explored. This leads to some very blurry edges on what defines a species and the reasoning behind a species differentiation is often contested and changed. This is especially challenging in species such as Au. africanus where there is measurable sexual dimorphism and extreme levels of variability present.
The opposing taxonomy which is defined by the grouping of many different specimens into an overarching category is known as Lumping taxonomy. This type of taxonomy is more about the genus of the specimen and is typically less specific in what meets the criteria for each taxon. This allows for the notion of an adaptive zone or the ability of a genus to change without being redefined as a new species. This method of grouping does not focus on the path that modern human behaviors or characteristics came to be.
So why are researchers so dedicated to splitting every species? The simple answer is funding. To use a recent example, it was only after the discovery of Homo nadali in 2013 at Gladysvale, which was Berger's research for almost 30 years that Berger was granted several millions of dollars to investigate nadali whereas before his funding for investigation of Homo sapiens in the area was dwindling. ⁴,⁵
What are Au. africanus's defining traits⁶
What are Au. africanus's defining traits⁶
Ancestorial traits
Sexual Dimorphism
Long Arms
Prognathism
Upper limb climbing adaptations
Shoulder girdle
Slightly curved hand and foot phalanx
Derived traits
Rounder cranium
Increasing cranial capacity
Decreasing brow ridge
Smaller canines
Larger molars
No diastema
The Hand of Australopithecus africanus⁷
The Hand of Australopithecus africanus⁷
The modern human hands that are often associated with tool was present 3.2 million years ago in the bone structure of Australopithecus africanus, well before any Homo species existed.
The bone pattern found in africanus is likely indicative of tool use as this modern-human-like hand posture makes gripping and controlling stone tools much easier.
The presence of this grip morphology with the long-curved phalanx present in the hands of africanus presents the idea that Australopithecines were the first tool makers, but this has not been confirmed through archaeological evidence as there has been no discovery that has Au. africanus in context with stone tools.
There is also the problem that in Homo species the presence of this derived hand morphology presents at the earliest of 1.4 million years ago in Homo erectus. With recent evidence supporting the idea that stone tools were in use 3.4 mya with cut marks on animal bones this may indicate that the Homo genus is related to Au. africanus, the now believed earliest tool makers.
Why africanus SHOULD NOT be it's own species¹⁹
Why africanus SHOULD NOT be it's own species¹⁹
The primary problem when classifying extinct hominid species is that the exact amount of variation is unknown and since paleoanthropologists are working almost exclusively with morphological features, they often times operate under the assumption that past hominids have no more variation than modern humans in order to classify species from one another. This has caused problems with classification of species as there are no concrete barriers that are separating many of these species. This is seen with Australopithecus africanus where the separation in characteristics led to the initial conclusion that the specimens found at Taung, Sterkfontein, and Makapansgat were from different genera entirely, not even considered to be from the same species.
This bares the question of should Au. africanus even be defined as a species in the current manner it is? After all if it is so diverse that the members could be from entirely different genera let alone different species what is making them part of the same taxon?
Comparing a few of the major researchers' division of africanus specimens it is evident that there needs to be further evaluation into what defines Au. africanus. After all none of these prominent paleoanthropologists can agree on a way to group these specimens by their craniodental features. ¹⁹
So, Australopithecus africanus should be broken down into several new species?
So, Australopithecus africanus should be broken down into several new species?
No, not necessarily. The problem with africanus is that it is a phylogenetically unstable species that shares many features with other species under the same and under different genera while also existing at the same time as many of them.¹⁹
Connection to other Hominids²⁰
Connection to other Hominids²⁰
Before the discovery of KNM-17000 it was commonly thought that africanus was either the ancestor to the robust australopithecines or the ancestor to the Homo genus. This mindset had to be adjusted after the discovery changing africanus from the ancestor to a side branch of both of these groups.
Australopithecus africanus is a dead line?²¹
Australopithecus africanus is a dead line?²¹
In the simplest terms: yes. Au. africanus which was previously believed to be this monumental species that due to its phylogenetic instability was what led to early Homo and eventually led to modern humans. Unfortunately, there is just not enough evidence to support the idea that africanus led to the development of Homo, there is nearly a million years of fragmentary specimens that represent the rise and fall of the genus and ultimately the evidence supporting the connection indicates that africanus is more likely a sister branch rather than the direct ancestor of Homo. The same is also true for Paranthropus for which africanus was believed to hold the beginning of the robust branch of Australopithecus. The africanus species although a memorable species, has been stripped of its titles as the evolutionary knot between Australopithecines and Homo and has been declared as a evolutionary side branch.
Why africanus SHOULD be it's own species
Why africanus SHOULD be it's own species
Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus africanus
Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus africanus
Just like with modern humans and other great ape species, africanus had quite a bit of variation between its specimens. The largest reason for this variation in Au. africanus is sexual dimorphism.
Craniodental Variation⁸
Craniodental Variation⁸
Typically, sexual dimorphism within a species is identified through postcranial means with the height and weight differences being the most prominent.
When looking at africanus it is important to examine the craniofacial dimorphism: the extremity of the glabella protrusion, cranium size, length of the canines, prognathic angle, etc.
At the Sterkfontein member 4 site Au. africanus is the only species present which has significantly increased the number of specimens that are contributing to the statistical analysis and understanding the extent of sexual dimorphism present in Au. africanus.
Au. africanus is much more sexually dimorphic than modern humans but is less dimorphic than what is seen in gorilla species alive today. This can be seen on the graph where africanus has a degree of dimorphism that is only slightly below that of the Eastern Gorilla.
Due to the sheer amount of variation in the species it is a reasonable assumption that Australopithecus africanus should be a separate species from those that already exist but could reasonably be divided further into even more species based on the mode of taxonomy that the researcher takes.
What did Au. africanus eat?
What did Au. africanus eat?
Some theorize that africanus consumed plants such as grass seeds, and roots⁹ whereas others theorize that they ate fruits and leaves¹⁰. But these theories may not be the entire picture. Based on cranial morphology and further evaluation it is likely that Au. Africanus ate meat and had an omnivorous diet, not distant from early Homo species. This also supports the idea that the diet of ancestors led to the enlargement of the brain as more energy was consumed to support the development. ¹¹ Overall the diet of Au. africanus was not a unique one and is seen over and over again in the ancestors of modern humans and contributed to the stead brain growth that is seen over time in hominids. This connection further establishes the relationship between Homo and africanus even though they are likely not direct relatives as was once believed.
To learn more about how the diet of Au. africanus was identified click here
What were the main discoveries of Au. africanus?
What were the main discoveries of Au. africanus?
Taung Child¹³, ¹⁴, ¹⁵
Taung Child¹³, ¹⁴, ¹⁵
Who found the Taung Child: Raymond Dart
What is the Taung Child: Partial Skull, Mandible, Natural Endocast
When did the Taung child exist: ~2.8 million Years Ago
Where was the Taung Child found: Taung Quarry, South Africa
Why is the Taung Child important: The discovery of the Taung Child was only a few years after the discovery of the Piltdown Man in the UK. This initially was believed to be a prehistoric ape child and not a hominid ancestor as the common belief was that large brains evolved before bipedalism. This along with the belief that modern man evolved in Europe or Asia was perpetuated by the fraudulent Piltdown man discovery and contested by Dart's claim that the Taung Child was a bipedal hominid ancestor. With just the skull there was many that opposed this opinion until further specimens were discovered.
Mrs. Ples ¹⁶,¹⁷, ¹⁸, ¹⁹
Mrs. Ples ¹⁶,¹⁷, ¹⁸, ¹⁹
Who found Mrs. Ples: Robert Broom
What is Mrs. Ples: First complete adult skull of africanus
When did Mrs. Ples exist: 2.14-2.15 million Years Ago
Where was Mrs. Ples found: Sterkfontein, South Africa
Why is Mrs. Ples important: Proved that the Taung Child was from a hominid species as it was previously contested. Presented an interesting insight into the sexual dimorphism of the species as the sex of STS 5 is still contested until this day.
STS 14¹⁶, ¹⁹
STS 14¹⁶, ¹⁹
Who found STS 14: Robert Broom
What is STS 14: Partial skeleton including pelvis, vertebrae, ribs, and a femur of africanus
When did STS 14 exist: 3-4 million Years Ago
Where was STS 14 found: Sterkfontein, South Africa
Why is Mrs. Ples important: Proved that Africanus was bipedal as there were many people that did not believe that the location of the foreman magnum was not conclusive enough evidence to propose that the species was bipedal.
More information about the Taung Child (Type Specimen) ¹³, ¹⁴, ¹⁵
More information about the Taung Child (Type Specimen) ¹³, ¹⁴, ¹⁵
What are some important features of the Taung Child?
Because Au. africanus is a sexually dimorphic the child is believed to be a male due to the large canines present. It can also be identified that prognathism that is often seen in adult africanus specimens is likely something that develops during puberty. The Taung Child is thought to be only a few years of age but the rate of development of africanus is much faster and the brain size of the Taung Child is near fully developed.
Features
Increased size of premolars with cusps that are similar in size to molars
Small lingual cusp compared to other Australopithecus species
Possible heaving chewing
Anteriorly placed zygomatics making the face more flat
Well-developed temporalis
Anterior pillars along the nasal aperture
Midface is concave
Mandibular bodies are medium to thick compared to other species
A full list of specimens from Sterkfontein and Makapansgat
A full list of specimens from Sterkfontein and Makapansgat
References
References
Zipfel, B., Richmond, B. G., & Ward, C. V. (2020). Hominin Postcranial Remains from Sterkfontein, South Africa, 1936-1995. Oxford University Press.
Wood, B., & Lonergan, N. (2008). The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades. Journal of Anatomy, 212(4), 354–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.00871.x
Wood, B., & Lonergan, N. (2008b). The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades. Journal of Anatomy, 212(4), 354–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.00871.x
dallasnews Administrator. (2015, October 2). How a Dallas billionaire funded one of the most remarkable pre-human discoveries of our lifetime. Dallas News; The Dallas Morning News. https://www.dallasnews.com/business/2015/10/02/how-a-dallas-billionaire-funded-one-of-the-most-remarkable-pre-human-discoveries-of-our-lifetime
Lee Berger is only scratching the surface of his decades-long trail of discoveries. (2023, August 14). Impact. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/impact/article/lee-berger-explorer-story
Wood, B. (2019). 6. Archaic and transitional hominins. Human Evolution: A Very Short Introduction, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198831747.003.0006
Skinner, M. M., Stephens, N. B., Tsegai, Z. J., Foote, A. C., Nguyen, N. H., Gross, T., Pahr, D. H., Hublin, J.-J., & Kivell, T. L. (2015). Human-like hand use in Australopithecus africanus. Science, 347(6220), 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261735
Lockwood, C. (1999). Sexual dimorphism in the face of Australopithecus africanus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 108(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199901)108:1%3C97::AID-AJPA6%3E3.0.CO;2-O
Wolpoff, M. H. (1973). Posterior tooth size, body size, and diet in South African gracile australopithecines. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 39(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330390306
Grine, F. E. (1986). Dental evidence for dietary differences in Australopithecus and Paranthropus: a quantitative analysis of permanent molar microwear. Journal of Human Evolution, 15(8), 783–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2484(86)80010-0
Sponheimer, M. (1999). Isotopic Evidence for the Diet of an Early Hominid, Australopithecus africanus. Science, 283(5400), 368–370. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5400.368
Zipfel, B., Richmond, B. G., & Ward, C. V. (2020b). Hominin Postcranial Remains from Sterkfontein, South Africa, 1936-1995. Oxford University Press.
Hammond, A. S., & Ward, C. V. (2013). AustralopithecusandKenyanthropus. A Companion to Paleoanthropology, 434–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118332344.ch23
Ackermann, R. R., Pickering, R., Sahle, Y., & Schroeder, L. (2025). The Taung Child then and now: Commemorating its centenary in a postcolonial age. South African Journal of Science, 121(1/2). https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2025/20667
Thackeray, F., Gommery, D., & Braga, J. (2002). Australopithecine postcrania (Sts 14) from the Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa: the skeleton of “Mrs Ples”?. South African Journal of Science, 98(2002).
Black, W., Zipfel, B., Mirriam Tawane, Glynn Alard, & Hine, P. (2025). Hominin heritage: How institutional repositories are managing collections, collaboration and repatriation. South African Journal of Science, 121(1/2). https://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajsci/article/view/288132
Villmoare, B., Kuykendall, K., Rae, T. C., & Brimacombe, C. S. (2013). Continuous dental eruption identifies Sts 5 as the developmentally oldest fossil hominin and informs the taxonomy of Australopithecus africanus. Journal of Human Evolution, 65(6), 798–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.09.007
Grine, F. E. (2019). The alpha taxonomy of Australopithecus at Sterkfontein: The postcranial evidence. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 18(3), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2019.01.004
Strait, D. S., Grine, F. E., & Moniz, M. A. (1997). A reappraisal of early hominid phylogeny. Journal of Human Evolution, 32(1), 17–82. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1996.0097
Kimbel, W. H., & Villmoare, B. (2016). From Australopithecus to Homo : the transition that wasn’t. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1698), 20150248. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248
Page updated
Report abuse