Anthropology
Open Access

Advances in Conservation of Biological Development

Statin Karanmiana^{* *}Correspondence: Statin Karanmiana, Department of Biological Science, University of RSA, Kimberley, South Africa, Email:

Author info »

Description

The Linnean Hierarchy's lowest level is the recognition of species. However, the practical paleontologist or paleoanthropologist who is attempting to define species or categorize specific fossil specimens to one or more species will find this definition of species used. Other descriptions of the species are more pertinent to this situation. The bio-species definition of Mayr is arguably the most popular definition of a species. Bio species are described here as collections of naturally occurring, potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively distinct from other species of the same kind. Simpson has criticized this for not specifically addressing the length of a species' evolutionary history or time depth. It only directly applies to living things that are alive today. Consequently, he suggests that an evolutionary species be defined as "a lineage (an ancestral–descendant sequence of populations) evolving separately from others and having its unitary evolutionary role and tendencies." similar to one more recently put forth by Wiley, who defines a species as "a single lineage of ancestral descendant populations of organisms that maintains its identity from other such lineages and which has its evolutionary tendencies and historical fate" and emphasizes reproductive continuity over time. These species definitions have a very basic problem when applied to extinct organisms. Assuming equivalence between anatomical similarity and breeding compatibility, any inference about breeding continuity in the fossil record must be based on the continuity of anatomical characters in the fossils. Simpson has said that it is likely that the samples come from a single interbreeding population or bio species if the population variations for all observable characters, the anatomical feature ranges of two or more samples overlap. In contrast, the samples likely come from two different bio species if the ranges of variation do not overlap. The fossil record, where there are frequently ambiguous ranges of overlap between fossil samples, shows that things are rarely as simple as this. Furthermore, there is no proof that there is a direct connection between about later-discovered fossils like Neanderthals, the issue of speciation and anatomical change in human paleontology becomes crucial the question at hand is whether the anatomical distinctions between Neanderthals and modern humans warrant species distinction between these hominids.

If so, whether such species distinction also implies breeding isolation between these species, with the obvious consequence that Neanderthals, by definition, could not have contributed to the modern human gene. When it comes down to it, paleontologists are initially restricted to working with morph species, which are species defined solely by their anatomical or morphological similarity. Recognizing that there is always substantial room for doubt regarding the boundaries of fossil species, it must be made clear that any inferences about breeding compatibility are merely hypotheses based on anatomical similarity.

Palaeospecies and chronospecies are additional definitions of species that apply to fossil species. Both of these terms refer to species that have evolved in a single lineage over time. Finding the boundary between one species and the next in a continuous lineage is the issue at hand. Where do Homo erectus end and Homo sapiens begin, for instance, if one assumes that the two species evolved linearly from one another? According to Simpson, "Successive species should be defined such that morphological differences between them are at least as great as those between species that are present-day members of the same group or closely related groups. There are some taxonomists who believe that continuous, non-branching lineages should not be divided into palaeo-or chronospecies, especially those who adhere to the phylogenetic systematics school.

In other words, these analyzers contend that if there is a continuous lineage, say from Homo habilis to H. sapiens that does not result in side branches then this lineage ought to be considered as a single evolutionary species. H. sapiens would be the species name with historical precedence in this situation. the arrangement of taxa into a hierarchy When taxa are grouped into hierarchical systems, nested sets are created, where, for example, a set of related species is placed in one set, and several of these sets are grouped into a higher set, and so on up the hierarchy. Such a hierarchical organization Ancestors of humans and hominids Under the Simpsonian classification, the word "hominid" is derived from the family name Hominidae even though the family Hominidae has different members according to competing classifications, the term "hominid" still refers to us living today and only to our ancestors. The term "hominoid" (from the superfamily Hominoidea) refers to both modern humans and apes as well as to both of these species' evolutionary forebears. Three traits, in particular, have historically been acknowledged as being distinctive of hominids. Bipedal locomotion, along with its corresponding anatomical features, is the first. A relatively large brain is the second. The third is a reduced dentition, especially a reduced anterior dentition. Although these characteristics separate modern humans from modern apes, they are at best ambiguous when used to differentiate the early fossil hominids (particularly of the canine kind.

The Miocene apes (dryopithecines and sivapithecines and that of our earliest known ancestor, Australopithecus afarensis, are very different from one another. A similar issue is the relative size of the brain. Absolute brain size cannot be determined from many known craniums of our earliest ancestors. Predicting the body weight of these early hominids involves several unknowns as well. But according to the most recent estimates, Aafarensis's brain size compared to its body weight was similar to that of an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus). These findings demonstrate that all australopithecines and Paranthropus had relative brain sizes that fell within the range of living monkeys and apes. Only individuals belonging to the genus Homo exhibit variation beyond what has been observed in these living primates.