Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37138108›Full record

ReviewNature2023

Reappraising the palaeobiology of Australopithecus.

Zeresenay Alemseged

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Zeresenay AlemsegedOrganismal Biology and Anatomy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. alemseged@uchicago.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0460-9791

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place-after the Homo-Pan split. This Review examines data from diverse sources and offers a revised depiction of the genus and characterizes its role in human evolution. For a long time, our knowledge of Australopithecus came from both A. africanus and Australopithecus afarensis, and the members of this genus were portrayed as bipedal creatures that did not use stone tools, with a largely chimpanzee-like cranium, a prognathic face and a brain slightly larger than that of chimpanzees. Subsequent field and laboratory discoveries, however, have altered this portrayal, showing that Australopithecus species were habitual bipeds but also practised arboreality; that they occasionally used stone tools to supplement their diet with animal resources; and that their infants probably depended on adults to a greater extent than what is seen in apes. The genus gave rise to several taxa, including Homo, but its direct ancestor remains elusive. In sum, Australopithecus had a pivotal bridging role in our evolutionary history owing to its morphological, behavioural and temporal placement between the earliest archaic putative hominins and later hominins-including the genus Homo.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionHominidaeAgingAnimalsFossilsHumansPan troglodytesSkullTool Use Behavior

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.