ArticleAmerican journal of biological anthropology2025
Evaluating the Evolvability of Paranthropus Cranial Morphology in Relation to Feeding Biomechanics.
Article in American journal of biological anthropology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Evolvability of Paranthropus Cranial Morphology in Relation to Feeding Biomechanics.American journal of biological anthropology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAlthough disagreement persists as to the precise nature of the diet of Paranthropus, there is a consensus that the food resources consumed by Paranthropus were in some way mechanically challenging to process (i.e., by being "hard" and/or "tough"). While the highly derived feeding apparatus of Paranthropus likely conferred biomechanical performance advantages while consuming certain types of foods, it may also have limited the ability of these early hominins to respond to selection and evolve rapidly toward new adaptive peaks (i.e., reduced their evolvability). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe employed viability selection modeling to test this hypothesis. Viability selection simulations were performed using Paranthropus boisei (OH 5), Australopithecus afarensis (A.L. 444-2), and Homo habilis (KNM-ER 1813) specimens. We simulated the generation-to-generation evolution of biomechanically informative linear dimensions in a population where an individual's probability of survival (i.e., viability) was determined by its distance to a predetermined adaptive peak. The number of generations required for an evolving population to reach a new adaptive peak was used as a measure of evolvability.
resultsThe results showed that the mean number of generations from P. boisei to H. habilis was larger than in the reverse direction when modeled using either chimpanzee or human estimates of population variance/covariance. It took longer for P. boisei to evolve toward Au. afarensis than in the reverse direction, but only with the chimpanzee estimates of population variance/covariance. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that P. boisei faced limitations in cranial evolvability, particularly if selection favored a cranial morphology similar to H. habilis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.