Elsevier

HOMO

Volume 52, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 3-58
HOMO

Variation in hominid brain size: How much is due to method?

https://doi.org/10.1078/0018-442X-00019Get rights and content

Summary

Brain size represented by cranial capacity (CC) is one of the most frequently analysed characters of hominids. Accuracy of individual CC estimates depends on completeness of specimens and methods used for reconstruction and measurement. A file of published estimates of CC of hominids dated from 3.2 Ma (million years) to 10 Ka (thousand years) including 606 estimates for 243 specimens was compiled. In the file, 75 specimens are available with multiple values (3 to15) obtained by various methods and/or by various authors. Using individuals as classes in ANOVA, intraclass variation, which represents «error» of estimates, was calculated. For the total sample of multiple estimates (N = 382) the error variance is 5315 ml2. The error standard deviation is 73 ml (coefficient of variation (CV = 7.3%), quite large in comparison to the actual variation in CC in modern humans, SD = 157 ml (CV = 11.6%). This large error makes us wonder whether any fossil can be reliably placed with respect to a particular «cerebral Rubicon» between palaeospecies.

Recent discussions concerning cranial capacity of Stw505 are a case in point regarding errors in CC estimation. In actual repeated 30 time measurements on a research quality cast we obtained with various methods (water, seeds, plasticine) CC estimates ranging from 484 to 586 ml. The range of estimates in the literature is from 515 to 625 ml.

When hominid CC by taxon with date as a covariate is subjected to ANOVA, taxon is responsible for 5% of the variance while date is responsible for the main portion, (89%). The relationship between CC and date is best characterised as a gradual time trend. It is proven by the ANOVA test for linearity, by G test for trend and by ASReml fitting of a linear function. The line of best fit to this time trend is a double exponential curve which explains 90% of the total variance in CC:

CC = 306.63 (4.830.9995DATE)

Essentially the same curve fits subsamples of CC dated at less than 1 Ma and at 3.21.0 Ma. This has several implications for the nature of the Darwinian process to be reconstructed.

References (56)

  • G.C. Conroy et al.

    Response to Lockwood & Kimbel and Hawks & Wolpoff

    Science

    (1999)
  • G.C. Conroy et al.

    Response to HOLLOWAY

    Science

    (1999)
  • C.S. Coon

    The Origin of Races

    (1962)
  • M.H. Day

    Guide to Fossil Man

    (1986)
  • C. De Miguel et al.

    Variation in hominid body size estimates: Do we know how big our ancestors were?

    Perspect Hum Biol

    (1999)
  • D. Falk

    Brain evolution in Homo: The «radiator» theory

    Behav Brain Sci

    (1990)
  • D. Falk

    Hominid brain evolution: Looks can be deceiving

    Science

    (1998)
  • Gilmour AR, Cullis BR, Welham SJ, Thompson R (2000) ASREML Reference Manual. ftp://ftp.res.bbsrc.ac.uk/pub/aar/, NSW...
  • S. Hartwig-Scherer

    Body weight prediction in early fossil hominids: towards a taxon-«independent» approach

    Am J Phys Anthrop

    (1993)
  • J. Hawks et al.

    Endocranial capacity of early hominids

    Science

    (1999)
  • H. Helmuth

    The maximum lifespan potential of Hominidae: a re-evaluation

    Homo

    (1999)
  • M. Henneberg

    Hominid cranial capacity change through time: a darwinian process

    Hum Evol

    (1987)
  • M. Henneberg

    Decrease of human skull size in the Holocene

    Hum Biol

    (1988)
  • M. Henneberg

    Brain size/body weight variability in Homo sapiens: consequences for interpreting hominid evolution

    Homo

    (1990)
  • M. Henneberg

    Evolution of the human brain: is bigger better?

    Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol

    (1998)
  • M. Henneberg et al.

    (Estimation of sources of variation of human phenotypic characters)

    Przeglad Antropologiczny

    (1980)
  • M. Henneberg et al.

    (An attempt at more objective description of dermatoglyphic variability)

    Przeglad Antropologiczny

    (1981)
  • R.L. Holloway

    Australopithecine endocast (Taung specimen, 1924): A new volume determination

    Science

    (1970)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text