Enamel proteins reveal biological sex and genetic variability within southern African Paranthropus
Palesa P Madupe cs 2023 doi org/10.1101/2023.07.03.547326
(preprint, not been certified by peer-review)

The evol.relationships among extinct African hominin taxa are highly debated, largely unresolved, due in part to a lack of molecular data.
Even within taxa, it is not always clear, based on morphology alone: are ranges of variation due to sex.dimorphism, versus potentially undescribed taxonomic diversity?
For Par.robustus (Pleistocene hominin, found only in S.Africa), both phylogenetic relationships to other taxa & the nature of intra-specific variation are still disputed.
Here we report the mass spectrometric (MS) sequencing of enamel proteomes from 4 c.2-Ma dental spms, attributed morphologically to Par.robustus from Swartkrans.
The identification of AMELY-specific peptides & semi-quantitative MS data analysis enabled us to determine the biological sex of all the spms.
Our combined molecular & morphometric data also provide compelling evidence of a significant degree of variation within S-African Paranthropus (as previously suggested based on morphology alone).
The molecular data also confirm the taxonomic placement of Paranthropus within the hominin clade.
This study demonstrates
- the feasibility of recovering informative Early-Pleistocene hominin enamel proteins from Africa,
- how the analysis of these proteins can contribute to understanding: is hominin morphological variation due to sex.dimorphism? or to taxonomic differences?
We anticipate:
this approach can be widely applied to geologically-comparable sites within S.Africa, and possibly more broadly across the continent.

______

Beautiful article, but IMO it has more to do with the evolution of Pan (chimp-bonobo) than with human evolution s.s.:
at least 2 independent studies, based on comparative mophology, suggest that the S.African australopiths (africanus->robustus) were fossil relatives of Pan (and E.African afarensis->boisei, of Gorilla):
1994 Hum.Evol.9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?",
1996 Hum.Evol.11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls".
Moreover, the absence of Pliocene African retroviral DNA in humans shows that our ancestors then were not even in Africa (e.g. C.Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11):
most likely, Pliocene Homo followed S-Asian coasts (e.g. early-Pleistocene H.erectus in Mojokerto, Java).

Dr Madupe, in any wase, congratulations with your very interesting & innovating research!
Could you please forward this email to your co-authors?

With all best wishes --marc verhaegen

Ape & human evolution, google e.g.
-aquarboreal
-Homo erectus pachyosteosclerosis

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Beautiful article, but IMO it has more to do with the evolution of Pan (chimp-bonobo) than with human evolution s.s.:
> at least 2 independent studies, based on comparative mophology, suggest that the S.African australopiths (africanus->robustus) were fossil relatives of Pan (and E.African afarensis->boisei, of Gorilla):

The massive elephant in the room is that the age of these
specimens excludes any useful determinations.

They're comparing their results to LIVING Pan and Homo, not to
it's contemporaries.

...if for no other reason than there are no other living
contemporaries.

They can't compare these can Chimps of the same age, as
there are none, so there's no way of determining if they look
more like Pan or Homo...

It's junk. This is stuff student would flunk out of a class for,
and yet it's not only funded but it passes "Peer Review," gets
published and then treated like gospel. And it's junk.

"Paleoanthropology is NOT a real science."

HERE'S YOUR PROOF. Stare at it. These aren't childish taunts,
it's really not a science. It's a social program on the best of
days, the private property of a self imposed elite on all the
rest.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722829763403743232