I just noticed a new article in PLOS One that suggests a re-interpretation of a ape-like fossil found in southeastern Europe in the 1920's (I think) . The new interpretation by the authors is that this fossil (one specimen available?) has features in one of their teeth roots such that it can be considered a hominid and therefore indicates that a very early contributor to the human lineage evolved in Europe, not Africa. Many of the popular press articles greatly over-hype this in headlines to indicate that this means that Europe, now Africa, may have spawned the "first members of the human evolutionary family around 7 million years ago" even though everyone recognizes, including the authors of this study, that all lineages leading to hominids and modern day humans originated n Africa, with the only questions being where they first had enough combined features to consider them hominids and how much each contributed to the modern day humans.
Frankly even though this is a peer reviewed article, I wonder if the interpretation (not the data) will hold up. It is based on only one very sparse characteristic- tooth root structure- in a very incomplete fossil and there is significant evidence that suggests otherwise. It would also require that this hominid migrated back to Africa to account for the documented later waves of hominids out of Africa. I agree with the experts who are skeptical: that this was probably an ape with one or a few hominid-like characteristics. Or perhaps this was a creature who evolved in a territory that spanned both Africa and southeastern Europe. Pinning down exactly when an ape became a hominid is arbitrary any way and engenders much controversy in the field. Hopefully more analysis and more time will tell.
Frankly even though this is a peer reviewed article, I wonder if the interpretation (not the data) will hold up. It is based on only one very sparse characteristic- tooth root structure- in a very incomplete fossil and there is significant evidence that suggests otherwise. It would also require that this hominid migrated back to Africa to account for the documented later waves of hominids out of Africa. I agree with the experts who are skeptical: that this was probably an ape with one or a few hominid-like characteristics. Or perhaps this was a creature who evolved in a territory that spanned both Africa and southeastern Europe. Pinning down exactly when an ape became a hominid is arbitrary any way and engenders much controversy in the field. Hopefully more analysis and more time will tell.
