"Dragon man" prompts rethinking of Middle Pleistocene hominin systematics in Asia - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

"Dragon man" prompts rethinking of Middle Pleistocene hominin systematics in Asia

Christopher J Bae et al. Innovation (Camb). 2023.

No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

Proposed groupings for the Chinese/Asian fossils Group 1 includes Harbin, Dali, Jinniushan, and Hualongdong; group 2 includes Maba and Narmada (Hathnora); and group 3 includes Xujiayao, Xuchang, Xiahe, Penghu, and Denisova. Inset: for comparative purposes, these are representative Chibanian fossils from Europe (A, Arago; B, Petralona) and Africa (C, Bodo; D, Kabwe).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Tattersall I. Species recognition in human paleontology. J. Hum. Evol. 1986;15:165–175.
    1. Stringer C. The status of Homo heidelbergensis (Schoetensack 1908) Evol. Anthropol. 2012;21:101–107. - PubMed
    1. Rightmire G.P. Homo in the Middle Pleistocene: Hypodigms, variation, and species recognition. Evol. Anthropol. 2008;17:8–21.
    1. Roksandic M., Radović P., Wu X.-J., et al. Resolving the “muddle in the middle”: The case for Homo bodoensis sp. nov. Evol. Anthropol. Issues News Rev. 2022;20-29 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berger L.R., Hawks J., de Ruiter D.J., et al. Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa. Elife. 2015;4 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources