Archive for the 'Endocasts' Category

Ileret

I had missed this amazing study (2018) from Neubauer and colleagues on the skull and endocast KNM-ER 42700 from Ileret, Kenya, with a chronology of 1.5 million years. They performed a set of reconstructions for the skull and endocast, and compared these figures within the diversity of early hominids. Their results are quite convincing, and confirm that the specimen is definitely out of the range of variation of adult Homo erectus. Overall, the endocast is somehow similar to the endocast of KNM-ER1470 (H. rudolfensis). However, its morphology also lies midway along an ontogenetic trajectory going from Mojokerto to adult H. erectus. So, the taxonomy of KNM-ER 42700 can be uncertain, but the most likely explanation is a H. ergaster/erectus of a young age, much younger that predicted on the basis of other cranial features. Taking into consideration the approach based on multiple reconstructions, the multivariate shape toolkit, and the disclosure of the ontogenetic trajectory of H. erectus, this paper is definitely a great paragon in paleoneurology. A review on metric endocranial variation in H. erectus was published some years ago here.

Advertisements

Little Foot

The endocast of the australopith StW 573 is pretty complete, and now Amélie Beaudet and colleagues have published a very detailed and comprehensive anatomical analysis of its features. For many paleoneurological traits we still miss a reliable knowledge on intra- and inter-specific variation but, according to what we can currently see in Australopithecus, Paranthropus and chimpanzees, StW 573 does not display derived sulcal patterns in the frontal and parietal regions. Its overall endocranial form resembles the morphology of some Paranthropus specimens, although in this case there are still some issues on deformation and possible taphonomic effects (specially at the frontal bone). The study supplies a careful description of the vascular patterns, in particular for the middle meningeal artery. In humans, only our species has generally a complex vascular network, while vessels are more scarce and less connected in extinct human taxa. Nonetheless, these same vessels (or, at least, their analogous networks) are more developed in apes. Therefore, australopiths are a key group to understand what happened with these traits, and to assess the polarity of these features in the evolution of distinct hominoid branches.

Naledi

Ralph Holloway and colleagues have just published a paleoneurological study of Homo naledi. They used seven cranial portions from at least five individuals to provide a general view of an endocast of this species. The study is comprehensive and very detailed, indeed. It turns out that, despite the very small endocranial volume (about 500 cc), the brain general organization is very similar to all the other human species. Beyond some particular features in Neanderthals and modern humans, all human (Homo) species display the same general sulcal pattern. If there were differences in their sulcal organization, these should have been pretty minor or hardly recognizable on an endocast, at least according to what we can test with the small samples generally available in paleoanthropology. So, it is not surprising that Homo naledi has a Homo brain form. But the interesting thing is the association between a human brain morphology and a small brain size, as suggested by this current study. If true, we have two main conclusions. First, our brain cortical complexity and our large brain size are two independent features. They have evolved together in many cases, but not in others. Second, our human cortical folding scheme is not simply an allometric (scaled) version of the apes’ one. Cortical folding is largely influenced by mechanical factors, most of all size-related effects, so one could think that our brain morphology, although distinct from apes, is a secondary consequence of having a big brain. The results presented in this study suggest that this is not the case. We humans have a specific cortical organization and, furthermore and additionally, a big brain too. Reasonably, both features have an influence on our cognitive capacities.

Of course, these results must be confirmed on a larger perspective. Remember that here we don’t have a “brain”, but some scattered endocranial surfaces of a few specimens. That’s not sufficient to reach detailed and reliable conclusions on the brain itself, not to say on cognition. Also, the species Homo naledi (and its chronology) is at present strictly associated with one specific site and needs further corroboration from a wider geographical scenario before supporting firm or generalized statements. Its striking feature is the very small brain size. In this sense, it is worth noting that we often use to mention “average” values, sometimes forgetting about their associated variation and variability. We modern humans have a normal cranial capacity spanning a range of more than 1000 cc. In this paper, Holloway mentions the case of Homo erectus, spanning from 550 cc to 1200 cc. Therefore, caution is still necessary when interpreting the small brain size of these individuals. Of course, the fact that this species (as the Flores hominid) could have undergone brain size reduction or small brain retention does not point against the importance of brain size and encephalization. According to the available fossil record, most human species bet on big brains. Exceptions are expected, but do not break the rule.

I want to focus on one more aspect of this article. Although the topic was definitely “sexy”, the authors avoided any speculation on cognition or phylogeny. Such attitude is so professional and definitely welcome, thank you!

Neanderthal brains

After their chapter on the book Digital Endocasts, Kochiyama and colleagues have published this week a comprehensive reconstruction of a Neanderthal brain. An outstanding example of quantitative paleoneurology, indeed! They deformed our modern human brain into a Neanderthal endocranial cavity, as to allow an estimation of cortical volumes and proportions. They confirm that modern humans have larger parietal lobes and larger cerebellum, and that Neanderthals could have had larger occipital lobes. They also confirm that early modern humans did not display a modern human brain form. Of course, this simulation is based on the assumption that no specific and localized cortical changes have occurred along both modern and Neanderthal lineages since their separation. The assumption is a reasonable simplification, and is necessary to provide a shared comparative framework. Nonetheless, if specific and localized changes have occurred in one or both lineages, that one-to-one spatial fitting will lost local predictive power. In terms of brain anatomy, local cortical changes can actually occur as genetic adaptations to selective processes or else as induced plastic feedbacks in response to environment (including culture). Also, we must always consider that many brain regions (the cerebellum is one) have a gross morphology that is in part influenced by cranial constraints. It may be hence difficult, in some specific endocranial districts, to distinguish between brain cortical variations and cranial effects.

Modern human brain shape

In a very comprehensive (and elegant!) article Simon Neubauer and colleagues have now analyzed brain shape variation along the modern human lineage. Since the description of the skull and endocast of Jebel Irhoud, it was clear that modern human brain form could have evolved after modern human origin. So, at that time (150,000-300,000 years ago) we had modern humans without modern brains. If Jebel Irhoud was Homo sapiens, then “early modern humans” lacked our characteristic globular brain shape, which is due to parietal lobe bulging and cerebellar form. Then, some later “archaic modern humans” seem to display a sort of intermediate morphology. Only recently (30,000-100,000 years ago) modern humans have evolved modern brains, at least in terms of general proportions and gross appearance. Of course, it’s difficult to say whether this transition was gradual or more abrupt. This article of the Max Planck team follows a previous one on the same specimens, and provides a very detailed analysis of many fossils that describe the evolution of our own species. Although the fossil record is not continuous because of the many chronological gaps, results suggest that a gradual change was likely. They also emphasize that a full-globularity can be found at the same time in which we find the archaeological evidence of behavioural modernity (arts, symbols, complex tools …). I remarked this same point many years ago, but the statement was not much appreciated because of the many uncertainties on the cultural “modern revolution” (more or less gradual, more or less discontinuous). Whatever the process behind, the appearance of a modern brain form (largely influenced by parietal districts associated with visuospatial functions, body cognition and visual imagery) matches the appearance of a modern behaviour (largely based on visual cognition and visuospatial managements, ranging from simulation and imaging to body-tool integration). Maybe it is but a coincidence, but nonetheless … they match.

Digital Endocasts

A new Springer book: Digital Endocasts: from skulls to brains. Chapter 1 (Holloway) is an introduction to physical casting. Chapter 2 (Ogihara et al.) deals with digital reconstructions of Neandertals and early modern humans’ endocasts. Chapter 3 (Kobayashi et al.) is about inferences on cortical subdivision from skull morphology. Chapter 4 (Beaudet and Gilissen) introduces paleoneurology on non-human primates, and Chapter 5 (Walsh and Knoll) is on birds and dinosaurs. Chapter 6 (Rangel de Lázaro et al.) reviews  craniovascular traits. Chapter 7 (Bruner) is on functional craniology and multivatiate statistics. Chapter 8 (Gómez-Robles et al.) concerns brain and landmarks, and Chapter 9 (Pereira-Pedro and Bruner) concerns endocasts and landmarks. Chapter 10 (Dupej et al.) is on endocranial surface comparisons. Chapter 11 (Kochiyama et al.) presents computed tools to infer brain morphology in fossil species. Chapter 12 (Neubauer and Gunz) deals with brain ontogeny and phylogeny. Chapter 13 (Bruner et al.) is on an application of network analysis to brain parcellation and cortical spatial contiguity. Then, there are chapters dedicated to the evolution of the frontal lobes (Chapter 14 – Parks and Smaers), of the parietal lobes (Chapter 15 – Bruner et al.), of the temporal lobes (Chapter 16 – Bryant and Preuss), of the occipital lobes (Chapter 17 – Todorov and de Sousa) and of the cerebellum (Chapter 18 – Tanabe et al.). The aim of the book is to provide a comprehensive perspective on issues associated with endocasts and brain evolution, and to promote a general overview of current methods in paleoneurology. The book has been published within the series “Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans“. Here on the Springer webpage.

Surfin’ endocasts

Endocasts and brains are difficult to analyze through traditional anatomical landmarks, because of the smooth morphology, blurred boundaries, and a noticeable individual variation. Currently, semilandmarks and surface analyses are good alternatives. Nonetheless, these two methods analyze the geometry of an “object”, ignoring its anatomical nature. If such geometrical modelling is interpreted too strictly, it may generate speculations and even incorrect conclusions. Numerical transformations behind spatial and geometrical models can be very complex and entangled, and the long chains of algorithms cannot be disentangled in any research article (the same occurs in any other field, like molecular biology, where long chains of reactions and engineering processes can’t be resumed in detail in every single paper and, necessarily, we must blindly rely on their proper functioning). In those many numerical steps, we must be aware that there may be incorrect passages, or simply algebraic assumptions that are not consistent with the real biological and evolutionary processes. More importantly, the brain is formed by so many independent elements, histological components, and cortical areas, and a pooled geometrical analysis can generate hybrid results. Anatomical landmarks are still necessary to mark boundaries and proportions, as to evaluate the real contribution of each element. Of course, anatomical landmarks are difficult to assess, they require experience, and they require inferences: as in every experimental paradigm, as in every field of science. Shape analyses deals with models, not with real anatomical entities. And models only take into considerations some specific properties of those anatomical systems, following algebraic rules that, right or wrong, represent conventional and operational assumptions. Here an opinion paper on all these issues.


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

RSS Brain News

RSS Cognitive archaeology

  • Squeezing Minds From Stones
    Squeezing Minds From Stones is a collection of essays from early pioneers in the field, like archaeologists Thomas Wynn and Iain Davidson, and evolutionary primatologist William McGrew, to ‘up and coming’ newcomers like Shelby Putt, Ceri Shipton, Mark Moore, James Cole, Natalie Uomini, and Lana Ruck. Their essays address a wide variety of cognitive archaeolo […]

RSS The Skull Box

  • New World Monkey skull shape
    Platyrrhines (or New World Monkeys – NWM) inhabit South America and there are currently 5 families and 151 species, possessing traits not found in Catarrhines (Apes and Old World Monkeys of Africa and Asia). The NWM fossil record is fragmentary, with the earliest fossil specimens found in Argentina and dated to the middle Miocene (~ […]

RSS Anthropology

  • Seven Million Years of Human Evolution
    This fascinating visual presentation from the American Museum of Natural History outlines what we know about human evolution by combining …Continue reading →

RSS Human Evolution

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Neurophilosophy

  • Researchers develop non-invasive deep brain stimulation method
    Researchers at MIT have developed a new method of electrically stimulating deep brain tissues without opening the skullSince 1997, more than 100,000 Parkinson’s Disease patients have been treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS), a surgical technique that involves the implantation of ultra-thin wire electrodes. The implanted device, sometimes referred to as […]

Disclaimer

This blog publishes texts and comments of the author, which can not be referred to institutions or contexts outside of the blog itself. The published material may be partly derived or reported from the Web, and therefore evaluated in the public domain. If some content violates copyright or if it is considered inappropriate, please contact me, to promptly remove it. On the other hand, please cite this source whenever using images or texts from this website.
Advertisements