This isssue of Journal of Anatomy contains review articles based on a Symposium held during a joint meeting of the Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the Anatomical Society of South Africa and the Nederlandse Anatomen Vereniging on 15 April 1998 at Rolduc, The Netherlands. The Symposium has been edited by Professor Bernard Wood whose initial review constitutes an introduction to the succeeding articles.

We rely on fossils for the interpretation of more than 95% of our evolutionary history. Fieldwork resulting in the recovery of fresh fossil evidence is an important component of reconstructing human evolutionary history, but advances can also be made by extracting additional evidence for the existing fossil record, and by improving the methods used to interpret the fossil evidence. This review shows how information from imaging and dental microstructure has contributed to improving our understanding of the hominin fossil record. It also surveys recent advances in the use of the fossil record for phylogenetic inference.

This review begins by setting out the context and the scope of human evolution. Several classes of evidence, morphological, molecular, and genetic, support a particularly close relationship between modern humans and the species within the genus Pan, the chimpanzee. Thus human evolution is the study of the lineage, or clade, comprising species more closely related to modern humans than to chimpanzees. Its stem species is the so-called ‘common hominin ancestor’, and its only extant member is Homo sapiens. This clade contains all the species more closely-related to modern humans than to any other living primate. Until recently, these species were all subsumed into a family, Hominidae, but this group is now more usually recognised as a tribe, the Hominini. The rest of the review sets out the formal nomenclature, history of discovery, and information about the characteristic morphology, and its behavioural implications, of the species presently included in the human clade. The taxa are considered within their assigned genera, beginning with the most primitive and finishing with Homo. Within genera, species are presented in order of geological age. The entries conclude with a list of the more important items of fossil evidence, and a summary of relevant taxonomic issues.

This paper reviews the application of medical imaging and associated computer graphics techniques to the study of human evolutionary history, with an emphasis on basic concepts and on the advantages and limitations of each method. Following a short discussion of plain film radiography and pluridirectional tomography, the principles of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and their role in the investigation of extant and fossil morphology are considered in more detail. The second half of the paper deals with techniques of 3-dimensional visualisation based on CT and MRI and with quantitative analysis of digital images.

Teeth preserve a record of the way they grow in the form of incremental markings in enamel, dentine and cementum. These make it possible to reconstruct cellular activity and the timing of dental development in living and fossil primates, including hominids. They also provide a way of exploring the mechanisms that underlie morphological change during evolution and the nature of the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. All living great apes are dentally mature by about 11 y, irrespective of their body mass. While the early period of root formation in living great apes is shorter than in modern humans, enamel takes approximately the same time to form, irrespective of how thick it is. In general, differences in the total time taken to form enamel seem not to be due to differences in the rate at which enamel and dentine are secreted, but rather to faster or slower rates of differentiation of ameloblasts and odontoblasts and therefore to the number of secretory cells active at any one time during tooth formation. Tooth size, especially height, may influence the sequence of appearance of tooth mineralisation stages. The space available in the jaws may also have an influence on both the timing of tooth bud/crypt appearance and the sequence of gingival emergence. When each of these potential influences on dental development are carefully considered, and incremental markings used to calibrate key events, the developing dentition can provide an estimate of the period of dental maturation in fossil hominoids. However, the influence of body mass on the period of dental development among primates remains unclear. The earliest hominoids, dated at around 18 Mya, may still have had modern monkey-like maturational profiles, and the earliest hominids, dated between 1.8 and 3.7 Mya, modern great ape-like maturational profiles. Exactly when the extended or prolonged modern human-like maturational profile first appeared remains debatable, but the most secure suggestion might be at the time of the appearance of the earliest archaic Homo sapiens, when brain size and body mass were finally both within the ranges known for modern humans. But at present we should not reject the hypothesis that an extended, modern human-like, maturational profile arose more than once during human evolution in parallel with an increase in brain size.

This review considers some recent advances in shape analysis based on landmark data, and focuses on the application of these methods to the study of skeletal evolution in primates. These advances have provoked some controversy. The major aims of this review are to put these debates in context and to provide an overview for the nonmathematician. The purpose of morphometric studies is considered, together with issues relating to the nature, significance and identification of landmarks before turning to a review of available technologies for the analysis of morphological variation. These are considered in terms of underlying models and assumptions in order to clarify when each is appropriate. To illustrate the application of these methods, 3 example studies are presented. The first examines differences amongst ancient and modern adult human crania using 2-dimensional data. The second illustrates the extension of these methods into 3 dimensions in a study of facial growth in monkeys. The third presents an application to the analysis of the form of the hominoid talus. The review ends with an account of available software resources for shape analysis.

The discovery of fossil hand bones from an early human ancestor at Olduvai Gorge in 1960, at the same level as primitive stone tools, generated a debate about the role of tools in the evolution of the human hand that has raged to the present day. Could the Olduvai hand have made the tools? Did the human hand evolve as an adaptation to tool making and tool use? The debate has been fueled by anatomical studies comparing living and fossil human and nonhuman primate hands, and by experimental observations. These have assessed the relative abilities of apes and humans to manufacture the Oldowan tools, but consensus has been hampered by disagreements about how to translate experimental data from living species into quantitative models for predicting the performance of fossil hands. Such models are now beginning to take shape as new techniques are applied to the capture, management and analysis of data on kinetic and kinematic variables ranging from hand joint structure, muscle mechanics, and the distribution and density of bone to joint movements and muscle recruitment during manipulative behaviour. The systematic comparative studies are highlighting a functional complex of features in the human hand facilitating a distinctive repertoire of grips that are apparently more effective for stone tool making than grips characterising various nonhuman primate species. The new techniques are identifying skeletal variables whose form may provide clues to the potential of fossil hominid hands for one-handed firm precision grips and fine precision manoeuvering movements, both of which are essential for habitual and effective tool making and tool use.

Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland

Future meetings

24–26 July 2000. Department of Anatomy, University of Cambridge; this will be a tripartite meeting with the Anatomische Gesellschaft and the Nederlandse Anatomen Vereniging. This will include symposia on ‘The neuroanatomical basis of the emergence of behaviour’, and ‘Anatomy: the challenges for the 21st century.’

4 September 2000. University of York. One day symposium (part of the International Congress of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, 3–8 September 2000) on ‘Digital image capture, processing and analysis’.