Neanderthals and modern humans — chimps and bonobos: similarities and differences in development and evolution

Author(s):  
M. S. Ponce De León ◽  
C. P. E. Zollikofer
Author(s):  
Francisco J. Ayala ◽  
Camilo J. Cela-Conde

This chapter deals with the similarities and differences between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, by considering genetic, brain, and cognitive evidence. The genetic differentiation emerges from fossil genetic evidence obtained first from mtDNA and later from nuclear DNA. With high throughput whole genome sequencing, sequences have been obtained from the Denisova Cave (Siberia) fossils. Nuclear DNA of a third species (“Denisovans”) has been obtained from the same cave and used to define the phylogenetic relationships among the three species during the Upper Palaeolithic. Archaeological comparisons make it possible to advance a four-mode model of the evolution of symbolism. Neanderthals and modern humans would share a “modern mind” as defined up to Symbolic Mode 3. Whether the Neanderthals reached symbolic Mode 4 remains unsettled.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haydee L. Gutierrez ◽  
Rio Tsutsumi ◽  
Talia Y. Moore ◽  
Kimberly L. Cooper

AbstractThe extraordinary malleability of the vertebrate limb supports a variety of locomotor functions including running and leaping in cursorial and saltatorial species. In many of these animals, the metatarsals and/or metacarpals are disproportionately elongated to increase stride length and fused into a single larger element, likely to resist fracture due to increased ground reaction forces. Despite the fact that metapodial fusion evolved convergently in modern birds, ungulates, and jerboas, the developmental basis has only been explored in chickens, which diverged from the mammalian lineage approximately 300 million years ago. Here, we use the lesser Egyptian jerboa, Jaculus jaculus, to understand the cellular processes that unite three distinct metatarsal elements into a single cannon bone in a mammal, and we revisit the developing chicken to assess similarities and differences in the localization of osteoblast and osteoclast activities. In both species, adjacent metatarsals align along flat surfaces, osteoblasts cross the periosteal membrane to unite the three elements in a single circumference, and osteoclasts resorb bone at the interfaces leaving a single marrow cavity. However, although spatial and temporal partitioning of osteoblast and osteoclast activities reshape three bones into one in both species, the localization of osteoclasts is distinct. While osteoclasts are uniformly distributed throughout the endosteum of chicken metatarsals, these catabolic cells are highly localized to resorb bone at the interfaces of neighboring jerboa metatarsals. Each species therefore provides an opportunity to better understand the mechanisms that partition osteoblasts and osteoclasts to alter the shape of bone during development and evolution.


1973 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milo E. Bishop ◽  
Robert L. Ringel ◽  
Arthur S. House

The oral form-discrimination abilities of 18 orally educated and oriented deaf high school subjects were determined and compared to those of manually educated and oriented deaf subjects and normal-hearing subjects. The similarities and differences among the responses of the three groups were discussed and then compared to responses elicited from subjects with functional disorders of articulation. In general, the discrimination scores separated the manual deaf from the other two groups, particularly when differences in form shapes were involved in the test. The implications of the results for theories relating orosensory-discrimination abilities are discussed. It is postulated that, while a failure in oroperceptual functioning may lead to disorders of articulation, a failure to use the oral mechanism for speech activities, even in persons with normal orosensory capabilities, may result in poor performance on oroperceptual tasks.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Verónica Sevillano ◽  
Susan T. Fiske

Abstract. Nonhuman animals are typically excluded from the scope of social psychology. This article presents animals as social objects – targets of human social responses – overviewing the similarities and differences with human targets. The focus here is on perceiving animal species as social groups. Reflecting the two fundamental dimensions of humans’ social cognition – perceived warmth (benign or ill intent) and competence (high or low ability), proposed within the Stereotype Content Model ( Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002 ) – animal stereotypes are identified, together with associated prejudices and behavioral tendencies. In line with human intergroup threats, both realistic and symbolic threats associated with animals are reviewed. As a whole, animals appear to be social perception targets within the human sphere of influence and a valid topic for research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document