Editing Australopithecus (section)

==Taxonomy==
===Research history===
[[File:Australopithecus africanus Taung face (University of Zurich).JPG|thumb|left|[[Taung Child]]'s skull]]
The first ''Australopithecus'' specimen, the [[type specimen]], was discovered in 1924 in a lime quarry by workers at [[Taung]], South Africa. The specimen was studied by the Australian anatomist [[Raymond Dart]], who was then working at the [[University of the Witwatersrand]] in [[Johannesburg]]. The fossil skull was from a three-year-old [[bipedal]] primate (nicknamed [[Taung Child]]) that he named ''[[Australopithecus africanus]]''. The first report was published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' in February 1925. Dart realised that the fossil contained a number of humanoid features, and so he came to the conclusion that this was an early human ancestor.<ref name="historyofstudy">{{cite book|title= Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction |last=Lewin |first=Roger |chapter=The Australopithecines |year=1999 |publisher= Blackwell Science |isbn=0632043091 |pages=112–113}}</ref> Later, Scottish paleontologist [[Robert Broom]] and Dart set out to search for more early hominin specimens, and several more ''A. africanus'' remains from various sites. Initially, [[anthropology|anthropologists]] were largely hostile to the idea that these discoveries were anything but apes, though this changed during the late 1940s.<ref name="historyofstudy" />

In 1950, evolutionary biologist [[Ernst Walter Mayr]] said that all bipedal apes should be classified into the genus ''Homo'', and considered renaming ''Australopithecus'' to ''Homo transvaalensis''.<ref name="Schwartz2015">{{cite journal|author1=Schwartz, Jeffrey H.|author2=Tattersall, Ian|date=2015|title=Defining the genus Homo|journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]]|volume=349|issue=931|pages=931–932|bibcode=2015Sci...349..931S|doi=10.1126/science.aac6182|pmid=26315422|s2cid=206639783}}</ref> However, the contrary view taken by J.T. Robinson in 1954, excluding australopiths from ''Homo'', became the prevalent view.<ref name="Schwartz2015" /> The first australopithecine fossil discovered in eastern Africa was an ''A. boisei'' skull excavated by [[Mary Leakey]] in 1959 in [[Olduvai Gorge]], [[Tanzania]]. Since then, the Leakey family has continued to excavate the gorge, uncovering further evidence for australopithecines, as well as for ''[[Homo habilis]]'' and ''[[Homo erectus]]''.<ref name="historyofstudy" /> The scientific community took 20 more years to widely accept ''Australopithecus'' as a member of the human family tree.

In 1997, an almost complete ''Australopithecus'' skeleton with skull was found in the [[Sterkfontein caves]] of [[Gauteng]], South Africa. It is now called "[[Little Foot]]" and it is around 3.7 million years old. It was named ''[[Australopithecus prometheus]]''<ref>Bruxelles L., Clarke R. J., Maire R., Ortega R., et Stratford D. – 2014. – Stratigraphic analysis of the Sterkfontein StW 573 Australopithecus skeleton and implications for its age. [[Journal of Human Evolution]],</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=New stratigraphic research makes Little Foot the oldest complete Australopithecus |url=http://phys.org/news/2014-03-stratigraphic-foot-oldest-australopithecus.html}}</ref> which has since been placed within ''A. africanus''. Other fossil remains found in the same cave in 2008 were named ''[[Australopithecus sediba]]'', which lived 1.9 million years ago<!-- , were found in [[Malapa Fossil Site, Cradle of Humankind|Malapa cave]] in South Africa. -->. ''A. africanus'' probably evolved into ''A. sediba'', which some scientists think may have evolved into ''H. erectus'',<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/science/09fossil.html |title=New Hominid Species Discovered in South Africa |newspaper=The New York Times |author=Celia W. Dugger |author2=John Noble Wilford |date=April 8, 2010}}</ref> though this is heavily disputed.

In 2003, Spanish writer [[Camilo José Cela Conde]] and evolutionary biologist [[Francisco J. Ayala]] proposed resurrecting the genus ''Praeanthropus'' to house ''[[Orrorin]]'', ''A. afarensis'', ''A. anamensis'', ''A. bahrelghazali'', and ''A. garhi'',<ref name="Cela-CondeAyala2003">{{Cite journal | last1 = Cela-Conde | first1 = C. J.| last2 = Ayala | first2 = F. J. | title = Genera of the human lineage | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0832372100 | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | volume = 100 | issue = 13 | pages = 7684–7689 | year = 2003 | pmid = 12794185| pmc = 164648| bibcode = 2003PNAS..100.7684C| doi-access = free}}</ref> but this genus has been largely dismissed.<ref name=Tattersall2017>{{cite journal|last=Tattersall|first=I.|author-link=Ian Tattersall|year=2017|title=Species, genera, and phylogenetic structure in the human fossil record: a modest proposal|journal=Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews|volume=26|issue=3|pages=116–118|doi=10.1002/evan.21523|pmid=28627785|s2cid=43487900|quote=Forms such as ''Ardipithecus'', ''Sahelanthropus'', and ''Orrorin'' have also been admitted to the pantheon, though this has clearly been facilitated by their great age. And in a nod to history, the venerable genus Paranthropus has been grandfathered in for use by those who think it useful. But except for the widely dismissed revival of Praeanthropus, there has been little real rethinking of the hugely minimalist hominid taxonomy, generic as well as specific, that Mayr foisted on us all those years ago...}}</ref>

===Classification===
With the apparent emergence of the genera ''[[Homo]], [[Kenyanthropus]]'', and ''[[Paranthropus]]'' in the genus ''Australopithecus,'' [[Taxonomy (biology)|taxonomy]] runs into some difficulty, as the name of species incorporates their genus. According to [[cladistics]], groups should not be left [[paraphyletic]], where it is kept not consisting of a common ancestor and all of its descendants.<ref>{{Citation|last=Kimbel|first=William H.|chapter=The Species and Diversity of Australopiths|date=2015|pages=2071–2105|editor-last=Henke|editor-first=Winfried|publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-3-642-39979-4_50|isbn=9783642399787|editor2-last=Tattersall|editor2-first=Ian|title=Handbook of Paleoanthropology}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=--PNXm0q2O8C&pg=PA364 |page=364 |title=Primate Adaptation and Evolution|last=Fleagle|first=John G.|date=2013-03-08|publisher=Academic Press|isbn=9780123786333|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Schwarz|first=J.H.|s2cid=12944654|date=2004|title=Barking up the wrong ape--australopiths and the quest for chimpanzee characters in hominid fossils|journal=Collegium Antropologicum|volume=28|issue=Suppl 2 |pages=87–101|pmid=15571084}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cartmill|first=Matt|title=A sort of revolution: Systematics and physical anthropology in the 20th century|journal=[[American Journal of Physical Anthropology]]|language=en|volume=165|issue=4|pages=677–687|doi=10.1002/ajpa.23321|pmid=29574829|hdl=2144/29233|year=2018|doi-access=free|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Villmoare|first=Brian|date=2018-01-30|title=Early Homo and the role of the genus in paleoanthropology|journal=[[American Journal of Physical Anthropology]]|language=en|volume=165|pages=72–89|doi=10.1002/ajpa.23387|pmid=29380889|issn=0002-9483|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267552437|title=2 @BULLET Enhanced cognitive capacity as a contingent fact of hominid phylogeny|website=ResearchGate|language=en|access-date=2019-01-12}}</ref> Resolving this problem would cause major ramifications in the nomenclature of all descendent species. Possibilities suggested have been to rename ''Homo sapiens'' to ''Australopithecus sapiens''<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Flegr|first=Jaroslav|date=2013-11-27|title=Why Drosophila is not Drosophila any more, why it will be worse and what can be done about it?|journal=[[Zootaxa]]|language=en|volume=3741|issue=2|pages=295–300|doi=10.11646/zootaxa.3741.2.8|pmid=25112991|issn=1175-5334}}</ref> (or even ''Pan sapiens''<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Pietrzak-Franger |first1=Monika |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=k1m8AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA118 |title=Reflecting on Darwin |last2=Schaff |first2=Barbara |last3=Voigts |first3=Eckart |date=2014-02-28 |publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. |isbn=9781472414090 |page=118 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=DCUD9E-x8iEC |title=Science: A History: A History|last=Gribbin|first=John|date=2009-08-27|publisher=Penguin Books Limited|isbn=9780141042220|language=en}}</ref>), or to move some ''Australopithecus'' species into new genera.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url= https://medium.com/@johnhawks/the-plot-to-kill-homo-habilis-94a33bee2adf|title=The plot to kill Homo habilis|last=Hawks|first=John|date=2017-03-20|website=Medium|access-date=2019-03-24}}</ref> A study reported in 2025 reported preliminary success in extracting ancient proteins from an Australopithic tooth, suggesting that [[paleoproteomics]] has the potential to provide information about the genetic affinities of the species.<ref>{{cite journal| last=Madupe |first=Palesa |display-authors=etal| journal= South African Journal of Science|title=Results from an Australopithecus africanus dental enamel fragment confirm the potential of palaeoproteomics for South African Plio-Pleistocene fossil sites|volume= 121|number=1/2  |url= |doi=10.17159/sajs.2025/18571 |date=2025 |pages= |issn= |doi-access=free}}</ref>

In 2002 and again in 2007, Camilo José Cela Conde ''et al.'' suggested that ''A. africanus'' be moved to ''Paranthropus''.<ref name="Haile-Selassie2010c" /> On the basis of craniodental evidence, Strait and Grine (2004) suggest that ''A. anamensis'' and ''A. garhi'' should be assigned to new genera.<ref name="StraitGrine2004">{{cite journal|author1=Strait, David S.|author2=Grine, Frederick E.|date=December 2004|title=Inferring hominoid and early hominid phylogeny using craniodental characters: the role of fossil taxa|journal=[[Journal of Human Evolution]]|volume=47|issue=6|pages=399–452|doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.008|pmid=15566946|bibcode=2004JHumE..47..399S }}</ref> It is debated whether or not ''A. bahrelghazali'' should be considered simply a western variant of ''A. afarensis'' instead of a separate species.<ref name="Ward2016">{{Cite journal|url=https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/australopithecus-and-kin-145077614/|title=Australopithecus and Kin|author1=Ward, Carol V. |author2=Hammind, Ashley S. |date=2016| journal= Nature Education Knowledge |volume=7 |issue=3 |pages=1 |language=en|access-date=2019-11-13}}</ref><ref name="White2002">{{Cite book |last1=White |first1=Tim D.|year=2002 |chapter=Chapter 24 Earliest Hominids| editor1-last=Hartwig |editor1-first=Walter Carl |title=The Primate Fossil Record (Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology)|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=0-521-66315-6}}</ref>

{{African hominin timeline}}