Chapter 1. Two-legged monkeys

Chimpanzees Specifies the reference point

The closest modern (that is, unquenchable) relatives of people are chimpanzees. This is unambiguously indicated by the data of comparative anatomy and molecular genetics, which we talked about a little in the preface. Paleontological and comparative genetic data indicate that evolutionary lines leading to person and chimpanzees divided approximately 6-7 million years ago.

Chimpanzees are divided into two types: ordinary chimpanzees ( Pan Troglodytes.), living north of the Great River Congo, and dwarf chimpanzees, or bonobo ( Pan Paniscus.), living from her south. These species made up from each other no more than 1-2 million years ago, that is, much later than "our", human, the line separated from the ancestors of chimpanzees. It follows from this that both types of chimpanzees have the same degree of relationship with a person.

Chimpanzees are very important for any popular story about the evolution of man, because they set the point of reference. Signs, available in humans and chimpanzees, are interested in us less than those that only have. This, of course, is not very logical and gives discrimination and xenophobia. Nevertheless, the book on the evolution of man is rarely beginning with discussion of an important question about why we have no tail.

This is not very interested, because the chimpanzee also has no tail. And the gorilla does not have a tail, and orangutans do not have, and there are no gibbons. This is a general sign of all human monkeys. This is not our unique feature. We also want to know why we are such-rasty special and very-at all, as those shaggy and wild, that in the zoo.

The story about the evolution of a person is usually starting not from the loss of the tail, but from bipedalism - walking on two legs. It seems to be ours, purely human. True, gorilla, chimpanzees and bonobo, too, sometimes go so, although not very often (up to 5-10% of the time). But everyone, besides us, such a gait is inconvenient. Yes, especially and nothing: the hands are such long, slightly buried - and you are already on all fours. Inhuman monkeys are easier to walk, leaning on the knuckles of fingers, on a fist or palm.

Interest in bipedalism clearly shows that it is modern monkeys that set the point of reference when discussing anthropogenesis. Today we are well known that since 7 million years ago in Africa lived and flourished a large and diverse group of two-legged monkeys. They had no more brain than chimpanzees, and they were unlikely to surpassed chimpanzees in their mental abilities. In short, they were still quite "inhuman", but already two-legged. If at least one of the species of these monkeys - Australopiteks, Parantropov, Ardipitekov - accidentally lived to the present day (in some African "lost world" - why not?), Our two-bone inspired us no more than adversity. And the stories about anthropogenesis would begin with something else. Maybe from the manufacture of stone guns (2.6 million years ago). Or from the moment (just over 2 million years ago), when the brain began to increase.

But all these two-legged inhuman monkeys, unfortunately, extinct (except those that turned into people). And so we will not retreat from the adopted tradition and begin with two-beans. We will speak mainly about the history of the group of monkeys, which includes us, but does not include chimpanzees. Representatives of this "human" evolution line will be called hominids (in the singular - hominid). In fact, among the anthropologists there is no consensus about the classification and the nomenclature (official group names) of extinct and modern human-forming. We will adhere to one of the options, according to which the hominids include all representatives of the branch of the evolutionary tree, which separated from the Pharmaceutical Ancestors 6-7 million years ago and which includes all primates closest to the person than to the chimpanzee. All representatives of this group have so far extinct, except for one-sole species Homo Sapiens.. But in the past there were quite a lot (see a reference table).

We got up and went

The hominids appeared in Africa, and their whole early evolution took place there. A guessed that the fossil ancestors of people lived on the African continent, expressed Darwin in the book "The origin of a person and sexual selection", published in 1871, 12 years after the "origin of species". At that time, when there were no one bone in the hands of scientists, at least remotely similar to the transitional link between monkey and man, Darwinian guess looked incredibly bold. The fact that she was confirmed is perhaps one of the most impressive facts in the history of evolutionary biology. Darwin wrote literally the following: "Mammals living in every large region of the world are associated with close relationship with fossil species of the same region. Therefore, it is possible that in Africa in the past now extinct man-like monkeys, close to gill and chimpanzee. Since these two types are worth The closer to the person, it seems somewhat more likely that our early predecessors lived on the African continent rather than somewhere else. " Just, modest and ingenious.

Gominids are characterized by an important common sign - walking on two legs. Different hypotheses explaining the transition to bipedalism, there is at least as much as the reasons encouraging the monkeys sometimes climb their feet. Monkeys walk vertically, crossing shallow reservoirs. Maybe our ancestors have become two-way, because a lot of time was spent in water? There is such a hypothesis. The males of monkeys, flirting with females, stand up in full growth and show penis. Maybe our ancestors wanted to show their genitals constantly? There is such a hypothesis. Females sometimes go on two legs, pressing a young young (if the young does not sit on her mother's back, clutching into wool). Maybe our ancestors it was important to drag once two young, for the time they freed their hands? There is such a hypothesis ...

And that is not all. There is an assumption that our ancestors sought to increase the range of review (which has become especially relevant after leaving the forest in Savannah). Or reduce the body surface substituted by the solar rays, again after going to the savanna. Or just entered into fashion so walk - cool and girls like it. This, by the way, is quite plausible: this could happen at the expense of the mechanism of "Fisher's Fishing", which is stated in the chapter "The origin of a person and sexual selection." How to choose from this set of ideas correct? Or are there several orders? Hard to say. The arguments in favor of each of the listed hypotheses are devoted to whole articles and even books, but there is no direct evidence from any of them.

In such cases, in my opinion, it is necessary to give preference to hypotheses that have an additional explanatory force explaining, that is, not only the two-beacon explain, but at the same time some other unique features of the hominid. In this case, we will have to take less controversial assumptions. Below we will discuss one of such a hypotheses that seems to me most convincing. But first you need to get acquainted with the facts.

Traditionally it was believed that the last overall ancestor of man and chimpanzees preferred to walk on all four, about the way chimpanzee do. Thought that this source (primitive) [The word "primitive" and his antonym "Advanced" has a clear meaning in biology. Primitiveness is relative. It is possible to talk about the primitive and advanced state of the sign, only comparing different organisms among themselves. Primitive - it means more similar to what has been the total ancestor of compared species] The method of movement has been preserved in chimpanzees (as well as gorillas and orangutans), and in our evolutionary line it was replaced by bipedalism due to exit from the forest to open savanna. However, recently there were suspicions that, perhaps, the last overall ancestor of man and chimpanzees, if he was not two-legged, then at least showed more inclinations to shimbal than modern chimpanzees and gorillas. For this opportunity, new PaleoianTropological finds hint unambiguously.

In recent years, fossil remains of several very ancient hominids have been found in Africa, which lived at about the very time when the separation of evolution lines leading to chimpanzee and man occurred. The classification of these forms remains controversial. Although they are described as representatives of three new births ( SAHELANTHROPUS, ORRORIN, ARDIPITHECUS) Some experts believe that some of them should be combined with each other or with later Australopithecus.. In particular, it was proposed to unite Orrina, ardipiteca and several types of primitive Australopites in the genus Praeanthropus.. But these disputes are not very interesting for us: in the end, call as you want, the main thing is to understand what it was for creatures, how they lived and how they changed over generations.

Increability in these ancient hominids, that all of them probably already went on two legs (although not so confident as we), but did not live in the open savanna, but in the not very thick forest or on a mixed landscape, where forest areas alternated with open. This in principle does not contradict the old theory that the development of dongoyost was associated with gradually By the transition of the original forest inhabitants to life in open locality.

Sahelentrop. [Reference details mentioned in the text of the types of hominid are summarized in the table on with. 449]. Among the most important recently open forms belong Sahelanthropus Tchadensis, Described by the skull, several fragments of jaw and individual teeth. All this was found in 2001-2002 in the north of Chad, French anthropologists under the leadership of Michel Brunet. The skull received an unofficial nickname of Tumai, which at the local adveria means "a child born before the onset of the drought season." Such nicknames their finds of Paleoanthrobology are given for promotional purposes. Unfortunately, no matter what fragments of the post-Stranny skeleton [Post-strangle skeleton - the whole skeleton, except for the skull] It was not officially reported, although it was a rumor that a fragment of the femoral bone was found. The age of the find is 6-7 million years. Tumai in principle does not contradict the ideas about how the overall ancestor of man and chimpanzees could look [although in many signs of Tumay's skull reminds Gorilla (S. V. Drobyshevsky, personal message)]And most importantly, it is quite suitable for this role in his age. But he may eventually be the ancient ancestor of chimpanzees or gorillas or a very early representative of "our" line, that is, the hominid. The volume of the brain is very small (approximately 350 cm 3). On this basis, it is absolutely not distinguished from other inhuman humanlike people.

Three features of Sahelentropa are of particular interest. The first is the position of a large occipital opening, which is shifted forward compared to other human-forming. Perhaps this means that Tumai has already quite often walked on two legs, and therefore the spine was attached to the skull not from behind, but rather below. The second interesting point is that Sahelentrop, judging by the accompanying fossil flora and fauna, did not live in an open savanna, but on the shore of an ancient lake, in a mixed landscape, where open areas alternated with forests. Next door to Sahelentropy found fossil remains of lake, forest and savannah animals. The third important feature is a small size of the fangs. They are comparable to the fangs of females of chimpanzees, but much less than the males. The size of the fangs in males of humans allows you to judge some aspects of social life (more about this will be discussed below in the section on ardipitec). But, since the skull is only one and we do not know how the floor was fog, to make far-reaching conclusions from small fangs should not yet be.

Nakhodka showed that the ancient hominids or the form close to them were widespread in Africa, which was considered: almost all previous finds were made in the so-called Great Rift Valley, stretching from north to south in Eastern and South Africa.

Orroin. Another important find - Orrorin Tugenensis, found in 2000 in Kenya by French researchers under the leadership of Breaking Seine and Martin Picford. Nickname - Millenium Man. (Millennium Man), age is about 6 million years. This is also a form close to the general ancestor of man and chimpanzees. As in the case of the SahelinTrust, the bone material in this view is still fragmentary and not a few. However, professional zoologists and anthropologists are well known how much information about the structure of the mammal can be learned even from several scattered bones. [The bike is widely known about how the great paleontologist Georges Kuvier on one bone unmistakably restore the appearance of the whole animal. This, of course, exaggeration, but the proportion of truth is there: different parts of the animal are interrelated, and therefore changes in some parts in many cases are reflected on others. This is called the principle of correlation. However, it should not be absoluting: under certain limits, different parts of the skeleton can change and independently of each other]. Oroerin's skulls have not yet found, but in the structure of the hips, anthropologists concluded the conclusion about the walking on two legs. Judging by the accompanying fossil flora and fauna, Oroen lived not in the open savanna, but in a dry evergreen forest. There was a handful of scattered teeth, similar to the teeth of later hominid. Among them are one fang (top right). It is small, approximately as a chimpanzee females.

In general, it became clear that the straight was most likely mastered by our ancestors for a very long time. Almost immediately after the division of human lines and chimpanzees, representatives of our line have already walked on two legs. Or maybe it happened even earlier? What if the general ancestors of man and chimpanzee have already preferred to walk on the hind limbs, and the current manner of chimpanzee move, leaning on the knuckles of fingers, has developed later? To adopt this assumption prevents the fact that the gorillas and orangutans are also based on the hands when walking. If we assume that the two-beaches were the initial, primitive state for the ancestors of chimpanzees, it will have to admit that later representatives of this evolutionary line, regardless of the gorilla, have gained a gait, very similar to the gorilla. There is nothing incredible in it. True, biologists are pleased to avoid assumptions about the independent appearance of the same feature in different evolutionary lines. This is called the principle of parceimony, or economies of hypotheses. But in this case, according to many anthropologists, this principle does not work: most likely, "knucking" really developed independently from orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees.

Orangutans go like people. Recently, more and more data appears indicating that the binding is possible, it is possible to remove not from the manner of chimpanzees and gorillas to walk on the knuckles of fingers.

What is it then to output? Maybe, of those methods of movement that have developed in human monkeys still at the stage of life in the trees. For example, it was recently shown that most of all resembles the human gaitage of Orangutan's manner to move on two legs, sticking to his hands over the branches.

Earlier, an idea was already expressed, according to which the skeleton and muscles of our ancestors turned out to be predapped (predisposed) to two-beam walking due to the skills of sealing on trees. The body is oriented vertically, and the legs make movements resembling those that are being done when walking. However, the Anthropologist Robin Crompton from Liverpool University and his colleagues Susanna Torp and Roger Holder from the University of Birmingham believes that from vertical climbing on trees, as well as from the gait of chimpanzees and gorillas, the two-legged man gait is difficult to bring. There are significant differences in the mechanics of these movements. For example, the knees in chimpanzees and gorillas almost never begged to the end. As we already know, these monkeys sometimes move on the ground on two legs, but the legs remain half bent. Their gait is different from human and near other features. Orangutan's other case, the most "woody" from large person [This refers to the natural group, including orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and hominids. In English This group is called Great Apes], Beyond the behavior of which Krompton and his colleagues during the year were observed in the forests of the island of Sumatra.

Anthropologists registered 2811 single "acts" of the movement of orangutans in crowns of trees. For each case, the number of supports used (branches), their thickness, as well as method of movement, was recorded. Orangutans have three ways three: on two legs (sticking to anything with hand), on all fours, hackering the branch with fingers and legs, and on some hands, in a suspended state, from time to time clinging for something legs.

Statistical analysis of the collected data showed that the method of movement depends on the number and thickness of the supports. On solitary thick, the sturdy branches of orangutans are usually moved on all four, according to the branches of the middle diameter - on the hands. By thin twigs, they prefer to gently walk their feet, sticking to the hand for some extra support. At the same time, the gait of the monkeys is very similar to human - in particular, the legs are completely broken in the knees. It is this way of movement that seems to be the most secure and effective when you need to move on thin, flexible and unreliable branches. An additional advantage is that one of the hands remains free to break fruit.

The ability to walk by thin branches is not at all a trifle for wood monkeys. Thanks to this ability, they can freely move along the forest canopy and move from the tree to the tree, not going down to the ground. It significantly saves strength, that is, reduces the energy costs for the extraction of food. Therefore, such an ability should be maintained by natural selection.

Orangutans separated from the overall evolutionary trunk before gorilla, and the gorillas - earlier than this trunk was divided into the ancestors of chimpanzee and humans. Researchers suggest that branches inherently inherent in the distant ancestors of all major people. Orangutans, living in wet rainforests of Southeast Asia, have retained this skill and developed him, gorillas and chimpanzees - lost, having worked out in return to their characteristic four-way walking on the knuckles and rarely used two-headed gait "on semi-bent". This could contribute to the periodic "drying" of tropical forests in Africa and the spread of Savann. Representatives of the human evolutionary line learned to walk on the ground in the same way as on thin branches, straightening the knees.

According to Krompton and his colleagues, their assumption explains two groups of facts pretty mysterious from the point of view of other hypotheses of the origin of two-beared. Firstly, it becomes clear why the forms close to the general ancestor of man and chimpanzees (such as Sahelentrop, Orrin and Ardipitec) are already observed in the structure of the skeleton explicit signs of two-beaches, and this is despite the fact that these creatures lived not in Savannah , and in the forest. Secondly, it ceases to seem conflicting the structure of the hands and feet of the Afar Australopithek - the most well-studied from the early representatives of the human line. W. Australopithecus afarensis The legs are well adapted for two-legged walking, but the hands are very long, tenacious, more suitable for life on trees and grabbed over the branches (see below).

According to the authors, people and Orangutans retained an ancient two-legged gait of their distant ancestors, and Gorilla and Chimpanzee lost it and developed something new - walking on the knuckles of fingers. It turns out that in this respect, human and orangutan should be considered "primitive", and chimpanzees and gorillas - "Evolutionary advanced" ( Thorpe et al., 2007).

More clarity to the question of origin of bipedalism makes magnificent ardi - the oldest of well-studied (today) hominid.

In October 2009, a special issue of Science magazine was published, dedicated to the results of a comprehensive study of the Ardipitek bones - a two-legged monkey who lived in the northeast of Ethiopia 4.4 million years ago. View Ardipithecus Ramidus. It was described in 1994 on several teeth and jaw fragments. In subsequent years, the collection of bone residues of the ardipitec is significantly replenished and now has 109 samples. The very large luck was the find of a significant part of the skeleton of the female individual, which scientists solemnly presented to journalists and the general public under the name of Ardi. In official documents, Ardi is as skeleton ARA-VP-6/500.

Eleven articles published in Special Education Science summed up the long-term work of a large international research team. The publication of these articles and their main heroine Ardi were widely advertised, but this is not an empty noise, because the study of the Ardipite bones really allowed more and more accurately to reconstruct the early stages of the evolution of the hominid.

Confirmed the assumption expressed earlier on the basis of the first fragmentary finds that A. Ramidus. - A wonderful candidate for a transitional role [Candidate, not just a transitional link, because it is impossible to strictly prove on fossil bones that someone was someone else or a descendant. However, in many cases, it can be judged with a great degree of confidence, such as, for example, in the case of Ardi] Between the general ancestor of man and chimpanzees (to this ancestor, it was apparently close to the Orrin and Sahelentrop) and later hominids - Australopiteki, from which, in turn, the first representatives of the kind of people have occurred ( Homo.).

Until 2009, the most ancient of the detailed learned hominid was Lucy, Afar Australopithek, who lived about 3.2 million years ago ( Johanson, Go, 1984). More ancient species (in order of increasing antiquity: Australopithecus Anamensis, Ardipithecus Ramidus, Ardipithecus Kadabba, Orrorin Tugenensis, Sahelanthropus Chadensis) were studied on the basis of fragmentary material. Accordingly, our knowledge of their structure, lifestyle and evolution also remained fragmented and inaccurate. And now the honorary title of the most ancient of the well-studied hominid solemnly passed from Lucy to Ardi.

Dating and the features of the burial. Bones A. Ramidus. There are from one layer of sedimental sediments with a thickness of about 3 m, concluded between the two volcanic assaults. The age of these interlayers was installed using argon-argon method [One of the most reliable ways to radiometric dating of volcanic rocks. It is the result of the improvement of the potassium-argon method based on the constancy of the transformation rate of radioactive isotope 40 to 40 AR] And it turned out to be the same (within the measurement error) - 4.4 million years. This means that the bone layer was formed (as a result of floods) relatively quickly - a maximum of 100,000 years, but most likely - for several millennia or even centuries.

Excavations were started in 1981. In total, more than 140,000 vertebrate bones were produced, of which B000 is definition to the family. Among them - 109 samples A. Ramidus.who belonged to at least 36 individuals. Ardi skeleton fragments were scattered around the area of \u200b\u200babout 3 m 2. The bones were unusually fragile, so it was worth extracting them from the breed. The cause of the death of Ardi is not installed. She was not eaten by predators, but her remains, apparently, were thoroughly trampled by large herbivores. Especially got a skull, which was cooked into many fragments.

ENVIRONMENT. Together with bones A. Ramidus. Found residues of various animals and plants. Forests are dominated among plants, among animals - eating trees (and not grass) from the leaves or fruits. Judging by these finds, Ardipico lived not in the savannah, but in a wooded area, where the areas of the dense forest alternated with more sparsely. The ratio of carbon isotopes 12 s and 13 s in dental enamel of five individuals A. Ramidus. It suifes the fact that ardipitecias were fed mainly by the gifts of the forest, and not savanna (for the herbs, the savanna is characterized by an increased content of isotope 13 c). These ardipitecia differ from their descendants - Australopites, which received from 30 to 80% of carbon from the ecosystems of open spaces (ardipitecia - from 10 to 25%). However, ardipitecia was still not purely forest inhabitants, like chimpanzees whose food has a forest origin by almost 100%.

The fact that the ardipitecias lived in the forest, at first glance, contradicts the old hypothesis, according to which the early stages of the evolution of the hominid and the development of two-headed walking were associated with the exit from the forest in Savannah. Similar conclusions were previously made during the study of Orrinine and Sahelinterop, which, apparently, went on two legs, but lived in wooded terrain. However, it is possible to look at this situation from another point of view, if you remember that the forests in which the early hominids lived were not very thick, and their bind-noise is not very perfect. According to S. V. Drobyshevsky, the combination of "transitional medium" with "transitional walk" does not refute, but, just the opposite, brilliantly confirms the old views. The hominids moved from dense forests on open spaces gradually, and their gait was just as gradually improved.

Skull and teeth. Skull Ardi looks like Sakhelyantroph's skull. For both species, a small brain volume is characteristic (300-350 cm 3), offset of ahead of a large occipital hole (that is, the spine was attached to the skull not from behind, but from the bottom, which indicates a bite walking), as well as less developed than the chimpanzee and gorilla , indigenous and surrender teeth. Apparently, a strongly pronounced prenatamism (speaking jaws ahead) in modern African man-like monkeys is not a primitive feature and evolved after their ancestors separated from the ancestors of man.

Ardipitek's teeth are the teeth of an unimportant creature. The whole set of signs (the size of the teeth, their shape, the thickness of the enamel, the nature of microscopic scratches on the dental surface, isotopic composition) indicates that ardipitecias did not specialize in some kind of one diet - for example, on fruits, like chimpanzees. Apparently, ardipitecia was fed both on trees and on earth, and their food was not too tough.

One of the most important facts is that males A. Ramidus.Unlike modern person (except for a person), the fangs were no longer larger than in females. The males monkeys actively use fangs and to intimidate rivals, and as a weapon. At the most ancient hominids ( Ardipithecus Kadabba, Orrorin, Sahelanthropus) Fangs in males may have also been no more than in females, although it is not enough for final conclusions. Obviously, in the human evolutionary line, the sexual dimorphism (interpole differences) in the size of the fangs was very early to come. It can be said that the males had "feminization" of fangs. At chimpanzees and gorilla, the dimorphism, apparently, intensified secondly, the males acquired very large fangs. The males bonobo fangs are less than that of other modern people. The lowest level of intraspecific aggression is also characteristic of bonobo. Many anthropologists believe that there is a direct connection between the size of the fangs in males and intraspecific aggression. In other words, it can be assumed that the decrease in the fangs from our distant ancestors was associated with certain changes in the social structure. For example, with a decrease in conflicts between males.

Body size. Ardi's growth was approximately 120 cm, the weight is about 50 kg. The males and females of ardipitekov almost did not differ in size. Weak sexual interpurity in body size is characteristic of both modern chimpanzees and bonobo with their relatively equal relations between the floors. In the gorilla, on the contrary, the dimorphism is very strongly expressed, which is usually associated with polygamy and a harem system. The descendants of the ardipitecans - Australopiteks - sexual dimorphism, possibly increased (see below), although it was not necessarily associated with the dominance of males over females and the establishment of a harem system. The authors assume that the males could grow up, and females - to grind in connection with the exit to Savannah, where the males had to take over the protection of the group from predators, and females, may have learned better to cooperate with each other, which made physical power less important for them .

Post-Stranny skeleton. Ardi moved along the ground on two legs, although less confident than Lucy and her relatives - Australopitek. At the same time, Ardi has many specific adaptation for efficient lasagna in trees. In accordance with this, in the structure of the pelvis and legs of Ardi, there is a combination of primitive (climbing oriented) and advanced (walking oriented) signs.

Ardi's hands are preserved extremely well (as opposed to Lucy's hands). Their study made it possible to make important evolution conclusions. As we already know, it was believed that the ancestors of a person, like chimpanzees and gorillas, went, leaning on the knuckles of the fingers. This peculiar way of movement is characteristic only for African man-like monkeys and orangutans; Other monkeys when walking are usually based on the palm. However, Ardi's hands are deprived of specific features associated with "knuckle". Ardic brush is more flexible and movable than chimpanzees and gorilla, and for a number of signs is similar to human. It is now clear that these signs are primitive, initial for the hominid (and possibly for the general ancestor of man and chimpanzees). The structure of the brush characteristic of chimpanzees and gorillas (which, by the way, does not allow them to be deftly manipulated objects, as we do), on the contrary, is advanced, specialized. Strong, chain hands of chimpanzees and gorillas allow these massive animals to effectively move around the trees, but poorly adapted for thin manipulations. Ardipite's hands allowed him to walk along the branches, leaning on his palm, and better fit for gun activity. Therefore, in the course of further evolution, our ancestors had to do so much to "redo" their hands.

In the structure of Ardipite, there is a mosaic of signs, indicating the conservation of the ability to grabbed over the branches (anti-high finger) and at the same time - about an effective donogogo walk (tougher than modern man-like monkeys, stop arch). The descendants of Ardiptech - Australopiteki - lost the ability to grab legs over the branches and acquired an almost completely human structure of the foot.

Ardipitipitis presented to anthropologists a lot of surprises. According to the authors, such a mixture of primitive and advanced features, which was found at Ardipitec, no one could predict without having a real paleoanthropological material in the hands. For example, it never occurred to anyone that our ancestors first adapted to walk on two legs due to the pelvis transformations and only after the opposing thumb and there are enough function of the feet.

Thus, the study of ardipiteca showed that some popular hypotheses about the paths of evolution of the hominid need revision. Many signs of modern humans were not at all primitive, but advanced, specific features of chimpanzees and gorilla, associated with a deep specialization to Lazagan on trees, sign on the branches, "knuckle", a specific diet. These signs did not have common ancestors with them. Those monkeys from which man occurred was not very similar to the current ones.

Most likely, this concerns not only the physical structure, but also behavior and public device. Perhaps thinking and social relations in chimpanzees is not such a good model for the reconstruction of thinking and social relations from our ancestors. In the final article of a special issue of Science, a well-known American anthropologist Owen Lavjoy calls on the usual ideas, according to which Australopita was something like chimpanzees who had learned to walk straight. Lavuja emphasizes that in reality, chimpanzees and gorilla are extremely peculiar, specialized, relic primates, accumulating in the impassive rainforests and only because they lived to this day. On the basis of new facts, Lavuja has developed a very interesting model of the early evolution of the hominid, which will be discussed in the next section.

Family relationships - the key to understanding our evolution

Most hypotheses about the paths and mechanisms of anthropogenesis are traditionally spinning around two unique features of people: a large brain and challenging devices. Owen Lavjoy belongs to the number of those anthropologists who believe that the key to understanding our origin is not an enlarged brain and not stone guns (these signs appeared in the evolution of the hominid very late), and other unique features of the "human" evolutionary line associated with sexual behavior , family relationships and social organization. This point of view lavage defended in the early 1980s. At the same time, he suggested that the key event of the early evolution of the hominid was to transition to Monogamy, that is, to the formation of sustainable marriage pairs ( Lovejoy, 1981.). This assumption was then repeatedly challenged, revised, confirmed and denied ( Butovo, 2004.) [The largest Russian anthropologist M.L. Butovskaya believes that our distant ancestors, most likely practiced the so-called serial monogamy. This type of relationship is characteristic of modern European civilization: got married, lived together for several years (on average, about as much as they need to be taken into account the child), then divorced and changed partners. Similar customs meet both modern gatherers, such as Hadza in Tanzania].

The new data on Ardipite has strengthened the arguments in favor of the leading role of changes in social and sexual behavior in the early evolution of the hominid. The study of ardipitek showed that chimpanzees and gorilla are not the best guidelines for the reconstruction of the thinking and behavior of our ancestors. As long as the most ancient of the well-studied, the hominid remained Lucy, it was also possible to assume that the last overall ancestor of man and chimpanzee was generally similar to chimpanzees. Ardi radically changed this situation. It became clear that many signs of chimpanzees and gorillas are relatively recently acquired specific features of these relic primates. The ancestors of these signs were not. If said right for legs, hands and teeth, it may well be true for behavior and family relationships. Consequently, we should not proceed from the belief that the social life of our ancestors was about the same as the current chimpanzees. Assessed towards chimpanzees, you can focus on the information that the fossil material gives.

Lavuja attaches great importance to the fact that the males ardipiteca, as already mentioned, did not have large fangs that could, like other monkeys, constantly hide on the indigenous teeth of the lower jaw and used as weapons and means of the intimidation of male competitors. Reducing the fangs in later hominid - Australopites and people - before they tried to interpret either as a side result of the increase in molars (indigenous teeth), or as a result of the development of the stone industry, which made this natural weapon excess. It has long been clear that the fangs decreased long before the production of stone guns (about 2.6 million years ago). The study of ardipiteca showed that the decrease in the fangs occurred long before the Australopitheeks had increased indigenous teeth (which was possibly associated with access to savanna and with the inclusion of hard rhizomes in the diet). Therefore, the hypothesis about the social causes of decreasing fangs began to look more convincing. Large fangs in male primates are a reliable indicator of intraspecific aggression. Therefore, their decrease in early hominid is likely to indicate that relations between males have become more tolerant. They began to enjoy more with each other because of females, territory, domination in the group.

For human monkeys as a whole, the so-called K-strategy is characteristic. . Their reproductive success depends not as much from fertility, as from the survival of the young. Human-like long childhood, and to grow every young, females spend a huge amount of time and effort. While the female feeds the cub, it is not capable of conception. As a result, the males are constantly faced with the problem of the lack of "conditioned" females. Chimpanzees and gorilla solve this problem by force. The males of chimpanzees are combined into combat units and make raids through the territories of neighboring groups, trying to expand their possessions and access new females. The gorillas - males expel potential competitors from the family and strive to become the one-chased owners of the harem. For those and other large fangs - not a luxury, but to the tool leave more offspring. Why did the early hominids refused them?

Another important component of the reproductive strategy of many primates is the so-called sperm. They are characteristic of species practicing free sexual relations in groups that include many males and females. Reliable indicator of sperm are large seeds. In the gorillas with their reliably guarded harem and single-orangutan (also short-swelled polygums, although their friends usually live apart, and not a single group) the sementers are relatively small, as in humans. At sexually liberated chimpanzees, the seeds are enormous. Important indicators are also the speed of sperm production, the concentration of sperm and the presence of special proteins in the seed fluid, creating obstacles for other spermatozoa. By the aggregate of all these signs, it can be concluded that in the evolutionary history of the person, regular semen semen were once, but no longer play a significant role.

If the males of early hominids did not gnaw with each other because of females and did not get involved in the semen, it means they found some other way to provide themselves with a reproductive success. This method is known, but it is quite exotic - it is practiced only about 5% of mammals. This monogamy is the formation of strong married couples. The males of monogamous species tend to take an active part in the care of the offspring.

Lavuja believes that Monogamius could develop on the basis of behavior found in some primates, including (albeit infrequently) in chimpanzees. We are talking about "mutually beneficial cooperation" floors based on the principle of "sex in exchange for food". This behavior could get a particularly strong development in early hominids due to the peculiarities of their diet. Ardipitecias were omnivorous, they were mined both on trees and on earth, and their diet was much more diverse than chimpanzees and gorillas. It should be borne in mind that monkeys omnivoy is not synonymous with meals in food - just the opposite, it involves high selectivity, gradation of food preferences, the growth of the attractiveness of some rare and valuable food resources. Gorillas feed on with leaves and fruits can afford to be lazy to wander through the forest, moving just a few hundred meters per day. All ardipitecias had to act more vigorously and overcome much long distances to get something delicious. At the same time increased the danger to please the predator in his teeth. It was especially difficult for females with young. In such conditions, the "sex in exchange for food" strategy became very winning for females. The males, feeding females, also raised their reproductive success, since their offspring improved chances of survival.

Chimpanzee steal fruits from other people's gardens to seduce females

The international group of zoologists from the United States, Great Britain, Portugal and Japan has been monitored by the family of wild chimpanzees in the forests around the village of Boss in Guinea, not far from the border with Côte d, Ivoire and Liberia. These observations allowed to judge the relationship among wild chimpanzees. not spoiled by annoying human attention and training.

The territory of the family occupied an area of \u200b\u200bapproximately 15 km 2 and closely adjacent to human housing. The economy of people included the plantation of fruit trees. The chimpanzee family has numbered from 12 to 22 individuals, of which only three males always. These males constantly made raids on fruit plantations. On average, each male climbed into someone else's garden 22 times a month. The males understood all the danger of an unlawful enterprise, showing his alarms with characteristic scratching. Going into business, the male looked around all the time - there is no surveillance, then quickly climbed onto the tree, instantly disappeared two fetus - one in the teeth, the other in hand - and faster-faster from a dangerous territory.

The thief raids of chimpanzees look quite like boyish bars in the nearby garden behind apples. Yes, and the goal of these raids, as it turned out, is not too different from the boyish thoughts: boast of prey before comrade and appear heroes in front of the girls. Chimpanzees bring stolen fruits into her family at all so that in the corner it slowly to choke them. Males treat themselves!

It must be remembered that chimpanzees, like, however, and other monkeys are rarely sharing with each other (except, of course, mothers and a cub). And the treat is not free. His males offer females ready for mating. Females behave correctly and do not ask for a treat, the male itself chooses who treat. As you can see, the strategy "sex in exchange for food" in the Promiscusive teams of chimpanzees can also work, although not so effectively, as with monogamy.

In this family, one of the females clearly exceeded others by attractiveness. In 83% of cases, males treated with fruit. After that, the female, taking courtship, was removed from the chosen to the territory of the territory. At the same time, she clearly preferred to courting one of the applicants, and it was not the dominant alpha male at all, and the subordinate beta-male: she spent more than half of his time. The dominant male less often was shared with her unmanifested fruit: only in 14% of cases he invited her to treat it.

Observers are noted by such a fact: the males preferred this particular female, despite the fact that the family was different, physiologically more prepared for reproduction. Immediately the idea comes to mind that the males of chimpanzees were assessed by their girlfriends not only by readiness for reproduction, but also on other subjective criteria, but, of course, the authors of the publication abstained from such speculations. These wonderful observations led them nonetheless to a well-founded conclusion that for chimpanzees theft is not a way to extract meals. After all, "real", forest food they do not share. This is a way to support your authority, as it is characteristic of dominant male, or conquer the sympathy of females ( Hockings et al., 2007).

If the males of the ancient hominids took the rule to wear females, then over time, special adaptations were to develop, facilitating such behavior [In such intelligent animals, like monkeys, behavior will first be changed, and the changes will be stored in a series of generations by imitating and learning, as a cultural tradition. This leads to a change in the direction of selection, because mutations that make life easier for such behavior will now be supported and spread. As a result, this can lead to the consolidation of new psychological, physiological and morphological signs. This path of the formation of evolutionary innovations is called the Baldine effect. We will talk about it more in the following chapters]. The extracted lacquers had to be transferred to considerable distances. It is not easy if you walk on all fours. Lavuja believes that two-beaches - the brightest distinguishing feature of the hominid - developed precisely in connection with the custom of supplying female foods. An additional stimulus could be the use of primitive guns (for example, sticks) for the smelling of hard-to-reach food objects.

The changed behavior was to affect the nature of social relations in the group. The female was interested first of all that the male did not throw her, the male - so that the female did not change him. The achievement of both goals was desperately prevented by the "Advertise" of ovulation, or a time when the female is capable of conception. Such advertising is beneficial if the society is organized as a chimpanzee. But in society with the predominance of sustainable pair connections developed on the basis of the "Sex in exchange for food" strategy, the female is absolutely not interested in the long periods of abstinence (it will stop feeding or even to another, scoundrels!). Moreover, the female is beneficial for the male at all could not determine if the conception is possible at the moment. Many mammals determine this by smell, but the hominid has contributed to the reduction of many olfactory receptors. The males with a degraded smell were better fed their family - and became more desirable marriage partners.

The male, for his part, is also not interested in advertising his readiness for conception and created an unnecessary excitement among other males - especially if he is currently "on the fishery". The female hiding ovulation became preferred partners, because they had fewer reasons for married change.

As a result, the hominids had all the external signs of readiness (or non-unpreparedness) to conceive; Including it became impossible to determine the size of the mammary glands, whether the female of the chest young is now. Chimpanzees, like other primates (except for people), the size of the mammary glands shows whether the female is capable of conception. Increased breasts - a sign that the female now feeds the cub and cannot conceive a new one. The chimpanzee males rarely mate with nursing females, the enlarged chest does not attract them.

People are the only primates, whose females have constantly enlarged chest (and some of the males like it). But why was this sign developed initially - to attract males or maybe to be discharged? Lavuja considers the second option more believable. He believes that a constantly increased chest that does not give any information about the ability of females to conception, it was a set of measures to strengthen monogamy and a decrease in hostility between males.

As pair bonds strengthened the preferences of females were to gradually shift from the most aggressive and dominant males to the most caring. For those species of animals whose males do not care about the family, the choice of the "steep" (dominant, courageous) male often turns out to be for females of the best strategy. Father's care for the offspring in the root changes the situation. Now the female (and her offspring) is much more important that the male was a reliable breadwinner. External signs of masculinity (masculinity) and aggressiveness, such as large fangs, begin not to attract, but repel the females. The male with large fangs is more likely to increase its reproductive success by force methods, with the help of a fight with other males. Such husbands come out of fashion when a diligent and reliable husband feeder is needed to survive the offspring. The females choosing the husbands-Drachunov grow less young than those who chose non-aggressive work. As a result, females begin to prefer males with small fangs - and under the action of sexual selection, the fangs are quickly reduced.

Sad ladies choose not the most courageous cavaliers

Few biologists will deny that adaptations associated with the choice of a marriage partner play a huge role in evolution (see chapter "The origin of a person and sexual selection"). However, there are still many white spots in our knowledge about these adaptations. In addition to purely technical difficulties, stereotypes prevent them. For example, researchers often overlook this, it would seem that the obvious possibility that the marriage preferences of various individuals of the same species do not necessarily have the same. It seems to us to think that if, for example, the average Pavlinich prefers males with large and bright tails, it will certainly be true for all peacocks at all times. But this is not necessarily so. In particular, it is possible a so-called choice with a loan for yourself - when a person prefers partners, something similar or, on the contrary, not like it. Moreover, even the same individual preferences may vary depending on the situation - for example, on the degree of sedimention or from the phase of the estral cycle.

A good choice of sexual partner is a matter of life and death for your genes, which in the next generation will have to be mixed with the genes of your chosen. This means that any hereditary changes, at least a little affecting the optimality of the choice, will be extremely intensively supported or, on the contrary, to be rejected by natural selection. Therefore, we have the right to expect that the partner choice algorithms that have developed during evolution among different organisms can be very sophisticated and flexible. These arguments are fully applicable to people. Studies in this area can help find a scientific approach to understanding the most subtle nuances of human relationships and feelings. However, such studies have been held a bit yet.

Recently, in Evolutionary Psychology magazines, Evolutionary Biology, two, it would seem absolutely not related to each other with another article. One work is done in humans, the other - on the house sparrows, however, the regularities identified in them are similar. This is at least makes thinking.

Let's start with Sparrow. These birds are monogamous, that is, they form sustainable couples, and both parents take care of the offspring, but married treasures are found at all. In short, family relationships from Vorobev differ little from the human populations adopted in most. The males of the house sparrow the main sign of masculinity is a black spot on his chest.

It is shown that the size of the spot is an "honest" indicator of the health and forces of the male (which depend on the quality of genes) and is directly related to its social status. The males with a large spot occupy the best plots, successfully defend their female from the encroachment of other males and produce on average more offspring than males with a small spot. It is also shown that the reproductive success of females, who have listed their lives with the owner of a large spot, in most populations on average higher than that of the "unfortunate", which went to the husband less bright male.

From these facts, it would seem, it follows that the sparrowhames always and under any circumstances should be beneficial to give preference to males with a large spot. Austrian scientists from the Institute of Etology have tried to check it. Conrad Lorenz in Vienna. They suggested that females preferences may depend on their own state. In particular, it was expected that females in poor physical form could be less legitimate. Reduced selectivity in low-attractive individuals was previously marked in several species of animals.

As a measure of the physical condition of the females, the ratio of body weight towards the length of the plus range was used, erected into the cube. This indicator reflects simply the definition of the bird, which, in turn, depends on its health and on the conditions in which it grew. It is known that this value in the sparrow birds correlates with the indicators of the reproductive success of females, such as the size of the masonry and the number of surviving chicks.

The experiment was attended by 96 sparrows and 85 sparrows caught in the Viennese Zoo. The source size (length) of the black spots in all the selected for the experiment of males was less than 35 mm. Half of males stained a black marker up to 35 mm, which roughly corresponds to the average spot in the males of this species, and the other half is up to 50 mm, which corresponds to the maximum size. The preferences of females were determined by the standard method, which is commonly used in such studies. In two extreme avasters, two males with a different spot size, and in the central aviary - female and looked, next to which of the males female will spend more time.

It turned out that between the confusion of females and the time she spends next to the "worst" of two males, there is a strict negative correlation. In other words, the worse the state of the female, the less time she spends next to the owner of a large spot and the stronger her traction to the male with a stain of medium size. At the same time, contrary to theoretical expectations, well-fastened females with a clear selectival did not demonstrate. They performed on average about the same time near each of the two males. Castle females, on the contrary, showed strict selectivity: they resolutely preferred "medium" males and avoided possessors of a huge spot.

This, apparently, one of the first etological studies, in which the preference was demonstrated by the "second-rate" females of low-quality males. A similar result was obtained on birds of zebra amadines, and this work was also published quite recently ( Holveck, Riebel, 2010). Previously, something similar was noticed at the fish of barley ( Bakkeret et al., 1999). Unlike the Viennese Sparrow, Amadin and Kolyukov, who are in good shape, definitely prefer "high-quality" males.

The authors suggest that strange preferences of skinny sparrows can be explained by the fact that males with a small spot are more caring fathers. Some facts and observations indicate that weak males with a small spot are trying to compensate for their shortcomings by the fact that they take more parental trouble. Strong sparrow in principle can grow chicks and without the help of a spouse, so it can afford to take into the husbands of a healthy and strong male with a big spot, even if he is a bad father, - in the hope that the offspring will inherit his health and strength. A weak female alone cannot cope, so it is more profitable for her to choose a less "prestigious" spouse, if there is hope that he will spend more forces on his family. Is it not true, this is something like the situation that has developed, according to Lavjoy, has ardipitekov?

Former studies have shown that females preferences may vary in different populations of Sparrow. In some populations of females on average, as it should be on the theory, prefer males with the largest stains. In others, this is not observed (as in the population of the Vienna Zoo). According to the authors, such a variability is partly due to the fact that in different populations there may be a different numerical ratio of females in good and bad physical form ( Griggio, Hoi, 2010).

A similar study, but no longer on sparrows, but in humans, was fulfilled by psychologists from the University of Oklahoma. They studied the effect of thoughts of death on how women estimate the attractiveness of men who differ in the degree of masculinity (masculinity).

If we talk about "average" preferences, then women tend to prefer more courageous persons if they themselves are in the phase of the menstrual cycle, when the probability of conception is large. With a low probability of conception, women usually prefer men with more feminine (feminine) persons.

The interest of psychologists to the effects of reminders of death is associated with the fact that, as numerous observations and experiments have shown, such reminders have a profound impact on the reproductive behavior of people. One of the manifestations of this influence is bursts of fertility, often observed after large catastrophes or natural disasters. Reminders about the inevitability of death exacerbate the interest of people to the reproductive sphere and stimulate the desire to have children. For example, if before testing, remind the subject that they are mortal, the percentage of positive answers to the type questions "would you like to start another child?" significantly increases. Such studies were carried out quite a lot, and they all gave similar results. In China, the tests after a reminder of death became less inclined to support the fertility control policies, in America and Israel, such reminders increased the readiness of the ladies to join the "risky" sexual relationship with the danger of becoming pregnant.

Psychologists from Oklahoma University decided to check if a reminder of death affects women's preferences in assessing male faces. The study was attended by 139 female students who do not accept hormonal drugs. The subjects randomly divided into two groups - experienced and control. Female students from the first group before testing asked to write a brief essay on the topic "My feelings about your own death and what will happen to me when I die." For the control group in the theme of the "Death", they replaced the "coming exam". Then, in accordance with the student adopted methods, the student performed a small "distracting" task so that for a time between a reminder of death and testing. After that, the subjects were imposed on the computer sequences generated on the computer - from extremely courageous to extremely feminine. It was necessary to choose from these faces "the most attractive".

It turned out that the reminder of death strongly affects women's preferences. Female students from the control group, as in all previous studies of this kind, more courageous persons were preferred, if they themselves were ready for conception, and less courageous, if they were in that phase of the cycle, when conception is unlikely. But students who had to write an essay of their own death, the tastes changed dramatically: they liked less courageous faces in the fertile phase and more courageous - in Nefertyl.

The authors discuss several possible interpretations of the results obtained (it is clear that it can be done quite a few). One of the proposed explanations seems to be the most interesting in the light of the data described above on the sparrows and ardipitecam. Perhaps the reminder of death declares women to choose not "good genes" for their potential children, but a "caring father." The fact is that men, like Vorobev, has a negative correlation between the severity of masculine signs and the tendency to care for his wife and children. In addition, men with most courageous persons are on average less prone to promal (socially useful) behavior and compliance with public norms. They are more aggressive, and therefore life with them is conjugate with a well-known risk. Probably, thoughts on the inevitability of death can act on women about the same way as on Sparrow - awareness of their own weakness. It also encourages females to bet on "good genes", but on a potentially more caring father ( Vaughn et al. 2010.). Maybe the same felt and burdened by the defore, omnivorous, forever hungry sisters Ardi?

Model of Lavjoy - "Adaptive complex" of early hominids. The arrows between rectangles indicate causal relationships, arrows inside rectangles - growth or decrease in the corresponding indicators. In the last general ancestor of people and chimpanzees, the teams probably consisted of many males and females, relatively loosely bored with each other. They had a moderate polymorphism in the size of the fangs and the low level of aggression between the males; There were sperm. Early hominids have developed three unique features (dark triangles), two of which are documented in the fossil chronicles (two-beaches and decrease in fangs). Estimated causal relationships: 1) the need to endure food led to the development of two-way; 2) the choice of females of non-aggressive partners leads to a decrease in fangs; 3) The need to protect against "married infidelity" (both sexes) leads to the development of hidden ovulation. Such a course of evolution is generated by two groups of factors: the food strategy of early hominid (left column) and the "demographic dilemma" due to the intensification of the K-strategy (right column). The selection pressure caused by these factors leads to the development of the "sex in exchange for food" strategy. The subsequent increase in the growth of males and the effective cooperation between males from Australopithecus Afarensis ensured the effectiveness of collective raids for the extraction of food. This made it possible to further master the prey fell in Savannah, and then the collective hunt (Rod Homo). Such a "economic revolution" contributed to the improvement of adaptations for donogogo walking, to further strengthen the internal cooperation and a decrease in the intragroup aggression, an increase in the amount of energy that could be distinguished for the cultivation of offspring, the growth of fertility and survival of children. She also weakened restrictions that prevent the development of "expensive" tissues (brain). Figure from Lovejoy, 2009.

As a result of the events described, our ancestors have formed a society with a reduced level of intragroup aggression. It may have decreased and intergroup aggression, because with the lifestyle, which presumably led ardipitecia, it is difficult to assume developed territorial behavior. The uneven distribution of resources on the territory, the need to overcome long distances in search of valuable food objects, the high risk to get to the dinner is a predator - all this was difficult (although it was not fully) the existence of clear boundaries between groups and their protection.

The decrease in the intragroup aggression has created prerequisites for the development of cooperation, mutual assistance. The decrease in antagonism between females allowed them to cooperate to jointly concern about young. The decrease in antagonism between the males facilitated the organization of joint raids for the extraction of food. Chimpanzees are also occasionally practiced collective hunting, as well as collective fighting against neighboring groups of chimpanzees. Early hominid has such behavior, it probably got much greater development.

This opened new environmental opportunities before the hominids. Valuable food resources that are impossible or extremely dangerous to extract alone (or small, poorly organized, ready to disperse with groups), suddenly became accessible when males hominid learned to unite into cohesive detachments, where everyone could rely on his friend.

It is not difficult to remove the subsequent development of the descendants of the ardipitetes of completely new types of resources - including the transition to power to Padalu in Savannah (it was undoubtedly a very risky business requiring a high level of males cooperation; see below), and then to the collective hunt for large game.

The subsequent increase in the brain and the development of the stone industry in the Lavjoy model appears as a side - and even to a certain extent accidental - the consequence of the direction of the specialization to which early hominids went. The ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas had the same initial capabilities, but they were "led" on another evolutionary route: they made a bet on the powerful solution of matrimonial problems, and therefore the level of intragroup antagonism they remained high, and the level of cooperation is low. Complex tasks, the solution of which requires coordinated actions of cohesive and friendly teams, and remained for them inaccessible, and in the end these monkeys did not become reasonable. The hominids "elected" a non-standard solution - monogamy, quite a rare strategy among mammals, and this ultimately led them to the development of the mind.

The Lavjoy model binds together three unique features of the hominid: two-beaches, small fangs and hidden ovulation. The main advantage is just that it consists that it gives a single explanation by these three peculiarities, and not looking for individual reasons for each of them.

The Lavjoy model has existed for 30 years. All its components have long been the subject of a lively discussion in the scientific literature. Lavuja relies on many facts and theoretical developments, and not just on those miser information and the simplest reasoning that can be stated in a popular book. New data on Ardipite to rarity fit well into the theory of Lavjoy and allowed to clarify its details. Lavuja perfectly understands that his model is speculative and some of its aspects will not be easy to confirm or refute ( Lovejoy, 2009.). Nevertheless, it is, in my opinion, a good theory, consistent with most well-known facts. It can be hoped that subsequent anthropological finds will gradually make some of its provisions generally accepted.

Back to the childhood?

Above, we said that a decrease in the fangs in males of early hominids can be viewed as "feminization". Indeed, the reduction of one of the characteristic "male" monkey signs made males gominid more similar to females. Perhaps it was associated with a decrease in the production of male genital hormones or with a decrease in the sensitivity of some tissues to these hormones.

Look at the zoo on Orangutan and Gorillas. In the Moscow Zoo, for example, one gorilla and two orangutany families live now. They live in spacious avians, feel good there, and they can be observed for hours than I sometimes do. You do not need to be a biologist to notice how females of these two species are more like people than males. The Materia Orangutan or Gorilla's Maretz looks crazy, it is all overwhelmed by secondary sexual signs, demonstrating masculinity and strength: a humpback silver spin, a brutal look, unthinkable pancakes, huge folds of black leather on the chest. There are few human in them. But they are pretty cute girls. In my wife, perhaps, you will not take, but so, walk, sit in the cafe, chat about this ...

In addition to feminization in the evolution of our ancestors there was another important trend. On the shape of a skull, the structure of the hair cover, the size of the jaws and the teeth is more like a young monkeys than adults. Many of us retain curiosity and playfulness - features characteristic of most mammals only in childhood, while adult animals are usually sullen and dislike. Therefore, some anthropologists believe that an important role in the evolution of a person has played nesting, or juvenilization, is the delay in the development of some signs leading to the preservation of children's features in adult animals.

You can also talk about a broader concept - heterochronis. So called any changes in the speed and sequence of formation of different signs during the development (the nesting is a special case of heterochronis). For example, according to one of the theories, an important role in the evolution of a person played an accelerated development of socially oriented mental abilities (see chapter "Public Brain", KN. 2).

Juvenilization could contribute to monogamy. After all, in order for couples to become at least any resistant, partners should experience special feelings to each other, mutual attachment should be formed between them. In evolution, new signs rarely arise from nothing, usually use some old sign, which under the action of selection is subject to a certain modification. The most suitable "workpiece" (predaptation) for the formation of a stable marital affection is an emotional connection between mother and child. The study of mono- and polygamic types of rodents gives reason to believe that the system of forming strong family muses has repeatedly developed during the evolution based on a more ancient system of forming an emotional relationship between the mother and its offspring (see the chapter "Genetics of the Soul", KN. 2).

Something similar may have happened in a relatively recent history of mankind, about 10-15 thousand years ago, when our ancestors began to tame wild animals.

In 2006, Emanuela Prato-Preview and her colleagues from the Milan Institute of Psychology conducted a series of observations of the behavior of dogs and their owners in unusual, stressful conditions. At first, each couple (dog and her owner) were placed in a semi-empty room with a strange setting consisting of a pair of chairs, cups with water, an empty plastic bottle, two balls, toys on a rope, firing toys and camcorders that fixed everything that happened. Then the owner led to the next room, where he could observe the dog remaining alone on the monitor. After short, the owner separations were allowed back. Then followed the second, longer separation and a new happy reunion.

People - participants in the experiment (among them there were 15 women and 10 men), cunning psychologists said that they were interested in the behavior of the dog, and asked to behave as much as possible. In fact, the object of the study was not dogs, but their owners. Each action of experimentally was carefully fixed and classified. The exact number of strokes, hugs, kisses, gaming actions and so on was calculated. Particular attention was paid to uttered words.

It turned out that both men and women in communicating with the four-legged friend used a lot of behavioral elements characteristic of communicating parents with young children. Particularly indicative were the speech of the subjects, aburchased by repetitions, decreasing forms of words, affectionate names and other characteristic features of the so-called maternal language. After a long separation (accompanied by a stronger stress and for the "abandoned" dog, and for those who have observed the owner's experiences), the play activity of the subjects decreased markedly, but the number of hugs and other surges increased. Men chatted with their dogs somewhat less than women, but it could be due to the fact that men react to the presence of a camcorder: they may have been afraid to seem funny, talking to the dog. Other significant differences in the behavior of men and women were not revealed.

In this purely monitoring study, there was no control or big statistics, no one was introduced into the brain of artificial viruses, did not turn off any genes and did not make the green fluorescent protein of the jellyfish. Nevertheless, the authors believe that their results are a serious argument in favor of the hypothesis that the human symbiosis dog was originally built on the transfer of the parent "stereotype of behavior on new four-legged friends ( PRATO-PREVIDE ET AL., 2006). This hypothesis is confirmed by other facts. For example, in some traditional cultures that are not affected by civilization, it is customary to keep the mass of completely useless pets, and in many cases they turn exactly as with children, women even feed their breasts ( SERPELL, 1986.). Maybe the first volccastes settled in the dwelling of a Paleolithic man did not perform any utilitarian functions and sheltered their ancestors not to help on the hunt, guarding the cave or dissenting union, but for spiritual comfort, for friendship, for mutual understanding? Romantic, but quite respected by many psychologists of the hypothesis.

The ability to transfer on other social partners a style of behavior developed to communicate with children could play an important role in the evolution of man. It is possible that the juvenillary of the appearance and behavior of adults, the hominid was supported by the selection, because such individuals, slightly similar to children, their marriage partners experienced more tender feelings. It could increase their reproductive success if the wives less often changed such husbands (who most likely were also less aggressive and more reliable), and the husbands were less likely from wives, whose whole view spoke about how they need them In defense and support. So far, it is only a fortune telling on the coffee grounds, but still some indirect arguments in favor of this guessed can be brought.

If juvenilization really occurred in the evolution of human thinking and behavior, then something like this could be in the evolution of our closest relatives - chimpanzees and bonobo. These two species differ markedly in nature, behavior and public device. Chimpanzee is pretty sullen, aggressive and militant, in their groups usually tipped males. Bonobo live in more abundant places than chimpanzees. Perhaps, so they are more carefree and good-natured, it is easier to lay down, their females are better able to cooperate and have a greater "political weight" in the team. In addition, in the structure of Bonobo skull, like a person, there are signs of juvenillas. Maybe, in the behavior of Bonobo, you can find such signs?

Recently, American anthropologists from Harvard University and University of Duke decided to check whether chimpanzee and bonobo differ in chronology of the development of some features of thinking and behavior related to social life ( Wobber et al., 2010). For this, three series of experiments with chimpanzee and bonobo were held, leading the semi-dog (or "half-free") lifestyle in special "refuge", one of which is located on the northern coast of the Congo (chimpanzees live there), Other - on South, Bonobo . Most of these monkeys were confiscated at poachers at an early age, and only a few were born already in the shelter.

In the first series of experiments, monkeys were in pairs in pairs, where something delicious was located. The splitting of the pair was carried out so that in each pair there were monkeys of about one age and to be approximately an equal number of single and diverse pairs. There were three types of treats that differ in the ease of "monopolization" (some were easier to assign themselves, others are more difficult). The researchers have followed whether monkeys will be touched together or one of them grabs himself. In addition, cases of gaming and sexual behavior were recorded.

It turned out that young chimpanzees and bonobo equally willingly share food with comrades. With age, however, chimpanzees become more greedy, and Bonobo does not happen. Thus, Bonobo retain in the mature age "children's" line - no greed.

Bonobo is more often than chimpanzees, in this experiment of the game, including sexual. Both species have a playfulness decreased with age, but chimpanzees occurred faster than Bonobo. Thus, in this respect, Bonobo also behave "in childish", if you compare them with chimpanzees.

In the second series of monkeys experiments, they checked on the ability to refrain from meaningless actions in a specific social context. Three people put shoulder to the shoulder in front of the monkey. Two extreme people took a treat from the container inaccessible to monkey, and the average did not take anything. Then all three were stretched to the monkey hand, clenched into a fist, so it was not visible, who had an empty fist, and who had a treat. The monkey could ask for food from each of the three. It was believed that the monkey correctly decided the task if she asked only in two extremes, which in her eyes took a delicacy from the container, and did not ask for medium.

Chimpanzees, as it turned out, already at a three-year age coped with this task and retain this skill for life. Little Bonobo, on the contrary, often "mistaken" and ask for food from all three. Only by 5-6 years, Bonobo catch up with chimpanzees in terms of the right solutions. Thus, in this case, we can talk about the delay in the mental development of Bonobo compared to chimpanzees. Of course, it is not about mental retardation. Bonobo is not stupid chimpanzees, they are just careless and not so harsh in social life.

In the third series of experiments before monkeys, a more difficult task was set - to adapt to change in the behavior of people. It was necessary to ask for food from one of two experimenters. During preliminary tests, one of two always treated a monkey, and the second - never. The monkey, naturally, got used to it and began to choose the "good" experimenter once again. Then the roles suddenly changed: a kind experimental became greedy, and vice versa. Scientists have followed how fast the monkey will understand what happened, and will change its behavior in accordance with the changed atmosphere. The results turned out to be approximately the same as in the previous series of experiments. Starting from the five-year-old age, the chimpanzees were quickly reappeared and began to choose the experimenter who treated them now, and not in the past. Young bonobo coped with the task worse and caught up with chimpanzees only by 10-12 years.

These results are coordinated with hypotheses about the important role of heterochronium in the evolution of thinking of higher primates and that the Bonobo is characterized by the developmental delay (juvenile) of some mental traits compared with chimpanzees. Perhaps the root cause of the discovered differences is the reduced level of intraspecific aggression from Bonobo. This in turn may be due to the fact that Bonobo lives in more abundant areas, and they do not have much elder competition.

The authors pay attention to the fact that artificial selection for reduced aggressiveness during the domestication in some mammals led to the juvenillas of a number of signs. In particular, they mention the famous experiments by D. K. Belyaev and his colleagues for domestication of foxes ( Truth, 2007.). In these experiments, foxes were taken to reduced aggressiveness. As a result, friendly animals were obtained, which in adulthood some "children's" signs, such as lopowel and shortened muzzle, were preserved. It seems that the selection on friendliness (many animals have a "children's" sign) can lead to the juvenillas of some other features of morphology, thinking and behavior as a side effect. These signs can be interrelated - for example, through hormonal regulation.

While we cannot say for sure how relevant the selection was relevant for low aggressiveness from our ancestors and can our juvenile features (high foreheads, shortened face of the skull, the nature of the hair cover, curiosity) explain to this selection. But the assumption looks tempting. Apparently, the decrease in the intragroup aggression played an important role in the early stages of the evolution of the hominid. But there are also quite a few facts that indirectly indicate, on the contrary, on the growth of hostility between groups of collector hunters (and this is considered as one of the reasons for the development of intragroup cooperation; we will return to this topic in the head of the "Evolution of Altruism", KN. 2). But in this case, we are already talking about late stages of evolution and about intergroup aggression. So these hypotheses do not contradict each other.

Australopitetse

Let's go back to history. If a long series of lyrical deviations did not hit the reader with a sense, he still remembers that we stopped on ardipitecas who lived in East Africa 4.4 million years ago. Shortly after that, about 4.2 million years ago, the successors of Ardi go to the African scene - a little more "advanced", slightly more "human" two-legged monkeys, united by most anthropologists in the genus of Australopithek. The oldest of the famous species of this kind, Australopithek Anamsky ( Australopithecus AnaMensis, 4.2-3.9 million years ago), is described by fragmentary material. Therefore, it is difficult to say something defined in addition to the fact that its structure was indeed intermediate between ardipitecles and later - and better studied - Australopitek. He could well be a descendant Ardi and the ancestor of Lucy.

Assistant Australopitsecks are the appearance to which Lucy belonged in East Africa from about 4.0 to 2.9 million years ago. The remains of many individuals of this species are found. A. afarensis Almost probably was among our ancestors or at least was with them in very close relationship. Primitive features (for example, a brain volume of only 375-430 cm 2, as the chimpanzee) was combined with advanced, "human" (for example, the structure of the pelvis and the lower extremities, testifying to lintel).

About Lucy, described in 1978 by Donald Johanson, Tim White and Yves Koppen, told Dzhohanson himself in detail in the book "Lucy: the origins of the human race." This book was published in Russian in 1984. We are limited to a brief story about two new important finds.

The search for fossil residues of the hominid in East Africa - the cradle of mankind - it has long ceased to be the lot of single enthusiasts. The work is put on a wide foot, promising areas are divided between competing groups of anthropologists, excavations are systematically and very purposefully. In 2000, in one of these "research districts" - in Dikik (Ethiopia) - a unique find was made: a well-preserved skeleton of a young Afaropithek, most likely a three-year-old girl who lived 3.3 million years ago. Anthropologists assigned her an unofficial nickname "Lucy daughter" ( Alemseged et al. 2006; Wynn et al., 2006). Most bones were molded in solid sandstone, and on the preparation of a skeleton (cleaning bones from the accommodating breed) left for five years.

Diekika district and especially those layers in which the skeleton found is thoroughly studied in a paleontological relation, which made it possible to reconstruct the habitat of Lucy's daughter. It seems that it was a paradise place: a river valley with lush floodplain vegetation, lakes, a mosaic landscape with alternation of forest areas and open spaces, an abundance of herbivores, including large, characteristic of both forestry and steppe wobbies (antelopes, rhinos, hippopotams , fossil tropal horses hipparones, many elephants), and almost complete - how much can be judged by fossil residues - the absence of predators (only numerous bones of large minerals are found Enhydriodon And the lower jaw, possibly belonging to the racker dog). In general, there was less forest and more savanna, than in habitats of more ancient hominid - ardipitecans, Australopithek Anaman and Keniantrop.

Australopita AFARSKY - one of the most well-studied species of the hominid. His residues were found in a variety of places in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania. In the location of Hadar in central Ethiopia, the bones of at least 35 individuals were found. However, before they were found and repaired, "Lucy's daughter", scientists did not know almost anything about how the development of these monkeys occurred and how their children looked.

The geological age of the find (3.31-3.35 million years) was determined by the stratigraphic method [Stratigraphy - Science on the dismemberment of the thickness of sedimentary rocks per layers, the determination of their relative geological age (as a rule, the young layers lie on top of the more ancients) and about the correlation (correlation with each other) of simply layers from different places and sedimentary thickness. For the correlation of layers, many methods are used, including the paleontological (comparison of complexes of fossil residues of living organisms)]. This means that on the complex of paleontological and other signs of the breed in which the skeleton was found was attributed to a strictly defined stratigraphic horizon (layer), the absolute age of which was established earlier with several independent radiometric methods. [For more information about the methods of determining the age of rocks and fossils enclosed in them, see: Markov A. V. Chronology of the distant past].

The individual age of the Girl itself (about three years) was determined by her teeth. In addition to well-preserved dairy teeth with computed tomography, we managed to detect adult teeth in the jaws. Their form and relative dimensions allowed to determine the sex of the child (it is known that the Afar Australopites have men and women differed from each other in a number of signs, including teeth, stronger than the later hominid).

The authors of Nakhodka compared her with another young Australoptec - "Child from the Taunga" found in the 1920s in South Africa Raymond Darth (the study of Australopiteks began). "Child from Taung" lived significantly later and belonged to another view - Australopithecus Africanus.. It turned out that the girl from Dikiki, despite the young age, had already had a number of characteristic distinctive signs of their kind A. afarensisSo, her species affection is no doubt.

The brain volume of the girl is estimated at 275-330 cm 3. This is a little less than it could be expected on the basis of the average brain volume in adults of Australopites. Perhaps it speaks of a slightly slower growth of the brain compared to modern people. Very rarely persist in fossil hominid, the sub-bandy bone is similar to that of young gorillas and chimpanzees and is very different from human and orangutany. This is an argument in favor of the absence of speech Australopites, which, however, did not cause any particular doubts [The question of the origin of speech in the hominid is considered in detail in the book S. A. Burlak "The origin of the language" (2011), so here we almost do not affect this topic].

The legs of the girl, like other Afrare Australopites, have many advanced ("human") signs. This once again confirms that A. afarensis He was a spinning creature. The bones of the hands and the shoulder belt, according to the authors, bring together young Australopitheca rather with a gorilla than with a person, although some shift in the "human" side is still observed.

In general, the Nakhodka confirmed the "functional dichotomy" of the structure of Afaropita's Australopiteks: very advanced, almost the human lower part of the body was combined with their relatively primitive, "monkey" upper part. This "monkey top" of some researchers were interpreted simply as the legacy of the ancestors, from which Australopiteki had not yet had time to get rid of, others - as evidence of a half aless lifestyle. However, both interpretations may well be true at the same time.

Shovel "Lucy's daughter" - the first found whole blade A. afarensis "It's only more confused the case, because it resembles a gorilla shovel (more precisely, it looks like something intermediate between gorillas and human blades), and gorillas are not the biggest lovers to climb trees. They actively enjoy their hands when walking, leaning on the knuckles of fingers, like chimpanzees. The authors who described Lucy's daughter, nevertheless inclined to the opinion that Afar Australopites spent a lot of time on trees and therefore retained adaptation for Lazagna.

A variety of combinations of primitive and advanced signs are generally very characteristic of fossil organisms, whose primitiveness and advancement we estimate the back number - by comparing with distant descendants and ancestors. Evolutionary changes in various organs and parts of the body always go at different speeds - there is simply no reason why they should have changed absolutely synchronously. Therefore, whatever transitional form, we will always have that some signs have already "almost like a descendant", and others are still "just like ancestor."

Young Australopitsecks were prey of predatory birds

African Australopita ( Australopithecus Africanus.) I lived in South Africa between 3.3-3.0 and 2.4 million years ago. It was from this species that the study of Australopites began.

The famous Skull of the "Child from Taung" was found by a miner of a limescale mine in South Africa in 1924. The skull fell into the hands of Raymond Darth, one of Paleoanthropology pioneers. Next year, a sensational article of Darth appeared in the magazine Nature, "Australopitheek African: Humanobazyan from South Africa" \u200b\u200b( Dart, 1925.). So, mankind first learned about Australopithek - the long-awaited "missing link" between monkeys and already known by the time of the peteicanthrops ( Homo Erectus.).

Together with the skull of a young Australopitheka in the Tongung cave, the bones of bavians, antelope, turtles and other animals were found. The skulls of the bavians were as if barped to a kind of blunt to the gun. Darth suggested that all this fauna is the remnants of the feasts of man-examin. Thus, the image of Australopithek - a skilled hunter, who runs on the savanna for the bavians and killed them with a blow of a bubble on his head. Subsequently, adults were found A. Africanus.Also in the complex with a variety of fossil fauna.

A detailed study of these Paleokompleks led scholars to the conclusion that the clusters found bones are truly the remains of the feasts, but not a man-examiner, but some other predators. Australopitets were not hunters, but victims. Suspusage at the beginning fell on large feline, such as sabersub Megantereon ( Megantereon.). Among the possible hunters for manobesyan also called Leopard and Spotted Guien. These assumptions were based, in particular, on comparing the microelement and isotopic composition of bones of predators and ancient hominids, as well as on characteristic damage to the bones of the latter, exactly the corresponding leopard fangs.

In 1995, it was for the first time a suggestion was expressed that the "Baby from the Taung", together with Pavians and other beasts fell victim to a large bird of prey, similar to the modern African eagitarian eagle ( BERGER, CLARKE, 1995). The hypothesis was subject to sharp criticism. In particular, the opinion was expressed that no eagle was able to raise such large prey to the air as a young Australopitheck.

In recent years, the chas of large predatory birds - hunters for monkeys - it became known much more. For example, it turned out that the lifting force of these birds is still poorly underestimated. However, the "bird hypothesis" lacked the decisive evidence - the obvious traces of the fact that the "Baby from the Taultha" visited the claws of a huge eagle. It was possible to get such evidence in 2006, after the skull of modern monkeys killed by a crowned eagle was investigated. After reading the new data, the South African anthropologist Lee Berger, one of the authors of the "bird hypothesis", drew attention to the description of the characteristic holes and breaks in the upper parts of the iceds left by the eagle claws. The scientist immediately retended the Skull of the "Child from the Taung" and found the same damage in both orders.

Nobody paid attention to them, which is not surprising - because so far, these damage still could not be interpreted. In the right eye of the "Child from the Taung" a marked round hole with a diameter of 1.5 mm, in the upper part of the left eye socket - a large breach with uneven edges. Together with described in 1995, the dent on the upper part of the skull, these damage are sufficient proof that young Australopithek was caught, killed and eaten by a large birds of prey.

Berger indicates that the eagles were most likely far from the only enemies of Australopites. The four-legged and feathered predators are the most important mortality factor among modern African monkeys, and, apparently, our distant ancestors were no better. Many anthropologists consider the threat from the predatory animals and birds of one of the important reasons for the development of sociality in the ancient hominids (and high sociality in turn could contribute to the accelerated development of the mind), so in order to understand the evolution of our ancestors, it is important to know who hunted them ( Berger, 2006.).

The point of view of the half aless life of Afar Australopites, as well as their not quite human, clumsy walking recently disputed by many anthropologists. The new data obtained during the study of the famous traces of La Laith (Tanzania), as well as the recent find of a post-storage skeleton of a very large representative A. afarensis - Big man.

Latoli traces found Mary Lika in 1978. This is printed in ancient volcanic ash chain of three hominids: two adults and one child. The oldest traces of the two-legged primates glorified not only Mary Liki itself, but also the place of find - the village of Laatoli, located in East Africa, in Tanzania, in the Ngorongoro Reserve. On the edge of the Serengeti Plateau, not far from Laatoli, there is now the extinct volcano Sadiman - it is his ash and perpetuated traces of Australopites.

The eruption of the volcano, from which, perhaps, tried to leave these three, occurred 3.6 million years ago. In those edges of the famous science, the hominid was then lived only by Afar Australopita. Most likely, they left traces. According to footprints, it can be seen that the thumb has not yet been opposed to all the others, like Ardi, and ate to them - almost like with us. So, AFARSKA Australopitseki said goodbye to the old monkey are customs grabbed by the branches.

But how did they ever go - clumsily walked on semi-bent, like modern gorillas or Bonobo, when those finding a fault to stroll a "without hands", or confident, solid gait, straightening her legs - humanly? Recently, American anthropologists took up this issue seriously ( Raichlen et al., 2010). They forced people volunteers to walk different gaits in the sand, in different ways distributing the body weight and in different ways to put legs, and then compared the traces of the traces of La Laoli. Conclusion: The hitting of Afar Australopites was practically no difference from ours. They walked confidently and drove like us, completely straightening her knees.

Large AFAR Australopitheka on nicknamed Kadanuumuu (which at the local adverb means a big man) described in 2010 a group of anthropologists from the United States and Ethiopia ( Haile-Selassie et al., 2010). The research team entered the Owen Lavjoy already known to us. Nakhodka was made in the Afair area in Ethiopia, where many other fossil hominids come from. The skull did not succeed and failed, but they found the bones of the left leg and the right hand (without foot and the brush), a significant part of the pelvis, five ribs, a few vertebrae, the left clavicle and the right blade. Most likely, it was a male (or is it time to talk - a man?), Moreover, very large. If Lucy's growth was about 1.1 m, the big man was about half a meter above, that is, its growth was within the norm of modern people. He lived 3.6 million years ago - 400,000 years earlier Lucy and almost simultaneously with three unknown, leaving traces on volcanic ash in Laatoli.

The structure of a large man's skeleton, according to the authors, indicates a high fitness to a full-fledged dongy walking and lack of adaptations for the tree. The blade of Kadanuumuu is significantly less like a gorilla than the shovel "Lucy's daughter", and looks almost human. From this, the authors conclude that a big man knew how to climb on the trees. Ribs, pelvis and bones of the limbs also demonstrate many advanced signs. Even the ratio of the length of the hands and legs, albeit with difficulty, does fit in the range of normal variability Homo Sapiens.. Among modern people, such long and short-legged individuals are not enough, but they still come across. Apparently, this means that Afar Australopites in size and proportions of their body were quite changeable - maybe almost the same as modern people. Signs that were previously considered to be inherent in all Afarters (for example, very short legs, like Lucy), in fact, could depend on age, gender and vary widely within the population.

As for sexual dimorphism (differences in the size and proportions of the body between men and women), then there are fierce disputes on this occasion. Some authors (perhaps, most), believe that the dimorphism of Afar Australopites has been expressed much stronger than that of modern people. The monkeys have a strong sexual dimorphism (when males is much larger than the females) is a faithful sign of a harem system, which would seem to contradict the alleged monogamine of Australopites. Other authors, including Lavjoy, prove that sexual dimorphism of the Afartians was about the same as we. Of course, the discussion is not based on reasoning, but on real bones and thorough measurements, but the assembled material, apparently, is still not enough for reliable conclusions.

According to the anthropologist S. V. Drobyshevsky (2010 studied a large number of endocrants (brainstorming) of fossil hominids, the brain of Australopithecus in its structure was similar to the brain of chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but was distinguished by a more elongated form due to an increased parietal share. Perhaps This was due to the fact that Australopitek had greater mobility and sensitivity of the hands. What is actually logical, taking into account their lane walking.

Parantropes

Pararangs, also called massive Australopithek, is one of the dead-end branches on the evolutionary tree of the Hominid. Three types of Parantropov are described: P. Aethiopicus. (2.6-2.3 million years ago, East Africa), R. Boisei., he is zindjanthrope (2.3- 1.2 million years ago, East Africa), and R. Robustus. (1.9-1.2 million years ago, South Africa). They lived simultaneously with other representatives of the hominid - ordinary, or grace (more miniature), Australopithek, such as A. Garhi. from East Africa and South African A. Sediba., and the most ancient representatives of the kind of people ( Homo.).

In the initial period of its history, representatives of the human race in Africa surrounded by a variety of relatives who differed from ancient people much less than modern chimpanzees differ from a modern person. Interviewal relationships Inside the group, the hominid undoubtedly imposed their mark on the early stages of the evolution of people. The presence in one territory of several close-friendly species probably demanded the production of special adaptations to prevent interspecies hybridization and to separate environmental niches (close species it is difficult to get along together if their diet and lifestyles coincide). Therefore, to understand the early stages of the history of the genus Homo. It is important to know how they lived and what our extinct two-legged cousins \u200b\u200beat - even if it is known that they were not our ancestors.

Parantropes apparently occurred from ordinary, or graceful, Australopites (like the first people), but their evolution went to the other side. First Homo.invgested the remnants of predator meals in their diet and learned to scrape meat residues and split the bones with primitive stone weapons; They began to increase the brain, and the jaws and teeth, on the contrary, gradually decreased. Pararantops went differently: they have a small brain (approximately like chimpanzees and graceful Australopites), but the teeth, jaws and chewing muscles reached the level of development unprecedented for hominid. Fangs, however, remained relatively small: probably it was irreversible.

Traditionally it was believed that the driving force of these changes was to feed to power with rough vegetation food - rigid roots, stems, leaves or nuts with solid shells. Based on morphological data, scientists have resonantly believed that parangtes were specialized consumers of the most rigid and solid food facilities, inaccessible to other hominids due to the relative weakness of their jaws and teeth. It was also assumed that narrow food specialization may have been one of the reasons for the extinction of paranthropes. The first people, on the contrary, retained omnivorous, characteristic of their ancestors - graceful Australopithecks. It is clear that omnivorous forms have more chances to survive when the environment is changed than narrow specialists. The story was repeated in later times, when a highly specialized view of people eating mainly meat - Neanderthals - was omitous Homo Sapiens. [Only at the end of 2010 it turned out that neither Asian nor European Neanderthals were actually 100% meathers, as it should have followed from the isotopic composition of dental enamel. In the Dental Stone of Neanderthals found starchy granules, indicating that from time to time they were ate barley, dates, legumes (in Asia), rozing of water lilies and, possibly, cereals (in Europe). Moreover, judging by the form of these granules, Neanderthals knew how to cook vegetable food] (Dobrovolskaya, 2005.).

In the future, the facts that contradict the hypothesis about the narrow food specialization of Parantropov were discovered. Analysis of the isotopic composition of dental enamel showed that they seemed to be unimportant creatures ( Lee-Thorp et al., 2000). In particular, in their diet, termites were included, which parangtes were mined with primitive bone guns ( d "Errico, Backwell, 2009).

But it remained unshakable opinion that coarse vegetable food was an important part of Parantrop's diet. Otherwise why are they mighty jaws and huge teeth? However, in 2008, it was questioned and this seemingly self-evident assumption ( Ungar et al., 2008).

American anthropologists studied microscopic traces of dental enamel wear, preserved on indigenous teeth of seven individuals Paranthropus Boisei.. This species dwells in East African savanna, often near rivers and lakes. Characteristic for paranthropes feature features (large flat indigenous teeth, fat dental enamel, powerful chewing muscles) are expressed in this kind. Most strongly. It is not surprising that the first found skull of this species was nicknamed by a clutch. Of the 53 studied individual details of the structure of the dental surface, only seven are well preserved. However, these seven individuals are quite a representative sample. They originate from three countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania) and cover most of the existence of this species. The oldest of the skulls is about 2.27 million years old, the most young -1.4 million years.

The authors used two characteristics of the enamel surface, reflecting the nature of food preferences: fractal complexity (a variety of microscopic deepening and grooves) and anisotropy (the ratio of parallel and chaotic-oriented microcenarpine). The study of the teeth of modern primates, adhered to various diets, showed that high fractal complexity is associated with the nutrition of very solid food (for example, with root discharge), while high anisotropy reflects the nutrition of tough food (roots, stalks, leaves). It is important that the traces of the microisle of the dental enamel of the ephemery - they do not accumulate during their lives, but appear and disappear in a few days. Thus, according to these traces, it can be judged that the animal has been fed in the last days of his life. For comparison, the authors used the teeth of four types of modern primates, in the diet of which include solid and rigid objects, as well as two fossil hominids: Australopithecus Africanus and Paranthropus Robustus.

The results surprised by the researchers. Dental enamel moisture R. Boisei. It turned out to be very low. No sign of nutritionally firmly or rigid objects could not be detected. Contemporary monkeys feeding on solid food are observed noticeably higher rates of fractal complexity, and for primates specializing in rigid food are characterized by higher anisotropy.

Nutcrackers seem to rarely nibble nuts or chewed hard vegetation. They preferred something softer and nutritious - for example, juicy fruits or insects. At least, none of the seven individuals studied in the last days before death did not eat anything solid or tough. The texture of the surface of their dental enamel is similar to that of monkeys that feed on soft fruit.

Previously, such analysis was carried out for another type of Parantropov - South African R. Robustus.. It turned out that this species also used firm and rigid objects not always - apparently, only at a certain time of the year ( Scott et al., 2005). Surprisingly, that P. Boisei.whose teeth and jaws are developed stronger than R. Robustus., I ate solid food less often. Hard food he seems to eat more often than R. Robustus, But no more often than graceful Australopit Australopithecus Africanus.who did not have such mighty teeth and jaws, like Parantrostrops.

It turns out that parangtes preferred to eat at all, not what their teeth and jaws were adapted. It seems paradoxical - and indeed, this phenomenon is known to science as Lahema Paradox. The discrepancy between morphological adaptation and real food preferences is sometimes found, for example, fish, and the reasons for this phenomenon today are clearly understood ( Robinson, Wilson, 1998). It happens when preferred foods are easily available and do not require the development of special adaptations, but sometimes "good" food begins missing, and then animals have to go to another, less high-quality or poorly digestible food. In such critical periods, survival will depend on the ability to efficiently produce and absorb the "bad" food - the one to which the animal in normal conditions is not suitable. Therefore, there is nothing unnatural in that some animals have developed morphological adaptation to the nutrition of that food that they usually do not eat. Something similar is observed in some modern primates - for example, in the gorillas that prefer fruit, but in hungry times they go to hard leaves and shoots.

Perhaps parangtes are one of the examples of Lahema paradox. Soft fruits or insects of hominids can have any teeth and jaws, but for chewing hard roots during periods of hunger strikes, large teeth and mighty jaws are needed. Even if such hunger strikes rarely happen, this is enough so that natural selection begins to conducive to strengthen teeth and jaws.

Most likely, it did not cost and without sexual selection - especially if we consider the latest data that Parantropov has been strongly developed by sexual dimorphism, the males were much larger than the females and had a harem (see below). Mighty jaws and teeth could increase the chances of the male to the victory in the competitive struggle with other males and increase their attractiveness in the eyes of females. Our ancestors have tastes obviously were different. Something else attracted them in the males - maybe caringness, the ability to get for your favorite delicious brain bone from under the nose in hyenas and vultures, complex and inventive behavior during courtship?

Thus, parangtes not only were not food professionals - they may have been even more omnivorous than graceful Australopita. After all, the latter, it seems, could not eat with rigid parts of plants, and parangtrophes could, although they did not like. On the other hand, all food resources available to graceful Australopithekam were also available to parangtropams. If food specialization increases the likelihood of extinction, then it would be more likely to expect that parangtes will survive, and the line of graceful Australopites stops. This did not happen, probably only because the descendants of graceful Australopiteks are the first people - found another, more universal and promising way to expand their diet. Instead of powerful teeth and jaws, sharp stones, complex behavior and intelligent head, instead of tough and low-speed roots - meat and bone marrow of dead animals went to move.

The results obtained, among other things, show that one by one by the structure of the teeth and the jaws cannot be judged by the diet of extinct animals. Morphological adaptation can sometimes reflect a preferred diet, but such ways of food, which an animal in normal conditions is trying to avoid.

In recent years, scientists managed something to find out about the social life of Parantropov. Anthropologists from South Africa, Great Britain and Italy have come up with a new method of comparative analysis of fossil bones, helping to understand how males and females of extinct hominid passed after they achieve sexual maturity. The fact is that modern primates practicing a harem type of family relationships (for example, in Gorillas and Pavians), females, reaching maturity, almost do not grow more, while males continue to grow for quite a long time. This is due to the fact that such species have a very strong competition between males for the right to access the females team. Young males almost do not have a chance to success in the fight against mothers, so they postpone decisive actions until they are fully influenced.

The harem species of the matery males are much larger and females, and young female males; Often they are still different in color. At species practicing more democratic variants of family relationships, such as people and chimpanzees, sexual dimorphism is weaker (males are not so different from females in size and color), and the males achieve sexual and social maturity in time. In this case, the period of "additional" growth of semi-natural males is reduced or not expressed.

Researchers reasoned that if they compare the size of individuals (determined by the size of the bones) with their age (determined by the erase of the teeth), then with a sufficiently abundant material it will be possible to understand how long the sense continued in the sense of sexual maturity. South African view Paranthropus Robustus. Attracted the attention of researchers primarily due to the abundance of the material. The authors examined the fragments of the skulls of 35 individuals and 19 of them were selected for their analysis.

Three selection criteria were used: 1) Surrounding teeth of wisdom - certificate of puberty; 2) the preservation of a significant part of the facial or jaw bones so that the size of the individual can be estimated; 3) Well-preserved indigenous teeth, so that the Emalie could be assessed by age.

It turned out that the studied sample disintegrates into two unequal parts. In the first of these (four individuals) the body size did not increase with age - the stage of "additional" growth was absent. Researchers reasoned that it females. In the second group (15 individuals), the growth was, and very significant. This is most likely males. The young males differed little in size from females, while the materna males were much larger. This gives reason to believe that Parantropov had harem, and there was an acute competition for females between the males.

There is a natural question: why far much more male skulls are found than women's? The authors give a graceful answer to this, thanks to which the unequal ratio of floors among the Cherepov found becomes an additional confirmation of the proposed theory. The fact is that the studied skulls belong mostly to those individuals who fell victims of predators. For example, the location of bones in the Wet Cave Cave, where many bone residues have been found R. Robustus.is considered a classic example of a fossil complex formed as a result of the activities of predators. Many swarthy bones carry unambiguous traces of teeth.

Why did the males of Parantropov fell into the paws of sabersubs or hyenas three times more often of females? It turns out that this picture is observed in modern "harem" primates. The females of these species always live with groups, usually under the protection of the Mother's "husband", and males, especially young, who have not yet managed to acquire their own harem, roam apart or small group. It significantly increases the chances of getting a predator's dinner. For example, male bavians during a single life are three times more often become victims of predators compared to females and males living in the team.

The authors also analyzed the material on South African graceful Australopithecks ( A. Africanus.), who are closer to the ancestors of a person than parangtes. The material in this kind is not so rich, therefore the conclusions were less reliable. Nevertheless, judging by the existing facts, A. Africanus. The sexual dimorphism was expressed much weaker than Parantropic, and females and males became victims of predators about the same frequency. This is an additional argument in favor of the fact that graceful Australopites have a harem system and family relationships were more equal ( Lockwood et al., 2007).

Increased mortality of young males with a harem system is unlikely to benefit the group and type as a whole. In this one can see one of the reasons why ParanTeres eventually lost the evolutionary competition with their closest relatives - graceful Australopithekam and their descendants, people.

The most developed, the smartest monkeys are humanlike. So asks the word - humanlike. And all because with our view, their relatives are very much. You can talk about human monkeys a lot, long and with passion just because they are really close to our mind. But first things first.

All these animals are distinguished by 4 types:

• gorilla,
• orangutans
• chimpanzees
• bonobo (or dwarf chimpanzees).

Bonobo and chimpanzees are very similar to each other, but the remaining two types do not like each other or on chimpanzees. However, all human monkeys you can highlight a lot in common, for example:

• they have no tail,
• the similar structure of the brushes of the upper limbs and the hands of a person,
• the volume of the brain is very large (at the same time, its surface is full of grooves and convolutions, and this indicates a high level of intelligence of these animals)
• there are 4 blood groups,
• bonobo's blood in medicine is used to transfuse a person with a suitable blood group.

All these facts talk about the "blood" kinship of these creatures with people.

Both types of gorilla and chimpanzees live in Africa, and this continent is known to be considered the cradle of all mankind. Orangutan, as scientists consider, the most genetically distant far from our relative between man-like monkeys, lives in Asia.

Chimpanzee ordinary

Public life chimpanzees

Chimpanzees live, as a rule, by groups, on average 15-20 individuals. In the group, which is headed by one malese leader, includes females, males of all ages. Chimpanzee groups occupy the territory that the males themselves and guard themselves from the invasions of the neighbors.

In places where food is pretty for a comfortable residence of the group, chimpanzee is a tempted lifestyle. However, if the food is not enough for the whole group, they roame in search of food on fairly distant distances. It happens that several groups of residence intersect. In this case, they are united for some time. Interestingly, in all conflicts the advantage is obtained by the group that contains more males and which in connection with this turns out to be stronger. Permanent chimpanzees do not create. This means that any adult male has the right to freely choose another girlfriend from adult females, and as its own, so the group that joined.

After a 8-month period of pregnancy, the chimpanzee female appears one absolutely helpless young. Until the year of life, the female wears a baby on his stomach, after which the kid deals his own on her back. For a total of 9-9.5 years, the female and the cubs are practically inseparable. His mother teaches everything that herself can, shows him the world and other members of the group. There are cases when adolescents are given to their "kindergarten". There they are frolic with peers under the supervision of several adults, as a rule, females. When the baby marks 13 years old, chimpanzee enters into the period of adulthood and begin to be considered independent members of the flock. At the same time, young males begin to join the fight for the leading

Chimpanzees are rather aggressive animals. In the group, conflicts often occur, which will develop even bloody fights that are often ending with fatal outcome. To establish relations among themselves by man-like monkeys makes it possible a wide range of facial expressions, gestures and sounds that they pass their approvals. Friendly feelings These animals express through the movement of wool each other.

Chimpanzee mined food and trees, and on Earth, and there, and there feeling in their place. Their food belongs:

• plant food,
• insects
• small living creatures.

In addition, the hungry chimpanzees to the whole team can be hunting and seized for co-food, for example, Gazelle.

Skillful hands and smart head

Chimpanzee is extremely intelligentThey are able to use tools of labor, and deliberately picking up the most handy tool. They are even capable of improving it. For example, to climb into the anthill, a man's monkey applies a twist: it picks up a suitable rod and optimizes it, breaking the leaves on it. Or, for example, use a stick to knock down a highly growing fetus. Or to knock her enemy while fighting.

To smash the nut, the monkey puts it on a specially selected flat stone, and another, sharp stone, breaks the shell.

For quenching thirst, chimpanzees uses a large sheet and use it as a drawak. Or make a sponge from the pre-checked leaf, lowers it in the stream and squeezes himself into his mouth.

Hunting, man-like monkeys can death to score the victim with stones, hail of the cobblestones will expect a predator, for example, a leopard who will dare to open the hunt for these animals.

In order not to sleep when moving through the reservoir, chimpanzees are able to build a bridge from sticks, and wide leaves they will use as an umbrella, fly swatter, fan and as toilet paper.

Gorilla

Good giants or monsters?

It is easy to imagine the feelings of the person who first saw the gorilla - a man-like giant, frightening the alien terrible screams, hitting himself with fists in the chest, breaking and escaping young trees. Favorite meetings with forest monsters and gave rise to scary stories and legends about the proceedings of hell, Whose inhuman force bears a deadly danger if not for human clan, then for his psyche.

Unfortunately, this is not an exaggeration. Such legends that pushed the public to the fact that these human-like creatures began to be too reported in due time caused almost uncontrolled, panic extermination of gorillas. The form threatened complete extinction, if it were not for the works and efforts of scientists who took under their defense of these giants, about which in those years people almost knew nothing at all.

As it turned out, it seemed these creepy monsters are the most peaceful herbivoresFood only vegetable food. In addition they are practically completely non-aggressive, and demonstrate its strength and all the more apply it, only when there is a real danger and if someone comes to their territory.

Moreover, to avoid in vain bloodshed, gorillas try to scare offenders, It does not matter - the other is the male, the ruler of another species or a person. Then all possible means to intimidation come into force:

• screams
• soften yourself in chest fists,
• balance of trees and so on.

Features of the life of Gorilla

Gorilla, as well as chimpanzees, live in small groups, but the number of them is usually less than 5-10 individuals. Among them, the head of the group is common - the senior male, a few females of young from different ages and 1-2 young male. The leader is easy to recognize: He has silver-gray wool on his back.

By the age of 14, the gorilla is becoming half, and instead of black wool on his back, a light strip occurs.

Already the ever-eagerness of the mermaid: he has an height of 180 cm and weighs sometimes 300 kg. The one who from the silver-spinal males turns out to be elders, and becomes a leader of the group. On his powerful shoulders assign concern for all family members.

The main in the male group gives signals to the awakening at sunrise, and to sleep when sunset, it chooses the path in the thickets, which will go through the rest of the group in search of food, regulates the order and peace in the group. He also protects all his threatening dangers, which in the rainforest is a huge set.

The younger generation in the group brief their own mother. However, if the kid suddenly orphaned, then it is the leader of the flocks takes them under his wing. He will wear them on his back, next to them to sleep and make sure that their games are not dangerous.

When protecting the young orphan, the leader can even go to a duel with a leopard or even with armed person.

Often, the cubs of Gorilla entails not only the death of his mother, but also the death of the head of the group. The remaining members of the group, deprived of protection and custody, young animals and helpless females also stand on the edge of the abyss if someone from single males will not take responsibility for the orphaned family.

Orangutans

Orangutan: Features of life

"Orangutan" with Malaya translates as a "forest man." This name denotes large man-like monkeys that live in the jungle on the islands of Sumatra and Kalimantan. Orangutans are from amazing creatures on earth. They are in many ways different from other human monkeys.

Orangutans are a woody lifestyle. Let their weight are quite significant, 65-100 kg, they are remarkably climbed by trees even at an altitude of up to 15-20 m. They prefer not to go down to the ground.

Of course, due to the severity of the body, they cannot jump out from branches on the branches, however, they are able to confidently and quickly climb on trees.

Almost around the clock Orangutans eat, eating

• fruit,
• foliage
• bird eggs,
• chicks.

In the evenings, Orangutans are building their homes, each, everyone is, where they are arranged for the night. They sleep, holding one of the paws per branch, so as not to break down in a dream.

Orangutans are arranged at every night in a new place, for which they build a "bed" again. These animals practically do not form groups, preferring a lonely life or life with couples (mother - young, female - male), although there are cases when a couple of adult individuals and several young different ages form almost a family.

The female of these animals is born 1 young. Mother takes care of it for about 7 years, until he matures enough for independent life.

Up to 3 years, the young Orangutan feeds on only maternal milk, and only after this period, the mother begins to give him to solid food. She chews for him to foliage, thus making her plant puree for him.

She prepares the baby to adulthood, learn it properly climb on the trees and cite yourself for sleep. Kids-Orangutans are very playful and affectionate, and the whole process of upbringing and learning they perceive as an entertaining game.

Orangutans are very cuty animals. In captivity, they learn to apply the tools of labor and can even make them independently. But in the face of free life, these human monkeys are rarely used by their abilities: the incessant food search does not give them time to develop their natural intelligence.

Bonobo

Bonobo, or dwarf chimpanzees - our closest relative

On the existence of our closest relative - Bonobo - few people know. Although the set of genes in dwarf chimpanzees coincides with the set of human genes, at 98%! They are also very close to us on the basics of socio-emotional behavior.

They live in Central Africa, in the north-east and northwest of the Congo. They never leave the branches of the trees, and they are very rare on the ground.

Characteristic features of the behavior of this species - joint hunt. They may be among themselves war, then the presence of force policy is detected.

Bonobo does not have gesture languageso characteristic other creatures. They serve each other voice signals and they are very distincts from the signals of the second type of chimpanzees.

Bonobo's voice consists of high, sharp and barking sounds. For hunting, they use various primitive items: stones, sticks. In captivity, their intelligence gets the opportunity to grow and show themselves. They are in possession of objects and the invention of new acts in real masters.

Bonobo does not have a leader, like other representatives of primates. A distinctive and characteristic feature of dwarf chimpanzees is also the fact that at the head of their group or a whole community is a female.

Female individuals hold by groups. They also include young and teenagers up to 6 years. The males hold on the side, but not far away.

Interestingly, almost all aggressive bursts in Bonobo are replaced by elements of marriage.

What the females dominate, was identified by scientists in the experiment when combined with monkeys of both species. In groups, Bonobo is first proceeded for food females. If the male is disagreeable, the females combine efforts and expel the male. During the meal, the scuffle does not happen, but at the same time it is necessary to mating precisely before eating.

Conclusion

According to many wise books, the beasts are to take our smaller. And with confidence it can be said that man-like monkeys are our brothers - closest.

But, acquiring an increasingly civilized appearance, the man tried not to perceive chimpanzees or gorilla as his likeness, because he quickly realized himself as a crown of the creation of the Almighty Creator.

When the theories of evolution appeared, the initial link of Homo Sapiens in primates, they were met with incredulously, and more often hostile. The ancient monkeys at the very beginning of the pedigree of some English Lord were perceived at best with humor. Today, science has identified direct ancestors of our biological species who lived over 25 million years ago.

General ancestor

To say that a person occurred from the monkey, from the point of view of modern anthropology - the science of man, about his origin, is considered incorrect. Man as a species evolved from the Holy Haming (they are called hominids), which were a fundamentally different biological species than monkeys. The first Prachelovka - Australopithek - appeared 6.5 million years ago, and the ancient monkeys, which became common with modern human premises, about 30 million years ago.

Methods for the study of bone residues - the only evidence events that have come to our time about ancient animals are constantly being improved. The most ancient monkey can often be classified by a fragment of jaws or one tooth. This leads to the fact that all new links that complement the overall picture appear in the scheme. Only in the XXI century in various regions of the planet, more than a dozen such objects have been found.

Classification

These anthropology data is constantly updated, which makes adjustments and the classification of biological species to which a person belongs to. This applies to more detailed units, the overall system remains unshakable. According to the latest views, a person belongs to the class of mammals, a detachment of primates, the suburbs of real monkeys, the family of the gominid, the kind of man, the kind and meaning of a sensible man (Nomo Sapiens).

The classification of the nearest "relatives" of a person is the subject of permanent disputes. One option may look like this:

• Detachment Primates:
  • Semobesian.
  • Real monkeys:
    • Disclaimed.
    • Wide-up.
    • Fastened:
      • Gibbon.
      • Gominids:
        • Pongina:
          • Orangutan.
          • Borensky Orangutan.
          • Sumatran Orangutan.
      • Hominins:
        • Gorilla:
          • Western Gorilla.
          • Eastern gorilla.
        • Chimpanzee:
          • Ordinary chimpanzees.
        • People:
          • Man is reasonable.

Origin of monkeys

Determining the exact time and place of the origin of monkeys, as well as many other biological species, occurs like a gradually appearing image on a belly picture. Finds in different parts of the planet are equally complemented by a common picture that is becoming clearer. At the same time, it is recognized that the evolution is not a direct line - it is rather similar to the bush, where many branches become dead end. Therefore, before building at least a segment of a clear path from primitive primitive mammals to Nomo Sapiens is still far away, but there are already several reference points.

Purgatorius is a small, no more mouse, the animal died on the trees, feeding in the insects, in Upperlov, and (100-60 million years ago). Scientists put it to the beginning of the chain of the evolution of primates. He only identified the adventures of signs (anatomical, behavioral, etc.), characteristic of monkeys: a relatively big brain, five fingers on the limbs, less fertility with the lack of seasonality of breeding, omnivorousness, etc.

Beginning of hominids

Ancient monkeys, ancestors of man-form, left traces, starting with late Oligocene (33-23 million years ago). They still have the anatomical features of the narrow-axis monkeys put by anthropologists at a lower step: a short hearing aisle, located outside, in some species - the presence of tail, lack of specialization of limbs for proportions and some features of the structure of the skeleton in the wrist and stop area.

Among these fossil animals, proconsulides are considered among the most ancient. Features of the structure of the teeth, proportions and sizes of the cranial box with an increased relative to its other parts of its brain departments allow scientists-paleoanthropologists to attribute to the proconsulides to humanlike. To this type of fossil monkeys include proconsuls, Calepteetes, heliopiteki, Nyanzapitecia, etc. These names were formed most often from the name of geographical objects, near which fossil fragments were found.

Handswpitek

Most of the findings of the most ancient bones of Paleoanthropologists make on the African continent. In February 2013, a message was published by the Paleozhodologists from the USA, Australia and Tanzania on the results of excavations in the river valley in the south-west of Tanzania. They found a fragment of the lower jaw with four teeth - the remains of the creature who lived there 25.2 million years ago, - this is exactly the age of rock, in which this find was discovered.

For details of the structure of jaws and teeth, the belonging of their owner was established to primitive man-like monkeys from the family of proconsulides. Handberwpite - so was named this ancestor of the hominids, the oldest fossil human monkey, because it is 3 million years older than any other detected before 2013 Paleozhods. There are other opinions, but they are connected with the fact that many scientists consider proconsulides too primitive creatures to determine their real human-forming. But this is a question of classification, one of the most ambiguous in science.

Dryoitek

In the geological sediments of the Miocene's era (12-8 million years ago) in East Africa, Europe and China, the remains of animals were found, which the role of the evolutionary branch from the proconsulides to the real hominids was appointed by scientists from the Paleooanthropologists. Driopiteki (Greek. "Drios" - a tree) - the ancient monkeys who have become a common ancestor for chimpanzees, gorillas and man are called. The locations of the finds and their dating make it possible to understand that these monkeys are externally similar to modern chimpanzees, formed in an extensive population first in Africa, and then spread over Europe and the Eurasian continent.

About 60 cm increases, these animals tried to move on the lower extremities, but mostly lived on the trees and had longer "hands." The ancient monkeys of Driuchitek were fed on berries and fruits, which should be from the structure of their indigenous teeth that had a not very thick layer of enamel. This shows the obvious kinship of driopitecs with a person, and the presence of well-developed fangs makes them a unique ancestor of other hominids - chimpanzees and gorillas.

Giantopiteca

In 1936, several unusual monkey teeth were accidentally falling into the hands of paleontologists, remotely similar to human. They became a reason for the emergence of the version of the belonging to their beings from an unknown evolution branch of human ancestors. The main reason for the appearance of such theories was the huge size of the teeth - they were twice as much as the gorilla teeth. According to the calculations of experts, it was gone that their owners had an increase above 3 meters!

After 20 years, a whole jaw with such teeth was discovered, and the ancient giant monkeys from the cracked fantasy turned into a scientific fact. After a more accurate dating of finds, it became clear that huge human primates existed at one time with Peteitronts (Greek. "Petetecos" - a monkey) - monkeyspeckers, that is, about 1 million years ago. The opinion was expressed that it was them - the direct predecessors of a person, involved in the disappearance of the largest of all the monkeys existing on the planet.

Purbitating giants

Analysis of the environment in which fragments of giant bones were found, and the study of the jaws and teeth themselves allowed to establish that bamboo and other vegetation served for gigantopitecs. But there were cases of detection in the caves, where they found the bones of monkeys-monsters, horns and hoofs, which allowed us to consider them omnivorous. There were also gigantic stone tools of labor.

Hence the logical conclusion: Giantopites - an ancient man-like monkey with a growing up to 4 meters and weighing about halftone - another unrealized branch of the homium. It was established that the time of their extinction coincided with the disappearance of other human-shaped giants - African Australopiteks. Possible cause - climatic cataclysms that have become fatal for large hominids.

According to theories of so-called cryptosologists (Greek. "Cryptos" is a secret, hidden), individual individuals of giantopitecs have survived to our time and exist in difficult-to-reach areas of the earth, generating legends about the "snowy man", Yeti, Bigfort, Almists, and so on.

White spots in Homo Sapiens biography

Despite the success of Paleoanthropology, in the evolutionary chain, where the ancient monkeys occurred first place, from which a person occurred is, there are durability of up to a million years. They are expressed in the absence of links having a scientific - genetic, microbiological, anatomical, etc. - confirmation of relationships with previous and subsequent types of hominids.

There is no doubt that gradually such white spots will disappear, and sensations about the extraterrestrial or divine beginning of our civilization, which are periodically announced on entertainment channels, have nothing to do with real science.

Human Origins

Evolutionary evidence origin of man

Option 1

1 . What was the group of man-like monkeys,consisting of the earliest primates?

1) Anthropoid

2) Pongida

3) Hominids

4) Disclaimy

2 . What monkeys do not belong to pongids?

1) chimpanzees

2) Gorilla

3) Orangutang

4) Capuchins

3 . Which scientist for the first time suppressed a person in one grouppu with primates?

1) Ch. Darwin

2) J.B.Lamark.

3) K. Linney

4) T. Huxley

4. What biological peculiarity does not characterizeview man is reasonable?

1) Large brain volume

2) Strong Jaws

3) the predominance of the brain department of the skull over the facial

4) Strying

5 . What is the stage of Australopithek in evolutiongominid family?

1) Archantropu

2) Paleoanthropus

3) Protoanthropus.
4) Neoanthropus

6 . What is called ancient man, fossilwhose remains were found on the island of Java?

1) Protoanthropic

2) Peteitrontop

3) Paleoanthropic

4) Sinantrope

7 . What people of modern type appeared on earth40-30 thousand years ago and continue to live today?

1) Neoantrips

2) ArcHank

3) Neanderthals

4) Paleoanthropes

8 . At what stage of the formation of a person as biologicalancient people appeared - Neanderthals?1) at the stage of Neoanthropov

2) at the stage of Archantropov

3) at the stage of protoanthropes

4) at the stage of Paleoanthropov

9 . What kind of systematic group of class mammals include the view of a reasonable person?

1) stembed

2) rodents

3) predatory

4) Primates

10 What kind of human evolution has a biological nature from the driving forces?

1) ai-graduated speech

2) the ability to instrument activities

3) heredity

4) abstract thinking

11. First learned to use fire

1) Australopitetse

2) Petecantropes

3) Neanderthals

4) Cryanonians

12. Which of the listed can serve as an example of a man's rudiment?

1) excess hairiness

2) Copper

3) the presence of tail

4) Additional Milks

13. In man, unlike mammals

1) The upper limb consists of a shoulder, forearm and brushes

2) Hook brush, with a bitten thumb

3) The lower jaw is connected to the skull moving

4) The thumb forms a straight corner in relation to other fingers.

14. What sign distinguishes a person intelligent from animals?

1) Development of the peripheral nervous system

2) the presence of two circles of blood circulation

3) DevelopmentS.- Form of the spine

4) the formation of three germinal leaflets during the period of embryonic development

15. What sign in a person in the process of evolution arose before others?

1) Speech

2) Consciousness

3) Regular Labor Activity

4) Strying

16. What does the existence of a man in the early stage of its development?

1) Development with full transformation

2) on the variability of organisms

3) on the origin of man from animals

4) on deviation in its development

17. To the group of ancient people, scientists belong

1) Australopheca

2) Cryanonian

3) Neanderthal

4) Peteitrontrop

18. Consider the drawing, which shows fossil ancestors of the kind of person in the chronological sequence of their appearance on Earth. Under what number on it is shown by a person?

1)1

2)2

3)3

4)4

19.

1) the presence of teeth in the holes of the jaws

2) the ability to regulate the temperature of its body

3) the presence of the nervous system

4) Alveolar Light Building

5) Bookmark in the embryos of the nervous tube over chord

6) availability of a vaulted foot

20 used in the systematics of a person starting with the mostlarge.

1) Hominids

2) Primates

3) Chordovy

4) man

5) Mammals

6) reasonable man

21.

labor activity

B)

abstract thinking

IN)

insulation

D)

mutational variability

E)

population waves

E)

second signal system

biological

2)

social

Human Origins (anthropogenesis). The evolution of primates.

Evolutionary evidence origin of man

Option 2.

1 . What are the extinct woody mandifferent monkeys that are ancestors of modernman-like monkeys and man?
1) Hominids 3) Dryoitek
2) Disclaimers 4) Pongids

2 . What a previously existing group of long-term countsit is initial in the evolutionary trunk of monkeys of the oldSveta?

1) Lemur 3) Ramapitecia
2) nekrolymra 4) bavians

3 . What scientist for the first time in his work proved relativesman with man-like monkeys?
1) K. Linney2) T. Huxley
3) J.B. Lamarc4) C. Darwin

4 . What kind of property is reasonable person is notsocial?

1) big brain box

2) the creation and application of workers

3) consciousness and speech

4) Public Lifestyle

5 . How from Latin language word "Australopits "?

1) Australian Monkey|

2) the oldest monkey

3) a man-like monkey

4) South Monkey

6 . Fossil remains of which ancient personwere found near Beijing?

1) Petecanthroprop

2) Paleoantropropa

3) Sinantropropa

4) Australopheca

7. What are the first representatives of biologicallya view man is reasonable?

1) Australopitetse

2) Cryanonians

3) Neanderthals

4) Paleoanthropes

8. At what stage synanthops and peitics appearedrops?

1) at the stage of Archantropov

2) at the Paleoanthropic stage

3) at the stage of neoanthropov

4) at the stage of protoanthropes

9. Which of the listed features of the structure of a human skull is a device to speech?

1) the presence of a protruding chin

2) Vertical forehead

3) the fire of the bones of the skull

4) increased by comparison with the facial brain part of the skull

10. In man, unlike orangutan

1) More Facial Skull Department

2) more brain volume

3) the upper limbs are longer than the lower

4) chest is formed by ribs

11. What factor in the evolution of a person relate to social?

1) Labor activity

2) hereditary variability

3) the struggle for the existence

4) Natural Selection

12. What is a sign of a class of mammals inherent to person?

1) Diafragma

2) Light breath

3) Head and spinal cord

4) closed circulatory system

13. Which representatives of the kind of person belong to the presented images of the rock paintings?

1) Peteitropus.

2) Neanderthalts

3) Cryanonets

4) Australopheku

14. To the group of the most ancient people, scientists belong

1) Cryanonians

2) Australopitekov

3) Neanderthatsev

4) Sinantrophov

15. Determine the correct sequence of the main stages of the human evolution.

1) the most ancient people⇒ Predecessors of people⇒ Neanderthals⇒ Cryanonians

2) predecessors of people⇒ Ancient people⇒ Neanderthals ⇒ Cryanonians

3) Cryanonians ⇒ Neanderthal ⇒ People's precursors ⇒ Ancient people

4) Neanderthals⇒ Ancient people⇒ Predecessors of people⇒ Cryanonians

16. What kind of sign, which is peculiar to man, is a sign of animal type chord?

1) Lights consisting of alveoli

2) Nervous type system

3) hairproof

4) Label gaps in the wall of the Gloa Gold

17. What contributed to the appearance of a person in person?

1) settlement of new territories

2) more rapid movement on earth

3) crowded people

4 ) exemption of the Hand and Development of Labor Activity

18. Consider the drawing, which shows fossil ancestors of the kind of person in the chronological sequence of their appearance on Earth. Under what number on it is shown Kroanonets, if the Australopita is depicted under the number 1?

1)5

2)4

3)3

4)2

19. What are the signs of a person in the class of mammals? Choose three faithful response from six and record the numbers under which they are specified.

1) Nervous tubular type system

2) gill gaps on the throat of the embryo

3) Four Camera Heart

4) Ear Shells

5) Skeleton of the upper and lower extremities

6) furrows and gyruses in the crust of large hemispheres

20. Set the correspondence between the example and the factor of anthropogenesis for which it is characteristic.

second signal system

B)

manifestation of mutations

IN)

struggle for existence

D)

transfer of accumulated experience

E)

traditions and rituals

E)

insulation

biological

2)

social

21 . Install the chronological sequence of taxa,used in the systematics of a person, starting with the smallest

1) vertebrae

2) reasonable man

3) Chordovy

4) man

5) Mammals

6) Eukaryota

Testing for the results of the 3rd quarter

Class: Ninth

Program I.N. Pononarevoy

To each question, select one right answer.

1. What kind of hypothesis it says that life on earth is listed from space?

1) in the hypothesis of biochemical evolution

2) in the hypothesis of the stationary state

3) in genetic hypothesis

4) in the hypothesis of Parispermia

2. What are the coacters?

1) Nucleic acid complexes

2) protein complexes

3) Complexes of fats

4) spontaneously concentrating complexes of primary organic substances

3. How are organisms that are powered by ready-made organic substances?

1) Protobytiya

2) Hemotrofy.

3) Heterotrophs.

4) Avtotrophy

4. What organisms capable of photosynthesis, the most ancient?

1) Viruses

2) Plants

3) Evglen Green

4) cyanobacteria

5. How are organisms called organic substances from inorganic?

1) Avtotrophy

2) heterotrophs

3) Protobytiya

4) Hemotrofy.

6. How is the highest geological seating unit?

1) Epoch

2) Period

3) Era

4) century

7. What animals were the first to mastered the land?

1) Dinosaurs

2) Turtles

3) crocodiles

4) Rakoskorpions

8. How many ER stand out in the history of our planet's development?

1) five

2) Six

3) Seven

4) eight

9. What does era continue at the present stage of the development of the Earth?

1) Proterozoa

2) Paleozoa

3) Mesoza

4) Cenozoa

10.What, according to Ch. D Darvina, is the main driving force of evolution?

1) Natural selection

2) heredity

3) artificial selection

4) variability

11. What a set of individuals is considered to be an elementary unit of evolution?

1) View

2) population

3) Family

4) Rod

12. What did the teaching argued that the birth and variety of the world is the result of the Divine Will?

1) Creationism

2) Vitalism

3) Lamarkism

4) Nealamarkism

13. What is the most accurate criterion?

1) Ecological

2) Genetic

3) Morphological

4) geographical

14. What is the appearance of Ch. Darvin explained the emergence of different types of reels in the Galapagos Islands?

1) Microevolution

2) Macroevolution

3) allopathic species

4) sympathy species

15. What process refers to biological regression?

1) an increase in the number of species

2) an increase in the distribution area of \u200b\u200bthe type

3) increase the adaptability of individuals to environmental conditions

4) Reducing the fitness of individuals to the environment

16. What process does not apply to aromorphosis?

1) the appearance of warmth

2) the appearance of seeds in plants

4) the occurrence of the brain

1) Rod

2) Family

3) Class

4) Division

18. What is related to biological progress?

1) reducing the number of type

2) an increase in the number of species

3) Reducing the fitness of individuals to the environment

4) Reduction of the distribution area

19. What process does not apply to idioadaptation?

1) The emergence of the wing in birds

2) a wide variety of ways to pollinate in coated plants

3) Environmental Differentiation of Verki Beak

4) the formation of a patronage color

20. How was the group of human-like monkeys, consisting of the earliest primates?

1) Anthropoid

2) Pongida

3) Hominids

4) Disclaimy

21. What biological peculiarity does not describe a reasonable person?

1) large scope

2) Strong Jaws

3) the predominance of the brain department of the skull over the facial

4) Strying

22. How were the extinct wooded man-like monkeys, which are the ancestors of modern man-like monkeys and man?

1) Hominids

2) Disclaimy

3) Dryoiteka

4) Pongida

23. What a scientist for the first time in his work proved a human relationship with man-like monkeys?

1) K.Linney

2) T.Gexley

3) J.B.Lamark.

4) Ch .darvin

24. What people of the modern type appeared on Earth 40-30 thousand years ago and continue to live today?

1) Neoantrips

2) ArcHank

3) Neanderthals

4) Paleoanthropes

25. How does the word "Australopitek" translate from the Latin language?

1) Australian Monkey

2) the oldest monkey

3) a man-like monkey

4) South Monkey

26. Expired remains of which ancient man were found near Beijing?

1) Petecanthroprop

2) Paleoantropropa

3) Sinantropropa

4) Australopheca

27. How many basic races exists today?

1) two

2) Three

3) four

4) five

28. What morphological sign does not characterize the Mongoloid Ras?

1) Flapped face form

2) narrow eye slots

3) noticeable cheekbones

4) straight or wavy soft hair

29. How does the human race do not exist?

1) Americanoid

2) Core Europeoid

3) Mongoloid

4) Nero-shaped

30. Why did the most ancient and ancient people over the long period of anthropogenesis?

1) cattle breeding

2) gathering and hunting

3) Gardening

4) agriculture

KEY

№1 - 4	№2 - 4	№3 - 3	№4 - 4	№5 - 1	№6 - 3	№7 - 4	№8 - 2	№9 - 4	№10 - 1
№11 - 2	№12 - 1	№13 - 2	№14 - 3	№15 - 4	№16 - 3	№17 - 4	№18 - 2	№19 - 1	№20 - 1
№21 - 2	№22 - 3	№23 - 4	№24 - 1	№25 - 4	№26 - 3	№27 - 2	№28 - 4	№29 - 1	№30 - 2

During the preparation of testing, the material of the manual for measuring materials is used. Biology: Grade 9 / Sost. I.R. Grigigyan. - M.: Vako, 2011.