KNM-ER 1470: An African Fossil Ape?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 7th, 2007
KNM-ER 1470 = Homo rudolfensis = ancient ape?
The skull above was discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972, at Koobi Fora in Kenya. It has an estimated age of 1.9 million years. Originally, KNM-ER 1470 was claimed to be a Homo habilis skull. The braincase was found to be surprisingly modern in many respects, much less robust than any australopithecine skull. It also did not have the usual robustness and large brow ridges of Homo erectus. The face, in contrast, is extremely large and robust. In the last few years, an increasing number of anthropologists have classified this skull as Homo rudolfensis.
Is it an ape or a human? A new reconstruction (above) appears to point to an anthropoid.
The left image shows the original reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470. On the right is Timothy Bromage’s computer-simulated reconstruction, which shows the same skull with a distinctly protruding jaw. The green and red lines mark the location of the eyes, ears, and mouth, which must be in precise relationship to one another in all mammals.
Credit: Timothy Bromage
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
It’d be great if this sort of approach would be done for a lot of other specimens. Accounting for the human proclivity for invention in interpretation (we are wired to be imaginative) would no doubt help to inject more objectivity into the record.
Controversial skull, the leader of the team was Richard Leakey at the time of the discovery. See Controversial Human Ancestor Gets Major Facelift.
hmm…another missing link that isn’t.
It doesn’t matter who is leading the digs. If they are not masters at reconstructing things or just have no idea what the find is suppose to look like, they will put it together the way they think it should be put together. Think about it, how many years did we think there were brontosaurs? And that was a major no no. I have always found it fishy when someone cries, I’ve found it! and all we see are fragments that may barely give an idea of what it was. Besides the Leakey family has taken the science out of evolution and made it into theology. “It has to be true–the Leakeys were involved” That isn’t science.
So Shumway. You have someone in mind who’d be better informed when it comes to interpreting fossil primates? I’d like to read from someone who is aware of the Leakey’s contribution to our understanding of the human fossil record and who agrees with your perspective on the Leakey’s. I’m guessing that you’ve done a bit of reading on the Leakey’s and have examples of their egregious and blatant attempts to replace science with their wierd theological ideas. Ditto for that brontosaurus story which I guess you must have some good info on too. These forums are a great place to share ’em. We might all learn something. I know I do.
Bromage’s reconstruction, while somewhat more prognathous, still looks more hominid than apelike to me.
I’m assuming Shumway is referring to the fact that the wrong head was placed on a reconstruction of the sauropod now known as Apatosaurus, but which for so long was called Brontosaurus. Seen today, it was a bit of a big goof, but back then, it still wasn’t bad for a reconstruction.
Frankly, the Brontosaurus affair points out the opposite of the dogma Shumway usually likes to accuse science of, because it shows that science IS self-correcting. In this case, more bones were found that were identified as being from a Brontosaurus, but this time with a head. Head identified from previously recovered remains as being an Apatosaurus. Ergo, Brontosaurus are Apatosaurus, and the man who first discovered one gets to name it, therefore Brontosaurus is out, and Apatosaurus is in (Shame though, as Brontosaurus is a much more evocative name).
What annoys (And frankly frightens) a lot of people about science (And I am not insinuating anything on Shumway’s part here, just speaking in general) is that ultimately all it ever says on any matter is, “Here, this is our best guess based on the information available. Give us more information, and maybe we’ll be able to refine that guess, on rare occasions even overturn it.”
Don’t get me wrong, dogma does occur. I’m not sure there’s a CZ enthusiast out there who wouldn’t be willing to admit that. But, just like any other form of dogma, it crumbles under the weight of evidence against it. What makes science different from religion is that there are always some scientists are looking for that evidence. Even more, there are always scientists finding such evidence, whether they are looking for it or not.
As I’ve said before, science is a human endeavour, and like all things human, it is therefore subject to all the flaws and errors to which humanity is susceptible to. The concept of science takes this into account, but scientists, being human, don’t always do so as well.
The difficult thing for your average layman to do, however, is be able to tell when science is on very solid ground and when it is skating on thin ice (Due to human error/bias or a lack of establishable facts) and, further, to not assume that because some tiny bit of minutiae may be wrong, that the whole mountain of evidence on which it rests must be wrong too. By way of example, Bornean clouded leopards may not be a separate sub-species, but that doesn’t change the fact that leopards exist in Borneo, or that they are predators, or that they are mammals.
Thanks for that, Manynames. Hey! Does this mean the name “brontosaurus” is available for use on another sauropod or has the original head retained the nomenclature?
I believe the name is now free, yes. I was thinking the same thing after posting. The next Diplodocid species found should be given the Brontosaurus name- that way there would be one, and it would look very similar to the Apatosaurus. The erroneous head, by the way, was that of a Camarasaurus.
Oddly enough, Othniel Charles Marsh formally described both Apatosaurus ajax and later the Brontosaurus excelsus, so the guy who named it erroneously still named it correctly, earlier. Camarasaurus supremus was formally described by Marsh’s main rival, Edward Drinker Cope. Camarasaurus is considered a likely antecessor to the Titanosaurs and Brachiosaurs, while Apatosaurus represents the separate branch of sauropods known as the Diplodocids. Thus, that head was a bit of a major goof, in terms of cladistics.