Evolutionary Anthropology最新文献

Why is culture the way it is? Here I argue that a major force shaping culture is subjective (cultural) selection, or the selective retention of cultural variants that people subjectively perceive as satisfying their goals. I show that people evaluate behaviors and beliefs according to how useful they are, especially for achieving goals. As they adopt and pass on those variants that seem best, they iteratively craft culture into increasingly effective-seeming forms. I argue that this process drives the development of many cumulatively complex cultural products, including effective technology, magic and ritual, aesthetic traditions, and institutions. I show that it can explain cultural dependencies, such as how certain beliefs create corresponding new practices, and I outline how it interacts with other cultural evolutionary processes. Cultural practices everywhere, from spears to shamanism, develop because people subjectively evaluate them to be effective means of satisfying regular goals.

Parallel evolution—where different populations evolve similar traits in response to similar environments—has been a topic of growing interest to biologists and biological anthropologists for decades. Parallel evolution occurs in human populations thanks to myriad biological and cultural mechanisms that permit humans to survive and thrive in diverse environments worldwide. Because humans shape and are shaped by their environments, biocultural approaches that emphasize the interconnections between biology and culture are key to understanding parallel evolution in human populations as well as the nuances of human biological variation and adaptation. In this review, we discuss how biocultural theory has been and can be applied to studies of parallel evolution and adaptation more broadly. We illustrate this through four examples of parallel evolution in humans: malaria resistance, lactase persistence, cold tolerance, and high-altitude adaptation.

In our original paper, we proposed a new species, Homo bodoensis, to replace the problematical taxa Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis, with the goal of streamlining communication about human evolution in the Chibanian. We received two independent responses. Given their substantial overlap, we provide one combined reply. In this response: (1) we are encouraged that the primary proposal in our paper, to discontinue the use of H. heidelbergensis (as a junior synonym to Homo neanderthalensis) due to its' nomenclatural problems, is acknowledged. (2) we provide additional clarification about the rules governing taxonomic nomenclature as outlined by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and join the growing calls for a revision to these rules. (3) we discuss further why H. rhodesiensis should be abandoned, particularly in light of the current sensitivity to using culturally inappropriate names. We conclude that H. bodoensis is a better solution than the proposed alternatives.

The scenario of Homo sapiens origin/s within Africa has become increasingly complex, with a pan-African perspective currently challenging the long-established single-origin hypothesis. In this paper, we review the lines of evidence employed in support of each model, highlighting inferential limitations and possible terminological misunderstandings. We argue that the metapopulation scenario envisaged by pan-African proponents well describes a mosaic diversification among late Middle Pleistocene groups. However, this does not rule out a major contribution that emerged from a single population where crucial derived features-notably, a globular braincase-appeared as the result of a punctuated, cladogenetic event. Thus, we suggest that a synthesis is possible and propose a scenario that, in our view, better reconciles with consolidated expectations in evolutionary theory. These indicate cladogenesis in allopatry as an ordinary pattern for the origin of a new species, particularly during phases of marked climatic and environmental instability.

Roksandic et al. (2022) proposed the new species name Homo bodoensis as a replacement name for Homo rhodesiensis Woodward, 1921, because they felt it was poorly and variably defined and was linked to sociopolitical baggage. However, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature includes regulations on how and when such name changes are allowed, and Roksandic et al.'s arguments meet none of these requirements. It is not permitted to change a name solely because of variable (or erroneous) later use once it has been originally defined correctly, nor can a name be modified because it is offensive to one or more authors or to be politically expedient. We discuss past usage of H. rhodesiensis and the relevant nomenclatural procedures, the proposed evolutionary position of H. bodoensis, and issues raised about decolonizing paleoanthropology. We reject H. bodoensis as a junior synonym, with no value from its inception.