Early Ancestor’s Skull Growth "Not Human-Like"

A CT CAT scan of one of the most important early human fogy has vomit up doubt on claims that it show early signs of some of our more classifiable features .

In 1924 the skull of anAustralopithecus africanuschild   was establish in Taung , South Africa , and named The Taung Child , the first fogy of an early hominid from Africa to be scientifically depict . The skull became the case of argumentation as to whether the baby had go as a answer ofviolence from its own species , or waskilled by predators .   This query has influencedchanging perceptionsas tohow vehement our ancestors were .

Despite the discovery of many more hominid fossils over almost a one C , the Taung Child is still regarded as our best clue to the former stages of our brainpower ’s evolutionary open frame from the other great apes . Claims have been made for signs of connective tissue dividing the head-on halves of the skull and a voiced spot between the bones of the upper skull . These features are plant in infant humans but not other high priest at this geezerhood and are thought to be want for our mentality to reach the size of it they do .

However , inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesa team led by Dr Kristian J. Carlson of the University of Witwatersrand performed high - resolution computed imaging on the Taung Child skull for the first time .   " A recent study has distinguish the roughly 3 million - year - onetime fossil , think to have belonged to a 3 to 4 - year - old , as experience a relentless metopic suture and candid anterior soft spot , two features that facilitate post - natal brain growth in human infants when their disappearing is delay , ” Carlson say .

Crucially , premature enquiry has take to find out evidence of former prefrontal lobe enlargement , making room for the parts of the encephalon creditworthy for role such as verbal ability and our electrical capacity to match into societal norms . Since this is the only fossil prior to the appearance of theHomogenus for which these claims have been made , subside the question has important significance for ideas of when our tumid brains really got going .

The scans “ do not support the metopic and fontanelle features propose , ” the theme conclude , and the authors question whether these wold be needed for prefrontal lobe growth .