English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The shape of the distal humerus in Homo, Pan (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes), Gorilla, and six australopithecines is compared using a geometric approach (Procrustes superimposition of landmarks). Fourteen landmarks are defined on the humerus in a two-dimensional space. Principal components analysis (PCA) is performed on all superimposed coordinates. I have chosen to discuss the precise place of KNM-KP 271 variously assigned to Australopithecus anamensis, Homo sp., or Praeanthropus africanus, in comparison with a sample of australopithecines. AL 288-1, AL 137-48 (Hadar), STW 431 (Sterkfontein), and TM 1517 (Kromdraai) are commonly attributed to Australopithecus afarensis (the two former), Australopithecus africanus, and Paranthropus robustus, respectively, while the taxonomic place of KNM-ER 739 (Homo or Paranthropus?) is not yet clearly defined. The analysis does not emphasize a particular affinity between KNM-KP 271 and modern Homo, nor with A. afarensis, as previously demonstrated (Lague and Jungers [1996]

Principal components analysis of distal humeral shape in Pliocene to recent African hominids: the contribution of geometric morphometrics.