On the scientific credibility of paleoanthropology.

Smith and Smith and Wood proposed that the human fossil record offers special challenges for causal hypotheses because "unique" adaptations resist the comparative method. We challenge their notions of "uniqueness" and offer a refutation of the idea that there is something epistemologically special about human prehistoric data. Although paleontological data may be sparse, there is nothing inherent about this information that prevents its use in the inductive or deductive process, nor in the generation and testing of scientific hypotheses. The imprecision of the fossil record is well-understood, and such imprecision is often factored into hypotheses and methods. While we acknowledge some oversteps within the discipline, we also note that the history of paleoanthropology is clearly one of progress, with ideas tested and resolution added as data (fossils) are uncovered and new technologies applied, much like in sciences as diverse as astronomy, molecular genetics, and geology.

Archaic human remains from Hualongdong, China, and Middle Pleistocene human continuity and variation.

Middle to Late Pleistocene human evolution in East Asia has remained controversial regarding the extent of morphological continuity through archaic humans and to modern humans. Newly found ∼300,000-y-old human remains from Hualongdong (HLD), China, including a largely complete skull (HLD 6), share East Asian Middle Pleistocene (MPl) human traits of a low vault with a frontal keel (but no parietal sagittal keel or angular torus), a low and wide nasal aperture, a pronounced supraorbital torus (especially medially), a nonlevel nasal floor, and small or absent third molars. It lacks a malar incisure but has a large superior medial pterygoid tubercle. HLD 6 also exhibits a relatively flat superior face, a more vertical mandibular symphysis, a pronounced mental trigone, and simple occlusal morphology, foreshadowing modern human morphology. The HLD human fossils thus variably resemble other later MPl East Asian remains, but add to the overall variation in the sample. Their configurations, with those of other Middle and early Late Pleistocene East Asian remains, support archaic human regional continuity and provide a background to the subsequent archaic-to-modern human transition in the region.

Middle Pleistocene human femoral diaphyses from Hualongdong, Anhui Province, China.

OBJECTIVES: The paleontological description and comparative analysis using discrete morphology, morphometrics (linear and geometric) and cross-sectional geometry of three femoral diaphyseal sections from the Middle Pleistocene site of Hualongdong, China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The material consists of the original Hualongdong femoral fossils and available data on femoral diaphyses from Middle and Late Pleistocene archaic humans and Middle and earlier Upper Paleolithic modern humans. The methods include visual observation, diaphyseal diameters, cross-sectional parameters (transverse areas and second moments of area derived from micro-CT scans), and geometric morphometrics using semilandmark data. RESULTS: The Hualong 11 midshaft section is similar to other Middle and Late Pleistocene archaic humans in being transversely broad and lacking a pilaster despite a prominent linea aspera. It clusters principally with archaic human femora in all measured parameters. The Hualong 15 and 16 subtrochanteric pieces are similar to many Middle Pleistocene and early modern human femora in being transversely broad. In particular, Hualong 15 exhibits a prominent lateral (gluteal) buttress, similar to many Upper Paleolithic femora but also the Lazaret and Krapina archaic ones. In addition, Hualong 15 has a small third trochanter, a common Upper Paleolithic but rare earlier feature. DISCUSSION: The Hualong 11 femoral piece reinforces the general Middle Pleistocene pattern, especially for eastern Eurasia from which archaic human femora are rare. The subtrochanteric proportions of Hualong 15 and 16 reinforce the Early Pleistocene and (generally) Middle Pleistocene pattern of bone distributions, but their subperiosteal contours align them (along with those of the Lazaret and Krapina femora) with Upper Paleolithic ones. It is difficult to account for these proportions from the generally broad pelves of Pleistocene archaic humans.