Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Monday September 04 2017, @08:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the wait-for-the-fingerprints dept.

Footprints on Greek island are 5.7 million years old

Fossil footprints laid down more than five million years ago in what is now Crete could belong to a previously unknown primate, and perhaps even an ancient hominin — an animal more closely related to humans than to chimps.

Per Ahlberg at Uppsala University in Sweden and his colleagues identified more than 50 fossil traces in an area less than 4 metres square. The animal responsible for the prints — left some 5.7 million years ago — was probably claw-less, bipedal, walked on the soles of its feet, and had other hominin-like characteristics.

Also at Uppsala University:

Human feet have a very distinctive shape, different from all other land animals. The combination of a long sole, five short forward-pointing toes without claws, and a hallux ("big toe") that is larger than the other toes, is unique. The feet of our closest relatives, the great apes, look more like a human hand with a thumb-like hallux that sticks out to the side.

[...] The new footprints, from Trachilos in western Crete, have an unmistakably human-like form. This is especially true of the toes. The big toe is similar to our own in shape, size and position; it is also associated with a distinct 'ball' on the sole, which is never present in apes. The sole of the foot is proportionately shorter than in the Laetoli prints, but it has the same general form. In short, the shape of the Trachilos prints indicates unambiguously that they belong to an early hominin, somewhat more primitive than the Laetoli trackmaker. They were made on a sandy seashore, possibly a small river delta, whereas the Laetoli tracks were made in volcanic ash.

Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete? (DOI: 10.1016/j.pgeola.2017.07.006) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @06:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @06:04PM (#563510)

    I went to the original article (elsevier journal, let's not talk about that). It's free to read, so you can too.
    I wanted to see the pictures, to get an intuitive notion of why they believe they have this result.
    In any case, they seem to make a good job of listing their reasons for both the age, and the interpretation of the footprints.
    I did not try to follow them, since I don't have the time, and for now my assumption is that there may be something wrong with the dating.

    But the main message is that you can look at the original article, and they have original pictures of the site (plus altered to emphasize shapes etc), and you can decide for yourself if/where there's a problem in their argument.