(October 25, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:(October 25, 2015 at 2:13 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Things like size and bone wear are important. Say they find two scapulas which are identical except that one is large and one is small. They could be two different species, or they could be the same species, one adult and one juvenile. So what they do is look for muscle attachment points. The tendons of an older individual will have worn the bone through repetitive motion over the years. If the smaller scapula has the bone-wear of an adult, it is likely a sub-species or even its own species. If there is no bone-wear present, it is inferred to be a juvenile, especially if found with other, larger fossils sharing the same characteristics.Thanks. I'm learning.
No. Speciation takes many generations.
How then would they determine that the fossils of an adult pygmy and an adult Nordic are of the same species, assuming for the sake of this question, that they knew nothing about pygmies and Nordic people. but just found these bones thousands of years from now
Other things, like context of the findings -- where they're found, if all other specimens are roughly the same size, that sort of thing. Again, a pygmy adult may have a small skeleton, but things like bone wear, and bone robustness (juveniles usually have relatively gracile skeletons) will reveal their adulthood. If you find one such specimen, then you may have a new species, or you may have an individual afflicted with dwarfism. But if you find an entire group of smaller-than-average adults, it is likely a subgroup with the species.
Bear in mind that size is not the preeminent concern in establishing cladistic relationships. Homologies, inferred behavior patterns, locales, and so on play as much a part in assigning a species to a fossil.
