EVOLUTION OF MAN 235 



for Homo sapiens is about 900 cc. Indeed the australopithecine brain size 

 is comparable to that of apes. The range for the gorilla is 415 to 655 cc. Yet 

 a gorilla with a brain of 650 cc. weighs four or five times as much as did 

 these early men. Evidently the lightly built australopithecines with their 

 small brains represent an evolutionary trend quite unlike that which culmi- 

 nated in the bulky gorilla. 



Were the small brains of the australopithecines sufficiently developed to 

 make possible any culture worthy the name? Recent findings of crude 

 stone implements with the fossils of Zinjanthropus (see p. 237) corroborate 

 previous fragmentary evidence that australopithecines made simple stone 

 tools. Dart (1956, 1959) has suggested that the australopithecines may have 

 fashioned implements and weapons of bone. Rather interestingly, quanti- 

 ties of baboon skulls fractured in such a way as to suggest that the creatures 

 were killed by skillful blows on the head, have been found with australo- 

 pithecine remains. 



The australopithecines are now known from the remains of many indi- 

 viduals, exhibiting considerable variation in structure. Robinson (1956) 

 distinguished two main types and called them genera (plural of "genus") : 

 Australopithecus and Paranthropus. He stated that "there is greater dif- 

 ference between them than between the gorilla and the chimpanzee." 

 Paranthropus had massive jaws and grinding teeth with accompanying 

 heavy musculature; it was probably herbivorous. Australopithecus was 

 more lightly constructed; its teeth suggest an omnivorous diet. Le Gros 

 Clark (1955, 1959), on the other hand, recognized the variability en- 

 countered but suggested that it may have been no greater than that found 

 within our own genus. Homo. Accordingly he placed all australopithecines 

 in one genus: Australopithecus. We note that both of these authors would 

 place the australopithecines in one or more genera distinct from genus 

 Homo. But is even this taxonomic distinction justified? If they were men 

 should they not be placed in the genus with other men, just as all types of 

 dogs are placed in genus Canis? Mayr (1950) suggested that they be 

 classified as Homo transvaalensis. Such differences of opinion are inevita- 

 ble. In part they stem from differences of opinion as to what is to be in- 

 cluded in the term "man"; in part they form an aspect of the unresolvable 

 controversy between the "lumpers" and the "splitters" in taxonomy, i.e., 

 those who emphasize similarities and classify similar forms together de- 

 spite differences considered to be minor, and those who emphasize dif- 

 ferences, separating animals into distinct categories on the basis of even 

 small differences. 



Whatever their exact relationships and classification, the australopithe- 



