496 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1961 



pretation of the evidence is correct, "Telanthropus" then moved into 

 the valley when the diy conditions began to ameliorate. But by a 

 relatively short time later, when wetter conditions allowed Paran- 

 thropus to move into the area, "Telanthropus" was still there but 

 Australopithecus was no longer present — as could be predicted from 

 the similarity of their ecology. The latter had either moved out of 

 the region or suffered local extinction. Naturally, from the nature 

 of the evidence, it is not known how long Paranthropus and "Telan- 

 thropus" were synchronously present in the valley. But evidence is 

 available elsewhere. "Pithecanthropus" remains at Sangiran, ac- 

 cording to von Koenigswald, came from both the Putjangan black 

 clay and the later Kabuh conglomerate, while "Meganthropus" came 

 from the former. But the 1953 mandible of the latter from that site, 

 according to Marks ( 1953) , was found loose in a lump of conglomerate. 

 Therefore these two, a hominine and a Paranthropus^ evidently oc- 

 curred together in this area over a considerable period of time. 



If "Telanthropus" is ignored in the Sterkfontein Valley, then it 

 is not obvious why Australopithecus is not jo resent at either S wartkrans 

 or Kromdraai, because the differences of ecology between it and 

 Paranthropus would not result in the one displacing the other. 



The continued existence of Paranthropus long after Australopithe- 

 cus is also perfectly reasonable on this interpretation of ecological 

 differences. The rise of hominines would be disastrous for Austra- 

 lopithecus^ who would survive only so long as he remained in areas 

 not occupied or invaded by hominines. Inevitably this australopithe- 

 cine would be exterminated. But since this does not apply to Paran- 

 thropus^ its extinction would take longer and would not have depended 

 on direct ecological competition. 



TELANTHROPUS AND THE HOMININES 



We have seen that Paranthropus and Australopithecus are very 

 different creatures, ecologically quite differently adapted and mor- 

 phologically quite distinct. "Telanthropus" must be classed with 

 the hominines on morphological grounds, not the australopithecines. 

 While this form clearly does not belong with either of the australo- 

 pithecines, the question remains whether it is also a distinct form 

 among the hominines. Answering that question requires a recon- 

 sideration of the whole hominid group, and to do that thoroughly 

 would require a paper to itself. 



Making the type of distinction that is so clear in the australopithe- 

 cine group within the hominines seems to me out of the question. 

 There is no evidence of which I am aware which suggests that any 

 major adaptational differences existed that could be of generic quality 

 and magnitude. The morphological differences are of a low order. 



