What features differentiate early Homo from Australopithecines?

Question

What features differentiate early Homo from Australopithecines?

Answer 1

There is no need to ridicule the questioner. In fact, there was a lot of protest when assigning Leakey's habilis the genus homo. Many felt its brain was too small (600) and needed to be at least 750 cc to qualify. Therefore the difference is not crazily striking and stuck in stone.

In general, remember less robusticity, increased cranial vault height, larger brains, and smaller posterior teeth in early homo compared to Aus.

Answer 2

The larger cranial capacity of the early Homo are larger than the Australopithecines. Its just how the scientists classify species. And the scientists think that the genus Homo is different from the Australopithecine

Answer 3

Umm.. everything. First of all, you're comparing apples and steaks with this one. Australiopithicus was essentially a bipedal ape. Homo habilis was a COMPLETELY different species altogether. There's a link down the chain from apes to today through Austrailiopithicus and homo Habilis, but they are two completely different species. It's like comparing a common pigeon to an iguana. There is a LINK that connects the two, but they're not the same.

But in the effort of humoring you and your ridiculous question... The cranial size (and thus, brain size) was one of the biggest differences that comes to me off the top of my head. Australiopithicus had a smaller cranial size than early homo (which I assume you mean Homo Habilis, as it is the earliest homo species). Australiopithicus also tended to have a ridge in the skull, indicative of strong jaw muscles seen in native nut eaters. homo Habilis was a scavenger and was more gracile in the jaw than Austrailopithicus. The ridge didn't exist. The brow ridge was more pronounced in Austrailiopithicus than homo. And there was a pronounced prognathism (a dog's snout is prognathism) in austrailiopithicus that didnt exist in early homo. Sexual dymorphism was another big difference. Homo species tend not to have a massive size difference between females and males... and with Austrailiopithicus, there was a significant size difference. And let's not forget that the pelvic bones of Austrailiopithicus were longer and more ape-like than that of homo habilis, who had a pelvis more like our own. Oh and let's never forget that homo habilis first learned to control fire and build tools, which austrailiopithicus didn't do. Oh and migration patterns. Austrailiopithicus pretty much hung out in Africa. Homo Habilis migrated out.

Answer 4

From what I have read, do you know what was the same?  The feet.  I'm not sure if there is proof but that's what I've read.  The Australopithecus was an hairy, ugly ape with human feet.  Also, I've read that the early Homo had a human body but an ape head.  We must have evolved from the feet up.