close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Bone loss and osteoporosis An anthropological perspective.

код для вставкиСкачать
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 128:485–495 (2005)
Book Reviews
THE BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF TUBERCULOSIS. By Charlotte
A. Roberts and Jane E. Buikstra. Gainesville,
FL: University Press of Florida. 2003. 343 pp.
ISBN 0-8130-2643-1. $59.95 (cloth).
Tuberculosis is one of the most studied infectious diseases in paleopathology, and over the last 100 years a
large literature has accumulated on the disease in
ancient human remains from around the world. In common with much work on ancient disease, many publications on tuberculosis take the form of case studies, and a
general overview of the evidence is sorely needed. One of
the main aims of this book is to provide this. It also
attempts to place tuberculosis in its current context, and
considers documentary evidence for it in the past.
The book is divided into six chapters. The first two
concentrate principally on the disease today, Chapters
3 and 4 on the skeletal evidence, Chapter 5 on the historical data, and Chapter 6 on the future, both of the disease and of paleopathological studies of it.
In Chapter 1, the authors point out that tuberculosis
is one of the leading causes of death in the world today,
and in countries where it was once thought conquered, it
is reemerging. Factors connected with the current rise in
tuberculosis are considered; chief among these are the
spread of AIDS/HIV and the increasing resistance of
tuberculosis to antibiotics.
Chapter 2 considers the question of who in a population is most vulnerable to tuberculosis. In addition to
those who are immunocompromised from infection with
HIV, those who live in overcrowded conditions, have poor
nutrition, or have occupational contact with animal vectors are most at risk. Increased travel also helps to
spread the disease.
The real core of the book from the paleopathological
point of view consists of the surveys of skeletal evidence
in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 3 is entitled ‘‘Tuberculosis
in the Old World,’’ but in fact the first part of it is a
methodological digression covering the diagnosis of
tuberculosis in skeletal remains and the problems in
assessing its prevalence from skeletal samples. Although
somewhat out of place here, this section provides a wellillustrated overview of the skeletal changes in the disease and the problems in their interpretation. However,
I was surprised to see the claim (p. 88) that infection
with Mycobacterium bovis (‘‘bovine tuberculosis’’) is
10 times more likely to produce bone lesions than infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis (‘‘human tuberculosis’’). A sweeping statement such as this needs to be
properly supported, but the only citation given for it is a
reference to an unsupported assertion made in part of a
comment published in the Paleopathology Association
Newsletter.
The second part of Chapter 3 provides an overview of
published paleopathological cases of tuberculosis from
the Old World; Chapter 4 does the same for pre-Columbian cases from the Americas. Although the authors
make no claim to have been exhaustive in their surveys
of paleopathological cases, they seem to me to have been
rather assiduous in tracking down the relevant litera-
#
2005 WILEY-LISS, INC.
ture. Individual cases of the disease are itemized, and
the authors take a critical view of published examples.
They also detail, where possible, the bones affected in
individual cases. There are supporting tables and maps,
and photographs of some of the specimens. The Old
World part of the survey is organized country by country.
Importantly, the authors also indicate where published
paleopathological cases of tuberculosis were looked for
but not found. This includes sub-Saharan Africa, Australasia, and much of southern Asia. There is relatively
little attempt to analyze the Old World data, but the
scattered nature of the evidence perhaps makes this
difficult.
The chapter on the Americas (written by Buikstra) is
a concise summary of the New World evidence, and contains more in the way of data analysis than that for the
Old World. However, it is, as the author admits, simply a
slightly updated republication of an article which
appeared in 1999 in the volume Tuberculosis Past and
Present (Buikstra, 1999). This will disappoint readers
hoping for a fresh perspective on the data.
The emphasis in the discussion of the historical evidence in Chapter 5 is on the treatment of tuberculosis.
There is a very long discussion of sanatoria which rather
imbalances things, especially as they achieved little in
the way of effective treatment and were in vogue for a
relatively short period (mid-19th–mid-20th century). On
the other hand, there is little on the discovery of the
tubercle baccillus, the history of the use of of X-rays for
diagnosis, and the rise of antibiotic therapies, despite
the authors’ acknowledgment (p. 222) that these were
key developments in combating the disease.
In their concluding chapter, the writers suggest that
the future of the paleopathological study of tuberculosis
lies with population-based work, taking a biocultural
approach to the study of the disease. They also point
out that in the future, diagnoses based on biomolecular
work (particularly ancient DNA) will play an increasing
role.
The title of the book somewhat misleading. There is
quite a lot which is not bioarchaeology, and which makes
the volume of broader interest. There is significant material (mainly in Chapter 1) on tuberculosis in contemporary populations in the developing world, including
indigenous beliefs concerning the disease, that is of potential interest to medical and social anthropologists.
The discussion of written evidence for tuberculosis in the
past makes the book of potential value to students of the
history of medicine.
In general, errors in the text are fairly few. However,
in addition to some minor ones (e.g., Columella, the
author of de Re Rustica, is misspelled throughout), a few
are more significant. For example, the date of the important Neolithic Italian specimen from Arma dell’ Aquila
cave is given incorrectly on pages 182 and 183 as 5800 90 BC (it in fact dates to 5800 90 BP). The quality of
the photographs is rather variable, and in some
instances the captions to graphs or line drawings fail to
explain adequately symbols or abbreviations used.
Overall, this book represents a useful addition to the
literature, and it will be of value both to graduate stu-
486
BOOK REVIEWS
dents and to professionals. The success with which it has
collated the rather fragmentary paleopathological literature on tuberculosis will make it a key reference work
for those interested in tuberculosis in ancient skeletons.
SIMON MAYS
English Heritage Centre for Archaeology
Portsmouth, UK
E-mail: simon.mays@english-heritage.org.uk
HUMAN GROWTH: ASSESSMENT AND INTERPRETATION. By
Alex Roche and Shumei Sun. New York:
Cambridge University Press. 2003. 311 pp.
ISBN 0-521-78145-7. $85.00.
This is an excellent reference book for anthropologists
and human biologists interested in human growth and
its variation. The book is divided into five chapters that
cover measurement and assessment, patterns of change
in size and body composition, determinants of growth,
secular changes in growth and maturity, and a final
chapter on the significance of human growth. The majority of the studies cited come from developed countries,
but the book will still serve as a good resource for those
working on issues related to growth in developing countries.
The book begins by addressing the issues of measurement and assessment, and includes a comprehensive review of the equipment, procedures, and growth reference
tables needed to collect and interpret anthropometric
data. Reference data are reviewed for healthy children as
well as low birth weight infants, multiple births, and diseased children in developed countries. Adequate coverage
is also given to assessing sexual maturity and the difficulties that arise when interpreting adolescent growth,
which is significant given that it is an important emerging
area of research. Space is also devoted to presenting interobserver differences for various anthropometric measurements taken from the Fels longitudinal study.
Chapter 2 covers mathematical models of growth and
body composition and such topics as growth spurts,
tracking, canalization, failure to thrive, catch-up growth,
and prediction of adult stature. The importance of multiple measurements (increments) is highlighted for each of
these topics, as is the issue of measurement error, which
can overwhelm true relationships. The authors discuss
several useful techniques for estimating the minimum
length of intervals between measurements. The highlight
of this chapter is the presentation of age-to-age correlations and a review of the relationship between early
growth and adult weight and body composition. Results
from a large number of studies on this topic are nicely
organized and are presented in several tables.
Chapter 3 is likely to be of the most theoretical interest
to readers of this Journal, given that it examines factors
responsible for producing variation in human growth and
body composition. The authors cover, among other topics,
the influence of genetics, family, parity, young child-feeding practices, socioeconomic status, and substance abuse
on various growth outcomes. They also review interesting
LITERATURE CITED
Buikstra JE. 1999. Paleo epidemology of tuberculosis in the Americas. In. Palfi G, Dutour O, Deák J, Hutas I, editors. Tuberculosis past and present. Budapest: Golden Books. p 479–494.
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20120
Published online 10 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
work on ethnic differences in growth outcomes, and mention several fascinating studies that compare birth outcomes among mothers of the same ethnic groups but who
gave birth in different places (e.g., living in the USA vs.
outside the USA) or resided for different amounts of time
in the USA. For instance, several studies are reviewed
showing that Mexican-American mothers with longer periods of residence in the States are more likely to produce
low birth weight infants than Mexican-American mothers
living in the USA for less than 5 years. These types of studies draw attention to the important role that anthropometry can play in exposing social and cultural influences
on health.
Chapter 4 provides an overview of secular trends in
growth, age at maturity, birth weight, and body composition, and sets out the criteria needed to identify such
trends and the implications they have for long-term
serial growth studies. After reviewing the evidence for
secular trends in the growth and maturation of children,
four possible determinants of secular changes are
explored: changes in nutrition, physical activity, socioeconomic status, and health. In contrast to the rest of the
book, the discussion here is somewhat lacking, given the
importance of the topic. For example, the authors point
out the 100% increase in obesity between 1966–1990
among USA children aged 6–17 years, but their discussion of the determinants of this secular trend (and
others) tends to be scattered and inconclusive.
The final chapter is, in many ways, a summary of
the entire book, and could easily stand on its own. The
relationship between early growth and later growth is
reviewed, as is the relationship between growth and
disease. This includes a helpful review of the relationship between size at birth and adult-onset diseases such
as hypertension and coronary heart disease. The book
concludes with a short discussion on the value of
growth screening programs (in developed countries) for
identifying undiagnosed abnormal growth in children.
Highlights of the book include numerous well-organized tables that present large amounts of data in accessible and informative ways, an emphasis on effect size
across studies, attention to interobserver errors and confounding factors, and the lengthy bibliography (which
covers nearly a third of the book). I appreciated the
authors’ cautionary notes that observed between-group
variation could represent true biological variability or
differences in study design, variable definitions (e.g.,
Socioeconomic Status), and statistical analysis. There
are also suggestive findings, such as sex differences in
growth outcomes, scattered throughout the book that
487
BOOK REVIEWS
should intrigue anthropologists. There are only minor
errors throughout the book (e.g., ‘‘exclusively breastfed
to 12 months’’ should read ‘‘6 months,’’ p. 145), and in
general the presentation is clean and highly readable.
The focus of Human Growth is on those individuals
living in developed countries. This, coupled with the high
cost and the absence of a theoretical framework, certainly limited the book’s applicability as a text for biological anthropology courses. That said, selected chapters
would provide students with good overviews, and the
book as a whole is a solid and useful reference.
EXAMINING THE FARMING/LANGUAGE DISPERSAL HYPOTHESIS.
Edited by Peter Bellwood and Colin Renfrew.
Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. 2002.
505 pp. ISBN 1-902937-20-1. $85.00 (cloth).
This volume presents 36 papers by archaeologists, linguists, and geneticists examining the core hypothesis
that the spread of language families over wide regions is
driven by expanding populations of agriculturalists. The
editors, both prominent exponents of this view, organized
the symposium held at the MacDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research in Cambridge in August 2001
and contributed introductory chapters as well as a concluding postscript to the volume.
Following the Introduction, in which Renfrew and
Bellwood lay out the ‘‘emerging synthesis’’ using the new
discipline of ‘‘archaeogenetics’’ (population history from
molecular genetics) and overview the components of the
farming dispersal hypothesis, seven chapters ‘‘set the
scene’’ for the discussion. These papers range from a
comparison of the capacity for demographic expansion
(Harris) and the economic demography of early farmers
(Cohen), to the basic principles of linguistic divergence
(Campbell), Y-chromosome histories (Underhill), demic
diffusion as the basic process of human expansions
(Cavalli-Sforza), the role of DNA technology in estimating chronologies (Forster and Renfrew), and the potential and limits of DNA studies (Bandelt et al.). While
providing useful background, these papers quickly make
clear that there are strong dissenters from the program.
The major portion of the book comprises regional summaries, including Western Asia and North Africa, Asia
and Oceania, Mesoamerica and the American Southwest,
and Europe, the regions, according to the editors, that
are the loci of most of the debate. Renfrew particularly
has championed the origin and spread of Indo-European
carried by Neolithic farmers from the Near East advancing through Europe, and Bellwood has long argued for
a similar process spreading Austroasiatic and Austronesian languages through Southeast Asia and Oceania.
Others have suggested that the spread of Bantu in
Africa and perhaps Uto-Aztecan in the Americas was driven by agricultural expansion.
These 27 chapters briefly consider social and economic
trends in prehistory and linguistic patterns for Western
Asia, Africa, and the Americas, adding molecular genetic
data to the linguistic/archaeological picture in Europe
and Oceania, where extensive genetic surveys have been
made. These short summaries (8–10 pages) present a
great deal of information, but limitations of space
obviously dictate some omissions. As with any multidisciplinary work, technical details may cause problems for
CRAIG HADLEY
Population Studies and Training Center
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island
E-mail: Craig_Hadley@Brown.edu
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20129
Published online 10 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
some readers. But it is this sort of symposium that helps
to bridge differences and develop common vocabularies
and understandings. Linguists, archaeologists, and
geneticists need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s methods, and there is definite evidence that some of this was happening in this symposium.
What are the critical components of the hypothesis,
then, and has it been substantiated? For Renfrew, ‘‘some
language families’’ were ‘‘at least in part’’ dispersed
through ‘‘demographic and cultural processes . . . which
accompanied the dispersal . . . of the practice of food production’’? (p. 3). This formulation may be so general as to
be almost surely true. Nonetheless, there are many
exceptions to the farming/language spread rule, as Campbell points out in Chapter 5. Only some agricultural systems seem suited for expansion, whereas others are not
(Harris), and population growth rates among early farmers may not have been much above those of foragers
(Cohen). In my view, the demographic underpinnings of
the expansion model have always been suspect. The huge
differentials in population growth rate between farmers
and foragers required by the classic ‘‘wave of advance’’
(demic diffusion) model of Cavalli-Sforza and Menozzi
seem to be highly unlikely, and are not demonstrable in
the archaeological record (Zvelebil). Notably, however,
the ‘‘emerging synthesis’’ (Renfrew) includes historical
linguistics, molecular genetics, and archaeology, but not
the comparative ethnography/demography that might
provide perspective on the processes of population growth
and range expansion.
Do these criticisms invalidate or disprove the hypothesis? More generally, what evidence would it take to
reject the hypothesis? Recall that the original hypothesis
was that ‘‘early farmers, by virtue of their healthy demographic and economic profiles,’’ colonized and spread
their ‘‘material culture, language and genetic distinctiveness’’ (Bellwood, p. 17). Thus a hard test would seem to
require covariation of all three. Further, all three domains
should show evidence of being dispersed together (contemporaneously), since the same colonizing process generated
their distributions.
In practice, different investigators emphasize one category of evidence over another. Hence Bellwood finds the
linguistic evidence compelling; for him, languages only
spread by the movement of people. On the other hand,
Oppenheimer and Richards argue that migration is best
tested by genes, since they are transmitted directly from
parent to offspring. But since there are no exact methods
for dating prehistoric events through either linguistics
(with the demise of glottochronology) or genetics, neither
avenue provides a strong constraint on interpretation.
Without such constraints, the hypothesis may be compa-
488
BOOK REVIEWS
tible with data but may not be tested by the data (see
Hurles). In the absence of direct tests, computer modeling has been suggested as one way to generate and test
hypotheses as well as explore the ‘‘limits of knowability’’
(Hurles). Some such studies do exist, and Chikhi in this
volume discusses such a model applied to DNA variation
in Europe.
Finally, as the editors conclude, no consensus was
achieved, but many ideas and viewpoints were expressed
in this symposium. This is a big, interesting problem
that has stimulated all sorts of research while fostering
interdisciplinary cooperation. Even if the central premise
were wrong, it would still be useful. As Darwin said in
the last chapter of the Descent of Man (1897, p. 606),
‘‘False facts are highly injurious to the progress of
science, for they often endure long; but false views, if
GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY OF THE MIOCENE SINAP
FORMATION, TURKEY. Edited by Mikael Fortelius,
John Kappelman, Sevket Sen, and Raymond L.
Bernor. New York: Columbia University Press.
2003. 409 pp. ISBN 0-231-11358-7. $95.00 (cloth).
The Sinap Formation (Fm.) is an important set of
exposures in central Anatolia (Turkey), dating from the
middle to late Miocene. For biological anthropologists,
the Sinap Fm. is of interest because it yielded Ankarapithecus meteai, a late Miocene large-bodied hominoid
named by H. Fikret Ozansoy in 1957. The Sinap Project,
a collaborative effort to document the sediments and fossils of this region, worked in the deposits for several
summers, from 1989 until 1995. This volume is the product of that collaboration.
The volume begins with an Introduction by Sevket
Sen. This Introduction is a lively glimpse into the
behind-the-scenes activities and personalities of scientists who have devoted major portions of their careers to
unraveling the secrets of the Miocene of central Anatolia.
Sen’s account is highly entertaining, especially his
description of how one scientist failed to recognize the
difference between a real fossil and a plaster reconstruction when discussing the mandibular corpus of Ankarapithecus. It is hoped, however, that the reader will
realize that Sen’s comments about Berna Alpagut and
her collaborators (most notably Peter Andrews) are opinionated, and that his perceptions have been refracted
through the prism of professional rivalry. Rightly or
wrongly, the field of paleoanthropology has earned a
reputation for adversarial and acrimonious relationships
between rival teams of investigators. The competitive
dynamic that exists between members of the Sinap Project (on the one hand) and Alpagut and her collaborators
(on the other hand) is, regrettably, no exception to this
prevailing negative stereotype. Apparently, this animus
resulted in the ‘‘sudden termination of the Sinap Project’’
in late June 1995 (p. 282).
The volume then proceeds with a section of two chapters on geology and chronology. This section clearly
establishes the areal extent and antiquity of the deposits, the latter mainly by means of paleomagnetism. Of
interest to biological anthropologists will be new estimates of the antiquity of Ankarapithecus (ca. 9.6 MA)
that are slightly younger than those provided previously.
supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one
takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness: and
when this is done, one path towards error is closed and
the road to truth is often at the same time opened.’’
ALAN G. FIX
Department of Anthropology,
University of California,
Riverside, California
E-mail: agfix@ucr.edu
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20130
Published online 10 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
There isn’t much here, however, in terms of fine-scale
paleoenvironmental reconstruction from paleosols or
other sedimentary features.
The nonprimate mammal paleontology section includes
13 chapters concerning the Insectivora, Rodentia, Lagomorpha, Carnivora, Tubulidentata, Proboscidea, Perissodactyla, and Artiodactyla. Several highlights of the
nonprimate paleontology deserve mention. In the chapter
on Schizogaleriz, Lena Selanne describes a new species of
moonrat (S. intermedia) and notes that echinosoricines
inhabit wooded environments close to surface water. Sevket Sen’s description of the Muridae and Gerbillidae
includes a new genus of murid (Sinapodemus), distinguished from Progonomys by its more elongated first
molars. Fossorial rodents of the family Spalacidae are surprisingly well-represented in the Sinap Fm. Nuran Sarica
and Sevket Sen revise the Spalacidae and name a new
genus, Sinapospalax. Ochotonid and leporid lagomorphs
from the Sinap Formation are described by Sevket Sen.
The ochotonids include a new genus (Bellatonoides) as
well as a new species of Ochotonoma. Sen provisionally
suggests the presence of a ‘‘lagomorph vacuum’’ in Anatolia between the latest Astaracian-early Vallesian.
As described by Suvi Viranta and Lars Werdelin, the
Carnivora from the Sinap Fm. are intriguing because,
although they generally conform to evolutionary patterns
seen throughout western Eurasia, they also include
Dinocrocuta senyureki, a taxon known from the late Miocene site of Sahabi (Libya). Viranta and Werdelin wisely
caution against simplistic biogeographic reconstructions
of late Miocene Carnivora, especially in the absence of
revisions of the felids, mustelids, percrocutids, and
ursids. A fascinating and innovative chapter on the
Orycteropodidae by Mikael Fortelius, Sirpa Nummela,
and Sevket Sen includes a reconstruction of hearing sensitivity in the fossil aardvark Orycteropus pottieri, based
on the mass and density of the incus.
Proboscideans are ably described by William Sanders.
He begins by telling the reader that Ozanzoy described
proboscidean remains from the Sinap Fm. in a series of
publications spanning the 1950s and 1960s, and that 205
new proboscidean remains were collected by the Sinap
Project. Rather than presenting all known proboscidean
material from the Sinap Fm., however, Sanders gives
taxonomic attributions for only a few dozen specimens, all
collected by the Sinap Project. Three deinothere deciduous
BOOK REVIEWS
premolars are attributed to the European and circumMediterranean species Deinotherium giganteum on the
basis of size (dp4 dimensions of D. indicum and D. bozasi
are slightly larger than those of the dp4 from the Sinap
Fm.). Of course, this attribution is most probable, but it
might be argued that aside from biogeographic considerations (and the slight difference in size of dp4), the deinothere of the Sinap Formation might just as well have
been assigned to the species known from the late Miocene
of the Siwaliks (D. indicum) or sub-Saharan Africa
(D. bozasi). In other words, insofar as it is known only
from deciduous mandibular cheekteeth, the Deinotherium
species from the Sinap Fm. is undetermined. Two teeth
and an astragalus referred to Gomphotherium angustidens come from the lower member; their size and morphology support a middle Miocene age (ca. 15 MA) for the
earlier part of the Sinap Fm. Choerolophodont remains
attributed to Choerolophodon anatolicus include numerous postcranial specimens, but these are not illustrated,
and only preliminary comments about their morphology
are provided.
Perissodactyls are described in separate chapters
devoted to Equidae and Rhinocerotidae. Analysis of the
equid remains results in several interesting suggestions
concerning the nature and context of the ‘‘Hipparion
datum’’ in Eurasia. The Sinap Fm. rhinoceroses, as
described by Mikael Fortelius, Kurt Heissig, Gercek
Sarac, and Sevket Sen, are unusually diverse, both taxonomically and adaptively. Some beautifully complete cranial and mandibular specimens of rhinoceroses have come
to light from the Sinap Fm. These were mainly collected
early on by Ozanzoy (and sadly, some of the most complete
specimens are now lost), while the Sinap Project collections are relatively poor. Rhinoceros collections reveal a
major gap between the lower part of the formation (middle
Miocene, ca. 15–16 MA) and the middle-upper part of the
formation (late Miocene, ca. 10.1–6 MA).
Artiodactyl fossils are divided among chapters devoted
to Suoidea (Jan van der Made), Camelidae (Jan van der
Made, Jorge Morales, Sevket Sen, and Fehmi Aslan),
and Ruminantia (Alan Gentry). These chapters, especially Gentry’s on the bovids, cervids, and giraffids, are
superb, and offer comprehensive discussions of the artiodactyls of the Sinap Fm.
Although treatments of individual groups of nonprimate
mammals are uniformly excellent, it is unfortunate that
the editors did not provide here a synthetic overview of
the chronologic and paleoenvironmental implications of
the entire fauna. An idiosyncratic and speculative concluding chapter on the abundance of ‘‘Hipparion’’ in the
Sinap Fm. is provocative, but cannot replace a more useful
compilation of relative abundance of all taxa. It bears
mentioning here that editing and proofreading are of the
highest standard. Exceptions (e.g., italicizing Pecora as if
it were a genus rather than a suborder, p. 333) are few
and do not detract from the overall excellent quality of the
volume.
Of greatest interest to readers of this Journal is the
chapter on fossil hominoids by John Kappelman, Brian
Richmond, Eric Seiffert, A. Murat Maga, and Timothy
Ryan. Included here are details concerning the recovery
of a female skull of Ankarapithecus excavated by Zeynep
Bostan and Berna Alpagut from Locality 12 on June 20,
1995. Some of these details, such as speculation that
‘‘a perhaps significant portion of the neurocranium was
inadvertently chiseled away’’ (p. 93), may make the
reader cringe. Although the authors lay the blame for
489
this damage at the feet of Berna Alpagut and her student
(they make it sound as if Bostan and Alpagut carelessly
knocked off the braincase and discarded it), one can fairly
assume the existence of another untold side of the story.
This chapter includes the most comprehensive description of the skull of Ankarapithecus yet available. The
skull of Ankarapithecus is one of a dozen or so highly
informative cranial specimens of a Miocene catarrhine.
Regression equations indicate that the individual represented by the skull weighed approximately 20 kg, about
the size of a male drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus). In general, the descriptions are valuable because they are quite
detailed and include comparative observations and data.
The skull is well-illustrated except for the fact that
there are no illustrations of the maxillary dentition. The
skull is described as possessing ‘‘moderately developed
supraorbital tori’’ (p. 95). The interorbital region of
Ankarapithecus is documented as relatively narrow, falling within the range of cercopithecines, colobines, Pongo,
and Pan. Thus Ankarapithecus does not possess the
extremely narrow interorbital septum that links Sivapithecus with Pongo. Postcranial remains attributed to
Ankarapithecus include a radius (lacking the distal end),
two fragmentary phalanges, and a femur shaft (lacking
both proximal and distal articulations). These postcranial remains are claimed to be ‘‘most consistent with a
generally pronograde mode of locomotion that probably
included some amount of terrestriality’’ (p. 120). Overall,
the authors conclude that Ankarapithecus exhibits a
number of unique features that complicate facile interpretion of its phylogenetic relationships, but that it
‘‘could reasonably be placed as either a sister group to
all middle Miocene-Recent Eurasian hominoids or perhaps within this group but outside the SivapithecusPongo clade’’ (p. 120).
A few comments need to be made here concerning the
described morphology of the Ankarapithecus skull. In
and of itself, the presence of supraorbital tori would be
an important signal of affinity to the African ape and
human clade. But the description and interpretation of
the supraorbital region of Ankarapithecus that appear in
this volume suffer from an uncritical use of diagnostic
anatomical terms. It is clear from inspection of figures
and photographs in the volume that Ankarapithecus does
not possess a true supraorbital torus. Instead, robust
superciliary arches are present which are not continuous
at midline and are not separated from the frontal
squama by a posttoral sulcus (key components of the
true supraorbital torus). Laterally, a rib-like process (the
costa supraorbitalis) is evident, formed through coalescence of the superciliary arch and the temporal line. The
apparent robusticity of the medial portion of the superciliary arch of Ankarapithecus is caused, at least in part,
by inflation from the frontal sinus. The presence of the
frontal sinus, as recently demonstrated by the work of
James Rossie, is a primitive characteristic for Old World
higher primates. Ankarapithecus possesses a primitive
supraorbital morphology that links it neither with the
Asian great ape clade (absence of a frontal sinus combined with the costa supraorbitalis) nor with the African
great ape and human clade (presence of a frontal sinus
derived from the ethmoid sinus combined with the true
supraorbital torus). This primitive condition, which differs from the divergently derived conditions of modern
Asian and African great apes, is also seen in Dryopithecus and Ouranopithecus. The skull is reconstructed as
klinorhynch. This may prove to be the case in the future,
490
BOOK REVIEWS
but for the time being is speculative because the cranial
base was not recovered. In reality, the degree of basicranial flexion is inferred rather than known (this is also
the case for Dryopithecus).
The section devoted to description of hominoid postcranial fossils includes descriptions of the radius, phalanges, and femur attributed to Ankarapithecus. The
radius possesses a combination of features reflecting
retention of a primitive positional repertoire, mainly pronograde quadrupedalism. The phalangeal fragments are
too fragmentary and eroded to provide much useful
information, especially concerning shaft curvature.
Unfortunately, this section is marred by the fact that the
femur attributed to Ankarapithecus is probably not a primate but instead seems to represent the nimravid carnivore Barbourofelis piveteaui. Judging from photographs
and descriptions in the volume, the morphology of the
femur differs fundamentally from the known femoral
anatomy of other large-bodied hominoids such as Proconsul, Nacholapithecus, Kenyapithecus, Dryopithecus, and
Oreopithecus. Some of the ways that the femur differs
from conditions typically exhibited by hominoid primates
are enumerated by the authors: ‘‘a relatively narrow
anteroposterior diameter at the base of the neck, a slight
anterior curve of the proximal anterior surfaces of the
neck and greater trochanter, and a somewhat triangular
shaft cross-section proximally and distally’’ (p. 111). Also
unusual for hominoid primates is the fact that ‘‘there is
no distinct linea aspera along the posterior surface’’ (p.
112). In addition to morphological differences from hominoids, the femur attributed to Ankarapithecus is too
large to belong to the same species as is represented by
the female skull. The authors use subtrochanteric
dimensions of the femur and regression equations (from
the work of Henry McHenry) to arrive at a body mass.
According to the authors, ‘‘RMA regressions yield 75.6
kg and 75.3 kg’’ (p. 112) as estimates of the body mass of
the individual represented by the femur. If the size difference between the femur and the female skull were
simply sexual dimorphism, then males of Ankarapithecus
meteai would weigh 3.75 times as much as females. This
is an excessively great degree of body mass dimorphism
(male orangutans, in comparison, weigh about 2.19 times
as much as females). It is sometimes difficult to distinguish limb bones of carnivores and creodonts from those
of Miocene hominoids; Brian Richmond’s attribution in
this volume of a nimravid carnivore femur to the hominoid Ankarapithecus is reminiscent of an identification
of a creodont ulna from Fort Ternan as Kenyapithecus
(Kitko and Richmond, 1997). The authors’ undocumented
claims concerning probable terrestriality notwithstanding, there are no indications of the substrate preference
of Ankarapithecus.
In summary, this volume is an indispensable compendium of information concerning the fauna and sediments
of the Sinap Fm. Although specialists may dispute the
authors’ descriptions and interpretations of fossils attributed to Ankarapithecus, valuable details are provided
concerning the faunal, sedimentological, and chronological context of this still enigmatic genus. The authors and
editors have done an admirable job of making this information available to paleontologists, including biological
anthropologists.
MONTE L. MCCROSSIN
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico
E-mail: mmccross@nmsu.edu
DARWIN AND DESIGN: DOES EVOLUTION HAVE A PURPOSE?
By Michael Ruse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. 2003. 370 pp. ISBN 0-674-01023-X. $29.95.
ments, and sought different organizing principles in living
matter that have little to do with adaptive ‘‘purpose’’ or
design. Ruse traces a tension in the history of organismal
biology, from the Cuvier-Geoffroy debates of 1830 down to
the present, between studies centered on adaptation/
design and those centering on structural regularities and
historical narrative. A familiar current expression of this
tension is the conflicting preoccupations of adaptationist
biologists and cladistic systematists; what counts as a
clear signal for the adaptation crowd (adaptive convergence in different clades) is filtered out as noise by the
cladists, and conversely. ‘‘It is a common grumble of morphologists,’’ Ruse notes, ‘‘especially those concerned with
classification, that adaptation is their greatest enemy.’’
In most of these disputes, Ruse’s sympathies lie with
the adaptationists. Even the creationist ‘‘natural theology’’ of William Paley strikes him as hewing closer to the
truths of biology than David Hume’s skepticism about
design in nature. Ruse is no creationist, but he applauds
natural theology as a regrettable but necessary precursor to something better—namely, the theory of natural
The human heart pumps blood around the body. It also
makes a thumping sound. It seems obvious to us that the
heart is for pumping, not thumping, and that the noise it
makes is incidental to its function. But this sort of language implies that the heart is built for something, that
some of the effects it produces have a purpose. Do biologists have to talk about purpose in describing organisms?
If they do, can they legitimately wave away the traditional corollary—the creationist’s inference from purpose
to Purposiveness with a capital P?
In Darwin and Design, the philosopher and historian
Michael Ruse presents a short critical history of these
questions in Western thought. Prior to Darwin, most
scientists and natural philosophers who considered these
issues accepted both the reality of contrivance in organic
forms and the inference to a guiding intelligence. But
Ruse reminds us that others have shrugged off both argu-
LITERATURE CITED
Kitko RE, Richmond BG. 1997. The phyletic and locomotor affinities of the proximal ulna from Fort Ternan, Kenya (KNMFT 3381). Am J Phys Anthropol [Suppl] 24:144.
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20131
Published online 10 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
BOOK REVIEWS
selection. That theory, Ruse suggests, could have germinated only in an ideological landscape like that of Victorian England, where the perception of design in nature
was an unofficial doctrine of the dominant religion. ‘‘Darwin,’’ Ruse insists, ‘‘became an evolutionist as much
because of his religious beliefs as despite them.’’
Ruse thinks that Darwin’s 19th-century followers did
evolution a disservice by abandoning the focus on adaptation and contrivance that Darwin had absorbed from
English natural theology. In the hands of Haeckel, Huxley, Spencer, and their ilk, evolutionary biology degenerated into a ‘‘a second-rate, Germanized tracing of
phylogenies’’ that concentrated on historical narrative
and notions of progress. By the beginning of the 20th
century, Darwinism had largely lost its scientific aspirations and become a secular religion, ‘‘an ideology to
replace a no-longer-sufficient Christianity.’’ It was only
through the advent of population genetics and the
exploration of its corollaries by such people as Fisher,
Dobzhansky, Hamilton, and Trivers that Darwinism
finally succeeded in becoming a genuine science: predictive, experimental, and empirical.
In the last third of the book, Ruse examines and
critiques some current sources of opposition to neoDarwinian adaptationism. The most popular but least
scientifically interesting of these are the ‘‘intelligent
design’’ theorists, who hail the reality of design in nature
but deny the competence of blind natural selection to
achieve it. Ruse makes short work of these people by
pointing to more sophisticated biological analyses and to
computer and mechanical models that disprove Behe’s
‘‘irreducible complexity’’ and Dembski’s ‘‘no free lunch’’
theorems. The proposition that ‘‘blind processes cannot
lead to specified complexity,’’ Ruse concludes, is demonstrably ‘‘just plain wrong,’’ and nothing further needs to
be said.
More formidable challenges to Darwinian adaptationism emerge from what Ruse calls the ‘‘formalist’’ tradition. Under this heading, Ruse treats the biologists and
philosophers who think that natural selection is so channeled and constrained by other forces—phylogeny,
embryology, genomic structures, historical contingency,
physical and mathematical necessity—that it plays a
much smaller role in the evolutionary process than Darwinians like to think. Here we encounter D’Arcy Thompson’s laws of growth and form, Kaufmann’s selforganization, Gould and Lewontin’s spandrels, and various currently popular claims about the primacy of developmental factors and Bauplans. Ruse acknowledges that
these forces play important parts in the evolutionary
process, but insists that they themselves are under the
ultimate control of natural selection. Any constraints
that severely limit the capacity of a species for adaptive
change tend either to vanish with the species they have
handicapped, or to be replaced by other and more flexible
modes of organization.
Ruse further observes that the new formalists’ downplaying of adaptation is helped along by ‘‘idiosyncratic
(and self-serving) definitions of adaptation that refuse to
apply the term to subsequent uses after the initial use.’’
Such definitions allow the formalist to refuse, say, to
describe the limbs of mammals as locomotor adaptations
because limbs were also locomotor adaptations in the
ancestral tetrapods. ‘‘A final move,’’ he notes acidly, ‘‘is to
appropriate some fancy name like Bauplan, to give ontological status to what you are promoting, and the dish is
complete. Function is relegated to the sidelines.’’
491
But why talk about function or design at all? Is it the
function of the human heart to help me to go on living, or
my species to survive? To be sure, if a mammal’s blood
stops circulating for more than a few minutes, tissues
start dying and the animal soon dies with them. But what
does it add to this description to say that the function or
purpose of the heart is to pump blood, and that this function has value because it allows organisms and species to
succeed in the struggle for existence? Why not give up
these 19th century metaphors altogether? Nobody feels
the need of them in describing other sorts of natural phenomena. Is the function of an offshore sandbar to keep a
beach from being swept away by storms? Hardly. Do beaches, rocks, waves, and so on compete for a place on the
earth’s surface? No? Well, neither do species. Ruse quotes
Michael Ghiselin in this connection: ‘‘Instead of asking,
What is good? we ask, What has happened? The new question does everything we could expect the old one to do, and
a lot more besides.’’
Ruse dislikes this approach and criticizes its proponents at some length. But it seems to me that his reasons for rejecting it have more to do with his own
religious agenda than with the logic of the science he
studies. ‘‘What I am arguing for,’’ Ruse writes in his final
paragraphs, ‘‘is a theory of nature . . . that sees and
appreciates the complex, adaptive glory of the living
world, rejoices in it, and trembles before it.’’ Ruse thinks
that this reverent awe is a core element both in natural
theology and in a lot of natural science, and that ‘‘the
genuine love and joy with which today’s professional evolutionists respond to their subjects’’ is what drives a lot
of biologists into the Darwinian study of nature.
I think Ruse may be right about this. If he wants to
found a church grounded in that reverence for the glory
of the living world, I might even drop in on an occasional
service. But it seems to me that such religious feelings
are essentially irrelevant to the scientific study of evolution, and that pretending that the two are somehow
linked is a tactical and philosophical error that plays
directly into the hands of the creationists who insist that
Darwinism is a religion.
As far as I can see, there is no conflict in principle
between the blindly mechanical universe studied by
science and the intentional, purposive universe postulated by traditional theism. If, as Augustine argued some
1,600 years ago, God exists in eternity, outside the flow
of time, then his will may be the ultimate First Cause of
everything. But it can’t be the cause of anything in the
usual scientific sense. Such ‘‘proximate’’ causes have to
precede their effects in time, and the will of God has no
temporal location. Whether something has a mechanical,
temporal cause can’t have any bearing on whether it also
has an intentional cause originating in an eternal Creator. The purposive creation of all things by God therefore
can’t be refuted by demonstrations of blind universal
mechanism. If God is atemporal, then ‘‘creation’’ is a
relationship between the creature and the creator, not
an event in the history of the world.
Ruse recognizes all this, but he seems to regard the
Augustinian solution as cheating. Such an approach, he
protests, ‘‘has made Darwinism nonthreatening by making it irrelevant’’—i.e., irrelevant to the question of
divine intentionality in the universe. But so what?
What’s wrong with making Darwinism nonthreatening?
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to dispel the popular perception of menace that has been hovering around the study
of evolution for 150 years, especially if the menace is
492
BOOK REVIEWS
imaginary? I don’t know whether God’s eye is on the
sparrow or not, but I do know that Darwinism is never
going to settle that question. Personally I would be
happy to let evangelical Christians believe whatever
they like about the fall of sparrows if they will let me
use the word ‘‘evolution’’ in grant applications again
without risking the wrath of the majority party in the
US House of Representatives.
Despite these reservations about Ruse’s theology, I
have nothing but admiration for him as a historian and
a writer. As usual, he writes with charm, wit, economy,
and clarity. Darwin and Design is crammed with brilliant little capsule summaries of complex arguments:
Hamilton on kin selection, Kimura on molecular drift,
Trivers and Willard on social rank and sex of offspring,
and so on and on. Ruse’s analysis of Kant’s views on teleology in organisms and their impact on later thinkers is
BONE LOSS AND OSTEOPOROSIS: AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE. Edited by Sabrina C. Agarwal and
Sam D. Stout. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers. 2004. 749 pp. ISBN 0-306-47767-X.
$135.00 (cloth).
The baby boomers in the US have received their AARP
memberships and within the next two decades the oldest
demographic brackets will be bulging at the seams. An
aging population has significant social and financial
ramifications as patients require more medical attention
and quality of life decreases despite increased expected
longevity. Thus, an anthropological examination of the
underlying biological, genetic, environmental, and cultural causes of osteoporosis is quite timely. Born from an
AAPA symposium, the editors amassed a multidisciplinary team of human biologists, clinical researchers, and
skeletal biologists to produce a cutting-edge perspective
of bone loss and fragility in modern and archaeological
populations.
The 13 chapters are arranged in four sections that
follow a logical progression. The three chapters in the
first section discuss the current state of knowledge of the
anatomical, chemical and histological nature of osteoporosis. Parfitt provides an accessible review of the basic multicellular unit (BMU) and its role in focal bone loss. Frost
then follows with a discussion of the mechanostat, a negative feedback system that controls bone strength, mass,
and architecture, depending on mechanical loading.
Strains above a certain threshold will signal conservation
remodeling, whereby the original amount of bone mass is
preserved, but if strain drops below the threshold, disusemode remodeling will occur, resulting in net bone loss.
Grynpas discusses a number of techniques available to
measure bone quality, herein defined as the mechanical
properties, architecture, and mineralization of bone. He
concludes that microdamage, slower repair, increased
mineralization, and decreasing bone mass are culpable in
compromising quality. The brief section on diagenesis
seems out of place and is better treated in subsequent
chapters on ancient bone.
Nelson and Villa begin the next section on population
approaches by examining biocultural variability in agerelated fracture risk. Importantly, the authors reject the
a valuable contribution to the history of ideas. His new
book will be a delightful read for scientists interested in
these questions. Its accessible, plain-spoken prose and
lucid exposition would also make it an excellent text for
college courses dealing with the substance, philosophy,
and history of Darwinism.
MATT CARTMILL
Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20142
Published online 18 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
concept of race and instead use the term ethnicity to
include all cultural, geographic, and religious factors that
can impact skeletal health. For instance, differing conclusions concerning bone turnover rates in South African and
African American blacks ‘‘highlight the pitfalls associated
with assuming that subgroups (such as geographically
different populations) of a ‘racial’ group will be biological
similar’’ (p. 51). The authors also note that cultural factors, such as diet, play an oft-overlooked role in bone
maintenance. Stini contributes an important chapter on
the prevalence of osteoporosis in males. The outcomes of
two longitudinal studies in Arizona indicate that males
also suffer age-related bone loss but, because the onset is
later and they attain higher peak bone densities than
females, they are less likely than females to develop osteoporosis. Because males have been relatively understudied
in this context, this chapter offers a great deal of valuable
information. Streeter and Stout take a different approach
to understanding the influence of peak bone mass on
the risk of developing age-related bone loss in that they
study how and when peak bone mass is attained in
modern juvenile ribs.
The three chapters of Part III, ‘‘Evolutionary Perspectives,’’ proved the most thought-provoking. Agarwal and
Stuart-Macadam conduct an extensive literature review
to argue that there is no good connection between pregnancy and lactation stress and later bone loss. While
bioarchaeologists typically interpret low bone mass in
females as a function of reproduction-related stress, the
authors argue that ‘‘it would be maladaptive if the female
skeleton were incapable of efficient bone maintenance’’
(p. 113). Indeed, their review demonstrates that bone
mass does decrease in pregnancy but recovers after birth.
Further, multiparity and breastfeeding also seem to
increase bone mass or at least protect existing bone. There
was no age profile for the studies presented, and it would
be interesting to see a study of pregnancy effects in older
women in which normal bone mineral density would
already be decreasing.
In an outstanding chapter, Martin shows how the
mechanostat maintains optimum density such that bones
are mechanically viable yet sufficiently light to maximize
speed and agility and control fatigue damage. Since estrogen lowers the mechanostat sensor for strain, thereby
BOOK REVIEWS
maintaining bone mass maintenance, the loss of estrogen
raises the mechanostat, resulting in disuse remodeling
and net bone loss.
Vieth provides an in-depth overview of the complex
pathway of vitamin D metabolism and its effects on bone.
Via comparative human and nonhuman primate studies,
he links osteoporosis to well-known theories concerning
the adaptation of skin color, vitamin D synthesis, and lactose tolerance, the latter evolving due to the need for dietary calcium to compensate for decreased ultraviolet (UV)
exposure that causes vitamin D deficiency. His argument
for the prevention of osteoporosis by increasing sun exposure is not balanced by a discussion of the risk of skin cancer from high rates of UV radiation.
The last section contains four chapters that tackle
methodological and interpretive issues in diagnosing
osteoporosis in past populations. Brickley and Agarwal
review traditional and novel techniques for quantifying
bone loss and changes in architecture. While well-cited,
the chapter would be bolstered with a brief example from
the literature for each method. Though several chapters
briefly discuss the confounding problem of diagenesis in
studying bone mineral density in archaeological bone,
Schultz deals with this issue directly. Distinguishing
between pathological and postmortem bone loss, such as
that caused by fungi, roots, and arthropods, can be extremely difficult in archaeological bone, but Schultz argues
that histological study improves diagnostic acumen.
Robling and Stout provide a detailed examination of
mechanical loading on cross-sectional geometry and intracortical remodeling in ancient Peruvian samples. They
EVOLUTION. 3rd ed. By Mark Ridley. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, Ltd. 2004. 751 pp. ISBN 1-4051-0345-0.
$89.95 (paper).
This is the third edition of Ridley’s widely used textbook, and it has been substantially updated in the 8
years since the last edition. The book is designed as a
textbook to be used by undergraduate students with no
previous introduction to evolutionary theory and processes. To this end, the text is supplemented by boxes,
marginal comments, and marginal icons leading to a
dedicated website. There is a glossary, comprehensive
references, and an index. Most of the illustrations are
simple, but they can easily be downloaded for PowerPoint presentations. Each chapter ends with study and
review questions that are answered in a separate section
at the back. There are five major sections in the book,
encompassing population genetics, adaptation and natural selection, speciation, and macroevolution.
A distinctive feature of the book is that many examples of ‘‘contemporary evolution’’ are scattered throughout. These document strong natural selection through
historical records, and acknowledge incipient speciation
within the span of decades or less. Examples of contemporary evolution are wide-ranging, and include reduced
yields through fishery practices, insect resistance to pesticides, vaccines and disease virulence, and the appearance of HIV drug immunity. Many instances of natural
selection under field or experimental conditions are discussed in detail. Strong signs of recent natural selection
acting on favorable new mutations are documented by
493
correlate decreased remodeling rates over time to decreasing activity levels associated with subsistence strategies.
This chapter is more advanced than the others, and may
require some background reading prior to its assignment.
The last chapter by Cho and Stout provides an example of
the application of histomorphometrics to understanding
ancient bone health in a Roman sample.
In all, this is a very nice volume. The chapters are wellwritten, with good references and a rich index. Most of the
figures are clear and helpful, and the book is attractive.
My only significant critique is that the editors do not provide an insightful summary chapter. The steep price and
level of basic knowledge of skeletal biology assumed prior
to approaching the chapters make the volume most appropriate for graduate or advanced undergraduate courses.
It is also a vital reference for all human biologists, skeletal
biologists, paleoanthropologists, bioengineers, and others
who study bone biomechanics and health in the past or
present, even if they do not specialize in age-related bone
loss.
DAWNIE WOLFE STEADMAN
Department of Anthropology
Binghamton University,
State University of New York
Binghamton, New York
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20143
Published online 18 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
selective sweeps that reduce genetic diversity in neighboring DNA. An entire chapter is devoted to differing
rates of evolutionary change derived from paleontology,
field biology, or laboratory experimentation, and Ridley
lists factors that explain these differing rates.
There is an extended discussion of selection vs. random drift in molecular evolution. Kimura’s original neutral theory is presented, along with the modified ‘‘nearly
neutral’’ modern version, and a long section on the molecular clock powered by neutral drift. The molecular clock
then surfaces in many later chapters, culminating in the
last chapter, where it challenges the time documented in
the fossil record for the origin of the placental mammal
orders, and influences interpretation of the Cretaceous/
Tertiary mass extinction. There is a comprehensive presentation of Wright’s adaptive landscape model and shifting balance theory, as well as criticisms of these ideas.
Ridley displays no philosophical angst about species
definitions. He prefers to devote his attention to the
mechanisms of speciation. He concentrates on defining
and giving examples of allopatric, sympatric, and parapatric speciation. The preponderance of evidence points
to allopatry, but Ridley notes accumulating evidence for
sympatric speciation, speciation by sexual selection, and
the rarity of parapatric speciation in the animal world.
There is a long discussion of the Dobzhansky-Muller
genetic theory of postzygotic isolation, in which multiple
genetic loci interact to cause reproductive isolation. A
major theme of the book is that speciation is not difficult,
and there may be no risky phase when crossing a valley
in Wright’s adaptive landscape. Furthermore, the genetic
basis of speciation is likely to become well-known in the
494
BOOK REVIEWS
era of comparative genomics. For example, the Odysseus
‘‘speciation gene’’ regulates development in the male
reproductive system, and apparently evolves over a thousand times faster than other homeobox genes.
The longest chapter in the book is on the reconstruction of phylogenies. Only dichotomous branching is
shown (contradicting several trichotomies in the Hawaiian Drosophila phylogeny generated by chromosomal
inversions: Fig. 15.27), and only cladistic techniques are
used to infer phylogenies. Protein and DNA sequences
that generate molecular phylogenies are used later in
the book to test phylogenies based on morphological
traits, infer the origin of major taxa in the absence of
fossil evidence, examine biogeographic problems, and
test potential cases of coevolution. Molecular distance,
parsimony, and maximum likelihood are explained as
techniques to generate molecular phylogenetic trees. In a
long section, Ridley also notes five problems that afflict
molecular phylogenies. The following chapter on classification presents three taxonomic schools: phenetics, cladistics, and evolutionary classification.
Behavioral evolution is dealt with in a straightforward
fashion. Ridley begins with the origin and maintenance of
sex as a major theoretical issue, reviews evidence disproving group selection, and then details the potentially conflicting interests of males and females under sexual
selection. Altruism and sociality are explained purely by
kin selection; biased sex ratios develop when offspring
help to rear younger siblings. Migration and dispersion
are not discussed in terms of sociality. They appear in the
section on population genetics, where they affect HardyWeinberg equilibrium expectations, and where subdivided
populations show a greater percentage of homozygotes
than undivided populations.
Ridley stresses the difficulty of explaining extinctions,
replacements, and coevolution using only the fossil record.
However, as might be expected, paleontology dominates
the section on macroevolution. Yet, two new chapters on
evolutionary genomics and evolutionary development also
appear here, signaling both the entry of genetics into
BOOKS RECEIVED
Anapol F, German RZ, and Jablonski NG (eds.) (2004)
Shaping Primate Evolution: Form, Function, and Behavior.
New York: Cambridge University Press. 426 pp. $120.00
(cloth).
Andrews C (2004) Egyptian Mummies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 95 pp. $17.95 (paper).
Arthur W (2004) Biased Embryos and Evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press. 233 pp. $32.00 (paper).
Esch GW (2004) Parasites, People, and Places: Essays on Field
Parasitology. New York: Cambridge University Press. 235 pp.
$28.00 (cloth).
Fragaszy DM, Visalberghi E, and Fedigan LM (2004) The Complete Capuchin: The Biology of the Genus Cebus. New York:
Cambridge University Press. 339 pp. $50.00 (paper).
Frison GC (2004) Survival by Hunting: Prehistoric Human Predators and Animal Prey. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 266 pp. $34.95 (cloth).
Fuller CJ (2004) The Renewal of the Priesthood: Modernity and
Traditionalism in a South Indian Temple. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. 207 pp. $55.00 (paper).
Hauspie RC, Cameron N, and Molinari L (eds.) (2004) Methods
in Human Growth Research. New York: Cambridge University
Press. 399 pp. $95.00 (cloth).
research on broad timescales and a breakdown of
the traditional segregation of genetics to microevolutionary studies. Hence, Ridley makes it clear that microevolution and macroevolution can no longer be decoupled.
However, he also presents alternative ideas about the
origins of higher taxa caused by rare, broad-scale events
that do not operate during normal microevolutionary
processes.
An outstanding feature of the book is that Ridley
always notes when ideas or interpretations are controversial. Many examples of ‘‘applied evolution,’’ such as
pathogens evolving resistance to drugs, are biomedical in
nature, and classic examples of evolution using human
genetics also appear (e.g., the heterozygote advantage of
hemoglobin S in endemic malarial regions, King and
Wilson’s study of the morphological contrast between
chimpanzees and humans in spite of genetic similarity).
Otherwise, the book ranges freely throughout the realm
of life, with no special emphasis on humans. This book is
best used in upper-level undergraduate or introductory
graduate courses in anthropology or biology. I used the
previous edition as a text in a graduate anthropology
course in evolutionary theory, because I think it counteracts the potential narrow specialization of anthropology
students. I intend to continue using the text, because I
am impressed by the author’s ability to simplify complex
ideas, and, conversely, draw out subtle implications from
ideas that appear uncomplicated.
SUSAN CACHEL
Department of Anthropology
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20144
Published online 18 March 2005 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
Hodder I, and Hutson S (2004) Reading the Past: Current
Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, Third Edition.
New York: Cambridge University Press. 293 pp. $25.00 (paper).
Jobling M, Hurles M, and Tyler-Smith C (2004) Human Evolutionary Genetics. Independence, KY: Garland Science. 523 pp.
$59.95 (paper).
Kappeler PM, and van Schaik C (2004) Sexual Selection in Primates: New and Comparative Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press. 284 pp. $70.00 (paper).
Larson D, Matthes U, Kelly PE, Lundholm J, and Gerrath J
(2004) The Urban Cliff Revolution: New Findings on the Origins and Evolution of Human Habitats. Markham, Ontario,
Canada: Fitzhenry & Whiteside. 198 pp. $28.95 (cloth).
Lucas P (2004) Dental Functional Morphology: How Teeth Work.
New York: Cambridge University Press. 355 pp. $130.00 (cloth).
Meldrum DJ, and Hilton CE (eds.) (2004) From Biped to Strider:
The Emergence of Modern Human Walking. New York:
Kluwer Academic Press. 213 pp. $105.00 (cloth).
Nelson SV (2003) The Extinction of Sivapithecus: Faunal and
Environmental Changes Surrounding the Disappearance of a
Miocene Hominoid in the Siwaliks of Pakistan. Boston, MA:
Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. 138 pp. $49.95 (paper).
Rainbird P (2004) The Archaeology of Micronesia. New York:
Cambridge University Press. 301 pp. $45.00 (paper).
BOOK REVIEWS
Richards GD, Jabbour RS, and Anderson JY (2003) Medial
Mandibular Ramus: Ontogenetic, Idio–syncratic, and Geographic Variation in Recent Homo, Great Apes, and Fossil
Hominids. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges, Ltd. 113 pp.
£30.00 (paper).
Sarich V, and Miele F (2004) Race: The Reality of Human
Difference. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 287 pp. $27.50
(paper).
Schumaker RW, and Beck BB (2003) Primates in Question.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books. 194 pp. $27.95 (paper).
Scott EC (2004) Evolution vs. Creationism. Westport, CT: Greenwod Publishing Group, Inc. 272 pp. $49.95 (cloth).
495
Stanford C (2003) Upright: The Evolutionary Key to Becoming
Human. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 204 pp.
$24.00 (cloth).
Steadman DS (ed.) (2003) Hard Evidence: Case Studies in
Forensic Anthropology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. 310 pp. $38.00 (paper).
Wells S (2002) The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 224 pp. $29.95 (paper).
Wiley AS (2004) An Ecology of High-Altitude Infancy. New York:
Cambridge University Press. 245 pp. $80.00 (cloth).
Wilkinson C (2004) Forensic Facial Reconstruction. New York:
Cambridge University Press. 290 pp. $120.00 (cloth).
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
1
Размер файла
129 Кб
Теги
loss, anthropological, osteoporosi, perspectives, bones
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа