as a paperweight on a colleague’s desk。
at the time dart made his announcement in 1924； only four categories of ancient hominidwere known—homo heidelbergensis； homo rhodesiensis； neandertals； and dubois’s javaman—but all that was about to change in a very big way。
first； in china； a gifted canadian amateur named davidson black began to poke around ata place； dragon bone hill； that was locally famous as a hunting ground for old bones。
unfortunately； rather than preserving the bones for study； the chinese ground them up tomake medicines。 we can only guess how many priceless homo erectus bones ended up as asort of chinese equivalent of bicarbonate of soda。 the site had been much denuded by thetime black arrived； but he found a single fossilized molar and on the basis of that alone quitebrilliantly announced the discovery of sinanthropus pekinensis； which quickly became knownas peking man。
at black’s urging； more determined excavations were undertaken and many other bonesfound。 unfortunately all were lost the day after the japanese attack on pearl harbor in 1941when a contingent of u。s。 marines； trying to spirit the bones （and themselves） out of thecountry； was intercepted by the japanese and imprisoned。 seeing that their crates held nothingbut bones； the japanese soldiers left them at the roadside。 it was the last that was ever seen ofthem。
in the meantime； back on dubois’s old turf of java； a team led by ralph von koenigswaldhad found another group of early humans； which became known as the solo people from thesite of their discovery on the solo river at ngandong。 koenigswald’s discoveries might havebeen more impressive still but for a tactical error that was realized too late。 he had offeredlocals ten cents for every piece of hominid bone they could e up with； then discovered tohis horror that they had been enthusiastically smashing large pieces into small ones tomaximize their ine。
in the following years as more bones were found and identified there came a flood of newnames—homo aurignacensis； australopithecus transvaalensis； paranthropus crassidens；zinjanthropus boisei；and scores of others； nearly all involving a new genus type as well as anew species。 by the 1950s； the number of named hominid types had risen to fortably overa hundred。 to add to the confusion； individual forms often went by a succession of differentnames as paleoanthropologists refined； reworked； and squabbled over classifications。 solopeople were known variously as homo soloensis； homo primigenius asiaticus； homoneanderthalensis soloensis； homo sapiens soloensis； homo erectus erectus； and； finally； plainhomo erectus 。
in an attempt to introduce some order； in 1960 f。 clark howell of the university ofchicago； following the suggestions of ernst mayr and others the previous decade； proposedcutting the number of genera to just two—australopithecus and homo —and rationalizingmany of the species。 the java and peking men both became homo erectus。 for a time orderprevailed in the world of the hominids。
2it didn’t last。
after about a decade of parative calm； paleoanthropology embarked on another periodof swift and prolific discovery； which hasn’t abated yet。 the 1960s produced homo habilis；thought by some to be the missing link between apes and humans； but thought by others not tobe a separate species at all。 then came （among many others） homo ergaster； homolouisleakeyi； homo rudolfensis； homo microcranus； and homo antecessor； as well as a raft ofaustralopithecines： a。afarensis； a。 praegens； a。 ramidus； a。 walkeri； a。 anamensis； and stillothers。 altogether； some twenty types of hominid are recognized in the literature today。
unfortunately； almost no two experts recognize the same twenty。
some continue to observe the two hominid genera suggested by howell in 1960； but othersplace some of the australopithecines in a separate genus called paranthropus ； and still othersadd an earlier group called ardipithecus。 some put praegens into australopithecus and someinto a new classification； homo antiquus； but most don’t recognize praegens as a separatespecies at all。 there is no central authority that rules on these things。 the only way a namebees accepted is by consensus； and there is often very little of that。
a big part of the problem； paradoxically； is a shortage of evidence。 since the dawn of time；several billion human （or humanlike） beings have lived； each contributing a little geneticvariability to the total human stock。 out of this vast number； the whole of our understandingof human prehistory is based on the remains； often exceedingly fragmentary； of perhaps fivethousand individuals。 “you could fit it all into the back of a pickup truck if you didn’t mind2humans are put in the lamely homimdae。 its members； traditionally called hominids； include any creatures（including extinct ones） that are more closely related to us than to any surviving chimpanzees。 the apes；meanwhile； are lumped together in a family called pongidae。 many authorities believe that chimps； gorillas； andorangutans should also be included in this family； with humans and chimps in a subfamily called homininae。
the upshot is that the creatures traditionally called hominids bee； under this arrangement； hominins。 （leakeyand others insist on that designation。） hominoidea is the name of the aue sunerfamily which includes us。
how much you jumbled everything up；” ian tattersall； the bearded and friendly curator ofanthropology at the american museum of natural history in new york； replied when i askedhim the size of the total world archive of hominid and early human bones。
the shortage wouldn’t be so bad if the bones were distributed evenly through time andspace； but of course they are not。 they appear randomly； often in the most tantalizing fashion。
homo erectus walked the earth for well over a million years and inhabited territory from theatlantic edge of europe to the pacific side of china； yet if you brought back to life everyhomo erectus individual whose existence we can vouch for； they wouldn’t fill a school bus。
homo habilis consists of even less： just two partial skeletons and a number of isolated limbbones。 something as short…lived as our own civilization would almost certainly not be knownfrom the fossil record at all。
“in europe；” tattersall offers by way of illustration； “you’ve got hominid skulls in georgiadated to about 1。7 million years ago； but then you have a gap of almost a million years beforethe next remains turn up in spain； right on the other side of the continent； and then you’ve gotanother 300；000…year gap before you get a homo heidelbergensis in germany—and none ofthem looks terribly much like any of the others。” he smiled。 “it’s from these kinds offragmentary pieces that you’re trying to work out the histories of entire species。 it’s quite atall order。 we really have very little idea of the relationships between many ancient species—which led to us and which were evolutionary dead ends。 some probably don’t deserve to beregarded as separate species at all。”
it is the patchiness of the record that makes each new find look so sudden and distinct fromall the others。 if we had tens of thousands of skeletons distributed at regular intervals throughthe historical record； there would be appreciably more degrees of shading。 whole new speciesdon’t emerge instantaneously； as the fossil record implies； but gradually out of other； existingspecies。 the closer you go back to a point of divergence； the closer the similarities are； so thatit bees exceedingly difficult； and sometimes impossible； to distinguish a late homoerectus from an early homo sapiens； since it is likely to be both and neither。 similardisagreements can often arise over questions of identification from fragmentary remains—deciding； for instance； whether a particular bone represents a female australopithecus boiseior a male homo habilis。
with so little to be certain about； scientists often have to make assumptions based on otherobjects found nearby； and these may be little more than valiant guesses。 as alan walker andpat shipman have drily observed； if you correlate tool discovery with the species of creaturemost often found nearby； you would have to conclude that early hand tools were mostly madeby antelopes。
perhaps nothing better typifies the confusion than the fragmentary bundle of contradictionsthat was homo habilis。 simply put； habilis bones make no sense。 when arranged in sequence；they show males and females evolving at different rates and in different directions—the malesbeing less apelike and more human with time； while females from the same period appearto be moving away from humanness toward greater apeness。 some authorities don’t believehabilis is a valid category at all。 tattersall and his colleague jeffrey schwartz dismiss it as amere “wastebasket species”—one into which unrelated fossils “could be conveniently swept。”
even those who see habilis as an independent species don’t agree on whether it is of the samegenus as us or is from a side branch that never came to anything。
finally； but perhaps above all； human nature is a factor in all this。 scientists have a naturaltendency to interpret finds in the way that most flatter