Strange 1.4 million-year-old fossil traced to previously unknown human relative 'nutcracker man‘
A 1.4-million-year-old fossil jaw discovered in a South African cave in 1949 has now been identified as that of a previously unknown human relative species dubbed the 'nutcracker man'.
Researchers have believed since the 1960s that the fossil jaw, unearthed at the Swartkrans archaeological site, belonged to an early human species called Homo ergaster.
But new X-ray scans of the jaw and other fossils found at the site have helped create virtual 3D models that offer a better understanding of the internal and external structures of the extinct species.
The new findings, detailed in a study published in the Journal of Human Evolution, have led researchers to conclude that the jaw doesn't in fact belong to H ergaster.
It comes from a new species of the genus Paranthropus, nicknamed the 'nutcracker man' due to the fossil's massive size and huge molar teeth.
The researchers specifically assessed the fossil's dentine – the hard, dense, bony tissue that forms the bulk of a tooth below the enamel – and then compared it with those of other human relatives.
They found the fossil's teeth features differed from previously discovered specimens of the genus known as P aethiopicus, P boisei and P robustus.
'Altogether, the results show that SK 15 unambiguously falls outside the variation of H ergaster and that it's most compatible with the morphology of Paranthropus,' the researchers wrote in the study.
They categorised the fossil as belonging to a newfound species, which they named P capensis.
'We tentatively attribute SK 15 to Paranthropus capensis, a more gracile species of Paranthropus than the other three currently recognized species of this genus,' they said.
The newly discovered species 'very likely' split from P robustus over 2 million years ago.
This means at least two Paranthropus species – P robustus and P capensis – may have coexisted in the South African region 1.4 million years ago, likely inhabiting different ecological niches with varying diets.
The researchers called for further testing of preserved specimens of the genus Paranthropus to look for P capensis fossils mixed with them. 'The presence of other P. capensis specimens mixed among the current hypodigm of P robustus should be tested further, in particular by revising the fossil assemblages from Swartkrans,' they said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
18-04-2025
- The Guardian
Climate change is not just a problem of physics but a crisis of justice
My research as a climate scientist is in attribution science. Together with my team, I analyse extreme weather events and answer the questions of whether, and to what extent, human-induced climate change has altered their frequency, intensity and duration. When I first began my research, most scientists claimed that these questions couldn't be answered. There were technical reasons for this: for a long time, researchers had no weather models capable of mapping all climate-related processes in sufficient detail. But there were other reasons that had less to do with the research itself. Let's imagine extreme flooding in Munich, Rome or London and heavy rainfall in the slums of Durban on the South African coast. How the people in these various places experience this extreme weather depends on the local economic and social conditions and, fundamentally, on their political situation. Researching weather – and thus, the role of climate change – in the way I do is always political, and this makes it an uncomfortable topic for many scientists. I believe it is important to show that both obstacles – the technical and the political – can be overcome; our climate models have become better and better, and we are coming to realise that research cannot take place at a remove from the real world. For example, to know exactly how big the risk of a drought is – where and for whom – we need a whole lot of information. Three main factors come into play: the natural hazard, our exposure to the hazard, and the vulnerability with which we approach it. In west Africa in 2022, entire regions suffered from dramatic flooding during the rainy season. These floods were caused in part by above-average rainfall that, as my team and I discovered, was significantly more intense than it would have been without climate change. The rainfall was considered a 'natural hazard,' but exacerbated so significantly by human-caused climate change that it was anything but natural. To a large extent, these floods – particularly in Nigeria – were caused by the release of a dam in neighbouring Cameroon, which flooded large parts of the densely populated Niger delta, home to more than 30 million people. The risk from rainfall is particularly high, both for the people and for local ecosystems and infrastructure such as buildings, bridges, roads and water supply lines. This region is uniquely exposed to weather and natural hazards. A dam was supposed to have been built in the Nigerian part of the delta to hold back the water, but it was never built. Given the poor infrastructure and high rates of poverty, people in this area are particularly vulnerable, affected much more adversely than those in other areas. So how does weather become a disaster? We can't say exactly how the effects of climate change vary by location and type of weather, but what is absolutely clear is that the more people are in harm's way and the more vulnerable they are, the greater their risk. We've learned a lot more in recent years about all aspects of risk. For example, it's now clear that climate change alters heatwaves far more than other weather phenomena. With every study that my team and I perform, we seek to answer the question of what these alterations actually mean for a small section of the global population. In these studies – known as 'attribution studies' among experts – we analyse not just historical and current weather data but also information on population density, socioeconomic structures and basically everything we can find about the event itself to gain the most accurate picture of what happened and to whom. Only after all those steps do we ask whether climate change played a role. To do this, we work with various datasets that take into account a vast range of factors – land use, volcanic activity, natural weather variability, greenhouse gas levels, other pollutants, and much more. Broadly speaking, we use climate models to simulate two different worlds: one world with human-caused climate change and one without. We then use various statistical methods to calculate how likely or intense heatwaves are in specific places, both with and without human-caused global warming. But it is vulnerability and exposure that determine if weather becomes a disaster. The effects of extreme events always depend on the context – who can protect themselves from the weather (and how) is always a major factor. This is why the term 'natural disaster' is entirely misplaced. For example, one of our studies from 2021 showed that the food insecurity linked to the drought in southern Madagascar was caused mainly by poverty, a lack of social structures, and heavy dependence on rainfall, but not by human-induced climate change. Nevertheless, just as with the Nigerian floods, international reports talked only of the weather and climate. The international media barely mentioned that, in fact, the local infrastructure, which had remained unfinished for decades, played a decisive role in the disastrous drought. How extreme events are reported – where the media focus their attention – doesn't just influence the responsive measures we think possible. It also influences who we see as responsible for implementing the next necessary steps. Describing extreme weather as a singular moment that tells us something about climate change, and nothing more, conceals the factors that have just as much (if not more) impact on the weather's effects, and provides politicians with a handy discussion framework as they try to divert attention from poor local decision-making and planning. There are two main reasons infrastructure in both Madagascar and Nigeria is so lacking and often nonexistent: the sustained destruction of local social structures under European colonial rule and extreme inequality within the population – inequality between the genders, between rich and poor, between different ethnic groups. It is because of factors like these that climate change becomes such a life-threatening problem. The main thing I have learned from extreme weather events is that the climate crisis is shaped largely by inequality and the still-undisputed dominance of patriarchal and colonial structures, which also prevent the serious pursuit of climate protection. By contrast, physical changes such as heavier rainfall and drier soil have only an indirect effect. In short, climate change is a symptom of this global crisis of inequality and injustice, not its cause. Weather-related disasters are largely a matter of unfairness and injustice, not misfortune or fate. This applies at a local level, for example when patriarchal structures insist that pregnant women living in traditional societies have to work outdoors in extreme heat because working in the fields for personal consumption is 'women's work'. Or when financial aid is paid to the male head of the family and never reaches those responsible for putting food on the table. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion But injustice is also apparent on a global scale. Climate science is a field dominated by white men, most with backgrounds in the natural sciences, who mainly conduct and lead studies focused on the physical aspects of the climate while disregarding numerous other issues. This is why far too few studies deal with the global interactions between social and physical changes in an evolving climate. It's no wonder that we lack credible research findings that could inform us about the issues of loss and damage in global climate policy on a scientific basis. This makes it even more difficult to show how centuries of colonial practices by the global north against the countries of the global south continue to influence the way we live, think and act. It's hardly news that climate change is mainly a problem because it damages people's dignity and fundamental human rights. In fact, it's the whole reason we talk about it on an international level. The United Nations climate change conferences have never been about polar bears or the downfall of the human race. They have always been about human lives and countless livelihoods – and, of course, about economic issues. This is demonstrated by the debate on the target of limiting heating to 2C above preindustrial levels. While this includes economic cost-benefit considerations, it is above all a political goal that doesn't take science into account at all: not a single scientific assessment has ever defended or recommended a specific target – and with good reason, because setting such targets is ultimately an ethical issue. It can be expressed as a simple political question: how many more human lives, how many more coral reefs, how many more insects will we allow ourselves to lose to the short-term continued use of comparatively cheap fossil fuels in the global north? Heatwaves in North America and west Africa, droughts in South Africa and Madagascar, forest fires in Australia and Brazil, floods in Germany and Pakistan: these fundamentally different events hit societies that are battling very different problems, and they all demonstrate the role of climate change in different ways. But it always proves true that the people who die are those with little money who can't readily obtain all the help and information they need. And that doesn't have to be the case, no matter where they are. In my opinion, the fact this keeps on happening is due to one particular, and persistent, social narrative. The basic premise is that burning fossil fuels is essential to maintaining what we call prosperity, and that 'freedom' isn't possible if we're imposing a speed limit. If we compared modern society with the society of 300 years ago, we would unquestioningly attribute many of the achievements of recent centuries – like access to clean drinking water – to the burning of fossil energies. Historically, we associate coal, oil, and gas with democracy and western values, identifying a causal link between charcoal briquettes and the welfare state: the one affects the other. But even when this is actually true, we always forget to point out that the reverse conclusion – one perishes, and the other goes with it – is as fatal as it is false. The global north and global south both continue to argue that, for reasons of fairness, the countries in the global south must initially have very high greenhouse gas emissions too, to ensure the growth of their economies. This completely ignores the fact that in the global north (as well as elsewhere), the poor pay for the lifestyles of a small number of wealthy people, be it the workers who toil in the mines for metals or the city dwellers subjected to greater air pollution due to the use of private vehicles. Who says that what happens in the global north is naturally better and must be imposed on the world? Climate change would still have existed if Europe hadn't conquered any colonies but humans had still burned fossil energy sources – but things would have looked very different without the west's ongoing colonial mindset. In essence, colonial-fossil climate change is therefore not a climate crisis but a crisis of justice. Climate change is a problem that has less to do with a collapsing climate or other physical conditions than we might think, and the consequences of this are wider-reaching than we have been willing to admit. It clearly shows us that the main way in which we currently research and fight climate change – as a physics problem – falls far too short. Obviously, we need to transform the way in which we obtain energy. Above all, however, we need to transform participation in social life and the application of political and economic power – who makes decisions and how. This is an edited extract from Climate Injustice by Friederike Otto, which will be published by Greystone Books on 24 April (£22)
The Independent
16-04-2025
- The Independent
Inside Musk's plan to make a ‘legion' of babies and get to Mars to save civilization — while paying moms to keep quiet
Elon Musk has a plan to populate the world with more babies of 'high intelligence' — and it's all part of his wider mission to one day occupy Mars to save civilization. That is according to an explosive report by the Wall Street Journal about the world's richest man and how MAGA influencer Ashley St Clair found herself caught up in his 'harem drama.' St Clair, 26, went public with her claims that she and Musk share a child in February. Now she has claimed that the billionaire offered her a one-time payment of $15 million, plus $100,000 a month until her child turns 21, in exchange for her silence. She rejected the offer. 'I don't want my son to feel like he's a secret,' St Clair reportedly told Musk's fixer Jared Birchall, who runs Musk's family office. St Clair claimed that Musk has used his wealth to silence some of the other women who have had his children, according to the report. Musk, who has at least 14 children with four women, previously maintained that he does not know 'for sure' whether St Clair's child is his but the 'Probability of Paternity was 99.9999%,' according to test results that came back last Friday, the Journal reports. According to multiple sources close to the tech mogul, the number of Musk's children is 'much higher than publicly known.' Musk did not respond to the outlet's request for comment but made light of it on his social media platform X. 'TMZ >> WSJ,' he posted late Tuesday. The Independent has contacted representatives of Musk for comment. The report contains extraordinary details about how Musk believes a declining population is a grave threat to civilization. 'He is driven to correct the historic moment by helping seed the earth with more human beings of high intelligence,' the Journal reports, citing people familiar with the matter. St Clair gained an insight into Musk's 'paranoid' way of thinking when they dated in 2023 after meeting in the spring of that year. Their romance began on Musk's social media platform X after he began to interact with her posts. She was invited by Musk to visit X's headquarters in San Francisco. From there, he took her on a separate trip to Rhode Island on his private plane, where the Space X CEO was visiting one of his sons at college, and then later on a getaway to St. Barts for New Year. During their time together, Musk frequently talked to St Clair about having children, she claimed. 'The first time they had sex, Musk joked that they should 'pick a name' for their future child,' the outlet reports. On the trip to St. Barts, she told Musk that she was ovulating. 'What are we waiting for?' he reportedly replied, and their son was conceived, according to St Clair. During St Clair's pregnancy, she claimed Musk suggested they 'bring in other women to have even more of their children faster' in his mission to save civilization. 'To reach legion-level before the apocalypse,' Musk told St Clair in a text message seen by the Journal. 'We will need to use surrogates,' he added. Once visibly pregnant, St Clair stayed inside her apartment in New York City to avoid speculation. Birchall was instructed by Musk to send her $2 million for expenses, the Journal reports, which she used in part to pay for security. Birchall also reportedly warned St Clair that Musk expected 'privacy and confidentiality' about the child. After the birth, St Clair was 'pushed' again to sign the $15 million agreement in exchange for her discretion. Musk then weighed in and told St Clair that it was dangerous to reveal his relationship to the baby. He described himself as the '#2 after Trump for assassination' in text messages seen by the Journal. 'Only the paranoid survive,' he added. St Clair didn't sign the agreement. 'One of the main sticking points, she said, was that it would make her son feel illegitimate,' the outlet reports. When she learned a newspaper was planning to publish a story about the child, St Clair went public. 'Five months ago, I welcomed a new baby into the world. Elon Musk is the father,' she wrote in February. 'I have not previously disclosed this to protect our child's privacy and safety, but in recent days it has become clear that tabloid media intends to do so, regardless of the harm it will cause.' Musk revoked the $15 million offer, according to the outlet, and the case went to court to discuss paternity testing. In the meantime, Musk dropped his support to $40,000 a month while St Clair's legal fees soared. After the publication of the Journal's report, St Clair claimed the amount Musk paid in child support had dropped to $20,000.
Telegraph
02-04-2025
- Telegraph
Fixing Our Broken Planet: Preachy? No, this Natural History Museum gallery gives you hope
The opening infographic at the Natural History Museum's new 'Fixing Our Broken Planet' gallery doesn't mince its words: the cumulative effects of climate change — the declining condition of oceans and forests, and the number of species facing extinction — amount to 'a planetary emergency' which requires a 'global response'. The one-roomed exhibition which follows this declaration of disaster is the museum's first new permanent gallery since 2016. What begun in 2020 as a temporary display has grown into something more substantial: a collection of specimens nominated and introduced by the museum's impressive team of research scientists. The exhibits — from microscopic fungi to a huge taxidermied bison — tell the story of mankind's relationship with the planet through the food we eat, the materials we use, and the energy we harness. Some of the specimens are bizarrely fascinating. If you've ever wondered whether whales have earwax (or even ears), then here is your answer: a white, triangular 'wax plug' forms inside whales' ear canals, with each new layer revealing the age of the whale — almost like the rings in a tree trunk. The interest isn't purely biological, alas: as scientist Richard Sabin explains, these rings reveal what chemicals a whale is exposed to — including toxic pollutants and common pesticides. Another scientist has chosen to display the huge range of plastic which can be found in the Thames. The wrinkled form of a Hula Hoops packet from 1986 or a crushed Ribena carton from the '90s are unusual exhibits to see framed on the wall of a museum, but they're a tangible reminder that plastic takes decades or even centuries to decompose. Some animals have been creative in re-using plastic: it is often found in birds' nests where, unfortunately, it runs the risk of strangling their young. Urban birds have also been known to use old cigarette butts to keep the nest free of ticks and fleas; innovation which, again, poses a danger to chicks. From chemicals and materials, the exhibition moves to consider the relationship between the health of the planet and the health of humans. Some of the facts are hardly revelatory — continual light pollution is beneficial neither for humans nor nocturnal animals like bats and moths — but others are more surprising. From the 1930s to the 1960s, the most reliable pregnancy test involved injecting a South African clawed frog with urine. There's a possibility, with an exhibition like this, that it could be simultaneously preachy and doom-laden: a gallery of now-extinct species and sanctimonious messaging encouraging everyone to become a vegan. Despite its occasionally subdued approach — some exhibits, like new varieties of corn, are worthy but hardly eye-catching — and some token advice from young environmentalist 'changemakers', 'Fixing Our Broken Planet' manages to avoid both these charges. This is not a gallery which leaves any visitors beaming with joy or with allayed eco-anxiety, but it still gives hope. There are scientists working to find solutions — from turning naturally-occurring granite into Lithium needed for batteries, to rewilding parts of Britain by re-introducing Bison into the countryside. This is an exhibition of expertise; a timely addition to the museum, which shows off the important research work which goes on behind the scenes.
