Is the variation being common in the sample a sign that they are closely related (family with weird teeth genes) or not related (so many different weird teeth)? I’m not up on this site or dental evolution in general, but that figure is bonkers!
I don't think we really know the answer to that question. The stratigraphic context of the fossils, together with other patterns of strong morphological similarity, to me are strong evidence of a close relationship among the fossils. My own, speculative, hypothesis...
...is that the abnormal dental variation is reflective of compounding effects of inbreeding associated with population isolation. There are other reasons to think Dmanisi really is part of an initial expansion out of Africa accompanied by some significant isolation. What we have learned...
...from more recent Neandertal aDNA studies about the extent of inbreeding and isolation is potentially analogous here, though on a different background and context. But that is really hypothetical.
The paper also reminds me of a talk I gave a number of years ago (w/@dizachster.bsky.social) on Nariokotome (KNM WT15000), Dmanisi 2735, and Dmanisi 211 as a nice developmental sequence potentially spanning the adolescent growth spurt in early Homo. It is a fun mandibular trio *around* the same time
Comments