Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Proportional limb strengths signal an adaptive shift in arboreality in early human evolution.

Created on 17 Sep 2026

Authors

Kristian J Carlson, Christopher B Ruff, M Loring Burgess, Adam D Sylvester, Tea Jashashvili, Jason L Heaton, Travis R Pickering, Lauren Sarringhaus, Timothy M Ryan, Amélie Beaudet, Robin H Crompton, A J Heile, Dominic Stratford, Kathleen Kuman, David Lordkipanidze, Ronald J Clarke

Published in

Science advances. Volume 12. Issue 38. Pages eaeh1752. Sep 18, 2026. Epub Sep 16, 2026.

Abstract

How much arboreality characterized the Australopithecus locomotor repertoire and how this differed from early Homo are vigorously debated. Most previous studies rely on traits of uncertain functional significance or are constrained by sampling concerns. Bone shaft strength is plastic and reflects in vivo mechanical loading. Because interlimb bone strength proportions among living apes correlate with arboreality, they are ideal contributors to this debate. We present the most comprehensive analysis yet of relative limb shaft strengths in Australopithecus and early Homo by adding two individuals [StW 573, ∼3.67 million years ago (Ma); and D3901/D4167/D4507, ∼1.77 to 1.81 Ma]. We show that Australopithecus individuals of varying body sizes spanning at least 0.5 Ma exhibit African ape-like interlimb strength proportions, indicating frequent arboreal behavior, and that the Australopithecus lower limb exhibits human-like intralimb strength proportions. In contrast, early Homo individuals are human-like in both strength proportions, reflecting fundamentally different selective pressures favoring terrestrial bipedalism and an unambiguous departure from arboreality by ∼1.8 Ma.

PMID:
42748245
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 17 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 28
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement