As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Lucy’s discovery in 1974 at the Hadar website in Ethiopia reworded that photo. The 3.2 million-year-old fossil ended up being the earliest recognized australopithecine specimen at the time.

And scientists discovered her types, A. afarensis strolled upright on 2 legs To how human beings do today, yet it had a smaller sized brain– about the size of a modern-day chimp’s. This recommended Lucy’s kind might represent a “halfway” point in human advancement in between the last typical forefather with chimps and usmaking her types a great prospect for our direct forefather amongst the lots of recognized hominins, the family tree that includes people and our closest loved ones.

The skull of a 3-year-old female Australopithecus afarensisdated to 3.3 million years earlier, found at the website of Dikika in Ethiopia. (Image credit: Zeresenay Alemseged)In 1979, her status as our direct forefather was sealed: an evaluation of the evolutionary relationships amongst hominin fossils exposed till that point recommended Lucy’s types generated the genus HomoBecause ancestral tree, A. africanus was benched from our forefather to a more far-off cousin.

As more australopithecines have actually been discovered, the Australopithecus ancestral tree has actually ended up being bushier and more twisted, making complex the image of who we might have come down from. For lots of anthropologists Lucy’s types still rules, ultimately offering increase to the family tree from which modern-day human beings progressed.

Enigmatic foot might reword human evolutionary historyThe brand-new Nature paper was released. Scientists had actually uncovered brand-new fossil pieces and connected them to a formerly found, enigmatic 3.4 million-year-old fossil called the “Burtele foot”

The brand-new tooth and jaw pieces permitted anthropologists to ascribe the foot, for the very first time, to a little explained and questionable types– Australopithecus deyiremedaa tree-climbing ancient human relative that strolled upright on 2 legs and lived together with Lucy’s types 3.5 million to 3.3 million years back at the Woranso-Mille website in Ethiopia.

For Fred Spoora teacher of evolutionary anatomy at University College London who was not associated with the current research study of the Burtele foot, the brand-new discovery was the nail in the casket for the theory Lucy’s types was our direct forefather.

The Burtele foot is the best foot of an adult Australopithecus deyiremedawho lived around 3.5 million to 3.3 million years earlier. (Image credit: Yohannes Haile-Selassie)That’s since the paper recommended that the types connected to the Burtele foot and the South African A africanus were more carefully associated to each other than either was to Lucy’s types. By that reasoning, then, A. africanus might not have actually come down from Lucy’s types, however was rather her cousin

It’s possible that both A. deyiremeda and A. africanus came down from the more ancient A. anamensiswho resided in East Africa from around 4.2 million to 3.8 million years ago

This would likewise make A. anamensis the direct forefather to people, Spoor informed Live Science in an e-mail.

For Spoor, this finding would have substantial ramifications. “If this is correct, A. afarensis will lose its iconic status as the ancestor of all later hominins,” most likely including us, Spoor composed in an accompanying commentary about the current research study

A strong disputeOther anthropologists are fiercely divided on the ramifications of the brand-new paper.

Some Live Science spoke with believed Spoor’s conclusions were possible, while other professionals stated they were “far-fetched” and “a stretch, to put it mildly.”

Since the existing fossil record in East Africa goes much even more back in time than the existing South African record, numerous think the Homo genus developed in East Africa.

Presently the earliest recognized Homo fossil is a 2.8 million-year-old jawbone from Ethiopia, however designs approximate the genus would have in fact emerged around 0.5 million to 1.5 million years previously.

This is older than a number of the earliest South African hominin fossils, which were discovered countless miles away. That “would make it unlikely that any of those are the direct ancestor,” Carol Wardthe Curators’ Distinguished Professor of pathology and physiological sciences at the University of Missouri, informed Live Science.

Lucy’s types is still a prospect, however no longer the prospect.

For numerous, the most likely prospect for an East African forefather is still Lucy’s types, A. afarensiswhich resided in modern-day Ethiopia, Tanzania and Kenya from around 3.9 million to 3 million years back. This broad geographical circulation and perseverance for practically a million years indicates it had lots of chances to trigger other types throughout Africa, Alemseged stated.

Researchers in the “Lucy” camp argue that A. afarensiscompletely upright mode of strolling, broad diet plan, usage of early stone tools and broad geographical variety make up strong proof for Lucy’s ancestral position in the human ancestral tree.

This makes Spoor’s claim that Lucy’s types wasn’t our direct forefather a huge one. He isn’t alone in this view.

Thomas Cody Prangan assistant teacher of biological sociology at Washington University in St. Louis and a co-author of the Nature research study, stated it’s possible A. afarensis progressed human-like functions totally individually of modern-day people, like how bats and birds individually developed wings. Such convergent development has actually been proposed before in our ancestral tree: For example, Prang’s group formerly discovered that A. afarensis and contemporary people separately developed specific body percentages

If this holds true, other types living at approximately the exact same time as Lucy’s kind are most likely forefathers to later hominins, Prang informed Live Science in an e-mail.

Prang, for his part, believes A. deyiremeda‘s anatomy makes the types a much better prospect for our direct forefather than Lucy. That’s since the types has a mix of ancient and brand-new characteristics. What’s more, a 2015 analysis flagged A. deyiremeda as being more carefully associated to Homo than Lucy’s types.

Others believe the Nature paper reanimates A. africanus as a possible forefather to Homo

Lauren Schroedera paleoanthropologist at the University of Toronto Mississauga and who was not associated with the brand-new research study, stated that in any case, various hominin types were developing and intermingling throughout Africa throughout this 3.5 million to 2 million amount of time. That indicates our evolutionary history is more like a braided streamwith types separating and after that recombining, and less like a straight evolutionary line.

“Early Homo could have emerged from a broader, pan-African pool of australopith diversity. So yes, Lucy’s species is still a candidate, but no longer the candidate,” for a direct human forefather, Schroeder informed Live Science in an e-mail.

Even the authors of the brand-new paper disagree on its ramifications. While Prang supports the dismissing of Lucy’s types as our direct forefather, the research study’s lead author Yohannes Haile-Selassiea paleoanthropologist and director of Arizona State University’s Institute of Human Origins, firmly insists that Lucy’s types is still the very best prospect for the direct forefather to Homo

He informed Live Science in an e-mail that the more ancient characteristics discovered in A. deyiremeda and A. africanuslike having actually feet adjusted for climbing up trees, oppose the concept that they are our direct forefathers. On the other hand, Lucy’s types had more human-like feet, which Haile-Selassie stated makes A. afarensis the “more likely ancestor of those which came later.”

Obviously, it’s possible the cigarette smoking weapon proof that settles the argument will never ever come.

“We will almost certainly never know who our direct ancestor is — and the more we learn about human evolution and how diverse our past was, the more elusive that ancestor becomes,” stated Ward.

That does not suggest we’ll eventually comprehend less of our evolutionary past, Ward stated. “Even though we may never know which one was our ancestor, we can still piece together much of what that ancestor may have been like.”

Human development test: What do you learn about Homo sapiens?

Sophie is a U.K.-based personnel author at Live Science. She covers a wide variety of subjects, having actually formerly reported on research study covering from bonobo interaction to the very first water in deep space. Her work has actually likewise appeared in outlets consisting of New Scientist, The Observer and BBC Wildlife, and she was shortlisted for the Association of British Science Writers’ 2025 “Newcomer of the Year” award for her freelance work at New Scientist. Before ending up being a science reporter, she finished a doctorate in evolutionary sociology from the University of Oxford, where she invested 4 years taking a look at why some chimps are much better at utilizing tools than others.

You need to verify your show and tell name before commenting

Please logout and after that login once again, you will then be triggered to enter your screen name.

Learn more