Marc R. Feldesman* zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Department of Anthropology, P.O. Box 751, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207, U.S.A. John K. Lundy Social Sciences Division, Clark College, Vancouver, W A 98663, U.S.A. Received 11 June 1987 Revision received 30 March 1988 and accepted 26 May 1988 Publication date September 1988 Keywords: Stature, fossil hominids, Trotter-Gleser, A. afarensis, A. aficanw, A. boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Stature estimates for some African Plio-Pleistocene fossil hominids To estimate stature in fossil hominids, researchers generally use the Trotter & Gleser (1952, 1958) equations. These equations are based on a sample whose individuals are larger than the fossil sample to which they are customarily applied. This results in significant overestimates of early hominid statures. We offer here revised stature estimates for 15 reasonably well-preserved African Plio-Pleistocene hominid femora and tibiae (includ- ing AL 288-l and WT 15000) based on least squares and major axis regression equations we developed for contemporary South African black tribal populations. By using this smaller and more homogeneous extant African sample, we predict that most of these hominids were smaller than McHenry’s (and those subsequent) estimates have suggested. In the case of AL 288-1, our Model II estimate matches almost exactly Schmid’s (1983; 1986; Geissmann 1986a) anatomical reconstruction, while it differs significantly from the estimates derived from analyses of Olivier’s recommended pygmy population. Although there is some disproportionality in the AL 288-l lower limb, evidence is provided here to indicate that its effect on our stature estimates is probably small. This permits greater confidence to be placed in our estimates of her stature. In the final analysis, we zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONM find that except for Homo erectus the various groups of early hominids have overlapping ranges and differ little from one another in stature. Journal of Human Eoolution (1988) I?‘, 583-596 Introduction Size is an important component of any organism’s adaptation. In recent years paleoanthropologists have concentrated a great deal of their efforts on estimating body weight-one element of an organism’s size-in early hominids, but they have shown only limited interest in reconstructing early hominid stature, another aspect of body size. While body weight is a difficult parameter to estimate, stature, by contrast, is relatively simple to calculate. Even so, researchers still base most fossil height estimates on techniques and formulae devised for quite different purposes by Trotter & Gleser (1952, 1958) more than 30 years ago. Stature is an important component of body size in its own right. A fossil’s living body weight clearly is influenced by its overall stature, though most estimates of fossil body weight neglect this factor altogether. While our purpose in the present inquiry is not to predict early hominid body weight, we believe that ifwe can estimate a fossil’s stature with greater confidence and precision, this may have the salutary benefit of enabling other researchers to improve their estimates of hominid body weights. Many factors affect stature estimates of early hominids. Most are “ guesstimates” based on fragmentary fossil remains. A few workers (e.g., Jungers, 1982; Geissmann, 198&z; Schmid, 1983, 1986) have attempted stature estimates for specific hominid fossils, most frequently AL 288-l (“Lucy”), but McHenry (1974) was the first to systematically and simultaneously reconstruct and compare stature for numerous Plio-Pleistocene fossil hominids. He used regression techniques to estimate height in 18 early hominid fossils. The resultant statures averaged 145 cm for the sampled South African gracile austcalopithecines, 152 cm for South African robusts, and 163 cm for East African * To whom correspondence should be addressed. 0047~2484/88/050583 + 14$03.00/O 0 1988 Academic Press Limited