La discussion sur l’évolution du dimorphisme humain depuis le pliocène n’est sans doute pas terminée. Cependant, les publications des 10 dernières années semblent plaider pour un dimorphisme important il y a 3 millions d’années, ayant fortement décru jusqu’à Homo erectus, plus faiblement ensuite. Il est possible qu’il y ait une stabilisation, et pourquoi pas une légère réaugmentation du dimorphisme au sein d’Homo sapiens. Le dimorphisme chez Homo sapiens resterait en tous les cas faible par rapport à ses prédécesseurs, sous réserve que les méthodes récentes de calcul et de diagnose des sexes soient désormais suffisamment fiables.
Pour les autres manifestations du dimorphisme que la taille et le poids (musculature, zone pelvienne, latéralisation, voix, etc…) [Page]
Sexual dimorphism in Homo erectus inferred from 1.5 Ma footprints near Ileret, Kenya [Texte]
Villmoare et al.
Nature scientific reports, 2019
Our results indicate that East African Homo erectus was more dimorphic than modern Homo sapiens, although less so than highly dimorphic apes, suggesting that the Ileret footprints offer a unique window into an important transitional period in hominin social behavior.
Sexual Dimorphism in Hominin Ancestors [Abstract]
J. Michael Plavcan
The international encyclopedia of anthropology, 2018
[…]strong dimorphism in Australopithecus suggests polygynous mating, with strong male competition. Changes in dimorphism and body size suggest changes in female life history and associated patterns of male competition. Finally, the reevolution of dimorphism in hominins suggests that the modern human condition is derived and not inherited from the common ancestor of Homo and Pan.
Lower limb articular scaling and body mass estimation in Pliocene and Pleistocene hominins [PDF]
Ruff et al.
Journal of human evolution, 2018
Sexual dimorphism in body mass is greatest in Australopithecus afarensis (log[male/female] = 1.54), declines in Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus (log ratio 1.36), and then again in early Homo and middle and late Pleistocene archaic Homo (log ratio 1.20–1.27), although it remains somewhat elevated above that of living and middle/late Pleistocene anatomically modern humans (log ratio about 1.15).
Long-term patterns of body mass and stature evolution within the hominin lineage [Texte]
Will et al.
Royal society open science, 2017
our taxonomic analyses show that among Homo, younger species tend to be less variable in body size than older taxa (figure 8d), potentially associated with decreasing sexual dimorphism.
Morphological variation in Homo erectus and the origins of developmental plasticity [Page]
Anton et al.
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B, 2016
New footprints from Laetoli (Tanzania) provide evidence for marked body size variation in early hominins [Texte]
Masao et al.
Our results are consistent with considerable body size variation and, probably, degree of sexual dimorphism within a single species of bipedal hominins as early as 3.66 million years ago.
Evolutionary perspectives on human height variation [Abstract]
Stulp & Barrett
Biological reviews, 2016
Here, we present a synthetic review of the literature on human height from an explicit evolutionary perspective, addressing its phylogenetic history, development, and environmental and genetic influences on growth and stature. In addition to presenting evidence to suggest the past action of natural selection on human height, we also assess the evidence that natural and sexual selection continues to act on height in contemporary populations. Although there is clear evidence to suggest that selection acts on height, mainly through life‐history processes but perhaps also directly, it is also apparent that methodological factors reduce the confidence with which such inferences can be drawn, and there remain surprising gaps in our knowledge. The inability to draw firm conclusions about the adaptiveness of such a highly visible and easily measured trait suggests we should show an appropriate degree of caution when dealing with other human traits in evolutionary perspective.
Body mass estimates of hominin fossils and the evolution of human
body size [PDF]
Grabowski et al.
Journal of human evolution, 2015
Soit Afarensis : 1,59 ; Early Homo : 1,42 ; Erectus : 1,17 ; Sapiens : 1,12 ; Pan troglodytes (chimpanzé) : 1,30
Evolution of early Homo: An integrated biological perspective [PDF]
Anton et al.
Body Size, Size Variation, and Sexual Size Dimorphism in Early Homo [PDF]
J. Michael Plavcan
Current anthropology, 2012
Modern humans show an unusual pattern of relatively modest body mass dimorphism (about 15%; Smith and Jungers 1997) but moderate “lean” body mass dimorphism (about 44%; Wang et al. 2001). This latter value reflects a proportionally greater amount of fat in human females (Plavcan 2012; Wang et al. 2001; Wells 2007, 2012). Skeletal dimorphism in modern humans is moderate and slightly greater than that of chimpanzees (Gordon, Green, and Richmond 2008), but when corrected for dimensionality it is proportional to lean body mass dimorphism in magnitude (Plavcan 2012). Cranial dimorphism in modern humans tends to be modest, being intermediate between body mass dimorphism and lean body mass dimorphism (Plavcan 2012).
Because most cranial, dental, and postcranial traits are normally or at least unimodally distributed in males and females, the effect of dimorphism is to simultaneously increase the total sample variance and generate bimodality
Sexual Size Dimorphism, Canine Dimorphism, and Male-Male Competition in Primates
J. Michael Plavcan
Human nature, 2012
What Are the Causes of Size Dimorphism in Modern Humans? The evolutionary origins of the prominent secondary sexual characteristics of humans are potentially diverse. Sexual ornamentation and size dimorphism in humans are hypothesized to have evolved for signaling to attract mates, to indicate mate quality(genetic quality in both sexes, and fecundity in particular in females) or age, to signal dominance, or even to reduce a sense of threat (Sefcek et al.2006). The greater body size and strength of males has been thought to give males competitive advantage for access to mates, or to be attractive to females, to signal male quality (Cashdan1996;Dixson2009; Sefcek et al.2006), or to reflect the sexual division of labor for hunting or between-group competition (Frayer1980). Body mass dimorphism also might reflect smaller female body size selected to increase or decrease female fecundity(Dixson2009; Ralls1976). Alternatively, human size and stature dimorphism may be a product of sexual selection from the recent past that persists in modern humans(Dixson2009; Rogers and Mukherjee1992; Wade and Shuster2004).
Short stature in African pygmies is not explained by sexual selection [Abstract]
Becker et al. (Priscille Touraille)
Evolution and human behaviour, 2012
Altogether, our results demonstrate that stature influences mate choice in pygmies, and we argue that, if of any influence for sexual selection, mate choice should have favored tallness rather than shortness in our pygmy population. Consequently, this study establishes that sexual selection is a very unlikely candidate to account for the evolution of pygmies’ short stature.
Hunters of the Ice Age: The biology of Upper Paleolithic people [PDF]
Holt & Formicola
American journal of anthropology, 2008
Why are women smaller than men? When anthropology meets evolutionary biology [PDF]
Priscille Touraille et Pierre-Henri Gouyon
Nature preceedings, 2008 (non reviewé)
There are large variations of size among humans but in all populations, men are larger on average than women. For most biologists this fact can be easily explained by the same processes that explain the size dimorphism in large mammals in general and in apes in particular. Due to fights between males for the possession of females, sexual selection has favoured bigger males. Indeed, this factor certainly explains why males are selected for being large but lets aside the question of selection on the female side. Actually, it has been shown that larger females are also favoured by natural selection. This is particularly relevant for women because their probability of dying when giving birth is then reduced. In this paper, the common view that size dimorphism in humans results from the fact that the advantage of being big is stronger for men than for women is challenged by another hypothesis, namely that the difference results from a difference of cost rather than from a difference of benefits. The cost of being big would be higher in women simply because, under gender hierarchical regimes found in all cultures, men are allocated the best food. The interaction between evolutionary forces and cultural practices could then lead to this disadaptive situation.
Rosenberg et al.
Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis revisited: How strong is the case for a human-like pattern of dimorphism ? [PDF]
Plavcan et al.
Journal of human evolution, 2005
we herein highlight several shortcomings in the analysis of Reno et al. (2003) that strongly impact the conclusion that A. afarensis showed a human-like level of sexual size dimorphism.
Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis was similar to that of modern humans [PDF]
Reno et al
skeletal size dimorphism in A. afarensis was most similar to that of contemporary Homo sapiens. These data eliminate some apparent discrepancies between the canine and skeletal size dimorphism in hominoids, imply that the species was not characterized by substantial sexual bimaturation, and greatly increase the probability that the reproductive strategy of A. afarensis was principally monogamy.
Stature of early Europeans [PDF]
Variation in human body size and shape [PDF]
Annual review of anthropology, 2002
Une espèce très dimorphique ou deux espèces différentes ? Une des grosses difficultés quand on travaille sur des fossiles rares, anciens et incomplets.
Size variation and sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis and living hominoids [Abstract]
Richmond & Jungers
Journal of human evolution, 1995
If the fossils from Hadar and Maka (and Laetoli) are assumed instead to be from one sexually dimorphic species, then the degree of sexual dimorphism of A. afarensis would have been at least as extreme as that of the most dimorphic living apes, the gorilla and orang-utan. It follows that a strictly monogamous social structure would have been highly unlikely.
Hypotheses recently advanced by Brace & Ryan (1980) and Frayer (1980) suggest links between changes in human sexual dimorphism and changes in technology and subsistence practices. In this paper we test these hypotheses using a sample of extant human groups. Results indicate that extant agriculturalists exhibit a greater degree of sexual dimorphism in stature than extant hunter-gatherers. Moreover, the data analysed in this paper do not indicate that a more equal division of labor is associated with a decrease in human height sexual dimorphism.
Dental, cranial and body size data are reviewed for European Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic males and females. Over these three periods there is a substantial decrease in the level of sexual dimorphism. From separate analysis of trends occurring between males and females, it is shown that the major cause for this decrease in sexual dimorphism is gracilization of the males between the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Reduction in males is related to shifting technological patterns associated with hunting and changes in the types of animals hunted. Further reduction in sexual dimorphism between the Mesolithic and Neolithic and from the Neolithic to modern European populations is shown to be more closely tied to changes occurring among females. Analysis of changing patterns of sexual dimorphism in Late Pleistocene and Holocene populations of Europe suggests an interrelationship between cultural and biological evolution.