Bayesian analysis of a morphological supermatrix sheds light on controversial fossil hominin relationships

Mana Dembo, Nicholas J Matzke, Arne Ø Mooers, Mark Collard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

109 Citations (Scopus)


The phylogenetic relationships of several hominin species remain controversial. Two methodological issues contribute to the uncertainty-use of partial, inconsistent datasets and reliance on phylogenetic methods that are ill-suited to testing competing hypotheses. Here, we report a study designed to overcome these issues. We first compiled a supermatrix of craniodental characters for all widely accepted hominin species. We then took advantage of recently developed Bayesian methods for building trees of serially sampled tips to test among hypotheses that have been put forward in three of the most important current debates in hominin phylogenetics--the relationship between Australopithecus sediba and Homo, the taxonomic status of the Dmanisi hominins, and the place of the so-called hobbit fossils from Flores, Indonesia, in the hominin tree. Based on our results, several published hypotheses can be statistically rejected. For example, the data do not support the claim that Dmanisi hominins and all other early Homo specimens represent a single species, nor that the hobbit fossils are the remains of small-bodied modern humans, one of whom had Down syndrome. More broadly, our study provides a new baseline dataset for future work on hominin phylogeny and illustrates the promise of Bayesian approaches for understanding hominin phylogenetic relationships.

Original languageEnglish
Article number20150943
JournalProceedings of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences
Issue number1812
Early online date22 Jul 2015
Publication statusPublished - 7 Aug 2015


  • Human Origins
  • Phylogeny
  • Bayesian
  • Morphological analysis


Dive into the research topics of 'Bayesian analysis of a morphological supermatrix sheds light on controversial fossil hominin relationships'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this