A few researchers have generally opposed the view that H

erectus was the direct ancestor of later species, including Homo sapiens. Louis Leakey argued energetically that H. erectus populations, particularly in Africa, overlap mediante time with more advanced Homo sapiens and therefore cannot be ancestral preciso the latter. Some support for Leakey’s point of view has come from analysis of anatomic characteristics exhibited by the fossils. By emphasizing verso distinction between “primitive” and “derived” traits sopra the reconstruction of relationships between species, several paleontologists have attempted puro show that H. erectus does not make verso suitable morphological ancestor for Homo sapiens. Because the braincase is long, low, and thick-walled and presents per strong browridge, they claim that H. erectus shows derived (or specialized) characteristics not shared with more modern humans. At the same time, it is noted, Homo sapiens does share some features, including a rounded, lightly built cranium, with earlier hominins such as H. habilis. For these reasons, some paleontologists (including Leakey) consider the more slender, or “magro,” H. habilis and H. rudolfensis puro be more closely related puro Homo sapiens than is H. erectus. These findings are not widely accepted, however. Instead, studies of size mediante human evolution indicate that representatives of Homo can be grouped into per reasonable ancestor-to-descendant sequence showing increases durante body size. Despite having verso heavier, more flattened braincase, H. erectus, most particularly the African representatives of the species sometimes called H. ergaster, is not out of place durante this sequence.

If this much is agreed, there is still uncertainty as onesto how and where H. erectus eventually gave rise puro Homo sapiens. This is verso major question mediante the study of human evolution and one that resists resolution even when hominin fossils from throughout the Old World are surveyed in detail. Several general hypotheses have been advanced, but there is still giammai firm consensus regarding models of gradual change as opposed puro scenarios of rapid evolution per which change per one region is followed by migration of the new populations into other areas.

Theories of gradual change

Per traditional view held by some paleontologists is that a species may be transformed gradually into verso succeeding species. Such successive species per the evolutionary sequence are called chronospecies. The boundaries between chronospecies are almost impossible esatto determine by means of any objective anatomic or functional criteria; thus, all that is left is the guesswork of drawing verso boundary at verso moment durante time. Such a chronological boundary may have sicuro be drawn arbitrarily between the last survivors of H. erectus and the earliest members of per succeeding species (ed.g., Homo sapiens). The problem of defining the limits of chronospecies is not peculiar esatto H. erectus; it is one of the most vexing questions mediante paleontology.

Such gradual change with continuity between successive forms has been postulated particularly for North Africa, where H. erectus at Tighenif is seen as ancestral onesto later populations at Rabat, Temara, Jebel Irhoud, and elsewhere. Gradualism has also been postulated for Southeast Levante, where H. erectus at Sangiran may have progressed toward populations such as those at Ngandong (Solo) and at Kow Swamp per Australia. Some researchers have suggested that similar developments could have occurred sopra other parts of the world.

The supposed interrelation of cultural achievement and the shape and size of teeth, jaws, and brain is a theorized state of affairs with which some paleoanthropologists disagree. Throughout the human fossil primato there are examples of dissociation between skull shape and size on the one hand and cultural achievement on the other. For example, per smaller-brained H. erectus addirittura fire, but much bigger-brained people in other regions of the world living later con time have left per niente evidence that they knew how to handle it. Gradualism is at the core of the so-called “ multiregional” hypothesis (see human evolution), con which it is theorized that H. erectus evolved into Homo sapiens not once but several times as each subspecies of H. erectus, living per its own territory, passed some postulated critical threshold. This theory depends on accepting a supposed erectus-sapiens threshold as correct profilo waplog. It is opposed by supporters of the “ out of Africa” hypothesis, who find the threshold concept at variance with the modern genetic theory of evolutionary change.

Theories of punctuated change

Per gradual transition from H. erectus to Homo sapiens is one interpretation of the fossil primato, but the evidence also can be read differently. Many researchers have quale esatto accept what can be termed verso punctuated view of human evolution. This view suggests that species such as H. erectus may have exhibited little or giammai morphological change over long periods of time (evolutionary stasis) and that the transition from one species onesto verso descendant form may have occurred relatively rapidly and in verso restricted geographic distretto rather than on verso worldwide basis. Whether any Homo species, including our own, evolved gradually or rapidly has not been settled.

The continuation of such arguments underlines the need for more fossils puro establish the range of physical variation of H. erectus and also for more discoveries in good archaeological contexts to permit more precise dating. Additions sicuro these two bodies of giorno may settle remaining questions and bring the problems surrounding the evolution of H. erectus nearer onesto resolution.