科卡巴什标本来自Denizli盆地(土耳其)同名村庄附近的石灰华采石场。该标本包括三个主要碎片:左右顶骨的部分以及额骨的左右部分。化石被认为属于直立人s.l.一些作者认为,而其他人则看到与中更新世化石的相似之处(破碎山1/Kabwe,Bodo,或Ceprano)。这里,我们首次尝试对额骨缺失的内侧部分进行完整重建,并对该骨进行全面的几何形态分析。我们通过对齐和镜像三个保存的片段来恢复calotte。之后,我们通过将目标化石的薄板样条插值算法应用于重建的Kocabaš标本上来恢复缺失的部分。对于几何形态分析,我们在额骨上收集了80个标志(11个骨点,14双侧曲线半标记,和41个表面半标记)。比较样本包括来自不同年代和地理区域的21个化石和来自不同人群的30个成年现代人。形状分析强调了在科卡巴什中通常与中更新世人类有关的特征的存在,例如发育的眶上环面与相对较短的额叶鳞片和减少的肩后沟相关。聚类分析和线性判别分析分类程序表明,科卡巴什是欧亚和非洲中更新世人的同一分类单位的一部分。根据我们的结果,我们认为将科卡巴什人归因于直立人s.l.可能是没有根据的。我们的分析结果与不同的进化情景兼容,但是需要一个更精确的时间顺序框架来彻底讨论这个标本的进化意义。未来的工作应该明确它的地质年代,考虑到其地层来源的不确定性。
The Kocabaş specimen comes from a travertine quarry near the homonymous village in the Denizli basin (Turkey). The specimen comprises three main fragments: portions of the right and left parietal and left and right parts of the frontal bone. The fossil was assumed to belong to the Homo erectus s.l. hypodigm by some authors, whereas others see similarities with Middle Pleistocene fossils (Broken Hill 1/Kabwe, Bodo, or Ceprano). Here, we present the first attempt to make a complete reconstruction of the missing medial portion of the frontal bone and a comprehensive geometric morphometric analysis of this bone. We restored the calotte by aligning and mirroring the three preserved fragments. Afterward, we restored the missing portion by applying the thin-plate spline interpolation algorithm of target fossils onto the reconstructed Kocabaş specimen. For the geometric morphometric analyses, we collected 80 landmarks on the frontal bone (11 osteometric points, 14 bilateral curve semilandmarks, and 41 surface semilandmarks). The comparative sample includes 21 fossils from different chronological periods and geographical areas and 30 adult modern humans from different populations. Shape analyses highlighted the presence in Kocabaş of features usually related to Middle Pleistocene Homo, such as a developed supraorbital torus associated with a relatively short frontal squama and reduced post-toral sulcus. Cluster analysis and linear discriminant analysis classification procedure suggest Kocabaş being part of the same taxonomic unit of Eurasian and African Middle Pleistocene Homo. In light of our results, we consider that attributing the Kocabaş hominin to H. erectus s.l. may be unwarranted. Results of our analyses are compatible with different evolutionary scenarios, but a more precise chronological framework is needed for a thorough discussion of the evolutionary significance of this specimen. Future work should clarify its geological age, given uncertainties regarding its stratigraphic provenance.