Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:11920388rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0016614lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11920388lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1305231lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11920388lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0030471lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11920388lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0013103lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11920388lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0040395lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11920388lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0700320lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11920388lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0441633lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11920388lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0449774lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11920388lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0205313lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11920388lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1705492lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:issue4lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:dateCreated2002-3-28lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:abstractTextThe Omo L338y-6 occipital region has been recently studied by White and Falk (1999), who claim that it shows a readily identifiable enlarged left occipital-marginal sinus (O/M). These observations are contrary to the direct observations of previous investigators (Rak and Howell, 1978; Kimbel, 1984; Holloway, 1981; Holloway, 1988). White and Falk (1999) further argue that the presence of this enlarged O/M strongly suggests that the Omo L338y-6 hominid was indeed a "robust" Australopithecus. We used direct sectioning and CT scanning to analyze magnified sections of a high-quality first-generation cast of the newly cleaned original fossil. These methods fail to show any evidence of a morphological landmark that can be interpreted as an enlarged O/M, either as an eminence or a sulcus. In contrast, the same techniques used with both SK 1585 and OH5 ("robust" Australopithecus with an enlarged O/M) show extremely visible and palpable enlarged O/M's. Examination of the original Omo fossil confirms that it lacks an O/M. This evidence clearly shows that an enlarged O/M cannot be identified on either the original fossil or a first-generation cast, although this does not rule out the possibility that the Omo L338y-6 hominid was a "robust" Australopithecus. We believe that the differences between observers regarding this feature are most probably due to displacement caused by a crack and the different source materials employed, i.e., the difference between a first-generation cast of the original fossil and a third- or fourth-generation cast of the endocast made two decades ago.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:monthAprlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:issn0003-276Xlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:authorpubmed-author:WhiteTim DTDlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HollowayRalph...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:authorpubmed-author:YuanMichael...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BroadfieldDou...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DegustaDavidDlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:authorpubmed-author:RichardsGary...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:authorpubmed-author:SilversAdamAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ShapiroJill...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:copyrightInfoCopyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:day1lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:volume266lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:pagination249-57lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:dateRevised2010-11-18lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11920388...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:year2002lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:articleTitleMissing Omo L338y-6 occipital-marginal sinus drainage pattern: ground sectioning, computer tomography scanning, and the original fossil fail to show it.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, USA. rlh2@columbia.edulld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11920388pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed