CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 289Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesEvolution and Paleontology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Surprisingly rapid growth in Neanderthals

Ramirez Rozzi, Fernando V., Bermudez de Castro, José Maria·2004·Nature
DOI 10.1038/nature02428
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Life-history traits correlate closely with dental growth, so differences in dental growth within Homo can enable us to determine how somatic development has evolved and to identify developmental shifts that warrant species-level distinctions. Dental growth can be determined from the speed of enamel formation (or extension rate). We analysed the enamel extension rate in Homo antecessor (8 teeth analysed), Homo heidelbergensis (106), Homo neanderthalensis ('Neanderthals'; 146) and Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic Homo sapiens (100). Here we report that Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic H. sapiens shared an identical dental development pattern with modern humans, but that H. antecessor and H. heidelbergensis had shorter periods of dental growth. Surprisingly, Neanderthals were characterized by having the shortest period of dental growth. Because dental growth is an excellent indicator of somatic development, our results suggest that Neanderthals developed faster even than their immediate ancestor, H. heidelbergensis. Dental growth became longer and brain size increased from the Plio-Pleistocene in hominid evolution. Neanderthals, despite having a large brain, were characterized by a short period of development. This autapomorphy in growth is an evolutionary reversal, and points strongly to a specific distinction between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature02428

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Ramirez Rozzi, F. V. Microstructure et développement de l'émail dentaire du néandertalien de Zafarraya, Espagne. Temps de formation et hypocalcification de l'émail dentaire. C.R. Acad. Sci. 316, 1635–1642 (1993)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 289

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ramirez Rozzi, F. V., & Bermudez de Castro, J. M.
Venue
Nature
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2004-04
Volume
428
Issue
6986
Pages
936-939
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
DOI
10.1038/nature02428
OpenAlex
W1988053700
Cited by
289
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 16
FWCI
141.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
Neanderthals, tooth growth, amelogenesis, life-history traits, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, human, physical growth, brain size, hominid evolution, species distinction
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Cuspid, Dental Enamel, Biological Evolution, Fossils, Humans, Time Factors, Hominidae, Sample Size, History, Ancient

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review