Are modern humans classed as "gracile" or "robust"?
Ancient hominid species are always classified as "gracile" or "robust", and I wondered what modern humans are considered to be?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Several people seem to have confused "robust" with "robustus" (i.e. Paranthropus robustus). This is not what the question is referring to. When referring to skeletal anatomy, the word "robust" tends to be used to refer to characteristics like relative thickness of bones, deepness of muscle markings (can also be described as "rugosity") and overall size of the skeleton. So, for example, it can be said that relative to modern humans, Neanderthals were a very robust species.
In answer to the question, you could say that relative to other hominid species preceeding Homo sapiens, we are indeed "gracile". However it's important to remember that there's a lot of variation within our species and as such there exist individuals whose skeletons may be considered "robust" when considered next to an "average" skeleton from a modern human.
so yes we're gracile, but context is important :)Source(s): experience.
- AntoinetteLv 44 years ago
It really doesn't matter how it resembles any other animal at any point of the development. Biologically speaking an egg and sperm are human but obviously cells from two living beings. Biologically speaking, at conception there is different DNA. If you ran a DNA test on a fetus it would not be identified as the mother's dna, though you could tell they were related. "So to the people that eat meat is the only reason that you don't eat human fetus's that they are the same species as you?" Yes, I don't eat humans because the are the same species as me. Human beings are not the most advanced animal as you put it, we are distinctly different. Plus I'm not sure how you have decided that we've "advanced" to the point of not eating meat. We're omnivores. We're supposed to eat both meat and vegetables. If we were herbivores then we would have all the digestive features that herbivores have. Basically when you try to invent some artifical point when a human being is a human being, it really is only a matter of clasification. Clasification is ultimately imperfect, however it is obvious when a cell ceases to be part of the parents and becomes its own. That's why I believe biologically speaking life begins at conception.. Edit: How do you know other animals aren't concious? How have you come to the conclusion that this is what separates us from the animals? Why is it ok to kill a fetus if the mother wants to, but it would be wrong to kill a cow if you didn't need to to survive?
- DeviLv 61 decade ago
We would probably be considered 'gracile'.
Robustus had a huge jaw, a few more molars than we do, stocky body, and had a diet of roots, tubers, and other tough plant material. They were a bit bigger than modern humans, but they were the only early humans considered 'robust'. Their evolutionary lineage seems to have come to a dead end.Source(s): Anthropology minor.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I would hope we'd be classed as "gracile" - I have no idea what it means, but it does sound better than being a "robustus".
- JimZLv 71 decade ago
We are certainly gracile. Most in our line, even Neanderthals, would be considered gracile with the exception of Rosie Odonnel of course.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
humans arent robots LOL!!! god you must be dense hahaha