{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.044673539518900345, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02491408934707904, 'mean_word_length': 5.5083798882681565, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Principal components analysis of distal humeral shape in Pliocene to recent African hominids: the contribution of geometric morphometrics.

The shape of the distal humerus in Homo, Pan (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes), Gorilla, and six australopithecines is compared using a geometric approach (Procrustes superimposition of landmarks). Fourteen landmarks are defined on the humerus in a two-dimensional space. Principal components analysis (PCA) is performed on all superimposed coordinates. I have chosen to discuss the precise place of KNM-KP 271 variously assigned to Australopithecus anamensis, Homo sp., or Praeanthropus africanus, in comparison with a sample of australopithecines. AL 288-1, AL 137-48 (Hadar), STW 431 (Sterkfontein), and TM 1517 (Kromdraai) are commonly attributed to Australopithecus afarensis (the two former), Australopithecus africanus, and Paranthropus robustus, respectively, while the taxonomic place of KNM-ER 739 (Homo or Paranthropus?) is not yet clearly defined. The analysis does not emphasize a particular affinity between KNM-KP 271 and modern Homo, nor with A. afarensis, as previously demonstrated (Lague and Jungers [1996]