View source for Kenyanthropus

{{good article}}
{{short description|Oldest-known tool-making hominin}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2020}}
{{Automatic taxobox
| fossil_range = [[Middle Pliocene]], {{Fossil range|3.3|3.2}}
| image = Kenyanthropus platyops-MGL 95210-P5030042-white.jpg
| image_alt = 
| image_caption = Cast of KNM-WT 40000 at the [[Cantonal Museum of Geology]], [[Lausanne]]
| classification_status = 
| taxon = Kenyanthropus
| authority = Leakey ''et al.'', [[2001 in paleontology|2001]]
| type_species = 
| type_species_authority = 
| subdivision_ranks = Species
| subdivision = 
*{{extinct}}''Kenyanthropus platyops'' <small>(Leakey ''et al.'', 2001)</small>
*{{extinct}}''[[Homo rudolfensis|Kenyanthropus rudolfensis]]''? <small>(Alexeev, 1986)</small>
}}

'''''Kenyanthropus''''' is a [[genus]] of [[australopithecine]] identified from the [[Lomekwi]] site by [[Lake Turkana]], Kenya, dated to 3.3 to 3.2 million years ago during the [[Middle Pliocene]]. It contains one species, '''''K. platyops''''', but may also include the 2 million year old ''[[Homo rudolfensis]]'', or '''''K. rudolfensis'''''. Before its naming in 2001, ''[[Australopithecus afarensis]]'' was widely regarded as the only australopithecine to exist during the Middle Pliocene, but ''Kenyanthropus'' evinces a greater diversity than once acknowledged. ''Kenyanthropus'' is most recognisable by an unusually flat face and small teeth for such an early [[hominin]], with values on the extremes or beyond the range of variation for australopithecines in regard to these features. Multiple australopithecine species may have coexisted by foraging for different food items ([[niche partitioning]]), which may be reason why these apes anatomically differ in features related to chewing.

The Lomekwi site also yielded the earliest [[stone tool]] [[industry (archaeology)|industry]], the Lomekwian, characterised by the rudimentary production of simple [[lithic flake|flakes]] by pounding a [[lithic core|core]] against an anvil or with a [[hammerstone]]. It may have been manufactured by ''Kenyanthropus'', but it is unclear if multiple species were present at the site or not. The knappers were using volcanic rocks collected no more than {{cvt|100|m}} from the site. ''Kenyanthropus'' seems to have lived on a lakeside or [[floodplain]] environment featuring forests and grasslands. 

==Taxonomy==
===Discovery===
[[File:Kenyanthropus-Lomekwi.jpg|thumb|left|Location of [[Lomekwi]], on the western shore of [[Lake Turkana]], Kenya]]
In August 1998, field technician Blasto Onyango discovered a [[hominin]] partial left [[maxilla]] (upper jaw), specimen KNM-WT 38350, on the Kenyan [[Lomekwi]] dig site by [[Lake Turkana]], overseen by prominent paleoanthropologists [[Louise Leakey|Louise]] and [[Meave Leakey]]. In August 1999 at the Lomewki site, research assistant Justus Erus discovered an uncharacteristically flat-faced [[australopithecine]] skull, specimen KNM-WT 40000. The 1998–1999 field season subsequently uncovered 34 more craniodental hominin specimens, but the research team was unable to determine if these can be placed into the same species as the former two specimens (that is, if multiple species were present at the site).<ref name=":0"/>

===Age===
The specimens were recovered near the Nabetili tributary of the Lomekwi river in a [[mudstone]] layer of the [[Nachukui Formation]]. KNM-WT 40000 was recovered from the Kataboi Member, {{cvt|8|m}} below the 3.4 million year old Tulu Bor [[Tuff]], and {{cvt|12|m}} above the 3.57 million year old Lokochot Tuff. By [[linear interpolation]], KNM-WT 40000 is approximately 3.5 million years old, dating back to the [[Middle Pliocene]]. Only three more specimens were recovered from the Kataboi Member at around the same level, the deepest KNM-WT 38341 probably sitting on 3.53 million year old sediments. KNM-WT 38350 was recovered from the Lomekwi Member {{cvt|17|m}} above Tulu Bor, and is approximately 3.3 million years old. The other specimens from this member sit {{cvt|16|to|24|m}} above Tulu Bor, roughly 3.3 million years old as well. The highest specimens—KNM-WT 38344, -55, and -56—may be around 3.2 million years old.<ref name=":0"/>

===Classification===
In 2001, Meave Leakey and colleagues assigned the Lomekwi remains to a new genus and species, ''Kenyanthropus platyops'', with KNM-WT 40000 the [[holotype]], and KNM-WT 38350 a [[paratype]].  The genus name honours Kenya where Lomekwi and a slew of other major human-ancestor sites have been identified. The species name derives from [[Ancient Greek]] ''platus'' "flat" and ''opsis'' "face" in reference to the unusually flat face for such an early hominin.<ref name=":0"/>

The classification of early hominins with their widely varying anatomy has been a difficult subject matter. The 20th century generated an overabundance of hominin genera plunging the field into taxonomic turmoil, until German evolutionary biologist [[Ernst Mayr]], surveying a "bewildering diversity of names", decided to recognise only a single genus, ''Homo'', containing a few species. Though other genera and species have since become popular, his more conservative view of hominin diversity has become the mainstay, and the acceptance of further genera is usually met with great resistance.<ref name=Tattersall2017/> Since Mayr, hominins are classified into ''[[Australopithecus]]'' which gave rise to ''[[Homo]]'' (which includes modern humans) and the robust ''[[Paranthropus]]'' (which is sometimes not recognised as its own genus), which by definition leaves ''Australopithecus'' [[polyphyletic]] (a non-natural group which does not comprise a common ancestor and all of its descendants). In addition to ''Kenyanthropus'', the 1990s saw the introduction of ''[[Australopithecus bahrelghazali|A. bahrelghazali]]'', ''[[Ardipithecus]]'', ''[[Orrorin]]'', and ''[[Sahelanthropus]]'', which has complicated discussions of hominin diversity,<ref name=Conde2003/> though the latter three have not been met with much resistance on account of their greater age (all predating ''Australopithecus'').<ref name=Tattersall2017/>

At the time ''Kenyanthropus'' was discovered, ''[[Australopithecus afarensis]]'' was the only recognised australopithecine to have existed between 4 and 3 million years ago, aside from its probable ancestor ''[[Australopithecus anamensis|A. anamensis]]'', making ''A. afarensis'' the likely progenitor of all other australopithecines as they [[adaptive radiation|diversified]] in the late Pliocene and into the [[Pleistocene]]. Leakey and colleagues considered ''Kenyanthropus'' to be evidence of a greater diversity of Pliocene australopithecines than previously acknowledged.<ref name=":0"/> In 2015, Ethiopian palaeoanthropologist [[Yohannes Haile-Selassie]] and colleagues erected a new species, ''[[Australopithecus deyiremeda|A. deyiremeda]]'', which lived in the same time and region as ''Kenyanthropus'' and ''A. afarensis''.<ref name=Haile2015>{{Cite journal |url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7553/extref/nature14448-s1.pdf |doi=10.1038/nature14448|pmid=26017448|title=New species from Ethiopia further expands Middle Pliocene hominin diversity|journal=Nature|volume=521|issue=7553|pages=483–488|year=2015|last1=Haile-Selassie|first1=Yohannes|last2=Gibert|first2=Luis|last3=Melillo|first3=Stephanie M.|last4=Ryan|first4=Timothy M.|last5=Alene|first5=Mulugeta|last6=Deino|first6=Alan|last7=Levin|first7=Naomi E.|last8=Scott|first8=Gary|last9=Saylor|first9=Beverly Z.|bibcode=2015Natur.521..483H|s2cid=4455029}}</ref>

[[File:KNM ER 1470 (H. rudolfensis).png|thumb|Reconstruction of ''[[Homo rudolfensis|H. rudolfensis]]'' KNM-ER 1470, which resembles ''Kenyanthropus'' KNM-WT 40000<ref name=":0"/>]]
Meave Leakey and colleagues drew attention to namely the flat face and small [[cheek teeth]], in addition to several other traits, to distinguish the genus from earlier ''[[Ardipithecus]]'', contemporary and later ''[[Australopithecus]]'', and later ''[[Paranthropus]]''. ''Kenyanthropus'' lacks any of the derived traits seen in ''[[Homo]]''. They conceded ''Kenyanthropus'' could be subsumed into ''Australopithecus'' if the widest definition of the latter is used, but this conservative approach to hominin diversity leaves ''Australopithecus'' a [[polyphyletic]] [[evolutionary grade|grade taxon]], a non-natural grouping of similar-looking species whereby it effectively encompasses all hominins not classifiable into ''Ardipithecus'' or ''Homo''.<ref name=":0"/> Leakey and colleagues further drew parallels with KNM-WT 40000 and the 2 million year old KNM-ER 1470 assigned to ''[[Homo rudolfensis]]'', attributing differences in [[braincase]] and [[nasal bones|nasal]] anatomy to archaicness. They suggested ''H. rudolfensis'' may be better classified as ''K. rudolfensis''.<ref name=":0"/>

In 2003, American palaeoanthropologist [[Tim D. White]] was concerned that KNM-WT 40000 was far too distorted to obtain any accurate metrics for classification purposes, especially because the skull was splintered into over 1,100 pieces often measuring less than {{cvt|1|cm}} across. Because such damage is rarely even seen, he argues that it cannot be reliably reconstructed. Because the skulls of modern ape species vary widely, he suggested further fossil discoveries in the region may prove the Lomekwi hominins to be a local variant of ''A. afarensis'' rather than a distinct genus or species.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=White|first1=T.|year=2003|title=Early Hominids - Diversity or Distortion?.|journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]]|volume=299|issue=5615|pages=1994–1997|doi=10.1126/science.1078294|pmid=12663903|s2cid=83973951}}</ref> In response, anthropologist Fred Spoor and Meave and Louise Leakey produced much more detailed digital [[topographical]] scans of the KNM-WT 40000 maxilla in 2010, permitting the comparison of many more anatomical landmarks on the maxillae of all other early hominins, modern humans, [[chimp]]s, and [[gorilla]]s, in order to more accurately correct the distortion. The new reconstruction more convincingly verifies the distinctness of ''Kenyanthropus''.<ref name=Spoor2010>{{cite journal|first=F.|last=Spoor|first2=M. G.|last2=Leakey|author2-link=Meave Leakey|first3=L. N.|last3=Leakey|author3-link=Louise Leakey|year=2010|title=Hominin diversity in the middle Pliocene of eastern Africa: the maxilla of KNM-WT 40000|journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B|volume=365|issue=1556|pages=3377–3388|pmc=2981955|pmid=20855311|doi=10.1098/rstb.2010.0042}}</ref>

In 2003, Spanish writer [[Camilo José Cela Conde]] and evolutionary biologist [[Francisco J. Ayala]] proposed resurrecting the genus "''Praeanthropus''" to house all australopithecines which are not ''Ardipithecus'', ''Paranthropus'', or ''[[Australopithecus africanus|A. africanus]]'', though they opted to [[synonym (taxonomy)|synonymise]] ''Kenyanthropus'' with ''Homo'' as "''H. platyops''".<ref name=Conde2003>{{cite journal|last1=Cela-Conde|first1=C. J.|author-link=Camilo José Cela Conde|last2=Ayala|first2=F. J.|author-link2=Francisco J. Ayala|year=2003|title=Genera of the human lineage|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=100|issue=13|pages=7684–7689|bibcode=2003PNAS..100.7684C|doi=10.1073/pnas.0832372100|pmc=164648|pmid=12794185|doi-access=free}}</ref> Their recommendations have been largely rejected.<ref name=Tattersall2017>{{cite journal|last=Tattersall|first=I.|authorlink=Ian Tattersall|year=2017|title=Species, genera, and phylogenetic structure in the human fossil record: a modest proposal|journal=Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews|volume=26|issue=3|pages=116–118|doi=10.1002/evan.21523|quote=Forms such as ''Ardipithecus'', ''Sahelanthropus'', and ''Orrorin'' have also been admitted to the pantheon, though this has clearly been facilitated by their great age. And in a nod to history, the venerable genus ''Paranthropus'' has been grandfathered in for use by those who think it useful. But except for the widely dismissed revival of ''Praeanthropus'', there has been little real rethinking of the hugely minimalist hominid taxonomy, generic as well as specific, that Mayr foisted on us all those years ago...}}</ref>

{{African hominin timeline}}

== Anatomy ==
{{Multiple image|direction=vertical|align=left|image1=Kenyanthropus platyops IMG 2945-white.jpg|image2=Kenyanthropus platyops IMG 2946-white.jpg|footer=KNM-WT 40000 from different angles}}
KNM-WT 40000 has been heavily distorted during the fossilisation process, the braincase shifted downwards and backwards, the nasal region to the right, and the mouth and cheek region forward. It is unclear if the specimen represents a male or a female.<ref name=":0"/>

''Kenyanthropus'' has a relatively flat face, including subnasally, between the nose and the mouth (the nasoalveolar clivus). The clivus inclines at 45° (there is relaxed sub-nasal [[prognathism]]), steeper than almost all other australopithecine specimens (on the upper end of variation for ''Paranthropus''), more comparable to ''H. rudolfensis'' and ''[[Homo habilis|H. habilis]]''. This is the earliest example of a flat face in the hominin fossil record. Unlike ''A. afarensis'', ''Kenyanthropus'' lacks the anterior pillars, bony columns running down from the nasal aperture (nose hole). It is also one of the longest early hominin clivi discovered at {{cvt|32|mm}}. The nasal aperture (nose hole) is narrow compared to that of ''Australopithecus'' and ''Paranthropus''. The cheekbones are tall and steep, and the [[anatomical terms of location#anterior and posterior|anterior]] surface (where the cheeks juts out the most) is positioned above the premolars, more frequently seen in ''Paranthropus'' than other hominins. The zygomaticoalveolar crest (stretching between the cheek and the teeth) is low and curved. Overall, the face resembles ''H. rudolfensis'', though has longer nasal bones, a narrower nasal aperture, a shorter postcanine (the [[molar (tooth)|molars]] and [[premolar]]s) tooth row, and a less steeply inclined (less flat, more prognathic) midfacial region. Much later ''Paranthropus'' are also characterised by relatively flat faces, but this is generally considered to be an adaptation to maximise bite force through enormous teeth, which ''Kenyanthropus'' enigmatically does not have.<ref name=":0"/>

Among all the specimens, only the M<sup>2</sup> (2nd upper left molar) and the [[dental alveolus|tooth sockets]] of the left side of the mouth of KNM-WT 40000 are preserved well enough to measure and study. With dimensions of {{cvt|11.4x12.4|mm2}}, a surface area of {{cvt|141.4|mm}}, it is the smallest M<sup>2</sup> ever discovered for an early hominin. For comparison, those of ''A. afarensis'' in the comparative sample Leakey and colleagues used ranged from about {{cvt|160|to|225|mm2}}, ''H. habilis'' and ''H. rudolfensis'' {{cvt|165|to|250|mm2}}, and the robust ''P. boisei'' (with the largest molars among hominins) about {{cvt|240|to|380|mm2}}. The reconstructed dimensions of KNM-WT 38350's M<sup>1</sup> are {{cvt|10.5x12|mm}} for a surface area of {{cvt|126|mm2}}, which is on the lower end of variation for ''A. anamensis'', ''A. afarensis'' and ''H. habilis''. The thick molar [[tooth enamel|enamel]] is on par with that of ''A. anamensis'' and ''A. afarensis''. KNM-WT40000 retains the ancestral ape premolar [[tooth root]] morphology, with a single lingual [[tooth root|root]] (on the tongue side) and two buccal roots (towards the cheeks), though the P<sup>4</sup> of KNM-WT 38350 may only have a single buccal root; the ancestral pattern is frequent in ''Paranthropus'' and variable in ''Australopithecus''. Individuals of more derived species typically have single-rooted premolars. The canine jugum is not visible (a line of bone in the maxilla corresponding to the canine tooth root), which may mean the canines were not that large. The cross-sectional area of the I<sup>2</sup> (2nd upper [[incisor]]) is 90% the size of that of I<sup>1</sup>, whereas it is usually 50 to 70% in other great apes. The tooth roots of the incisors do not appear to be orientated out (there was probably no alveolar prognathism, the front teeth did not jut forward).<ref name=":0"/>

Brain volume is uncalculable due to distortion of the braincase, but it was probably similar to that of ''Australopithecus'' and ''Paranthropus''.<ref name=":0"/> A sample of five ''A. afarensis'' averaged 445 cc.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=P.|last1=Gunz|first2=S.|last2=Neubauer|first3=D.|last3=Falk|display-authors=et al.|year=2020|title=''Australopithecus afarensis'' endocasts suggest ape-like brain organization and prolonged brain growth|journal=Science Advances|volume=6|issue=14|page=eaaz4729|doi=10.1126/sciadv.aaz4729|pmid=32270044|pmc=7112758|bibcode=2020SciA....6.4729G|doi-access=free}}</ref> Like ''Paranthropus'', there is no frontal trigon (a triangle formed by the conjunction of the [[temporal line]]s behind the brow ridge). Unlike ''H. habilis'' but like ''H. rudolfensis'', there is no [[sulcus (morphology)|sulcus]] (trench) behind the brow ridge. The degree of [[postorbital constriction]], the narrowing of the braincase in the [[frontal lobe]] region, is on par with that of ''Australopithecus'', ''H. rudolfensis'', and ''H. habilis'', but less than ''[[Paranthropus boisei|P. boisei]]''. Like the earlier ''[[Australopithecus anamensis|A. anamensis]]'' and ''[[Ardipithecus ramidus|Ar. ramidus]]'', the [[tympanic bone]] retains the ancestral hominin ear morphology, lacking the [[petrous part of the temporal bone|petrous crest]], and bearing a narrow [[ear canal]] with a small opening. The [[foramen magnum]], where the skull connects to the [[vertebral column|spine]], was probably oval shaped as opposed to the heart-shaped one of ''P. boisei''.<ref name=":0"/>

==Technology==
In 2015, French archaeologist [[Sonia Harmand]] and colleagues identified the Lomekwian [[stone tool|stone-tool]] [[industry (archaeology)|industry]] at the Lomekwi site.<ref name=Harmand2015/> The tools are attributed to ''Kenyanthropus'' as it is the only hominin identified at the site, but in 2015, anthropologist Fred Spoor suggested that at least some of the indeterminate specimens may be assignable to ''A. deyiremeda'' as the two species have somewhat similar maxillary anatomy.<ref name="Spoor2015"/> At 3.3 million years old, it is the oldest proposed industry. The assemblage comprises 83 [[lithic core|cores]], 35 [[lithic flake|flakes]], 7 possible anvils, 7 possible [[hammerstone]]s, 5 pebbles (which may have also been used as hammers), and 12 indeterminant fragments, of which 52 were sourced from [[basalt]], 51 from [[phonolite]], 35 from trachyphonolite (intermediate compisition of phonolite and [[trachyte]]), 3 from [[vesicular texture|vesicular]] basalt, 2 from trachyte, and 6 indeterminant. These materials could have originated at a [[conglomerate (geology)|conglomerate]] only {{cvt|100|m}} from the site.<ref name=Harmand2015>{{cite journal|last1=Harmand|first1=S.|display-authors=et al.|title=3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya|journal=Nature|date=2015|volume=521|issue=7552|pages=310–315|doi=10.1038/nature14464|pmid=25993961|bibcode=2015Natur.521..310H|s2cid=1207285}}</ref>

The cores are large and heavy, averaging {{cvt|167|x|147.8|x|108.8|mm}} and {{cvt|3.1|kg}}. Flakes ranged {{cvt|19|to|205|mm}} in length, normally shorter than later [[Oldowan]] industry flakes. Anvils were heavy, up to {{cvt|15|kg}}. Flakes seem to have been cleaved off primarily using the passive hammer technique (directly striking the core on the anvil) and/or the bipolar method (placing the core on the anvil and striking it with a hammerstone). They produced both [[uniface]]s (the flake was worked on one side) and [[biface]]s (both sides were worked). Though they may have been shaping cores beforehand to make them easier to work, the knappers more often than not poorly executed the technique, producing incomplete fractures and fissures on several cores, or requiring multiple blows to flake off a piece. Harmand and colleagues suggested such rudimentary skills may place the Lomekwian as an intermediate industry between simple pounding techniques probably used by earlier hominins, and the flaking Oldowan industry developed by ''Homo''.<ref name=Harmand2015/>

It is typically assumed that early hominins were using stone tools to cut meat in addition to other organic materials.<ref name=Torre2019/> Wild chimpanzees and [[black-striped capuchin]]s have been observed to make flakes by accident while using hammerstones to crack nuts on anvils, but the Lomekwi knappers were producing multiple flakes from the same core, and flipped over flakes to work the other side, which speak to the intentionality of their production.<ref name=Harmand2015/><ref>{{cite journal|first1=M.|last1=Lombard|first2=A.|last2=Högberg|first3=M. N.|last3=Haidle|year=2018|title=Cognition: From Capuchin Rock Pounding to Lomekwian Flake Production|journal=Cambridge Archaeological Journal|volume=29|issue=2|pages=201–231|doi=10.1017/S0959774318000550|doi-access=free}}</ref> In 2016, Spanish archaeologists Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo and Luis Alcalá argued Harmand and colleagues did not convincingly justify that the tools were discovered ''[[in situ]]'', that is, the tools may be much younger and were [[reworked fossil|reworked]] into an older layer.<ref>{{cite journal|first=M.|last=Domínguez-Rodrigo|first2=L.|last2=Alcalá|year=2016|title=3.3-Million-Year-Old Stone Tools and Butchery Traces? More Evidence Needed|journal=PaleoAnthropology|pages=46–53|doi=10.4207/PA.2016.ART99}}</ref> If the date of 3.3 million years is accepted, then there is a 700,000 year gap between the next solid evidence of stone tools, at [[Ledi-Geraru]] associated with the earliest ''Homo'' [[LD 350-1]], the [[Oldowan]] industry, reported by American palaeoanthropologist David Braun and colleagues in 2019. This gap can either be interpreted as the loss and reinvention of stone tool technology, or preservation bias (that tools from this time gap either did not preserve for whatever reason, or sit undiscovered), the latter implying the Lomekwian evolved into the Oldowan.<ref name=Torre2019>{{cite journal|first=I.|last=de la Torre|year=2019|title=Searching for the emergence of stone tool making in eastern Africa|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=116|issue=24|pages=11567–11569|doi=10.1073/pnas.1906926116 |pmc=6575166}}</ref>

==Palaeoecology==
[[File:Australopithecus afarensis reconstruction.JPG|thumb|upright|''Kenyanthropus'' was contemporary with ''[[Australopithecus afarensis|A. afarensis]]'' ("[[Lucy (Australopithecus)|Lucy]]" above)]]
From 4.5 to 4 million years ago, Lake Turkana may have swelled to upwards of {{cvt|28000|km2}}, in comparison to today's {{cvt|6400|km2}}; the lake at what is now the [[Koobi Fora]] site possibly sat at minimum {{cvt|36|m}} below the surface. Volcanic hills by Lomekwi pushed basalt into the lake sediments. The lake broke up and from 3.6 to 3.2 million years ago, the region was probably characterised by a series of much smaller lakes, each covering no more than {{cvt|2500|km2}}.<ref>{{cite book|first=F. E.|last=Grine|year=2017|title=Evolutionary History of the Robust Australopithecines|publisher=Routledge|pages=332–333|isbn=978-1-351-52126-0}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|first=C. S.|last=Feibel|year=2011|title=A Geological History of the Turkana Basin|journal=Evolutionary Anthropology|volume=20|issue=6|pages=206–216|doi=10.1002/evan.20331}}</ref> Similarly, the [[bovid]] remains at Lomekwi are suggestive of a wet mosaic environment featuring both grasslands and forests on a lakeside or [[floodplain]]. ''[[Theropithecus brumpti]]'' is the most common monkey at the site as well as the rest of the [[Turkana Basin]] at this time; this species tends to live in more forested and closed environments. At the fossiliferous ''A. afarensis'' [[Hadar, Ethiopia|Hadar]] site in Ethiopia, ''[[Theropithecus darti]]'' is the most common monkey, which tends to prefer drier conditions conducive to wood- or grassland environments. Leakey and colleagues argued this distribution means ''Kenyanthropus'' was living in somewhat more forested environments than more northerly ''A. afarensis''.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last=Leakey|first=Meave G.|author-link=Meave Leakey|display-authors=etal|year=2001|title=New hominin genus from eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene lineages|journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|volume=410|issue=6827|pages=433–440|bibcode=2001Natur.410..433L|doi=10.1038/35068500|pmid=11260704|s2cid=4409453}}</ref>

''Kenyanthropus'', ''A. afarensis'', and ''[[Australopithecus deyiremeda|A. deyiremeda]]'' all coexisted in the same time and region, and, because their anatomy largely diverges in areas relevant to chewing, they may have practised [[niche partitioning]] and foraged for different food items.<ref name=Spoor2015>{{cite journal|last=Spoor|first=F.|last2=Leakey|first2=M. G.|author2-link=Meave Leakey|last3=O'Higgins|first3=P.|year=2016|title=Middle Pliocene hominin diversity: ''Australopithecus deyiremeda'' and ''Kenyanthropus platyops''|journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B|volume=371|issue=1698|pmid=27298462|doi=10.1098/rstb.2015.0231}}</ref>

== See also ==
{{Portal|Paleontology}}
*[[List of fossil sites]]  
*[[List of human evolution fossils]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{Commons category|Kenyanthropus platyops}} 
* [http://www.nature.com/nature/fow/010322.html The flat faced man of Kenya (''Nature'')]
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/apetookover.shtml BBC Science article]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20081216225447/http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/history/images/md/kenyathropus-platyops.jpg A picture of ''Kenyathropus platyops'' at the American Museum of Natural History]
* [http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive Human Timeline (Interactive)] – [[Smithsonian Institution|Smithsonian]], [[National Museum of Natural History]] (August 2016).
{{Human Evolution|state=collapsed}}

{{Prehistoric technology|state=collapsed}}
{{Haplorhini|Ho.}}
{{Taxonbar|from=Q311123|from2=Q1813596|from3=Q56425720|from4=Q107742}}

[[Category:Hominini]]
[[Category:Prehistoric primate genera]]
[[Category:Pliocene primates]]
[[Category:Fossil taxa described in 2001]]
[[Category:Prehistoric Kenya]]
[[Category:Pliocene mammals of Africa]]