Deborah L. Cunningham

The morphometric relationship of Upper Cave 101 and 103 to modern Homo sapiens.

Since the discovery of the Homo sapiens crania from the Upper Cave of Zhoukoudian in northern China (UC 101, UC 102, and UC 103), no clear consensus has arisen regarding their affinities with modern populations. We use linear craniofacial measurements to compare UC 101 and UC 103 to a worldwide sample of H. sapiens that includes Paleoamericans and Archaic Indians, and employ Mahalanobis distance analysis and associated unweighted, unrestricted canonical variate analysis for the comparisons. Analyses indicate that UC 101 has consistent affinities with Easter Island and European populations, whereas UC 103 has more tenuous similarities with Australo-Melanesian groups. Both fossils exhibit some similarities to certain Paleoamerican and Archaic Indian individuals, but rarely cluster together. Upper Cave 103 is more of an outlier to modern populations than is UC 101. The fossils are not representative of any group to which they have been compared, but may be part of the generalized population that was ancestral to Paleoamericans.

Still More “Fancy” and “Myth” than “Fact” in Students’ Conceptions of Evolution

College students do not come to biological sciences classes, including biological anthropology, as “blank slates.” Rather, these students have complex and strongly held scientific misconceptions that often interfere with their ability to understand accurate explanations that are presented in class. Research indicates that a scientific misconception cannot be corrected by simply presenting accurate information; the misconception must be made explicit, and the student must decide for him or herself that it is inaccurate. The first step in helping to facilitate such conceptual change among college students is to understand the nature of the scientific misconceptions. We surveyed 547 undergraduate students at the University of Missouri-Columbia on their understanding of the nature and language of science, the mechanisms of evolution, and their support for both Lamarckian inheritance and teleological evolution. We found few significant sex differences among the respondents and identified some common themes in the students’ misconceptions. Our survey results show that student understanding of evolutionary processes is limited, even among students who accept the validity of biological evolution. We also found that confidence in one’s knowledge of science is not related to actual understanding. We advise instructors in biological anthropology courses to survey their students in order to identify the class-specific scientific misconceptions, and we urge faculty members to incorporate active learning strategies in their courses in order to facilitate conceptual change among the students.