更新世中晚期猩猩第四乳前臼齿的三维釉质厚度

doi:10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0116

人类学学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (02): 248-257.doi: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0116

• 古猿-古灵长类及其演化 • 上一篇下一篇

更新世中晚期猩猩第四乳前臼齿的三维釉质厚度

易智星¹^,²(), 仇若萱¹, 王伟¹, 廖卫¹, 梁华³, 田淳¹, 米尔阿迪力·吐尔逊江¹, 张一景¹, 姚艳燕¹^,²^,⁴()

1.山东大学文化遗产研究院，青岛 266237
2.南宁师范大学，南宁 530001
3.广西自然博物馆，南宁 530012
4.广西民族博物馆，南宁 530028

收稿日期:2025-06-20 修回日期:2025-10-13 出版日期:2026-04-15 发布日期:2026-04-17
通讯作者: 姚艳燕，副研究馆员，主要研究华南地区洞穴化石埋藏学、第四纪哺乳动物群。E-mail: yaoyanyan@amgx.org
作者简介:易智星，副研究员，主要从事古人类学研究。E-mail: yizhixing@sdu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(42202004);国家自然科学基金(42402008);国家自然科学基金(42472007);广西自然科学基金(2024GXNSFBA010310);八桂青年拔尖人才培养项目;国家社科基金重大项目(20&ZD246)

Three-dimensional enamel thickness of the fourth deciduous premolars in Middle-to-Late Pleistocene Pongo

YI Zhixing¹^,²(), QIU Ruoxuan¹, WANG Wei¹, LIAO Wei¹, LIANG Hua³, TIAN Chun¹, MIERADILI · Tuerxunjiang¹, ZHANG Yijing¹, YAO Yanyan¹^,²^,⁴()

1. Institute of Cultural Heritage, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237
2. Nanning Normal University, Nanning 530001
3. Natural History Museum of Guangxi, Nanning 530012
4. Anthropology Museum of Guangxi, Nanning 530028

Received:2025-06-20 Revised:2025-10-13 Online:2026-04-15 Published:2026-04-17

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

牙齿釉质厚度在灵长类系统演化和食性适应研究中具有重要指示意义。前人对大型猿类恒齿釉质厚度进行了较为系统的探讨，然而乳齿的釉质厚度研究相对匮乏。近期虽有研究报道了化石猩猩乳前臼齿的二维釉质厚度，但其三维釉质厚度特征仍有待阐明。本研究基于高精度显微CT数据，对广西更新世中晚期猩猩第四乳前臼齿的三维釉质厚度进行了定量分析，并与人类和现生猩猩进行了对比。统计分析结果显示，化石猩猩上颌三维釉质厚度显著大于下颌，这一发现与二维分析结果存在差异。此外，化石猩猩第四乳前臼齿的三维釉质厚度普遍小于人类，该发现与恒齿所揭示的规律基本一致。最后，更新世中晚期猩猩乳齿釉质可能厚于现生种，但该推论还需更多的现生猩猩数据加以佐证。本研究首次提供的数据有望为未来开展人科成员乳齿三维釉质厚度的对比研究奠定基础。

关键词: 化石猩猩, 乳前臼齿, 三维釉质厚度, 中国南方

Abstract:

Enamel thickness holds significant implications for studies on primate phylogenetic evolution and dietary adaptations. Previous studies have systematically explored the enamel thickness of permanent teeth in great apes (e.g., Pongo, Gorilla, and Pan), whereas research on deciduous teeth enamel thickness remains relatively limited. Although a recent work has reported two-dimensional (2D) enamel thickness measurements of fossil Pongo deciduous premolars, their three-dimensional (3D) enamel thickness characteristics remain unclear. High-resolution micro-CT data (voxel size: 15.82~23.42 μm) was employed here to conduct a quantitative analysis of the 3D enamel thickness in 16 Middle-to-Late Pleistocene Pongo fourth deciduous premolars (dP4) from Guangxi, consisting of 7 dP⁴s and 9 dP₄s. The enamel thickness results of fossil Pongo were compared with that of human taxa (Java Homo erectus, Middle Pleistocene hominin, Neanderthals, and modern humans) and extant Pongo. Results show that the three enamel thickness indices of dP⁴ are greater than those of dP₄. Specifically, the mean values of 3DAET, 3DRET, and 3DRED for dP⁴ are 0.62 mm (0.54~0.78 mm), 9.74 (8.04~12.92), and 7.62 (7.11~8.35), respectively. The corresponding values for dP₄ are 0.51 mm (0.44~0.65 mm), 7.94 (6.54~10.27), and 7.16 (6.68~7.95), respectively. Statistical analyses also reveal that fossil Pongo exhibits significantly thicker enamel in dP⁴ than in dP₄ (p<0.05). This significant difference is primarily due to the significantly greater enamel volume in dP⁴ compared to dP₄ (p=0.03), whereas it shows no significant correlation with the differences in the enamel-dentine junction area (p=0.92) or dentine volume (p=0.68). Furthermore, according to the 3DRET results, the fossil Pongo dP⁴ can be classified as having thin enamel, whereas the dP₄ falls into the category of hyper-thin enamel. For comparison, the dP4 enamel thickness in human taxa can be classified into various categories, ranging from thin to intermediate thick. Therefore, the 3D enamel thickness of the fossil Pongo dP4 is generally thinner than that of human taxa, which is consistent with the findings in permanent teeth. Finally, the mean 3DAET and mean 3DRET of the extant Pongo dP₄ are 0.41 mm and 7.51, respectively, both of which are lower than the corresponding values in fossil Pongo. While Middle-to-Late Pleistocene Pongo dP4s may exhibit thicker enamel than their extant counterparts, this hypothesis requires further validation with additional data from extant Pongo. The primary data provided in this study are expected to lay a foundation for future comparative researches on 3D enamel thickness in hominid deciduous teeth.

Key words: Fossil Pongo, deciduous premolars, 3D enamel thickness, South China

中图分类号:

Q981.2

易智星, 仇若萱, 王伟, 廖卫, 梁华, 田淳, 米尔阿迪力·吐尔逊江, 张一景, 姚艳燕. 更新世中晚期猩猩第四乳前臼齿的三维釉质厚度[J]. 人类学学报, 2026, 45(02): 248-257.

YI Zhixing, QIU Ruoxuan, WANG Wei, LIAO Wei, LIANG Hua, TIAN Chun, MIERADILI · Tuerxunjiang, ZHANG Yijing, YAO Yanyan. Three-dimensional enamel thickness of the fourth deciduous premolars in Middle-to-Late Pleistocene Pongo[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2026, 45(02): 248-257.

图/表 6

图1 分离牙冠的方法 a. 化石猩猩第四乳前臼齿的三维虚拟模型（SZPXRP3）/ 3D virtual model of the fossil Pongo deciduous fourth premolar (SZPXRP3)；b.齿冠釉质和齿冠齿质/ Coronal enamel and coronal dentine

Fig.1 The method of crown separation

表1 更新世中晚期猩猩第四乳前臼齿三维釉质厚度平均值和分布范围

Tab.1 3D enamel thickness measurements of the fourth deciduous premolars in Middle-to-Late Pleistocene Pongo’s means and ranges

齿位Tooth	数量n	统计值Statistics	釉质体积V_e (mm³)	EDJ面积S_EDJ (mm²)	齿质体积V_d (mm³)	3DAET(mm)	3DRET	3DRED
dP⁴	7	平均值Mean	119.77	192.55	274.64	0.62	9.74	7.62
		最小值Min	89.41	148.78	173.95	0.54	8.04	7.11
		最大值Max	138.79	219.88	332.17	0.78	12.92	8.35
dP₄	9	平均值Mean	98.03	192.14	270.74	0.51	7.94	7.16
		最小值Min	74.80	137.45	148.80	0.44	6.54	6.68
		最大值Max	158.51	244.89	398.47	0.65	10.27	7.95

图2 更新世中晚期猩猩第四乳前臼齿上下颌三维釉质厚度箱线图 a. 上下颌第四乳前臼齿的3DAET对比/ Comparison of 3DAET between dP4 and dP4；b. 上下颌第四乳前臼齿的3DRET对比/ Comparison of 3DRET between dP4 and dP4；c. 上下颌第四乳前臼齿的3DRED对比/ Comparison of 3DRED between dP4 and dP4

Fig.2 Box-and-whisker plots comparing 3D enamel thickness between upper and lower fourth deciduous premolars in Middle-to-Late Pleistocene Pongo

表2 更新世中晚期猩猩第四乳前臼齿上下颌之间釉质厚度测量值的曼-惠特尼U检验结果

Tab.2 The Mann-Whitney U test results of enamel thickness measurements between the maxillary and mandibular fourth deciduous premolars in Middle-to-Late Pleistocene Pongo

检验结果Test results	釉质体积V_e (mm³)	EDJ面积S_EDJ (mm²)	齿质体积V_d (mm³)	3DAET(mm)	3DRET	3DRED
U	52	33	36	57	53	51
Z	2.12	0.10	0.42	2.65	2.22	2.01
p	0.03	0.92	0.68	0.005	0.02	0.04

表3 三维釉质厚度结果对比

Tab.3 Comparison of 3D enamel thickness measurements

齿位Tooth	属种Taxon	数量n	3DAET (mm)			3DRET			厚度分类^[22]Thickness categories
齿位Tooth	属种Taxon	数量n	平均值Mean	最小值Min	最大值Max	平均值Mean	最小值Min	最大值Max	厚度分类^[22]Thickness categories
dP⁴	化石猩猩Fossil Pongo	7	0.62	0.54	0.78	9.74	8.04	12.92	薄Thin
	尼安德特人Neanderthals^[37]	2	0.60	0.60	0.60	10.02	9.95	10.09	薄Thin
	中更新世古人类Middle Pleistocene hominin^[37]	1	0.75	-	-	11.71	-	-	偏薄Moderately thin
	现代人Modern humans^[37]	3	0.78	0.71	0.88	13.90	12.78	15.29	偏薄Moderately thin
dP₄	化石猩猩Fossil Pongo	9	0.51	0.44	0.65	7.94	6.54	10.27	超薄Very thin
	现生猩猩Extant Pongo^[36]	2	0.41	0.41	0.41	7.51	7.25	7.77	超薄Very thin
	尼安德特人Neanderthals^[33,36]	6	0.61	0.58	0.67	10.03	9.49	10.92	薄Thin
	中更新世古人类 Middle Pleistocene hominin^[38]	1	0.68	-	-	10.80	-	-	薄Thin
	爪哇直立人Java Homo erectus^[36]	1	0.81	-	-	13.46	-	-	偏薄Moderately thin
	旧石器时代晚期人类Upper Paleolithic humans^[33,36,56]	3	0.84	0.82	0.87	14.79	14.29	15.40	偏厚Moderately thick
	现代人Modern humans^[38]	18	0.82	0.70	0.95	14.80	12.99	17.27	偏厚Moderately thick

图3 更新世中晚期猩猩、人类和现生猩猩的三维平均釉质厚度和三维相对釉质厚度的平均值散点图 a. 上颌第四乳前臼齿3DAET和3DRET的平均值/ Mean 3DAET and mean 3DRET in dP4；b. 下颌第四乳前臼齿3DAET和3DRET的平均值/ Mean 3DAET and mean 3DRET in dP4。NEA，尼安德特人Neanderthals；FP，化石猩猩Fossil Pongo；MPH，中更新世古人类Middle Pleistocene hominin；MH，现代人Modern humans；EP，现生猩猩Extant Pongo；JHE，爪哇直立人Java Homo erectus；UPH，旧石器时代晚期人类Upper Paleolithic humans.

Fig.3 Scatter plots comparing mean 3DAET and mean 3DRET among Middle-to-Late Pleistocene Pongo, human taxa and extant Pongo

参考文献 56

[1]	Zhao LX, Wang CB, Jin CZ, et al. Fossil orangutan-like hominoid teeth from Late Pleistocene human site of Mulanshan cave in Chongzuo of Guangxi and implications on taxonomy and evolution of orangutan[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2009, 54(21): 3924-3930
[2]	Ibrahim YK, Tshen LT, Westaway KE, et al. First discovery of Pleistocene orangutan (Pongo sp.) fossils in Peninsular Malaysia: Biogeographic and paleoenvironmental implications[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2013, 65(6): 770-797
[3]	Harrison T, Jin CZ, Zhang YQ, et al. Fossil Pongo from the Early Pleistocene Gigantopithecus fauna of Chongzuo, Guangxi, southern China[J]. Quaternary International, 2014, 354: 59-67
[4]	Filoux A, Wattanapituksakul A, Lespes C, et al. A Pleistocene mammal assemblage containing Ailuropoda and Pongo from Tham Prakai Phet cave, Chaiyaphum Province, Thailand[J]. Geobios, 2015, 48(5): 341-349
[5]	Liang H, Harrison T, Shao Q, et al. Middle Pleistocene Pongo from Ganxian Cave in southern China with implications for understanding dental size evolution in orangutans[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2023, 178: 103348
[6]	Wang CB, Zhao LX, Jin CZ, et al. New discovery of Early Pleistocene orangutan fossils from Sanhe Cave in Chongzuo, Guangxi, southern China[J]. Quaternary International, 2014, 354: 68-74
[7]	Bacon AM, Long VT. The first discovery of a complete skeleton of a fossil orang-utan in a cave of the Hoa Binh Province, Vietnam[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2001, 41(3): 227-241
[8]	Tshen LT. Biogeographic distribution and metric dental variation of fossil and living orangutans (Pongo spp.)[J]. Primates, 2016, 57(1): 39-50
[9]	Liao W, Harrison T, Yao YY, et al. Evidence for the latest fossil Pongo in southern China[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2022, 170: 103233
[10]	Smith TM, Bacon AM, Demeter F, et al. Dental tissue proportions in fossil orangutans from mainland Asia and Indonesia[J]. Human Origins Research, 2011, 1: e1
[11]	廖卫. 中国南方猩猩化石的研究进展[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(2): 199-213
[12]	Harrison T, Zhang YQ, Yang LY, et al. Evolutionary trend in dental size in fossil orangutans from the Pleistocene of Chongzuo, Guangxi, southern China[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2021, 161: 103090
[13]	张立召, 赵凌霞. 巨猿牙齿釉质厚度及对食性适应与系统演化的意义[J]. 人类学学报, 2013, 32(3): 365-376
[14]	Zanolli C, Dean C, Rook L, et al. Enamel thickness and enamel growth in Oreopithecus: Combining microtomographic and histological evidence[J]. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 2016, 15(1-2): 209-226
[15]	Pan L, Ji XP, Liao W, et al. Premolar enamel thickness and distribution of a Miocene hominid Lufengpithecus hudienensis compared with Pleistocene and extant hominids[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2021, 157: 103030
[16]	Zhang LZ, Du BP, Hu R, et al. Three-dimensional molar enamel thickness and distribution patterns in Late Miocene Lufengpithecus lufengensis from Shihuiba, Southwest China[J]. Anatomical Record-Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology, 2024, 1-11
[17]	Smith TM, Olejniczak AJ, Zermeno JP, et al. Variation in enamel thickness within the genus Homo[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2012, 62(3): 395-411
[18]	Skinner MM, Alemseged Z, Gaunitz C, et al. Enamel thickness trends in Plio-Pleistocene hominin mandibular molars[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2015, 85: 35-45
[19]	孙承凯, 孙小玲, 周蜜, 等. 山东新泰乌珠台人类牙齿的形态学特征[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(3): 446-459
[20]	Kono RT, Suwa G. Enamel distribution patterns of extant human and hominoid molars: Occlusal versus lateral enamel thickness[J]. Bulletin of the National Museum of Nature and Science, Series D, 2008, 34: 1-9
[21]	Kato A, Tang N, Borries C, et al. Intra- and interspecific variation in macaque molar enamel thickness[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2014, 155(3): 447-459
[22]	Martin LB. The relationships of the later Miocene Hominoidea[D]. PhD Dissertation, London: University College London, 1983
[23]	Kono RT. Molar enamel thickness and distribution patterns in extant great apes and humans: New insights based on a 3-dimensional whole crown perspective[J]. Anthropological Science, 2004, 112(2): 121-146
[24]	Crevecoeur I, Bayle P, Rougier H, et al. The Spy VI child: A newly discovered Neandertal infant[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2010, 59(6): 641-656
[25]	Toussaint M, Olejniczak AJ, El Zaatari S, et al. The Neandertal lower right deciduous second molar from Trou de l’Abime at Couvin, Belgium[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2010, 58(1): 56-67
[26]	Fornai C, Benazzi S, Svoboda J, et al. Enamel thickness variation of deciduous first and second upper molars in modern humans and Neanderthals[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2014, 76: 83-91
[27]	Arnaud J, Peretto C, Panetta D, et al. A reexamination of the Middle Paleolithic human remains from Riparo Tagliente, Italy[J]. Quaternary International, 2016, 425: 437-444
[28]	Fabbri PF, Panetta D, Sarti L, et al. Middle paleolithic human deciduous incisor from Grotta del Cavallo, Italy[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2016, 161(3): 506-512
[29]	Becam G, Chevalier T. Neandertal features of the deciduous and permanent teeth from Portel-Ouest Cave (Ariege, France)[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2019, 168(1): 45-69
[30]	Garralda MD, Maureille B, Le Cabec A, et al. The Neanderthal teeth from Marillac (Charente, Southwestern France): Morphology, comparisons and paleobiology[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2020, 138: 102683
[31]	Romandini M, Oxilia G, Bortolini E, et al. A late Neanderthal tooth from northeastern Italy[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2020, 147: 102867
[32]	Oxilia G, Bortolini E, Marciani G, et al. Direct evidence that late Neanderthal occupation precedes a technological shift in southwestern Italy[J]. American Journal of Biological Anthropology, 2022, 179(1): 18-30
[33]	Bayle P, Macchiarelli R, Trinkaus E, et al. Dental maturational sequence and dental tissue proportions in the early Upper Paleolithic child from Abrigo do Lagar Velho, Portugal[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010, 107(4): 1338-1342
[34]	Mahoney P. Testing functional and morphological interpretations of enamel thickness along the deciduous tooth row in human children[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2013, 151(4): 518-525
[35]	Zanolli C, Bayle P, Bondioli L, et al. Is the deciduous/permanent molar enamel thickness ratio a taxon-specific indicator in extant and extinct hominids?[J]. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 2017, 16(5-6): 702-714
[36]	Zanolli C, Bondioli L, Mancini L, et al. Brief communication: Two human fossil deciduous molars from the Sangiran dome (Java, Indonesia): Outer and inner morphology[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2012, 147(3): 472-481
[37]	Zanolli C, Bayle P, Macchiarelli R. Tissue proportions and enamel thickness distribution in the early Middle Pleistocene human deciduous molars from Tighenif, Algeria[J]. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 2010, 9(6-7): 341-348
[38]	Fornai C, Benazzi S, Gopher A, et al. The Qesem Cave hominin material (part 2): A morphometric analysis of dm₂-QC2 deciduous lower second molar[J]. Quaternary International, 2016, 398: 175-189
[39]	Garcia-Campos C, Modesto-Mata M, Martinon-Torres M, et al. Similarities and differences in the dental tissue proportions of the deciduous and permanent canines of Early and Middle Pleistocene human populations[J]. Journal of Anatomy, 2022, 240(2): 339-356
[40]	Macchiarelli R, Mazurier A, Illerhaus B, et al. Ouranopithecus macedoniensis (Mammalia, Primates, Hominoidea): Virtual reconstruction and 3D analysis of a juvenile mandibular dentition (RPI-82 and RPI-83)[J]. Geodiversitas, 2009, 31(4): 851-863
[41]	胡荣, 赵凌霞. 广西化石猩猩牙齿釉质厚度研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2015, 34(3): 404-416
[42]	Smith TM, Kupczik K, Machanda Z, et al. Enamel thickness in Bornean and Sumatran orangutan dentitions[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2012, 147(3): 417-426
[43]	Aiello LC, Montgomery C, Dean C. The natural history of deciduous tooth attrition in hominoids[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 1991, 21(5): 397-412
[44]	Zanolli C, Grine FE, Kullmer O, et al. The early Pleistocene deciduous hominid molar FS-72 from the Sangiran dome of Java, Indonesia: A taxonomic reappraisal based on its comparative endostructural characterization[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2015, 157(4): 666-674
[45]	Ortiz A, Schander-Triplett K, Bailey SE, et al. Enamel thickness variation in the deciduous dentition of extant large-bodied hominoids[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2020, 173(3): 500-513
[46]	Yi ZX, Zanolli C, Liao W, et al. Enamel thickness in the deciduous postcanine dentition of fossil and extant Pongo[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2024, 191: 103493
[47]	Gantt DG, Harris EF, Rafter JA, et al. Distribution of enamel thickness on human deciduous molars[A]. In: Brook A(ed). Dental morphology[C]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 167-190
[48]	Zanolli C, Kullmer O, Kelley J, et al. Evidence for increased hominid diversity in the Early to Middle Pleistocene of Indonesia[J]. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2019, 3(5): 755-764
[49]	Molnar S. Human tooth wear, tooth function and cultural variability[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1971, 34(2): 175-189
[50]	Benazzi S, Panetta D, Fornai C, et al. Technical note: Guidelines for the digital computation of 2D and 3D enamel thickness in hominoid teeth[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2014, 153(2): 305-313
[51]	Yi ZX, Liao W, Zanolli C, et al. A robust alternative to assessing three-dimensional relative enamel thickness for the use in taxonomic assessment[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2021, 174(3): 555-567
[52]	Benazzi S, Fornai C, Bayle P, et al. Comparison of dental measurement systems for taxonomic assignment of Neanderthal and modern human lower second deciduous molars[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2011, 61(3): 320-326
[53]	Olejniczak AJ, Smith TM, Feeney RNM, et al. Dental tissue proportions and enamel thickness in Neandertal and modern human molars[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2008, 55(1): 12-23
[54]	Buti L, Le Cabec A, Panetta D, et al. 3D enamel thickness in Neandertal and modern human permanent canines[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2017, 113: 162-172
[55]	Smith TM, Austin C, Hinde K, et al. Cyclical nursing patterns in wild orangutans[J]. Science Advances, 2017, 3(5): e1601517
[56]	Bayle P, Braga J, Mazurier A, et al. Brief communication: High-resolution assessment of the dental developmental pattern and characterization of tooth tissue proportions in the late Upper Paleolithic child from La Madeleine, France[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2009, 138(4): 493-498

更新世中晚期猩猩第四乳前臼齿的三维釉质厚度

Three-dimensional enamel thickness of the fourth deciduous premolars in Middle-to-Late Pleistocene Pongo

在线阅读

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 56

相关文章 13

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	孟紫阳, 杨雨薇, 廖卫, 王伟, 易智星. 鲁道古猿的三维釉质厚度和咬合力及其古食性指示意义[J]. 人类学学报, 2026, 45(02): 258-267.
[2]	姚艳燕, 艾婉婷, 胡敏航, 付琼耀, 李国山, 钟洁美, 胡鹏程, 黄胜敏, 田淳, 梁华, 廖卫, 王伟, 易智星. 广西崇左岩利1号洞早-中更新世过渡期的巨猿化石[J]. 人类学学报, 2026, 45(02): 199-209.
[3]	李三灵, 刘亚林, 赵文杰, 陈清懿, 李浩. 中国南方旧石器时代晚期石制品细小化现象初探[J]. 人类学学报, 2025, 44(06): 1034-1046.
[4]	廖卫. 中国南方猩猩化石的研究进展[J]. 人类学学报, 2024, 43(02): 199-213.
[5]	浣发祥, 杨石霞, 陈苇, 陈伟驹, 朱利东, 张玉修. 四川汉源富林遗址石制品再研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2023, 42(02): 177-190.
[6]	王恬怡, 赵东月, 张明, 乔诗雨, 杨帆, 万杨, 杨若薇, 曹鹏, 刘峰, 付巧妹. 古DNA捕获新技术与中国南方早期人群遗传研究新格局[J]. 人类学学报, 2020, 39(04): 680-694.
[7]	Anne DAMBRICOURT MALASSé;ZHANG Pu;Patricia WILS. A new molar from the Middle Pleistocene hominid assemblage of Yanhuidong, Tongzi, South China[J]. 人类学学报, 2018, 37(01): 1-17.
[8]	陈君;王頠;李大伟;廖卫. 广西田东中山遗址洞外岩厦出土动物骨骼的初步研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2017, 36(04): 527-536.
[9]	胡荣;赵凌霞. 广西化石猩猩牙齿釉质厚度研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2015, 34(03): 404-416.
[10]	陈少坤; 黄万波; 裴健; 贺存定; 秦利; 魏光飚; 冷静. 三峡地区最晚更新世的梅氏犀兼述中国南方更新世的犀牛化石[J]. 人类学学报, 2012, 31(04): 381-394.
[11]	王翠斌; 赵凌霞; 金昌柱; 胡耀武; 王昌燧. 中国更新世猩猩类牙齿化石的测量研究及其分类学意义[J]. 人类学学报, 2009, 28(02): 192-200.
[12]	金昌柱;郑家坚;王元;徐钦琦. 中国南方早更新世主要哺乳动物群层序对比和动物地理[J]. 人类学学报, 2008, 27(04): 304-317.
[13]	吴伟鸿;王宏;谭惠忠;张镇洪. 香港深涌黄地峒遗址试掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2006, 25(01): 56-67.