Planet Earth

Ludwig in the Sky With Diamonds


Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Was our famous australopithecine ancestor Lucy really a man? After anthropologists excavated her 3-million-year-old skeleton in Ethiopia in 1974--and named her for a Beatles song playing at the site on the discovery day--they soon became convinced it was female. Why? Lucy is small compared with other specimens of Australopithecus afarensis found at the same site. But a pair of paleoanthropologists from the University of Zurich have now called Lucy’s femininity into question. Martin Häusler and Peter Schmid compared casts of Lucy’s reconstructed pelvis (center) with a modern woman’s pelvis (bottom) and the cast of another australopithecine specimen from South Africa (top). At least 13 of Lucy’s features--most notably the promontorium, a ridge at the rear of the pelvis that makes it heart shaped--say male. The researchers also found that an australopithecine baby’s head probably could not have fit through Lucy’s pelvic opening, as shown here. (The skulls in the two nonhuman pelvises are human baby skulls scaled down to the likely size of an australopithecine baby’s head, of which no fossils exist.) So Lucy may have been male--or a member of an entirely different species. Should her name be changed? Häusler and Schmid suggest Lucifer as an alternative. Or maybe Ludwig, says Schmid. But that’s too German.

1 free article left
Want More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/month

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

1 free articleSubscribe
Discover Magazine Logo
Want more?

Keep reading for as low as $1.99!


Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

More From Discover
Recommendations From Our Store
Shop Now
Stay Curious
Our List

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

To The Magazine

Save up to 70% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

Copyright © 2023 Kalmbach Media Co.