AL 288-1 - LUCY OR LUCIFER - GENDER CONFUSION IN THE PLIOCENE

Hausler & Schmid (1995) challenged the long held opinion that AL 288-1 (Australopithecus afarensis), popularly known as ''Lucy,'' was female . They concluded that AL 288-1 was most probably male (''Lucifer'') an d, by extension, the hypodigm for A. afarensis consists of two species which differ from one another in body size; in their opinion, AL 288- 1 was most probably a male of the smaller of the two species. Hausler & Schmid based their conclusion on an obstetric analysis of AL 288-1 a nd Sts 14 (A. africanus) and on a comparison of the two australopithec ine pelves with those of modern humans. This study evaluates the pelvi c anatomy and probable sex of AL 288-1 by both assessing the obstetric adequacy of its pelvis and critically reviewing Hausler & Schmid's (1 995, 1997) analyses of australopithecine pelvic dimorphism and relativ e body size of AL 288-1. Three results are shown. First, using Hausler & Schmid's own data, AL 288-1's and Sts 14's pelves are seen not to b e dimorphic with respect to each other, as are human males and females , but they are in fact comparable in both size and shape. Second, AL 2 88-1's pelvis would have been obstetrically adequate, even with an inf erred newborn brain size (as suggested by Hausler & Schmid) for A. afa rensis that is likely overestimated. Third, AL 288-1 is shown to be on e of the smallest adult individuals in A. afarensis. We conclude that AL 288-1 and Sts 14 were the same sex, and that the name ''Lucy'' corr ectly identifies AL 288-1's gender as female. (C) 1998 Academic Press.