Diet In 1954, Robinson suggested that the heavily built skull of
Paranthropus (at the time only including
P. robustus) was indicative of a
specialist diet specifically adapted for processing a narrow band of foods. Because of this, the predominant model of
Paranthropus extinction for the latter half of the 20th century was that it was unable to adapt to the volatile climate of the
Pleistocene, unlike the much more adaptable
Homo. However, in 1981, English anthropologist
Alan Walker found that the microwearing patterns on the molars were inconsistent with a diet high in hard foods, and were effectively indistinguishable from the pattern seen in the molars of fruit-eating (
frugivorous)
mandrills,
chimpanzees and
orangutans. The microwearing on
P. boisei molars is different from that on
P. robustus molars, and indicates that
P. boisei, unlike
P. robustus, very rarely ever ate hard foods. Patterns of tooth chipping in
P. boisei further demonstrate against the hypothesis that it fed on hard, brittle foods.
Carbon isotope analyses report a diet of predominantly
C4 plants, such as low quality and abrasive grasses and sedges, a finding bolstered by more indirect evidence that
P. boisei went extinct during a time of significant shrinkage of C4 grasslands in Africa. Thick enamel is consistent with grinding abrasive foods. Since then, hominin exploitation of USOs has gained more support. In 2005, biological anthropologists
Greg Laden and
Richard Wrangham proposed that
Paranthropus relied on USOs as a fallback or possibly primary food source, and noted that there may be a correlation between high USO abundance and hominin occupation. In this model,
P. boisei may have been a generalist feeder with a predilection for USOs, Like modern chimps and baboons, australopithecines likely foraged for food in the cooler morning and evening instead of in the heat of the day.
Social structure In 1979, American biological anthropologist
Noel T. Boaz noticed that the relative proportions between large mammal families at the Shungura Formation are quite similar to the proportion in modern-day across sub-Saharan Africa. Boaz believed that hominins would have had about the same population density as other large mammals, which would equate to 0.006–1.7 individuals per square kilometre (0.4 square mile). Alternatively, by multiplying the density of either bovids, elephants, or hippos by the percentage of hominin remains out of total mammal remains found at the formation, Boaz estimated a density of 0.001–2.58 individuals per square kilometre. Biologist Robert A. Martin considered population models based on the number of known specimens to be flimsy. In 1981, Martin applied equations formulated by ecologists Alton S. Harestad and Fred L. Bunnel in 1979 to estimate the home range and population density of large mammals based on weight and diet, and, using a weight of , he got: and 0.769 individual per square kilometre if herbivorous; and 0.077 individual if omnivorous; and and 0.0004 individual if carnivorous. For comparison, he calculated and 0.104 individual per square kilometre for omnivorous, chimps. skulls A 2017 study postulated that, because male non-human
great apes have a larger sagittal crest than females (particularly gorillas and orangutans), the crest may be influenced by
sexual selection in addition to supporting chewing muscles. Further, the size of the sagittal crest (and the
gluteus muscles) in male
western lowland gorillas has been correlated with reproductive success. They extended their interpretation of the crest to the males of
Paranthropus species, with the crest and resultantly larger head (at least in
P. boisei) being used for some kind of
display. This contrasts with other primates which flash the typically engorged canines in agonistic display (the canines of
Paranthropus are comparatively small). However, it is also possible that male gorillas and orangutans require larger temporalis muscles to achieve a wider gape to better display the canines.
Development Australopithecines are generally considered to have had a faster,
apelike growth rate than modern
humans largely due to dental development trends. Broadly speaking, the emergence of the first permanent molar in early hominins has been variously estimated anywhere from 2.5 to 4.5 years of age, which all contrast markedly with the modern human average of 5.8 years. The tips of the mesial cusps of the 1st molar (on the side closest to the premolar) of KNM-ER 1820 were at about the same level as the cervix (where the enamel meets the
cementum) of its non-permanent 2nd premolar. In baboons, this stage occurs when the 1st molar is about to erupt from the gums. The
tooth root is about , which is similar to most other hominins at this stage. In contrast, the root of the
P. robustus specimen SK 62 was when emerging through the
dental alveolus (an earlier stage of development than gum emergence), so, unless either specimen is abnormal,
P. robustus may have had a higher tooth-root formation rate. The specimen's 1st molar may have erupted 2–3 months before death, so possibly at 2.7–3.3 years of age. In modern apes (including humans), dental development trajectory is strongly correlated with life history and overall growth rate, but it is possible that early hominins simply had a faster dental trajectory and slower life history due to environmental factors, such as early weaning age exhibited in modern
indriid lemurs. ==Palaeoecology==