Partially fossilized feet discovered in Burtela, a district in the Afar region of Ethiopia, have finally found an owner. The researchers determined that this piece belonged to 3.4 million years I’m not saying Australopithecusa species that not only lived in the same period but also in the same region as the famous Lucy (Australopithecus Afar), one of the most complex specimens found to date.
However, a study published in Nature notes that the two species had different lifestyles, which would have reduced competition between them. “Fossils have an opposable big toe, unlike bipedal hominids like Lucy. Its owner did not walk completely upright: he held on to branches,” the study details.
The story of Burtelet’s foot
In 2009, the same team of researchers discovered eight foot bones embedded between layers of sediment in the Afar region of Ethiopia. However, the fossils named “Bourtelet’s Foot” and presented in Nature in 2012, it could not be classified as a species because key elements such as teeth or parts of the skull, which are often important for definitive identification, were missing. “When we found the foot in 2009 and announced it in 2012, we knew it was different from the widely known Lucy look, Australopithecus afar”reminds author Johannes Haile-Selassie.
The bones found then corresponded to seven parts of the forefoot, such as the metatarsals and phalanges. At the time, the discovery was fundamental in demonstrating that more than one species coexisted in East Africa between three and four million years ago. A wise man.
Only in 2015 was announced the existence of a new species, I’m not saying Australopithecus. Then, in 2025, the authors resumed field work and found new fossils, jaw fragments, teeth and parts of the skull in the same area of Ethiopia, which can be safely attributed to Burtele’s foot.
What originally appeared to be pieces of prehistoric armor is now the oldest evidence of an animal’s magnetic navigation system.
Another relative
Despite the geographical and temporal proximity, the researchers note I’m not saying Australopithecus in Australopithecus Afar They had very different lifestyles. As for their teeth, the differences are found in the shape and pattern of their jaws. A. I don’t say It has more primitive teeth and a more durable and less derivative jaw than y A.without the definite crevices and structures typical of Lucy’s youthful jaw. His second and third molars are similar in size and shape A.but the canines and premolars show variations reflecting differences in diet and the manner of their bite.
The researchers confirmed the difference in diet by conducting an isotopic analysis of the teeth. A. had a more diverse diet, consuming plants that differed in the two types of carbon fixation in photosynthesis, C3 and C4, while A. I don’t say Feeds mainly on C3 plants. “I thought the differences between the diets A. I don’t say in A. it would be more difficult to identify, but the isotopic evidence makes it clear A. I don’t say did not have access to the same range of resources as A.which is the first hominid shown to use C4 plant-based food resources,” concludes Naomi Levine, co-author of the new study.
There were also important differences in displacement. This is evidenced by some fragments of the big toe A. I’m not saying He had a greater range of motion than Lucy, allowing him to move through the trees with ease. The other toes indicate that this species may have also hyperflexed the foot, allowing it to walk upright. “It’s a mixture of arboreal adaptation and bipedalism, which makes it really different from what we see A.Haile Selassie explained.
