The cranial characters for the phylogenetic analysis were checked against the illustrated specimens, the postcranial characters of the Muller and Tsuji (2007) analysis against the well-preserved postcrania
of PIN 158/4 and PIN 162, and the braincase characters against the descriptions of Ivakhnenko (1979) for the elements that were not preserved in the cranial material studied for this analysis.
For both individuals, determination of age, sex, and pathology was carried out as well as documentation of morphological variation of nonmetric traits of the dentition and skeleton, along with metric measurements of the crania and postcrania
. Craniometric analysis was done, but, given the plastic distortion and postmortem breakage, many of the measurements were estimates, further supporting the decision to use a more reliable method of determination and description of population variation, the dentition.
Measurements were made on all available postcrania after Martin & Saller (1957).
Based on our comparative examination of the LM 3 postcrania, however, it is clear that LM 3 is not lightly built in the majority of the skeleton.
Forensic anthropologists often prefer bones to teeth in general and for ancestry estimation in particular (i.e., craniometrics, morphoscopic traits of crania and postcrania
(2001) report proboscidean postcrania
from the middle part of the Uquia Formation in northern Argentina, strata with a fission track age of ~ 2.5 Ma that have been correlated magnetostratigraphically to the upper part of the Gauss Chron (C2) (Reguero et al., 2007).