Australopithecus Sediba at Malapa cave pit: Might this be evidence of a predatory siege/massacre?

[Claudius Denk]

Predatory Siege/Massacre
Australopithecus Sediba at Malapa cave pit

I just got done watching the National Geographic special entitled, Two
Million Year Old Boy. It is about the site of the discovery of
Australopithecus Sediba. It is a kind of trap-like cave pit in an
area called Malapa in South Africa. It is believed two individuals
(possibly contemporaries of each other) fell to their deaths here.

Berger, the scientists credited with the discovery, speculates on the
circumstances that led to these two individuals falling to their
deaths. He said the situation might have involved a drought
conditions and that water at the bottom of the pit might have drawn
them to risk climbing down. I don't think that was the situation. I
think this was the site of a predatory siege/massacre of the kind
indicated in my ecological gatekeeper hypothesis. Accordingly their
jumping or climbing down might have been their last desperate attempt
to escape.

There is also evidence of a third individual and the researchers seems
to be confident that several more will also be found.

They have also found fossil evidence of a sabertoothed cat and a
hyena.

The guardian did a piece on this last September. I posted a excerpt
below.

Friday September 9 2011
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/08/australopithecus-sediba...
It was a traumatic and lingering death. The adult female and young
male probably fell through a fissure in a cave roof and remained
alive
for days or weeks with little or no food before finally meeting their
end. The pair ? possibly a mother and her son ? were then washed by a
rainstorm into an underground pool where they gradually solidified
into rock.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 2, 9:16 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Predatory Siege/Massacre
> Australopithecus Sediba at Malapa cave pit

http://tinyurl.com/7xwmfhf

>
> I just got done watching the National Geographic special entitled, Two
> Million Year Old Boy.  It is about the site of the discovery of
> Australopithecus Sediba.  It is a kind of trap-like cave pit in an
> area called Malapa in South Africa.  It is believed two individuals
> (possibly contemporaries of each other) fell to their deaths here.
>
> Berger, the scientists credited with the discovery, speculates on the
> circumstances that led to these two individuals falling to their
> deaths.  He said the situation might have involved a drought
> conditions and that water at the bottom of the pit might have drawn
> them to risk climbing down.  I don't think that was the situation.  I
> think this was the site of a predatory siege/massacre of the kind
> indicated in my ecological gatekeeper hypothesis.  Accordingly their
> jumping or climbing down might have been their last desperate attempt
> to escape.
>
> There is also evidence of a third individual and the researchers seems
> to be confident that several more will also be found.
>
> They have also found fossil evidence of a sabertoothed cat and a
> hyena.
>
> The guardian did a piece on this last September.  I posted a excerpt
> below.
>
> Friday September 9 2011

> The Guardianhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/08/australopithecus-sediba...

[Claudius Denk]

In the documentary Berger talks about using Google Maps to find
potential hominid fossil sites. He indicated he was looking for treed
patches. Sound familiar?

I wonder where he got the idea for that?

[Lee Olsen]

Not at Laetoli. Anything else?

[Claudius Denk]

Why come to a discussion group if you don't want to discuss anything?

[Lee Olsen]

It has been discussed dozens of times. If you are suffering from
dementia what are you doing on this list?
Your MO: start new thread after ignoring cited evidence to the
contrary of your blunders, then come back with more of same
pretending you didn't get stuffed for the last ten years of getting
caught in making up tripe.
Your ignorance-based scenarios are not science, they aren't even good
science fiction.

From: "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net>
Subject: Re: Female Proclivaties and Capital Madness. [was: gradualism
sucks]
Date: 1999/06/21
Message-ID: <376ED09C...@thegrid.net>#1/1
Niccolo Caldararo:
"You really need to do some reading (and I've said this before). You
should read, and I mean read not just skim which seems to be the
thread of
your work here, Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth's Making Silent Stones
Speak
(1993). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data. You need
to
read the literature and find which ideas you have which are just plain
wrong
and which are worthy of development."

Dan Barnes:
"Unfortunately your theory is not in the position where it
can be directly addressed which is why a number of people
have suggested that the best thing you can do is do
substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and
come back again. This is what would happen if you were a
first year university student and I don't see why there
should be an exemption in your case."

Greg Laden:
"Jim: Regarding the above (culled) questions; Imagine yourself in a
graduate student seminar asking your professor these questions? Well,
I'm
not your professor, and you're not my student, but it is an
interesting
thought experiment. I think of myself as very thoughtful of my
students,
and helpful to them, but if a student came back at my questions or
comments
with this sort of response, I would be very unhappy, and there is no
telling what would happen!!! Read the stuff. If you have a vague
memory
of it, that is not good enough. You should be saying things like "No,
you
are wrong. McGrew is irrelevant, because...." etc.! I've given you
the
names of a half dozen scholars who have done important work related to
what
you are interested in. Hit the books, kid!"

Su Solomon:
"Jim I cannot see that this 'idea' of yours is in any ways much
different
to that which was posted almost a year ago on the old PalAnth List.
Once again we have unsubstantiated claims re your interepretation of
the
mechanisms of evolution and the palaeoanthropolgical literature.
I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four hundred words
of
your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
time,
then if is not evident in this latest of postings."

[Claudius Denk]

[Lee Olsen]

C.K Brain.... who demonstrated tree-climbing predators were dropping
A'pith victims into the caves from the trees above.
Trees have roots that can reach deep underground water tables (that
are sometimes found in and around cave systems).

PS: the careful reader will notice he said treed patches and not
garden-like patches.
The tree dependent apes did not make it to South Africa demonstrating
A'piths migrated there over the grasslands. The dates for A'piths up
north are far older than those in the south indicating direction of
movement.

[Claudius Denk]

Touche. Point taken. The "field" had long recognized caves as
sources of fossils in general. So I can't claim to have originated
the notion. (You can't blame me for trying.)

But eventually the current paradigm is going to have to come to grips
with the fact that they have greatly underestimated the degree to
which predation would have been a problem for the earliest (Late
Miocene & Pliocene) hominids.

Malapa was the scene of a last stand. The predatory siege and ensuing
predatory massacre of hominids (and any other forest dwelling creature
they could get to) probably continued for day or even weeks during the
dry season. They may have been the last holdouts of an A'pith
community with the caves (cave/pit) being their last resort from
certain death from being eaten by a hyena and/or sabertoothed cat. I
think its possible that the Sediba child and his mother were chased
down there at the onset of a predatory siege/massacre which may have
continued for days or weeks. I think it's also possible that they
ended up there as part of a larger communal group of hominids (Let's
say 10 to 30 individuals). This woman and child may have actually
died from complications of the larger scenario. The child with the
two broken arms may have died from injuries he incurred in the process
of fleeing to the caves for refuge when the predators first began to
attack the community. Others, including the women found close to the
boy, may have died of any number of factors related to the larger, and
sometimes long continuing, predatory siege: thirst, starvation,
disease, etc. as the larger group struggled against or simply waited
out the predators. Whether or not the final outcome in this instance
was a predatory massacre of the community or just a decimation of its
population is, of course, impossible to say from this point millions
of years later. But to me the scene of the crime screams out for
explanation as to why these individuals would been grouped in these
cave/pits and have died there with their remains remaining untouched
by predators/scavengers. .

> PS: the careful reader will notice he said treed patches and not
> garden-like patches.
> The tree dependent apes did not make it to South Africa demonstrating
> A'piths migrated there over the grasslands. The dates for A'piths up
> north are far older than those in the south indicating direction of
> movement.

You're saying that since they recolonized different areas that,
therefore, they regularly traveled through predator infested treeless
habitat? That's just not very logical. Why couldn't these
observations be much more parsimoniously explained by recolonization
along a path of linked communal sites over many generations? And then
we don't have to deal with the issue that these earliest hominids had
no chance of outrunning or outfighting the predators that dominated
the treeless habitat at that time (Late Miocene & Pliocene) and place
(east Africa) in hominid history.

[Lee Olsen]

[...]

> > > In the documentary Berger talks about using Google Maps to find
> > > potential hominid fossil sites.  He indicated he was looking for
> > > treed
> > > patches.  Sound familiar?
>
> > > I wonder where he got the idea for that?
>
> > C.K Brain.... who demonstrated tree-climbing predators were dropping
> > A'pith victims into the caves from the trees above.
> > Trees have roots that can reach deep underground water tables (that
> > are sometimes found in and around  cave systems).
>
> Touche.  Point taken.  The "field" had long recognized caves as
> sources of fossils in general.  So I can't claim to have originated
> the notion.  (You can't blame me for trying.)
>
> But eventually the current paradigm is going to have to come to grips
> with the fact that they have greatly underestimated the degree to
> which predation would have been a problem for the earliest (Late
> Miocene & Pliocene) hominids.

Why? The South African caves are loaded with A'pith bones in relation
to the number of predator fossils.
That changes when Homo bones show up. Then predator bones more or less
equal to Homo bones. So obviously either Homo left or Homo figured out
how to beat the predators. If Homo left, there should be a hiatus in
tools, but I don't remember if there is or not. Easy to check
however.
In Australopithecus sediba's case there is no evidence of predator's
related to the bones. Someone just fell in and another one fell in
trying to help the first one is one hypothesis.

>
> Malapa was the scene of a last stand.  The predatory siege and ensuing
> predatory massacre of hominids (and any other forest dwelling creature
> they could get to) probably continued for day or even weeks during the
> dry season.  They may have been the last holdouts of an A'pith
> community with the caves (cave/pit) being their last resort from
> certain death from being eaten by a hyena and/or sabertoothed cat.

These aren't walk-in to hide type caves, they are pits, natural
traps.

> I
> think its possible that the Sediba child and his mother were chased
> down there at the onset of a predatory siege/massacre which may have
> continued for days or weeks. I think it's also possible that they
> ended up there as part of a larger communal group of hominids (Let's
> say 10 to 30 individuals).  This woman and child may have actually
> died from complications of the larger scenario.  The child with the
> two broken arms may have died from injuries he incurred in the process
> of fleeing to the caves for refuge when the predators first began to
> attack the community.  Others, including the women found close to the
> boy, may have died of any number of factors related to the larger, and
> sometimes long continuing, predatory siege: thirst, starvation,
> disease, etc. as the larger group struggled against or simply waited
> out the predators. Whether or not the final outcome in this instance
> was a predatory massacre of the community or just a decimation of its
> population is, of course, impossible to say from this point millions
> of years later.

But isn't it rather odd both A'piths and saber tooths disappear from
the fossil record at roughly the same time?
Looks to me like they were both evolutionary dropouts in Africa.

> But to me the scene of the crime screams out for
> explanation as to why these individuals would been grouped in these
> cave/pits and have died there with their remains remaining untouched
> by predators/scavengers. .

Because they may have been smarter than to jump down a hole. Not so at
Le Brea tar pits where both beasts and prey could get trapped
together. Cat jumps on prey and they both are trapped in the goo.

>
> > PS: the careful reader will notice he said treed patches and not
> > garden-like patches.
> > The tree dependent apes did not make it to South Africa demonstrating
> > A'piths migrated there over the grasslands. The dates for A'piths up
> > north are far older than those in the south indicating direction of
> > movement.
>
> You're saying that since they recolonized different areas that,
> therefore, they regularly traveled through predator infested treeless
> habitat?  That's just not very logical.

Well, the lack of trees was a barrier to chimps. Even bonobos that are
south of the Congo River are trapped in the forests, they simply can't
function very far away from them.

> Why couldn't these
> observations be much more parsimoniously explained by recolonization
> along a path of linked communal sites over many generations?

Then why aren't there pockets of chimps (or recent fossils) in South
Africa if the treed habitat was unbroken?

>  And then
> we don't have to deal with the issue that these earliest hominids had
> no chance of outrunning or outfighting the predators that dominated
> the treeless habitat at that time (Late Miocene & Pliocene) and place
> (east Africa) in hominid history.

But the hominds in South Africa aren't the earliest hominids.
Australopithecus Sediba is less than two million years old,
so there isn't a problem to begin with. This overlaps in time with
Homo, so A. sediba can't be ancestoral.

[Claudius Denk]

IOW, you agree.

> That changes when Homo bones show up. Then predator bones more or less
> equal to Homo bones. So obviously either Homo left or Homo figured out
> how to beat the predators. If Homo left, there should be a hiatus in
> tools, but I don't remember if there is or not. Easy to check
> however.
> In Australopithecus sediba's case there is no evidence of predator's
> related to the bones. Someone just fell in and another one fell in
> trying to help the first one is one hypothesis.

Seems unlikely that more than one of them would fall down there at the
same time. Berger speculates that water is the draw. I speculate
that safety from predation is the draw.

> > Malapa was the scene of a last stand.  The predatory siege and ensuing
> > predatory massacre of hominids (and any other forest dwelling creature
> > they could get to) probably continued for day or even weeks during the
> > dry season.  They may have been the last holdouts of an A'pith
> > community with the caves (cave/pit) being their last resort from
> > certain death from being eaten by a hyena and/or sabertoothed cat.
>
> These aren't walk-in to hide type caves, they are pits, natural
> traps.

Yes, raising the question would more than one just happen to fall in
at the same time.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I
> > think its possible that the Sediba child and his mother were chased
> > down there at the onset of a predatory siege/massacre which may have
> > continued for days or weeks. I think it's also possible that they
> > ended up there as part of a larger communal group of hominids (Let's
> > say 10 to 30 individuals).  This woman and child may have actually
> > died from complications of the larger scenario.  The child with the
> > two broken arms may have died from injuries he incurred in the process
> > of fleeing to the caves for refuge when the predators first began to
> > attack the community.  Others, including the women found close to the
> > boy, may have died of any number of factors related to the larger, and
> > sometimes long continuing, predatory siege: thirst, starvation,
> > disease, etc. as the larger group struggled against or simply waited
> > out the predators. Whether or not the final outcome in this instance
> > was a predatory massacre of the community or just a decimation of its
> > population is, of course, impossible to say from this point millions
> > of years later.
>
> But isn't it rather odd both A'piths and saber tooths disappear from
> the fossil record at roughly the same time?

Are you sure about this?

> Looks to me like they were both evolutionary dropouts in Africa.

Well, it is interesting. If it's true.

> > But to me the scene of the crime screams out for
> > explanation as to why these individuals would been grouped in these
> > cave/pits and have died there with their remains remaining untouched
> > by predators/scavengers. .
>
> Because they may have been smarter than to jump down a hole.

Exactly. So they must have had a compelling reason if they did decide
to go into the pit/cave.

> Not so at
> Le Brea tar pits where both beasts and prey could get trapped
> together. Cat jumps on prey and they both are trapped in the goo.

Possibly.

>
>
>
> > > PS: the careful reader will notice he said treed patches and not
> > > garden-like patches.
> > > The tree dependent apes did not make it to South Africa demonstrating
> > > A'piths migrated there over the grasslands. The dates for A'piths up
> > > north are far older than those in the south indicating direction of
> > > movement.
>
> > You're saying that since they recolonized different areas that,
> > therefore, they regularly traveled through predator infested treeless
> > habitat?  That's just not very logical.
>
> Well, the lack of trees was a barrier to chimps. Even bonobos that are
> south of the Congo River are trapped in the forests, they simply can't
> function very far away from them.

Relevance?

>
>  > Why couldn't these
>
> > observations be much more parsimoniously explained by recolonization
> > along a path of linked communal sites over many generations?
>
> Then why aren't there pockets of chimps (or recent fossils) in South
> Africa if the treed habitat was unbroken?

Why would they have to be unbroken at all times?

>
> >  And then
> > we don't have to deal with the issue that these earliest hominids had
> > no chance of outrunning or outfighting the predators that dominated
> > the treeless habitat at that time (Late Miocene & Pliocene) and place
> > (east Africa) in hominid history.
>
> But the hominds in South Africa aren't the earliest hominids.
> Australopithecus Sediba is less than two million years old,
> so there isn't a problem to begin with. This overlaps in time with
> Homo, so A. sediba can't be ancestoral.

Possibly. But who cares.

[Lee Olsen]

Of course, did I ever say anything else?

>
> > That changes when Homo bones show up. Then predator bones more or less
> > equal to Homo bones. So obviously either Homo left or Homo figured out
> > how to beat the predators. If Homo left, there should be a hiatus in
> > tools, but I don't remember if there is or not. Easy to check
> > however.
> > In Australopithecus sediba's case there is no evidence of predator's
> > related to the bones. Someone just fell in and another one fell in
> > trying to help the first one is one hypothesis.
>
> Seems unlikely that more than one of them would fall down there at the
> same time.  Berger speculates that water is the draw.  I speculate
> that safety from predation is the draw.

If there are no tooth marks and only broken arms, what else would you
think?

>
> > > Malapa was the scene of a last stand.  The predatory siege and ensuing
> > > predatory massacre of hominids (and any other forest dwelling creature
> > > they could get to) probably continued for day or even weeks during the
> > > dry season.  They may have been the last holdouts of an A'pith
> > > community with the caves (cave/pit) being their last resort from
> > > certain death from being eaten by a hyena and/or sabertoothed cat.
>
> > These aren't walk-in to hide type caves, they are pits, natural
> > traps.
>
> Yes, raising the question would more than one just happen to fall in
> at the same time.

One person accidentally falls in and others fall in trying to save
the first one. Why is there a problem?
I'm surprised you haven't seized this as an opportunity to claim one
territorial A'pith group threw others
of their own kind down the hole as a penalty for tresspassing. Chimps
are very territorial, they patrol their garden-like patches and kill
intruders who invade their territory.

> > > I
> > > think its possible that the Sediba child and his mother were chased
> > > down there at the onset of a predatory siege/massacre which may have
> > > continued for days or weeks. I think it's also possible that they
> > > ended up there as part of a larger communal group of hominids (Let's
> > > say 10 to 30 individuals).  This woman and child may have actually
> > > died from complications of the larger scenario.  The child with the
> > > two broken arms may have died from injuries he incurred in the process
> > > of fleeing to the caves for refuge when the predators first began to
> > > attack the community.  Others, including the women found close to the
> > > boy, may have died of any number of factors related to the larger, and
> > > sometimes long continuing, predatory siege: thirst, starvation,
> > > disease, etc. as the larger group struggled against or simply waited
> > > out the predators. Whether or not the final outcome in this instance
> > > was a predatory massacre of the community or just a decimation of its
> > > population is, of course, impossible to say from this point millions
> > > of years later.
>
> > But isn't it rather odd both A'piths and saber tooths disappear from
> > the fossil record at roughly the same time?
>
> Are you sure about this?

Are there any saber tooths or A'piths living in your neighborhood?

>
> > Looks to me like they were both evolutionary dropouts in Africa.
>
> Well, it is interesting.  If it's true.


>
> > > But to me the scene of the crime screams out for
> > > explanation as to why these individuals would been grouped in these
> > > cave/pits and have died there with their remains remaining untouched
> > > by predators/scavengers. .
>
> > Because they may have been smarter than to jump down a hole.
>
> Exactly.  So they must have had a compelling reason if they did decide
> to go into the pit/cave.

Go into? Rather fall into. These were near-vertical shafts leading to
underground chambers.
If a tree-climbing predator dies in a tree, it falls into the pit just
like the bones of its victims.
http://tinyurl.com/7ppqmu5
They do get old at some point and teeth and claws get broken and they
slip and fall into the cave from above.

>
> > Not so at
> > Le Brea tar pits where both beasts and prey could get trapped
> > together. Cat jumps on prey and they both are trapped in the goo.
>
> Possibly.



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > PS: the careful reader will notice he said treed patches and not
> > > > garden-like patches.
> > > > The tree dependent apes did not make it to South Africa demonstrating
> > > > A'piths migrated there over the grasslands. The dates for A'piths up
> > > > north are far older than those in the south indicating direction of
> > > > movement.
>
> > > You're saying that since they recolonized different areas that,
> > > therefore, they regularly traveled through predator infested treeless
> > > habitat?  That's just not very logical.
>
> > Well, the lack of trees was a barrier to chimps. Even bonobos that are
> > south of the Congo River are trapped in the forests, they simply can't
> > function very far away from them.
>
> Relevance?

They came to the edge of the forest and couldn't get any further.
A'piths (and later Homo) preferred open woodlands and savannas
migrated right on through the open grasslands unimpeded.

>
>
>
> >  > Why couldn't these
>
> > > observations be much more parsimoniously explained by recolonization
> > > along a path of linked communal sites over many generations?
>
> > Then why aren't there pockets of chimps (or recent fossils) in South
> > Africa if the treed habitat was unbroken?
>
> Why would they have to be unbroken at all times?

Then you would have something before the LCA if you go back far enough
in time.
http://tinyurl.com/6wtjo2s

>
>
>
> > >  And then
> > > we don't have to deal with the issue that these earliest hominids had
> > > no chance of outrunning or outfighting the predators that dominated
> > > the treeless habitat at that time (Late Miocene & Pliocene) and place
> > > (east Africa) in hominid history.
>
> > But the hominds in South Africa aren't the earliest hominids.
> > Australopithecus Sediba is less than two million years old,
> > so there isn't a problem to begin with. This overlaps in time with
> > Homo, so A. sediba can't be ancestoral.
>
> Possibly.  But who cares.

So why are there so many A'pith fossils (several different species)
in these caves and so few Homo fossils?

[Claudius Denk]

On Feb 9, 7:55 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

> > > > But eventually the current paradigm is going to have to come to grips
> > > > with the fact that they have greatly underestimated the degree to
> > > > which predation would have been a problem for the earliest (Late
> > > > Miocene & Pliocene) hominids.
>
> > > Why? The South African caves are loaded with A'pith bones in relation
> > > to the number of predator fossils.
>
> > IOW, you agree.
>
> Of course, did I ever say anything else?

Maybe it was the way you stated, "Why?" above that threw me off.

> > > That changes when Homo bones show up. Then predator bones more or less
> > > equal to Homo bones. So obviously either Homo left or Homo figured out
> > > how to beat the predators. If Homo left, there should be a hiatus in
> > > tools, but I don't remember if there is or not. Easy to check
> > > however.
> > > In Australopithecus sediba's case there is no evidence of predator's
> > > related to the bones. Someone just fell in and another one fell in
> > > trying to help the first one is one hypothesis.
>
> > Seems unlikely that more than one of them would fall down there at the
> > same time.  Berger speculates that water is the draw.  I speculate
> > that safety from predation is the draw.
>
>  If there are no tooth marks and only broken arms, what else would you
> think?

Lee you're becoming so agreeable I'm somewhat flabbergasted.

> > > > Malapa was the scene of a last stand.  The predatory siege and ensuing
> > > > predatory massacre of hominids (and any other forest dwelling creature
> > > > they could get to) probably continued for day or even weeks during the
> > > > dry season.  They may have been the last holdouts of an A'pith
> > > > community with the caves (cave/pit) being their last resort from
> > > > certain death from being eaten by a hyena and/or sabertoothed cat.
>
> > > These aren't walk-in to hide type caves, they are pits, natural
> > > traps.
>
> > Yes, raising the question would more than one just happen to fall in
> > at the same time.

They've already found evidence of a third individual. And they seem
confident they'll find more as they continue to work the site.

>  One person accidentally falls in and others fall in trying to save
> the first one. Why is there a problem?
>  I'm surprised you haven't seized this as an opportunity to claim one
> territorial A'pith group threw  others
> of their own kind down the hole as a penalty for tresspassing. Chimps
> are very territorial, they patrol their garden-like patches and kill
> intruders who invade their territory.

Well . . .

> > > > I
> > > > think its possible that the Sediba child and his mother were chased
> > > > down there at the onset of a predatory siege/massacre which may have
> > > > continued for days or weeks. I think it's also possible that they
> > > > ended up there as part of a larger communal group of hominids (Let's
> > > > say 10 to 30 individuals).  This woman and child may have actually
> > > > died from complications of the larger scenario.  The child with the
> > > > two broken arms may have died from injuries he incurred in the process
> > > > of fleeing to the caves for refuge when the predators first began to
> > > > attack the community.  Others, including the women found close to the
> > > > boy, may have died of any number of factors related to the larger, and
> > > > sometimes long continuing, predatory siege: thirst, starvation,
> > > > disease, etc. as the larger group struggled against or simply waited
> > > > out the predators. Whether or not the final outcome in this instance
> > > > was a predatory massacre of the community or just a decimation of its
> > > > population is, of course, impossible to say from this point millions
> > > > of years later.
>
> > > But isn't it rather odd both A'piths and saber tooths disappear from
> > > the fossil record at roughly the same time?
>
> > Are you sure about this?
>
> Are there any saber tooths or A'piths living in your neighborhood?

Actually, I'm not disputing your expertise as much as I'm striving for
confirmation your statements accuracy. It's a provocative statement,
whatever the case. Very interesting. It brings one to wonder if this
is not coincidental . . . and?

> > > Looks to me like they were both evolutionary dropouts in Africa.
>
> > Well, it is interesting.  If it's true.
>
> > > > But to me the scene of the crime screams out for
> > > > explanation as to why these individuals would been grouped in these
> > > > cave/pits and have died there with their remains remaining untouched
> > > > by predators/scavengers. .
>
> > > Because they may have been smarter than to jump down a hole.
>
> > Exactly.  So they must have had a compelling reason if they did decide
> > to go into the pit/cave.
>
> Go into? Rather fall into. These were near-vertical shafts leading to
> underground chambers.
> If a tree-climbing predator dies in a tree, it falls into the pit just

> like the bones of its victims.http://tinyurl.com/7ppqmu5

> They do get old at some point and teeth and claws get broken and they
> slip and fall into the cave from above.

True. It could have been just an accident. And considering the
breadth of time anything could happen. But if further evidence
reveals even more than the three individuals identified so far it will
seem less likely.

> > > Not so at
> > > Le Brea tar pits where both beasts and prey could get trapped
> > > together. Cat jumps on prey and they both are trapped in the goo.
>
> > Possibly.
>
> > > > > PS: the careful reader will notice he said treed patches and not
> > > > > garden-like patches.
> > > > > The tree dependent apes did not make it to South Africa demonstrating
> > > > > A'piths migrated there over the grasslands. The dates for A'piths up
> > > > > north are far older than those in the south indicating direction of
> > > > > movement.
>
> > > > You're saying that since they recolonized different areas that,
> > > > therefore, they regularly traveled through predator infested treeless
> > > > habitat?  That's just not very logical.
>
> > > Well, the lack of trees was a barrier to chimps. Even bonobos that are
> > > south of the Congo River are
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[RichTravsky]

You mean google earth, don't you?

> potential hominid fossil sites. He indicated he was looking for treed
> patches. Sound familiar?
>
> I wonder where he got the idea for that?

Reasearchers have been aerial photos for decades...

[RichTravsky]

Yes, we can, where, for example, do you think the term "cave man" came from?

DUH?

> But eventually the current paradigm is going to have to come to grips
> with the fact that they have greatly underestimated the degree to
> which predation would have been a problem for the earliest (Late
> Miocene & Pliocene) hominids.

And yet, we humans are here...

You have a very full fantasy life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapa_Fossil_Site,_Cradle_of_Humankind
...
Geology

They are preserved in a hard, concrete-like substance known as calcified
clastic sediments that formed at the bottom of what appears to be a
shallow underground lake or pool that was possibly as much as 50 metres
(160 ft) underground at the time. It is not known how these skeletons
came to be in this pool, but it appears that they may have taken a
significant fall. No carnivores or scavengers reached their bodies.
...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5975/205.abstract
Geological Setting and Age of Australopithecus sediba from Southern Africa

Abstract

We describe the geological, geochronological, geomorphological, and faunal
context of the Malapa site and the fossils of Australopithecus sediba. The
hominins occur with a macrofauna assemblage that existed in Africa between
2.36 and 1.50 million years ago (Ma). The fossils are encased in water-laid,
clastic sediments that were deposited along the lower parts of what is now
a deeply eroded cave system, immediately above a flowstone layer with a
U-Pb date of 2.026 ą 0.021 Ma. The flowstone has a reversed paleomagnetic
signature and the overlying hominin-bearing sediments are of normal
polarity, indicating deposition during the 1.95- to 1.78-Ma Olduvai Subchron.
The two hominin specimens were buried together in a single debris flow that
lithified soon after deposition in a phreatic environment inaccessible to
scavengers.

> > PS: the careful reader will notice he said treed patches and not
> > garden-like patches.
> > The tree dependent apes did not make it to South Africa demonstrating
> > A'piths migrated there over the grasslands. The dates for A'piths up
> > north are far older than those in the south indicating direction of
> > movement.
>
> You're saying that since they recolonized different areas that,
> therefore, they regularly traveled through predator infested treeless
> habitat? That's just not very logical. Why couldn't these

Australopithecines ranged all over Africa. Do you think they flew?

[Claudius Denk]

Yes, I mean Google earth.

> > potential hominid fossil sites.  He indicated he was looking for treed
> > patches.  Sound familiar?
>
> > I wonder where he got the idea for that?
>
> Reasearchers have been aerial photos for decades...

If you say so.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 9, 7:30 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 7:55 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 8:41 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > But eventually the current paradigm is going to have to come to grips
> > > > > with the fact that they have greatly underestimated the degree to
> > > > > which predation would have been a problem for the earliest (Late
> > > > > Miocene & Pliocene) hominids.
>
> > > > Why? The South African caves are loaded with A'pith bones in relation
> > > > to the number of predator fossils.
>
> > > IOW, you agree.
>
> > Of course, did I ever say anything else?
>
> Maybe it was the way you stated, "Why?" above that threw me off.

And why would "Why?" throw you off?

>
> > > > That changes when Homo bones show up. Then predator bones more or less
> > > > equal to Homo bones. So obviously either Homo left or Homo figured out
> > > > how to beat the predators. If Homo left, there should be a hiatus in
> > > > tools, but I don't remember if there is or not. Easy to check
> > > > however.
> > > > In Australopithecus sediba's case there is no evidence of predator's
> > > > related to the bones. Someone just fell in and another one fell in
> > > > trying to help the first one is one hypothesis.
>
> > > Seems unlikely that more than one of them would fall down there at the
> > > same time.  Berger speculates that water is the draw.  I speculate
> > > that safety from predation is the draw.
>
> >  If there are no tooth marks and only broken arms, what else would you
> > think?
>
> Lee you're becoming so agreeable I'm somewhat flabbergasted.

Gee, since I'm agreeing with Berger, not your predator carnage idea,
I'm wondering why you would agree with us at all?

>
> > > > > Malapa was the scene of a last stand.  The predatory siege and ensuing
> > > > > predatory massacre of hominids (and any other forest dwelling creature
> > > > > they could get to) probably continued for day or even weeks during the
> > > > > dry season.  They may have been the last holdouts of an A'pith
> > > > > community with the caves (cave/pit) being their last resort from
> > > > > certain death from being eaten by a hyena and/or sabertoothed cat.
>
> > > > These aren't walk-in to hide type caves, they are pits, natural
> > > > traps.
>
> > > Yes, raising the question would more than one just happen to fall in
> > > at the same time.
>
> They've already found evidence of a third individual.  And they seem
> confident they'll find more as they continue to work the site.

Yes, but these caves are full of ALL kinds of bones, maybe A'piths
were running after small ungulates and while chasing the animals on
the savanna, naturally in the confusion a few hominds fell into the
pit as the animals did who were running scared not watching where they
were going. This is evidence of everyone running of course. The stray
(and vary rare) saber tooth just happened by after the mass running of
the bulls (pun) to scavenge what was left over from the surface
carnage caused by the mass of dead animals on the surface that hadn't
fallen in also. Just a hypothetical assertion you know.

>
> >  One person accidentally falls in and others fall in trying to save
> > the first one. Why is there a problem?
> >  I'm surprised you haven't seized this as an opportunity to claim one
> > territorial A'pith group threw  others
> > of their own kind down the hole as a penalty for tresspassing. Chimps
> > are very territorial, they patrol their garden-like patches and kill
> > intruders who invade their territory.
>
> Well . . .

So you have no rebuttal to my hypothetical assertion?

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > I
> > > > > think its possible that the Sediba child and his mother were chased
> > > > > down there at the onset of a predatory siege/massacre which may have
> > > > > continued for days or weeks. I think it's also possible that they
> > > > > ended up there as part of a larger communal group of hominids (Let's
> > > > > say 10 to 30 individuals).  This woman and child may have actually
> > > > > died from complications of the larger scenario.  The child with the
> > > > > two broken arms may have died from injuries he incurred in the process
> > > > > of fleeing to the caves for refuge when the predators first began to
> > > > > attack the community.  Others, including the women found close to the
> > > > > boy, may have died of any number of factors related to the larger, and
> > > > > sometimes long continuing, predatory siege: thirst, starvation,
> > > > > disease, etc. as the larger group struggled against or simply waited
> > > > > out the predators. Whether or not the final outcome in this instance
> > > > > was a predatory massacre of the community or just a decimation of its
> > > > > population is, of course, impossible to say from this point millions
> > > > > of years later.
>
> > > > But isn't it rather odd both A'piths and saber tooths disappear from
> > > > the fossil record at roughly the same time?
>
> > > Are you sure about this?
>
> > Are there any saber tooths or A'piths living in your neighborhood?
>
> Actually, I'm not disputing your expertise as much as I'm striving for
> confirmation your statements accuracy.

Well, it's pretty obvious both went extinct at some time. If you have
evidence for a later time, then please reference it. And remember,
Africa is not America. There were no homids in the Americas until
late, so the saber tooths survived a lot longer. When Homo finnally
did show up, the sabers disappeared once again for a second time! Now
isn't that a coincidence?

>  It's a provocative statement,
> whatever the case.  Very interesting.  It brings one to wonder if this
> is not coincidental . . . and?

Homo killed them both off, I thought that was obvious. Competitive
exclusion and all that stuff. This of course opened the door for the
modern pride lions with the nitch left open by the extintion of the
sabers. The reason modern pride lions sprint so fast evolved to get
away from Homo. This hypothetical scenario for the last 2.5 million
years or so explains nicely what your scenario fails to account for.
Ramond Dart's bloodthirsty A'piths as killers was discounted by C.K.
Brain, but we all know how bloodthirsty and violent Homo is today.
Homo, not A'piths are the real killers.

All hypothetical of course, but better explains what we are today than
the competing scenarios.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Looks to me like they were both evolutionary dropouts in Africa.
>
> > > Well, it is interesting.  If it's true.
>
> > > > > But to me the scene of the crime screams out for
> > > > > explanation as to why these individuals would been grouped in these
> > > > > cave/pits and have died there with their remains remaining untouched
> > > > > by predators/scavengers. .
>
> > > > Because they may have been smarter than to jump down a hole.
>
> > > Exactly.  So they must have had a compelling reason if they did decide
> > > to go into the pit/cave.
>
> > Go into? Rather fall into. These were near-vertical shafts leading to
> > underground chambers.
> > If a tree-climbing predator dies in a tree, it falls into the pit just
> > like the bones of its victims.http://tinyurl.com/7ppqmu5
> > They do get old at some point and teeth and claws get broken and they
> > slip and fall into the cave from above.
>
> True.  It could have been just an accident.  And considering the
> breadth of time anything could happen.

Right on.

>  But if further evidence
> reveals even more than the three individuals identified so far it will
> seem less likely.

Not at all. Remember, we are trying our best to falsify as good
scientists do. If a lot of time whent by, then surely predator teeth
and chew marks will turn up if predators were involved at all, just as
C.K. Brain found in the cave he excavated.

So we just have to wait and see until all the data is analyzed before
coming to any firm conclusions.

[Claudius Denk]

It's the obscurantism in your approach that causes the confusion.

> > > > > > Malapa was the scene of a last stand.  The predatory siege and ensuing
> > > > > > predatory massacre of hominids (and any other forest dwelling creature
> > > > > > they could get to) probably continued for day or even weeks during the
> > > > > > dry season.  They may have been the last holdouts of an A'pith
> > > > > > community with the caves (cave/pit) being their last resort from
> > > > > > certain death from being eaten by a hyena and/or sabertoothed cat.
>
> > > > > These aren't walk-in to hide type caves, they are pits, natural
> > > > > traps.
>
> > > > Yes, raising the question would more than one just happen to fall in
> > > > at the same time.
>
> > They've already found evidence of a third individual.  And they seem
> > confident they'll find more as they continue to work the site.
>
> Yes, but these caves are full of ALL kinds of bones, maybe A'piths
> were running after small ungulates and  while chasing the animals on
> the savanna, naturally in the confusion a few hominds fell into the
> pit as the animals did who were running scared not watching where they
> were going. This is evidence of everyone running of course.  The stray
> (and vary rare) saber tooth just happened by after the mass running of
> the bulls (pun) to scavenge what was left over from the surface
> carnage caused by the mass of dead animals on the surface that hadn't
> fallen in also. Just a hypothetical assertion you know.

Yep.

> > >  One person accidentally falls in and others fall in trying to save
> > > the first one. Why is there a problem?
> > >  I'm surprised you haven't seized this as an opportunity to claim one
> > > territorial A'pith group threw  others
> > > of their own kind down the hole as a penalty for tresspassing. Chimps
> > > are very territorial, they patrol their garden-like patches and kill
> > > intruders who invade their territory.
>
> > Well . . .
>
> So you have no rebuttal to my hypothetical assertion?

It's possible.

> late, so the saber tooths survived a lot longer. When Homo finally

> did show up, the sabers disappeared once again for a second time! Now
> isn't that a coincidence?

Very interesting.

I'm starting to wonder if sabertoothed cats were associated with treed
habitat only.

>
> >  It's a provocative statement,
> > whatever the case.  Very interesting.  It brings one to wonder if this
> > is not coincidental . . . and?
>
> Homo killed them both off, I thought that was obvious. Competitive
> exclusion and all that stuff.

Competitive exclusion would suffice only if Sabertooted cats were
associated with treed habitat exclusively.

> This of course opened the door for the
> modern pride lions with the nitch left open by the extintion of the
> sabers. The reason modern pride lions sprint so fast evolved to get
> away from Homo.

You can't actually believe this.

> This hypothetical scenario for the last 2.5 million
> years or so explains nicely what your scenario fails to account for.
> Ramond Dart's bloodthirsty A'piths as killers  was discounted by C.K.
> Brain, but we all know how bloodthirsty and violent Homo is today.
> Homo, not A'piths are the real killers.
>
> All hypothetical of course, but better explains what we are today than
> the competing scenarios.

It doesn't seem especially explanatory. How does it explain the
social adaptations that are so prominent in our species, for example.

> > > > > Looks to me like they were both evolutionary dropouts in Africa.
>
> > > > Well, it is interesting.  If it's true.
>
> > > > > > But to me the scene of the crime screams out for
> > > > > > explanation as to why these individuals would been grouped in these
> > > > > > cave/pits and have died there with their remains remaining untouched
> > > > > > by predators/scavengers. .
>
> > > > > Because they may have been smarter than to jump down a hole.
>
> > > > Exactly.  So they must have had a compelling reason if they did decide
> > > > to go into the pit/cave.
>
> > > Go into? Rather fall into. These were near-vertical shafts leading to
> > > underground chambers.
> > > If a tree-climbing predator dies in a tree, it falls into the pit just
> > > like the bones of its victims.http://tinyurl.com/7ppqmu5
> > > They do get old at some point and teeth and claws get broken and they
> > > slip and fall into the cave from above.
>
> > True.  It could have been just an accident.  And considering the
> > breadth of time anything could happen.
>
> Right on.

It's the preponderance of the collective evidence of hominid evolution
that is ultimately the tie-breaker as to interpretation of the
validity of the competing hypothetical explanations of this new
evidence. I'm sure you would agree that my hypothetical scenario does
a better job of explaining the origins of the a species that would
eventually become capable of very sophisticated forms of agriculture,
for example.

> >  But if further evidence
> > reveals even more than the three individuals identified so far it will
> > seem less likely.
>
> Not at all. Remember, we are trying our best to falsify as good
> scientists do. If a lot of time whent by, then surely predator teeth
> and chew marks will turn up if predators were involved at all, just as
> C.K. Brain found in the  cave he excavated.
>
> So we just have to wait and see until all the data is analyzed before
> coming to any firm conclusions.

Further analysis isn't going to tell us much more than we know
already.

[Lee Olsen]

How so, he says accident, no tooth marks to infer saber tooths. I
don't see how cats or gardens get in the mix at all.
Just because there is a cat in the pit along with mostly other
animals, only shows the cat fell in too.

Another odd thing about the La Brea pits. The only human bones found
there were that of a young girl with her skull bashed in, dog bones,
and the only boulder in that particular pit was found next to her
also. Now that is violence that had nothing to do with saber tooths.

>
> I'm starting to wonder if sabertoothed cats were associated with treed
> habitat only.

Was this hominid dead or alive before the saber got it?
http://tinyurl.com/7fah29g
There are several types of sabers, the smaller one looks like it could
climb trees, but I haven't seen anything in print about it.

>
>
>
> > >  It's a provocative statement,
> > > whatever the case.  Very interesting.  It brings one to wonder if this
> > > is not coincidental . . . and?
>
> > Homo killed them both off, I thought that was obvious. Competitive
> > exclusion and all that stuff.
>
> Competitive exclusion would suffice only if Sabertooted cats were
> associated with treed habitat exclusively.
>
> > This of course opened the door for the
> > modern pride lions with the nitch left open by the extintion of the
> > sabers. The reason modern pride lions sprint so fast evolved to get
> > away from Homo.
>
> You can't actually believe this.

Do you have anything to refute it? I mean look how easy it is for
modern humans to get a kill away from a lion.
Hadza have a 100% success rate. Lions have been bullied by us for a
long time.

>
> > This hypothetical scenario for the last 2.5 million
> > years or so explains nicely what your scenario fails to account for.
> > Ramond Dart's bloodthirsty A'piths as killers  was discounted by C.K.
> > Brain, but we all know how bloodthirsty and violent Homo is today.
> > Homo, not A'piths are the real killers.
>
> > All hypothetical of course, but better explains what we are today than
> > the competing scenarios.
>
> It doesn't seem especially explanatory.  How does it explain the
> social adaptations that are so prominent in our species, for example.

Like murder and war?

No, actually your scenario doen't do anything to separate us from
chimps. Our teeth and short intestines reflect a lot of animal
products in our past and little (but some) veggies. No garden-like
plot can explain that.

[Claudius Denk]

It may have been the scene of many battles between predators and
A'pith over thousands and thousands of years.

Did they carbon-date the young girl?

>
>
>
> > I'm starting to wonder if sabertoothed cats were associated with treed
> > habitat only.
>
> Was this hominid dead or alive before the saber got it?http://tinyurl.com/7fah29g

My guess is it was dead and--possibly--being hauled up a tree.

> There are several types of sabers, the smaller one looks like it could
> climb trees,  but I haven't seen anything in print about it.

Interesting. And then there's the issue of what exactly was the
purpose of those long fangs.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >  It's a provocative statement,
> > > > whatever the case.  Very interesting.  It brings one to wonder if this
> > > > is not coincidental . . . and?
>
> > > Homo killed them both off, I thought that was obvious. Competitive
> > > exclusion and all that stuff.
>
> > Competitive exclusion would suffice only if Sabertooted cats were
> > associated with treed habitat exclusively.
>
> > > This of course opened the door for the
> > > modern pride lions with the nitch left open by the extintion of the
> > > sabers. The reason modern pride lions sprint so fast evolved to get
> > > away from Homo.
>
> > You can't actually believe this.
>
> Do you have anything to refute it?

Other than common sense? No.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Lee Olsen]

If it was, it looks like they both lost, since they are both extinct.

9000. Which makes her younger than the last known saber-tooth.

>
>
>
> > > I'm starting to wonder if sabertoothed cats were associated with treed
> > > habitat only.
>
> > Was this hominid dead or alive before the saber got it?http://tinyurl.com/7fah29g
>
> My guess is it was dead and--possibly--being hauled up a tree.

So then saber tooths (at least some species) could climb trees.

>
> > There are several types of sabers, the smaller one looks like it could
> > climb trees,  but I haven't seen anything in print about it.
>
> Interesting.  And then there's the issue of what exactly was the
> purpose of those long fangs.

I don't know, but reconstructions show they could open wide.

>
>
>
> > > > >  It's a provocative statement,
> > > > > whatever the case.  Very interesting.  It brings one to wonder if this
> > > > > is not coincidental . . . and?
>
> > > > Homo killed them both off, I thought that was obvious. Competitive
> > > > exclusion and all that stuff.
>
> > > Competitive exclusion would suffice only if Sabertooted cats were
> > > associated with treed habitat exclusively.
>
> > > > This of course opened the door for the
> > > > modern pride lions with the nitch left open by the extintion of the
> > > > sabers. The reason modern pride lions sprint so fast evolved to get
> > > > away from Homo.
>
> > > You can't actually believe this.
>
> > Do you have anything to refute it?
>
> Other than common sense? No.

I guess the only thing to do is wait and see what Berger comes up with
next at the cave, then after that the site report.

[Claudius Denk]

Seems like a possibility.

>
>
>
> > > There are several types of sabers, the smaller one looks like it could
> > > climb trees,  but I haven't seen anything in print about it.
>
> > Interesting.  And then there's the issue of what exactly was the
> > purpose of those long fangs.
>
> I don't know, but reconstructions show they could open wide.

I guess the prevailing theory has to do with piercing the thickened
skin of some of their prey.

>
>
>
> > > > > >  It's a provocative statement,
> > > > > > whatever the case.  Very interesting.  It brings one to wonder if this
> > > > > > is not coincidental . . . and?
>
> > > > > Homo killed them both off, I thought that was obvious. Competitive
> > > > > exclusion and all that stuff.
>
> > > > Competitive exclusion would suffice only if Sabertooted cats were
> > > > associated with treed habitat exclusively.
>
> > > > > This of course opened the door for the
> > > > > modern pride lions with the nitch left open by the extintion of the
> > > > > sabers. The reason modern pride lions sprint so fast evolved to get
> > > > > away from Homo.
>
> > > > You can't actually believe this.
>
> > > Do you have anything to refute it?
>
> > Other than common sense? No.
>
> I guess the only thing to do is wait and see what Berger comes up with
> next at the cave, then after that the site report.

I suppose,

[Lee Olsen]

Yeah. And I saw a program years ago about some anthros that welded
steel saber-like teeth on a little backhoe and ripped some dead
buffalo to see how they worked. I forgot what the conclusions were.


Then there is this:
http://tinyurl.com/4h7lme7

[Tom McDonald]

On 2/11/2012 1:20 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> On Feb 11, 8:46 am, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 6:41 pm, Lee Olsen<paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 4:48 pm, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 10, 3:06 pm, Lee Olsen<paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 10, 10:56 am, Claudius Denk<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But eventually the current paradigm is going to have to come to grips
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the fact that they have greatly underestimated the degree to
>>>>>>>>>>>> which predation would have been a problem for the earliest (Late

>>>>>>>>>>>> Miocene& Pliocene) hominids.

IIRC, they discovered that the best use of the teeth was to pierce and
tear the throat of a prey animal--not to bite the back of the neck or
any other part of the spine. But biting the throat both cut large blood
vessels and crushed the windpipe of the prey.

But the long teeth are narrow laterally, and would break if they were
used on hard parts of large prey. I think that was one of the reasons
stated as to why most successors in the large cat niche had lion-like,
more conical, canine teeth. They're much sturdier, and less liable to
breakage.

[Claudius Denk]

Which brings up the question as to why they evolved in the
first place. The benefits of having such specialized teeth
must have greatly outweighed their (now) obvious limitations.
And what you stated above about cutting large blood vessels
and crushing windpipe of prey makes too much sense to not
be true, IMO. I can only assume that the reason this
sabertooth was adaptive is because their preferred prey must
have been large, tall, heavy, strong, and plentiful--or some
combination thereof. I bet these prey species weren't
especially fast or fierce. And they were probably fruit eaters
rather than grazers or browsers. I think these and other
similar species were driven into extinction as a result of being
driven out of their preferred habitat by hominids, making them
easy prey for sabertoothed cats and other predators. After
these prey species went extinct the sabertooths of the
sabertoothed cats no longer had a functional benefit that
would outweigh the limitations. So, hominids did not cause
sabertoothed cats to go extinct directly. Hominids caused
sabertoothed cats to go extinct indirectly by causing
sabertoothed cats preferred prey to go extinct.

> > Then there is this:
> >http://tinyurl.com/4h7lme7

Wow.

[Lee Olsen]

On Feb 11, 12:01 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

Sounds reasonable.

[RichTravsky]

Aerial surveying is still in use.

[Claudius Denk]

You anthro groupies a full of all kinds of amazing knowledge.

[RichTravsky]

You anthro groupies are so ignorant.

[RichTravsky]