Ndoki gorillas
Marc Verhaegen
> Just to clarify an important point: both Pan species eat occasionally meat,
> eggs, insects, and are therefore omnivorous. But they are NOT carnivorous, as
> they diet is mainly vegetarian. Tigers are carnivorous, apes not.
> Renato Bender
Of course, Renato, DD meant they're more carnivorous than gorillas.
But did they develop hunting colobus monkeys after they split from our
ancestors, or before? In any case they hunt monkeys with large canines,
without tools, on 4 legs & in the trees, the opposite of what the savanna
hypothesis supposes.
--marc
>> Chimps don't sit in swamp eating Hydrocharis etc., instead they are
>> carnivorous and more dry-adapted, note that females have large estral
>> swellings.
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=iGfjJ4lKb1IC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=gorilla+ndo
>> ki+sitting+water&source=bl&ots=6I-aODjID_&sig=ZeQF09bKSzsj0W_nAF_hpSiQeuM&hl=
>> en&ei=3HzNSaCrBY6-tAPM09WgAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result
>> <http://books.google.com/books?id=iGfjJ4lKb1IC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&d
>> q=gorilla+ndoki+sitting+water&source=bl&ots=6I-aODjID_&sig=ZeQF09
>> bKSzsj0W_nAF_hpSiQeuM&hl=en&ei=3HzNSaCrBY6-tAPM09WgAw&sa=X&oi
>> =book_result&resnum=5>
>>
>> "This species (Hydrocharis) is found in large patches in deep swamps, and is
>> impossible to feed on without sitting in the water, a habit that seems to be
>> avoided by these chimpanzees. Thus swamp vegetation, occupying 15-20% of the
>> study area, is used almost exclusively by gorillas."
>>
>> Swamps of forest bais with few animals (no fish/meat so few crocs?) provide
>> sufficient protein to gorillas. Chimps get their protein from dry sources, or
>> shallow stream insects.
>>
>> Geladas: long tail, no air sac, dry green grass sit-foraging
>> Wetland gorillas: no tail, air sac, floating AHV, sit-foraging
>>
>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_8_108/ai_56183369
>>
>> "Through their efforts, the Nouabale-Ndoki National Park was created there in
>> 1993, and in this pristine forest sanctuary, we are finally getting an
>> opportunity to observe the western lowland gorilla's social life. Within the
>> park is a large clearing, probably created by elephants, that has become a
>> favorite meeting place and "salad bar" for gorillas, allowing us to observe
>> them in the open for the first time.
>>
>> Mbeli Bai (bai is a Pygmy word for "swampy clearing," pronounced "buy")
>> covers almost twenty-five acres and is rich in aquatic plants of the sedge
>> family. The bai may seem an unlikely place to find large congregations of
>> gorillas; less than fifteen years ago, zoologists beheved gorillas avoided
>> contact with water whenever possible. Yet at Mbeli, we commonly see all but
>> the youngest individuals sitting waist- or chest-deep in water as they feed
>> on the lush vegetation. Gorillas also use the partially aquatic habitat to
>> enhance their displays. On dry land, silverbacks (fully adult males
>> characterized by a "saddle" pattern of silver hair) frequently slap the
>> ground with their massive hands in an intimidation display that relies mostly
>> on the sharp sound for its effect. Near the water's edge at Mbeli, they use a
>> similar hand-slap technique to send great plumes of spray toward one another.
>> In addition to creating this impressive visual effect, some males have been
>> seen leaping into deep water, creating explosive splashes and waves. This
>> behavior has its risks, however. We once saw a male jump into water that was
>> deeper than he expected and become completely submerged. Apparently chastened
>> by his miscalculation, he then had to struggle awkwardly to reach the stream
>> bank.
>>
>> The average population density of gorillas in the forest surrounding the bai
>> is 1 individual per square mile, yet during the past four and a half years,
>> researchers have observed more than 150 individuals in this one clearing at
>> various times."
>>
>> Only one hominoid forage-dives and backfloats, humans.
>>
>> http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20050930/160_ap_gorilla_tool_05093
>> 0.jpg
>> http://www.citeulike.org/group/344/article/148546
rmacfarl
> > Just to clarify an important point: both Pan species eat occasionally meat,
> > eggs, insects, and are therefore omnivorous. But they are NOT carnivorous, as
> > they diet is mainly vegetarian. Tigers are carnivorous, apes not.
> > Renato Bender
>
> Of course, Renato, DD meant they're more carnivorous than gorillas.
> But did they develop hunting colobus monkeys after they split from our
> ancestors, or before? In any case they hunt monkeys with large canines,
> without tools, on 4 legs & in the trees, the opposite of what the savanna
> hypothesis supposes.
>
> --marc
>
Another irrelevant contribution from the macro-meister.
As I said last week - he's destined to become a paleoanthropological
irrelevancy - an obscure footnote to the discipline's history. I think
I'll just start calling him "the footnote" from now on, for the sake
of brevity...
Ross Macfarlane
Marc Verhaegen
>>> Just to clarify an important point: both Pan species eat occasionally meat,
>>> eggs, insects, and are therefore omnivorous. But they are NOT carnivorous,
>>> as they diet is mainly vegetarian. Tigers are carnivorous, apes not.
>>> Renato Bender
>> Of course, Renato, DD meant they're more carnivorous than gorillas.
>> But did they develop hunting colobus monkeys after they split from our
>> ancestors, or before? In any case they hunt monkeys with large canines,
>> without tools, on 4 legs & in the trees, the opposite of what the savanna
>> hypothesis supposes. --marc
as always: SFs toostupd to answer:
Lee Olsen
> >>> Just to clarify an important point: both Pan species eat occasionally meat,
> >>> eggs, insects, and are therefore omnivorous. But they are NOT carnivorous,
> >>> as they diet is mainly vegetarian. Tigers are carnivorous, apes not.
> >>> Renato Bender
> >> Of course, Renato, DD meant they're more carnivorous than gorillas.
> >> But did they develop hunting colobus monkeys after they split from our
> >> ancestors, or before? In any case they hunt monkeys with large canines,
> >> without tools, on 4 legs & in the trees, the opposite of what the savanna
> >> hypothesis supposes. --marc
>
> as always: SFs toostupd to answer:
As always, wetloons are too stupid to ask an intelligent question.
FYI Mr. Ignorant wetloon:
Chimp = 3% colobus = not enough animal products to alter C3 signature
of teeth.
Early Homo = 30% C4 diet (10X C4 than chimps).
Cut marked bones and stone tools are NOT found in trees.
Conclusion:
Chimps hunt in trees/no scavenge.
early Homo hunt/scavenge on savanna and open woodland where all the
evidence is.
Wetloons stupid.
>
>
>
> > Another irrelevant contribution from the macro-meister.
> > As I said last week - he's destined to become a paleoanthropological
> > irrelevancy - an obscure footnote to the discipline's history. I think
> > I'll just start calling him "the footnote" from now on, for the sake
> > of brevity...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marc Verhaegen
> As always, wetloons are too stupid to ask an intelligent question.
:-D
why should i ask a question to an imbecile like you??
grow up my little boy
Lee Olsen
<nothing>
See any water here, wetloon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9ARvGS3mhk&feature=related
No water = no littoral theory.
Marc Verhaegen
Lee Olsen
> SF thinks he's an indri:
Wetloon thinks he is sealion.
>
Want to see no water necessary for beginning of bipedalism again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9ARvGS3mhk&feature=related
No water = no AAT
Want to see a savanna runners footprint? No problem...
http://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt
Marc Verhaegen
Lee Olsen
<nothing>
I hope Algis' committee doesn't see this:
Tree + dry ground = bipedalism...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9ARvGS3mhk&feature=related
RichTravsky
>
> > Just to clarify an important point: both Pan species eat occasionally meat,
> > eggs, insects, and are therefore omnivorous. But they are NOT carnivorous, as
> > they diet is mainly vegetarian. Tigers are carnivorous, apes not.
> > Renato Bender
>
> Of course, Renato, DD meant they're more carnivorous than gorillas.
> But did they develop hunting colobus monkeys after they split from our
> ancestors, or before? In any case they hunt monkeys with large canines,
> without tools, on 4 legs & in the trees, the opposite of what the savanna
> hypothesis supposes.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n20_v147/ai_17128712/
Chimp the hunter - research of anthropologist Craig B. Stanford at the University
of Southern California in Los Angeles
[...]
The chimps in Stanford's ongoing studies kill 75 to 175 colobus
monkeys each year, as well as smaller numbers of young bushbuck
antelope, bushpigs, and other prey that usually weigh less than 20
pounds each. Kasakela chimps collectively eat as much as 1,200 pounds
of monkey meat annually. Meat makes up about 3 percent of the chimps'
diet.
[...]
Bushbucks, bushpigs, antelope don't live in trees.
See also his site
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
The Predatory Behavior and Ecology of Wild Chimpanzees
as well as his book
"The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior"
RichTravsky
Water, waterside not required for bipedality.
Marc Verhaegen
> Water, waterside not required for bipedality.
thanks for confirming my boy
Marc Verhaegen
>>> Just to clarify an important point: both Pan species eat occasionally meat,
>>> eggs, insects, and are therefore omnivorous. But they are NOT carnivorous,
>>> as they diet is mainly vegetarian. Tigers are carnivorous, apes not.
>>> Renato Bender
>> Of course, Renato, DD meant they're more carnivorous than gorillas.
>> But did they develop hunting colobus monkeys after they split from our
>> ancestors, or before? In any case they hunt monkeys with large canines,
>> without tools, on 4 legs & in the trees, the opposite of what the savanna
>> hypothesis supposes.
SFs confirm:
Lee Olsen
> SFs confirm:
Homo eats more animal products.
"The Turkana boy tells us that early H. erectus, besides being a tall
biped,
had arms and legs proportioned like a modern human's. For his height,
his
arms were not as long as those of Lucy, Lucy's Child or so far as we
know,
any other prior hominid. He lacked the apish details that, in earlier
bipeds,
suggest occasional tree climbing. The legs and hip bones of Homo
erectus
were buttressed by tremendous thickness and bulges, which denotes a
body geared toward endurance walking and running. An exclusive pact
had
been made with the terrestrial realm, and the boy's legs were
equipped to
cover ground in strides protracted in both length and hours."
Richard Potts from Humanity's Descent
W.-J. Wang and R. H. Crompton 2004
The role of load-carrying in the evolution of modern body
proportions
J. Anat. 204 pp417–430
"Our hypothesis
that there is a direct relationship between the acquisition
of modern postcranial proportions and increased
ranging/transport distances at around 1.8–1.5 Ma appears
to be borne out, although other selective factors, such
as thermoregulatory influences (see Ruff, 1991; Wheeler,
1992) and adaptations for throwing (see Dunsworth
et al. 2003), are likely to have played an important
(although probably interdependent) role."
Holger Preuschoft
Mechanisms for the acquisition of habitual bipedality:
are there biomechanical reasons for the acquisition of
upright bipedal posture?
J. Anat. 204 pp363–384
"Once bipedality has been acquired, development of typical human
morphology can readily be explained as adaptations for energy saving
over long distances. A paper in this volume
shows that load-carrying ability was enhanced from australopithecines
to Homo ergaster
(early African H. erectus),supporting an earlier proposition that
load-carrying was an essential factor in human evolution."
http://tinyurl.com/2n8y2n
Carl Zimmer, Science Novemer 19, 2004
"It may come as a surprise to hear that humans excel in running.
Obviously, a leopard can leave us in the dust in a short sprint.
But over longer distances leopards and most other mammals flag.
"Most mammals can't sustain a gallop over 10 to 15 minutes," says
Lieberman. Humans, on the other hand, can continue running for
hours while using relatively little energy. "Humans are phenomenal
endurance runners, in terms of speed, cost, and distance," says
Lieberman. You can actually outrun a pony easily." And yet, he
points out, "no other primates out there endurance run."
RichTravsky
:-D
RichTravsky
>
> > Water, waterside not required for bipedality.
>
> thanks for confirming my boy
Did you bother to read what you were responding to?
Marc Verhaegen
SF:
why should i bother what some imbecile writes??
Marc Verhaegen
>> Homo eats more animal products.
yes
Broadhurst, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2002). Brain-specific lipids from marine,
lacustrine, or terrestrial food resources: potential impact on early African
Homo sapiens. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, 131, 653-673.
Crawford, M., Bloom, M., et al. (1999). Evidence for the unique function of
DHA during the evolution of the modern hominid brain. Lipids, 34, S39-S47.
Crawford, M. A., & Sinclair, A. J. (1972). Nutritional influences in the
evolution of the mammalian brain. In K. Elliot & J. Knight (Eds.), Lipids,
malnutrition and the developing brain: A Ciba Foundation Symposium (19-21
October, 1971) (pp. 267- 292). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cunnane, S. (2005). Survival of the Fattest: The Key to Human Brain
Evolution. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.
Cunnane, S., Plourde, M., et al. (2007). Docosahexaenoic acid and
shore-based diets in hominin encephalization: a rebuttal. American Journal
of Human Biology, 19, 578-581.
Lee Olsen
> >> Homo eats more animal products.
>
> yes
and crocs eat Homo:
Davidson, I. & Solomon, S. (1990) Was OH 27 the victim of a crocodile
attack?. In Solomon, S., Davidson, I. & Watson, D. (eds) Problem
Solving in Taphonomy: Archaeological & Palaeontological Studies from
Europe, Africa & Oceania. Tempus 2. Anthropology Museum, University
of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland. 198 - 206.
"Mind you, its amazing how people can delude themselves into
believing the impossible! And I would put the: "nah I wont get taken
by a croc,
'cause the crocs are small and not there etc. into the class called:
'logical fantasies". This can be believed by the most "intelligent"
people, including Johanson! I was doing a dig at Alia Bay (south of
Koobi Fora) in '87, and each afternoon when we finished for the day,
we would go down to the shores of Lake Turkana and have a wash.
People
("intelligent white people") would throw themselves in the water and
swim and wash, I stayed at the back in knee deep water, praying that
if there were any crocs around at the time, they would take the
stupid
"B's" who were further out!" Su Solomon
"The fact that crocodiles co-existed in time and space with early
hominids
is a colossal blow to AAT, which does not explain what advantages
early
humans would have gained by spending time in crocodile-populated
waters;
an environment where they could not make fires, throw stones or
sticks,
use other tools, or have any hope whatever of escaping the most
common
predator. A troop of early hominids wading in a lakeshore or swampy
forest
would best be described as a crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good
images
of babies swimming freely in a pool, shown in the AAT video, have
nothing to
do with the real situation of predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the
Dasenich
or Turkana people who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting maniacs
swim
in that lake." Cameron M. Smith
or, if you don't like crocs, you can always go swimming in Lake
Naivasha, what a
pretty lake:
http://image26.webshots.com/26/9/31/22/277193122MEGuSe_fs.jpg
Marc Verhaegen
>>>> Homo eats more animal products.
>> yes
> and crocs eat Homo
so? tigers & bears eat Homo
largely irrelevant to Homo evolution:
Pachyosteosclerosis in Homo erectus and archaic Homo suggests exploitation
of sessile aquatic foods
Stephen Munro & Marc Verhaegen 2009
The cranial and postcranial bones of Homo erectus and other archaic Homo
fossils were typically massive, displaying generalised hyperostosis or
pachyosteosclerosis (pachyostosis, osteosclerosis & medullary stenosis).
No other primates, fossil or extant, including apes, australopithecines, and
Homo sapiens, display this remarkable feature, and even outside the primate
order, examples of animals with such heavy bones are rare.
Pachyosteosclerosis is often used to help identify H. erectus fossils, but
surprisingly few convincing hypotheses have been put forward to explain its
functional and adaptive significance.
We first show that unusually heavy skeletons were a typical, although not
exclusive nor indispensable, characteristic of Homo erectus and other
archaic Homo fossils of the early, middle and late Pleistocene (~1.8 Ma to
~10 ka) in areas of South and East Asia, Africa and Europe.
We then review the occurrence of massive bones in other tetrapods. This
suggests that they are more brittle than bones of a Śnormalą histology, and
that heavy bones have an important hydrostatic function in species that
regularly dive or wade in shallow water, and are part of a set of
adaptations that allows more efficient foraging for sessile foods such as
aquatic vegetation or hard-shelled invertebrates.
Therefore we consider whether H. erectus and other archaic Homo populations
might have been exceptions to the rule, or whether part-time shoreline
collection of sessile aquatic foods in relatively shallow waters might have
been possible when they dispersed to other continents along the coasts and
from there inland along lakes or rivers. A review of the palaeo-ecological
data shows that most, if not all, H. erectus fossils and tools are
associated with water-dependent edible molluscs and large bodies of
permanent water.
We discuss the alternative explanations for pachyosteosclerosis from the
literature including heavy exertion, endurance running, fighting with
large prey, or protection against intraspecific violence as well as the
apparent exceptions to the rule, such as thin-boned H. erectus (KNM-OL
45500) and thick-boned H. sapiens (Kow Swamp) fossils.
Since fresh and salt water habitats have different densities, we hypothesise
that in H. erectus as well as in some H. sapiens populations, there might
have been a positive correlation between massive bones and dwelling along
sea or salt lake shores. Arguably there existed cyclic adaptations during
the Pleistocene, with alternatingly Homo populations generally becoming more
littoral and more relying on shellfish on the continental shelves during
glacials (when sea levels were up to 120 metres lower than today) and
shifting, seasonally or more permanently, towards more inland waterside
dwelling during interglacials.
Lee Olsen
> >>>> Homo eats more animal products.
> >> yes
> > and crocs eat Homo
>
> so? tigers & bears eat Homo
Nope, not if you know what you are doing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kjWBgA81LM
You might want to watch all 4 episodes of this documentary:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=walking+with+lions&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
How not to deal with lions:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/376851/2283140
>
> largely irrelevant to Homo evolution:
Of course, because early Homo was smart enough to stay
out of the water.
Humans can deal with what they can see, it is what you don't
see is what gets you killed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiG3yokCOug
Marc Verhaegen
>>>>>> Homo eats more animal products
>>>> yes
>>> and crocs eat Homo
>> so? tigers & bears eat Homo
> Nope, not if you know what you are doing
not you apparently...
largely irrelevant to Homo evolution:
Pachyosteosclerosis in Homo erectus and archaic Homo suggests exploitation
Lee Olsen
> >>>>>> Homo eats more animal products
> >>>> yes
> >>> and crocs eat Homo
> >> so? tigers & bears eat Homo
> > Nope, not if you know what you are doing
>
> not you apparently...
snip, snip, no answer from the wetloon.
Lew Binford
Richard Kocan
Su Solomon
Mary Leakey
Cameron Smith
all have been there and worked in Africa. They have been there and say
different than
you and Algis, who have not been there. You know as much about lions
and crocs as you
do about mountain beavers....nothing.
After ca 20 years of failure to convince one professional
anthropologist of your AAT claims,
you land here on sap, the last stop to complete ruin and obscurity.
mclark
Funny, I was thinking the same thing
myself......
==============================
"With the AAT, you can have evidence or drama
but never both at once." L. Miller --05/26/2008
mclark
Marc Verhaegen
>>>>>>>> Homo eats more animal products
>>>>>> yes
>>>>> and crocs eat Homo
>>>> so? tigers & bears eat Homo
>>> Nope, not if you know what you are doing
>> not you apparently...
SF too stupid to answer:
> snip, snip, no answer from the wetloon.
> Lew Binford
> Richard Kocan
> Su Solomon
> Mary Leakey
> Cameron Smith
> all have been there and worked in Africa. They have been there and say
> different than
> you and Algis, who have not been there. You know as much about lions
> and crocs as you
> do about mountain beavers....nothing.
> After ca 20 years of failure to convince one professional
> anthropologist of your AAT claims,
> you land here on sap, the last stop to complete ruin and obscurity.
try to be a bit relevant little boy:
Pachyosteosclerosis in Homo erectus and archaic Homo suggests exploitation
of sessile aquatic foods
The cranial and postcranial bones of Homo erectus and other archaic Homo
fossils were typically massive, displaying generalised hyperostosis or
pachyosteosclerosis: extremely thick bones (pachyostosis), compact bone
cortices (osteosclerosis), and narrow marrow canals (medullary stenosis).
Lee Olsen
> >>>>>>>> Homo eats more animal products
> >>>>>> yes
> >>>>> and crocs eat Homo
> >>>> so? tigers & bears eat Homo
> >>> Nope, not if you know what you are doing
> >> not you apparently...
>
>
snip, snip, no answer from the wetloon.
> > Lew Binford
> > Richard Kocan
> > Su Solomon
> > Mary Leakey
> > Cameron Smith
> > all have been there and worked in Africa. They have been there and say
> > different than
> > you and Algis, who have not been there. You know as much about lions
> > and crocs as you
> > do about mountain beavers....nothing.
> > After ca 20 years of failure to convince one professional
> > anthropologist of your AAT claims,
> > you land here on sap, the last stop to complete ruin and obscurity.
>
> try to be a bit relevant little boy:
Another brainless no answer from the Wetloon.
>
> Pachyosteosclerosis in Homo erectus and archaic Homo suggests exploitation
> of sessile aquatic foods
Liar.
>
> The cranial and postcranial bones of Homo erectus and other archaic Homo
> fossils were typically massive,
Massive compared to what, wetloon?
>displaying generalised hyperostosis or
> pachyosteosclerosis: extremely thick bones (pachyostosis), compact bone
> cortices (osteosclerosis), and narrow marrow canals (medullary stenosis).
Try to stay relevant, Homo runs on their feet you idiot.
So, the wetloon fool thinks Homo e could not run, what an idiot.
> No other primates, fossil or extant, including apes, australopithecines, and
> Homo sapiens, display this remarkable feature, and even outside the primate
> order, examples of animals with such heavy bones are rare.
Here is a modern runners footprint:
http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A2123/212301/300_212301.jpg
Here is a Homo footprint from 1.5 mya:
http://tinyurl.com/cq49rn
See any difference moron? See any apes that have a runners footprint?
No? I
didn't think so.
I've seen enough rubbish from you today....snip
RichTravsky
You made a fool of yourself.
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > Water, waterside not required for bipedality.
>
> thanks for confirming my boy
Did you bother to read what you were responding to?
Marc Verhaegen
>>> Water, waterside not required for bipedality.
>> thanks for confirming my boy
> Did you bother to read what you were responding to?
did you??
Lee Olsen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/message/64
“As I explained to you, my English isn't very good,...”
RichTravsky
I wrote
Water, waterside not required for bipedality.
You replied
thanks for confirming