S.Afr.apiths ate 90% sedges?
Marc Verhaegen
"Differential resource utilization by extant great apes and
australopithecines: towards solving the C4 conundrum"
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 136:27-34
Sedges have also received attention as a potential C4 food
for australopithecines. Conklin-Brittain et al. (2002) argued that a trend
towards dessication in the Pliocene eroded forests and ultimately forced
australopithecines into new, more open habitats. Although the degree,
manner, and timing of this deterioration is a matter of some debate, the
fact that it occurred is not (Vrba, 1985; DeMenocal, 1995; Feibel, 1997).
Conklin-Brittain et al. (2002) reasoned that this loss of forest habitat
forced australopithecines into environments that were most similar to their
ancestral forest habitats, namely wetlands, swamps and river margins. Sedges
are readily available in these environments and have been argued to be among
the possible sources of the C signal in australopithecines (Sponheimer and
Lee-Thorp, 1999a; Conklin-Brittain et al., 2002). Some sedges have
underground storage organs that have protein levels equal to those of most
chimpanzee foods (9% crude protein), but much lower fiber levels (16% fiber)
than foods consumed by chimpanzees (33%) (Conklin-Brittain et al., 2002).
Equally important, these underground parts are abundant yet inaccessible to
most other mammals, making sedges a high-quality resource for which there is
very little competition. Thus, the regular inclusion of sedges in
australopithecine diets would represent an increase in dietary quality over
extant great apes. But how likely is it that the observed C signal in early
hominids was derived from C sedges? Approximately 33% of the world's sedges
use the C4 photosynthetic pathway, many of which are found in tropical
African environments (Sage et al., 1999). It is wrong to assume, however,
that all or even most sedges available to australopithecines would have
utilized the C4 pathway. A recent survey of sedges in South Africa showed
that only approximately 40% of available sedges use C4 photosynthesis
(Stock, personal communication). Moreover, we recently gathered sedges from
a variety of localities in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Only 43% of
the sedges we encountered utilized C4 photosynthesis (Fig. 2). Conit would
appear that, in South Africa at least, australopithecines would have had to
have been extreme sedge specialists to explain the 33% C4 signature observed
in most individuals. More specifically, if we accept that approximately 40%
of the sedges that hominids encountered used the C4 pathway, over 90% of
their diet would have had to have been sedges to account for a 33% C4
signature. These data suggest that even if sedges did comprise an important
resource for early hominids, they were likely supplemented with other C4
foods. Alternatively, if other C4 foods were not consumed,
australopithecines would have had to have been true sedge specialists to
account for the strong C4 signatures observed in most specimens.
Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Spiznet
"C4 plants are most common in (but not limited to) disturbed areas in
the tropics and subtropics and in semiarid areas, where their greater
water use efficiency may confer a selective advantage. Some of the
most productive crop species (eg corn and sugar cane) are C4 grasses.
It is interesting that C4 photosynthesis is not limited to one part of
the plant kingdom but occurs across widely different families. Within
a single genera, some species may be able to carry out C4
photosynthesis, while others are not."
- Terrestrial Ecosystems 2ed, 2001 Aber Melillo p108
According to the above quote, quite a few plants could account for the
apith C4, why are they assuming it had anything at all to do with
sedges? (Not to EXCLUDE sedges, but) this is not a strong very case
made by Sponheimer below...
Apith might have lived in swamps >> there are lots of sedges in swamps
>> some sedges contain C4 >> apith diet shows C4)
It would be a stronger case if C4 were only found in swamps or only in
sedges. The above quote specifies arid and woodland C4 plants also.
-Mark
"Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<
Ross Macfarlane
> Marc-
>
> "C4 plants are most common in (but not limited to) disturbed areas in
> the tropics and subtropics and in semiarid areas, where their greater
> water use efficiency may confer a selective advantage. Some of the
> most productive crop species (eg corn and sugar cane) are C4 grasses.
> It is interesting that C4 photosynthesis is not limited to one part of
> the plant kingdom but occurs across widely different families. Within
> a single genera, some species may be able to carry out C4
> photosynthesis, while others are not."
> - Terrestrial Ecosystems 2ed, 2001 Aber Melillo p108
>
>
> According to the above quote, quite a few plants could account for the
> apith C4, why are they assuming it had anything at all to do with
> sedges? (Not to EXCLUDE sedges, but) this is not a strong very case
> made by Sponheimer below...
>
> Apith might have lived in swamps >> there are lots of sedges in swamps
> >> some sedges contain C4 >> apith diet shows C4)
>
> It would be a stronger case if C4 were only found in swamps or only in
> sedges. The above quote specifies arid and woodland C4 plants also.
>
> -Mark
What Marc's selective radar has overlooked is Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp's
clear implication that it's highly UNlikely that sedges alone could
account for the C4 spectrum in australopiths.
It's clear from the abstract that there's a choice of causes for the
high C4 - either "australopithecines would have had to have been
extreme sedge specialists", or "if sedges did comprise an important
resource for early hominids, they were likely supplemented with other
C4 foods".
*Likely* supplemented with other C4 foods. Get it Marc?
Marc, in his usual way, has ignored evidence to the contrary and
selectively trumpeted a strand of evidence which supports his extreme
AAH biases. Hence his original subject line, which is quite misleading
as to the abstract's actual content...
Ross Macfarlane
Marc Verhaegen
"Spiznet" <ma...@spiznet.com> wrote in message
news:cb2e44af.03101...@posting.google.com...
> It would be a stronger case if C4 were only found in swamps or only in
sedges. The above quote specifies arid and woodland C4 plants also.
Spiznet, I suggest you read the original paper. As everybody knows (eg,
Sponh< as well as our papers) savanna grasses give a totally different
microwear - not seen in apiths.
Marc Verhaegen
"Ross Macfarlane" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:18fa6145.03101...@posting.google.com...
> What Marc's selective radar has overlooked is Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp's
clear implication that it's highly UNlikely that sedges alone could account
for the C4 spectrum in australopiths. It's clear from the abstract that
there's a choice of causes for the high C4 - either "australopithecines
would have had to have been extreme sedge specialists", or "if sedges did
comprise an important resource for early hominids, they were likely
supplemented with other C4 foods". *Likely* supplemented with other C4
foods. Get it Marc?
Sedges & wertland plants were already suggested by electron microsc.stuides
on microwear years before Sponh<. Why do you think apiths were bipedal if
not to wade in swamps to get these plants? Get it??
Michael Clark
>
> "Spiznet" <ma...@spiznet.com> wrote in message
> news:cb2e44af.03101...@posting.google.com...
>
> > It would be a stronger case if C4 were only found in swamps or only in
> sedges. The above quote specifies arid and woodland C4 plants also.
>
> Spiznet, I suggest you read the original paper. As everybody knows (eg,
> Sponh< as well as our papers) savanna grasses give a totally different
> microwear - not seen in apiths.
Marco is lying here. He has no idea what microwear is associated with
what plant. If he had, he would quote the peer-reviewed source.
[...]
Michael Clark
>
> "Ross Macfarlane" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:18fa6145.03101...@posting.google.com...
>
> > What Marc's selective radar has overlooked is Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp's
> clear implication that it's highly UNlikely that sedges alone could
account
> for the C4 spectrum in australopiths. It's clear from the abstract that
> there's a choice of causes for the high C4 - either "australopithecines
> would have had to have been extreme sedge specialists", or "if sedges did
> comprise an important resource for early hominids, they were likely
> supplemented with other C4 foods". *Likely* supplemented with other C4
> foods. Get it Marc?
>
> Sedges & wertland plants were already suggested by electron
microsc.stuides
> on microwear years before Sponh<. Why do you think apiths were bipedal
if
> not to wade in swamps to get these plants? Get it??
Marco lies here, too. Unsupported premise, meaningless conclusion.
[Matt Sponheimer & Julia A Lee-Thorp 2003]
Gerrit Hanenburg
>> What Marc's selective radar has overlooked is Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp's
>clear implication that it's highly UNlikely that sedges alone could account
>for the C4 spectrum in australopiths. It's clear from the abstract that
>there's a choice of causes for the high C4 - either "australopithecines
>would have had to have been extreme sedge specialists", or "if sedges did
>comprise an important resource for early hominids, they were likely
>supplemented with other C4 foods". *Likely* supplemented with other C4
>foods. Get it Marc?
>Sedges & wertland plants were already suggested by electron microsc.stuides
>on microwear years before Sponh<. Why do you think apiths were bipedal if
>not to wade in swamps to get these plants? Get it??
As already pointed out earlier, Sr87/Sr86 isotopic ratios at
Swartkrans discriminate between "riverine" and "open veld"
environments (Lee-Thorpe 2002).
The Sr87/Sr86 data of hominids at Swartkrans fall into the "open veld"
range (with Wildebeest, Hyrax, and Gelada).
"The lack of riverine foraging suggested by the Sr87/Sr86 data
militates against one class of (possibly) edible and less
phytolith-rich plants, namely sedges, which grow in damp areas"
(Lee-Thorpe 2002).
This makes it very unlikely that the apith diet consisted for 90% of
sedges.
Lee-Thorpe, J. (2002). Hominid Dietary Niches from Proxy Chemical
Indicators in Fossils: The Swartkrans Example. In "Human Diet: Its
Origin and Evolution", P. Ungar & M. Teaford (Eds.), Bergin & Garvey
pp. 123-141.
Gerrit
Bob Keeter
"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in message
news:1702pv4kt66ib8nfn...@4ax.com...
Snippage. . . . . .
> >Sedges & wertland plants were already suggested by electron
microsc.stuides
> >on microwear years before Sponh<. Why do you think apiths were bipedal
if
> >not to wade in swamps to get these plants? Get it??
First off, lets consider what this REALLY suggests. The lack of phytolyth
"scarring" simply eliminates one option in terms of the source for the
carbon isotopic findings. The remaining options, i.e. sedges (which have
fewer phytolyths than dryland grasses) or animals (which have no phytolyths
but can in turn eat sedges or grasses). Those are the two options, and this
particular little piece of data on microwear analysis can not distinguish
between the two!
> As already pointed out earlier, Sr87/Sr86 isotopic ratios at
> Swartkrans discriminate between "riverine" and "open veld"
> environments (Lee-Thorpe 2002).
> The Sr87/Sr86 data of hominids at Swartkrans fall into the "open veld"
> range (with Wildebeest, Hyrax, and Gelada).
> "The lack of riverine foraging suggested by the Sr87/Sr86 data
> militates against one class of (possibly) edible and less
> phytolith-rich plants, namely sedges, which grow in damp areas"
> (Lee-Thorpe 2002).
> This makes it very unlikely that the apith diet consisted for 90% of
> sedges.
So, lets see, C isotopes say "grasses, sedges or animals that eat those
materials". Microwear analyses eliminates grasses because of the
phytolyths, leaving sedges or animal sources for the carbon. Then the
strongtium says dry land which eliminates the sedges! We are left with. . .
. 8-)
But then selective "analysis" of data points has been a shelter for the
lunatic fringes for a long time!
> Lee-Thorpe, J. (2002). Hominid Dietary Niches from Proxy Chemical
> Indicators in Fossils: The Swartkrans Example. In "Human Diet: Its
> Origin and Evolution", P. Ungar & M. Teaford (Eds.), Bergin & Garvey
> pp. 123-141.
>
> Gerrit
Gerrit, argueing with good old Marc is a waste. His idea of scientific
logic and reason is whatever disregard, contortion or distortion of the
facts that does not conclusively disprove his pathetic pet ideas!
Regards
bk
Gerrit Hanenburg
>> As already pointed out earlier, Sr87/Sr86 isotopic ratios at
>> Swartkrans discriminate between "riverine" and "open veld"
>> environments (Lee-Thorpe 2002).
>> The Sr87/Sr86 data of hominids at Swartkrans fall into the "open veld"
>> range (with Wildebeest, Hyrax, and Gelada).
>> "The lack of riverine foraging suggested by the Sr87/Sr86 data
>> militates against one class of (possibly) edible and less
>> phytolith-rich plants, namely sedges, which grow in damp areas"
>> (Lee-Thorpe 2002).
>> This makes it very unlikely that the apith diet consisted for 90% of
>> sedges.
>So, lets see, C isotopes say "grasses, sedges or animals that eat those
>materials". Microwear analyses eliminates grasses because of the
>phytolyths, leaving sedges or animal sources for the carbon. Then the
>strongtium says dry land which eliminates the sedges! We are left with. . .
>. 8-)
And per implication it also eliminates significant amounts of fish and
shellfish which have an isotopic signal that reflects their aquatic
habitat.
>But then selective "analysis" of data points has been a shelter for the
>lunatic fringes for a long time!
>> Lee-Thorpe, J. (2002). Hominid Dietary Niches from Proxy Chemical
>> Indicators in Fossils: The Swartkrans Example. In "Human Diet: Its
>> Origin and Evolution", P. Ungar & M. Teaford (Eds.), Bergin & Garvey
>> pp. 123-141.
>Gerrit, argueing with good old Marc is a waste. His idea of scientific
>logic and reason is whatever disregard, contortion or distortion of the
>facts that does not conclusively disprove his pathetic pet ideas!
Tell me about it.
I'm not so much arguing with Marc as I'm providing information for
those people here who are still reasonable.
Gerrit
Michael Clark
[..]
> I'm not so much arguing with Marc as I'm providing information for
> those people here who are still reasonable.
Every darn one of your posts is a *gem*. Please don't take
up needlecraft or move to Patagonia any time soon.
> Gerrit
Philip Deitiker
<G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote:
>>So, lets see, C isotopes say "grasses, sedges or animals that eat those
>>materials". Microwear analyses eliminates grasses because of the
>>phytolyths, leaving sedges or animal sources for the carbon. Then the
>>strongtium says dry land which eliminates the sedges! We are left with. . .
>>. 8-)
grasshoppers, dung beetles, seed bird eggs, termites . . . .
>>Gerrit, argueing with good old Marc is a waste. His idea of scientific
>>logic and reason is whatever disregard, contortion or distortion of the
>>facts that does not conclusively disprove his pathetic pet ideas!
In this case it was not a waste, at least I did not know
about the Sr data and I am guessing many others here didn't
either. However, I also have to point out the recently
Africanus has been named a grassland specialist, and while
many are trying to shove africanus into proto-homo lineage I
don't see this yet as a probable argument.
Bob Keeter
Snippage. . .
> Tell me about it.
> I'm not so much arguing with Marc as I'm providing information for
> those people here who are still reasonable.
>
> Gerrit
And a few of us, even those of us whose "reasonablility" would be questioned
by at least a carefully selected and hopefully somewhat limited group of the
"locals", thank you!
Hang in there!
Regards
bk
Marc Verhaegen
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> as usual is lying in message
news:vp0q4l3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > What Marc's selective radar has overlooked is Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp's
clear implication that it's highly UNlikely that sedges alone could account
for the C4 spectrum in australopiths. It's clear from the abstract that
there's a choice of causes for the high C4 - either "australopithecines
would have had to have been extreme sedge specialists", or "if sedges did
comprise an important resource for early hominids, they were likely
supplemented with other C4 foods". *Likely* supplemented with other C4
foods. Get it Marc?
> > Sedges & wetland plants were already suggested by electron
microsc.stuides on microwear years before Sponh<. Why do you think apiths
were bipedal if not to wade in swamps to get these plants? Get it??
> Marco lies here, too.
Onnozelaar:
P-F.Puech 1984 "Acidic-food choice in Homo habilis at Olduvai" Current
Anthropology 25: 349-350
-- 1992 "Microwear studies of early African hominid teeth" Scanning
Microscopy 6: 1083-1088
M.Verhaegen 1992. Did robust australopithecines partly feed on hard parts of
Gramineae? Human Evolution 7: 63-64
-- & Puech 2000 "Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered:
paleo-environmental and comparative data" Human Evolution 15: 175-186
, P-F.Puech & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 17: 212-217
Marc Verhaegen
> >> What Marc's selective radar has overlooked is Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp's
clear implication that it's highly UNlikely that sedges alone could account
for the C4 spectrum in australopiths. It's clear from the abstract that
there's a choice of causes for the high C4 - either "australopithecines
would have had to have been extreme sedge specialists", or "if sedges did
comprise an important resource for early hominids, they were likely
supplemented with other C4 foods". *Likely* supplemented with other C4
foods. Get it Marc?
> >Sedges & wetland plants were already suggested by electron
microsc.stuides on microwear years before Sponh<.
P-F.Puech 1984 "Acidic-food choice in Homo habilis at Olduvai" Current
Anthropology 25: 349-350
-- 1992 "Microwear studies of early African hominid teeth" Scanning
Microscopy 6: 1083-1088
M.Verhaegen 1992. Did robust australopithecines partly feed on hard parts of
Gramineae? Human Evolution 7: 63-64
-- & Puech 2000 "Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered:
paleo-environmental and comparative data" Human Evolution 15: 175-186
--, P-F.Puech & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 17: 212-217
> > Why do you think apiths were bipedal if not to wade in swamps to get
these plants? Get it??
No answer.
> As already pointed out earlier, Sr87/Sr86 isotopic ratios at Swartkrans
discriminate between "riverine" and "open veld" environments (Lee-Thorpe
2002). The Sr87/Sr86 data of hominids at Swartkrans fall into the "open
veld" range (with Wildebeest, Hyrax, and Gelada). "The lack of riverine
foraging suggested by the Sr87/Sr86 data militates against one class of
(possibly) edible and less phytolith-rich plants, namely sedges, which grow
in damp areas" (Lee-Thorpe 2002). This makes it very unlikely that the apith
diet consisted for 90% of sedges. Lee-Thorpe, J. (2002). Hominid Dietary
Niches from Proxy Chemical Indicators in Fossils: The Swartkrans Example. In
"Human Diet: Its Origin and Evolution", P. Ungar & M. Teaford (Eds.), Bergin
& Garvey pp. 123-141. Gerrit
That's the opinion of Sponh<. Point is: we hypothesised years ago that
apiths ate wetlands plants on comparative (M.V.) as well as on microwear
(P-F.P.) arguments.
Matt Sponheimer & Julia A. Lee-Thorp 2003 "Differential resource utilization
by extant great apes and australopithecines: towards solving the C4
conundrum" Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 136:27-34 ...
Conklin-Brittain et al. (2002) reasoned that this loss of forest habitat
forced australopithecines into environments that were most similar to their
ancestral forest habitats, namely wetlands, swamps and river margins. Sedges
are readily available in these environments and have been argued to be among
the possible sources of the C signal in australopithecines (Sponheimer and
Lee-Thorp, 1999a; Conklin-Brittain et al., 2002). Some sedges have
underground storage organs that have protein levels equal to those of most
chimpanzee foods (9% crude protein), but much lower fiber levels (16% fiber)
than foods consumed by chimpanzees (33 %) (Conklin-Brittain et al., 2002).
Equally important, these underground parts are abundant yet inaccessible to
most other mammals, making sedges a high-quality resource for which there is
very little competition. Thus, the regular inclusion of sedges in
australopithecine diets would represent an increase in dietary quality over
extant great apes. ...
Marc Verhaegen
"Bob Keeter" <rke...@earthlink.net> wrote nothing of interest in message
news:N8bkb.1568$Uz6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> particular little piece of data on microwear analysis can not distinguish
between the two!
First inform a bit, keeter...
P-F.Puech 1984 "Acidic-food choice in Homo habilis at Olduvai" Current
Anthropology 25: 349-350
-- 1992 "Microwear studies of early African hominid teeth" Scanning
Microscopy 6: 1083-1088
Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Marc Verhaegen
> And per implication it also eliminates significant amounts of fish and
shellfish which have an isotopic signal that reflects their aquatic habitat.
I thought you were the smartest of the savanna believers. Inform a bit on
our ideas. Fish & shellfish have nothing to do with apiths.
Marc Verhaegen
> "Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3f90048f$0$280$ba62...@reader1.news.skynet.be...
> >
> > "Spiznet" <ma...@spiznet.com> wrote in message
> > news:cb2e44af.03101...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > It would be a stronger case if C4 were only found in swamps or only in
> > sedges. The above quote specifies arid and woodland C4 plants also.
> >
> > Spiznet, I suggest you read the original paper. As everybody knows (eg,
> > Sponh< as well as our papers) savanna grasses give a totally different
> > microwear - not seen in apiths.
>
> Marco is lying here.
Just read Sponh<'s paper, idiot.
Michael Clark
I've got a better idea, Macro Man. Why don't you read it?
Then you can quote directly from the article where it says
what plant produces what microwear. Will I have to wait long?
Michael Clark
>
> "Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> as usual is lying in message
> news:vp0q4l3...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > > What Marc's selective radar has overlooked is Sponheimer &
Lee-Thorp's
> clear implication that it's highly UNlikely that sedges alone could
account
> for the C4 spectrum in australopiths. It's clear from the abstract that
> there's a choice of causes for the high C4 - either "australopithecines
> would have had to have been extreme sedge specialists", or "if sedges did
> comprise an important resource for early hominids, they were likely
> supplemented with other C4 foods". *Likely* supplemented with other C4
> foods. Get it Marc?
>
> > > Sedges & wetland plants were already suggested by electron
> microsc.stuides on microwear years before Sponh<. Why do you think
apiths
> were bipedal if not to wade in swamps to get these plants? Get it??
>
> > Marco lies here, too.
Show me where it says that "this SEM observation indicates the
consumption of that plant". Go ahead, show me. And stop whining
about "no good arguments" until you do. Finally, just snip anything
that you feel uncomfortable with (that should be all of it).
[Same old, same old]
Philip Deitiker
<fa20...@skynet.be> wrote:
>Just read Sponh<'s paper, idiot.
Put the Expresso cup down Marc and calm down.
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>And per implication it also eliminates significant amounts of fish and
>>shellfish which have an isotopic signal that reflects their aquatic habitat.
>I thought you were the smartest of the savanna believers. Inform a bit on
>our ideas. Fish & shellfish have nothing to do with apiths.
Lee-Thorpe also analyzed early Homo (e.g. SK 847). It too has the high
Sr87/Sr86 ratio of the "open veld" taxa.
SK 847 is very similar to the KNM-ER 3733 morph, usually assigned to
Homo ergaster/erectus.
Gerrit
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>>So, lets see, C isotopes say "grasses, sedges or animals that eat those
>>>materials". Microwear analyses eliminates grasses because of the
>>>phytolyths, leaving sedges or animal sources for the carbon. Then the
>>>strongtium says dry land which eliminates the sedges! We are left with. . .
>>>. 8-)
>grasshoppers, dung beetles, seed bird eggs, termites . . . .
But these items are at odds with apith gnathic morphology, in
particular the trend toward (hyper)robusticity, e.g. as reflected by
postcanine megadontia (reversed in Homo). These items do not require
much masticatory processing, while apith gnathic morphology suggests
these hominins were munching something that required significant
processing.
>>>Gerrit, argueing with good old Marc is a waste. His idea of scientific
>>>logic and reason is whatever disregard, contortion or distortion of the
>>>facts that does not conclusively disprove his pathetic pet ideas!
>In this case it was not a waste, at least I did not know
>about the Sr data and I am guessing many others here didn't
>either. However, I also have to point out the recently
>Africanus has been named a grassland specialist, and while
>many are trying to shove africanus into proto-homo lineage I
>don't see this yet as a probable argument.
In a recent phylogenetic analysis (Strait & Grine 2001) A. africanus
is either part of a robust clade (as the most basal taxon, sister
taxon of Paranthropus) or it's the sister taxon of a clade
Paranthropus + Homo. Both topologies are equally parsimonious.
This position of A. africanus makes it quite possible that it
represents proto-Homo morphology.
Strait, D.S. & Grine, F.E. (2001). The systematics of Australopithecus
garhi. Ludus Vitalis 9: 109-135.
Gerrit
Gerrit Hanenburg
>> As already pointed out earlier, Sr87/Sr86 isotopic ratios at Swartkrans
>>discriminate between "riverine" and "open veld" environments (Lee-Thorpe
>>2002). The Sr87/Sr86 data of hominids at Swartkrans fall into the "open
>>veld" range (with Wildebeest, Hyrax, and Gelada). "The lack of riverine
>>foraging suggested by the Sr87/Sr86 data militates against one class of
>>(possibly) edible and less phytolith-rich plants, namely sedges, which grow
>>in damp areas" (Lee-Thorpe 2002). This makes it very unlikely that the apith
>>diet consisted for 90% of sedges. Lee-Thorpe, J. (2002). Hominid Dietary
>>Niches from Proxy Chemical Indicators in Fossils: The Swartkrans Example. In
>>"Human Diet: Its Origin and Evolution", P. Ungar & M. Teaford (Eds.), Bergin
>>& Garvey pp. 123-141.
>That's the opinion of Sponh<.
It's hardly an opinion, it's a logical consequence that follows from
the analysis.
Low Sr87/Sr86 values in wet environments, high values in "open veld"
environments. These values are reflected in Sr87/Sr86 values of the
tissues of the organisms that live in these environments. Now, if both
Homo and apiths fall into the high end of the range of these isotopic
ratios what does that suggest to you?
>Point is: we hypothesised years ago that apiths ate wetlands plants
>on comparative (M.V.) as well as on microwear (P-F.P.) arguments.
Perhaps you should reconsider the interpretation of that data in the
light of this new isotopic data.
>Matt Sponheimer & Julia A. Lee-Thorp 2003 "Differential resource utilization
>by extant great apes and australopithecines: towards solving the C4
>conundrum" Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 136:27-34 ...
>Conklin-Brittain et al. (2002) reasoned that this loss of forest habitat
>forced australopithecines into environments that were most similar to their
>ancestral forest habitats, namely wetlands, swamps and river margins. Sedges
>are readily available in these environments and have been argued to be among
>the possible sources of the C signal in australopithecines (Sponheimer and
>Lee-Thorp, 1999a; Conklin-Brittain et al., 2002). Some sedges have
>underground storage organs that have protein levels equal to those of most
>chimpanzee foods (9% crude protein), but much lower fiber levels (16% fiber)
>than foods consumed by chimpanzees (33 %) (Conklin-Brittain et al., 2002).
>Equally important, these underground parts are abundant yet inaccessible to
>most other mammals, making sedges a high-quality resource for which there is
>very little competition. Thus, the regular inclusion of sedges in
>australopithecine diets would represent an increase in dietary quality over
>extant great apes. ...
Yes it would, but it seems they didn't (at least not 90% of their
menu, needed to explain the 33% C4 signature) or else their Sr87/Sr86
signature would have been more like Mystromys, not like wildebeest,
hyrax, and gelada.
Gerrit
Pauline M Ross
<G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote:
>Low Sr87/Sr86 values in wet environments, high values in "open veld"
>environments. These values are reflected in Sr87/Sr86 values of the
>tissues of the organisms that live in these environments.
This is a fascinating thread, if a little difficult to follow for
those of us without access to the original papers (although I have
ordered the Ungar and Teaford book - thanks for that reference). Any
chance of someone posting the Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp paper somewhere
for everyone to mull over?
One question: while googling for more information on this, I came
across a paper by Price, Burton & Bentley (Archaeometry 44, 1; 2002)
on the use of strontium isotope analysis for prehistoric migration,
and table 2 on p123 shows mean Sr 87/86 ratios for a variety of
species. The two salmon sample groups were the 4th lowest and 2nd
highest of the 18 listed. This indicates a wide variation, and
suggests that some fish (perhaps migratory species?) may also give
high 'open veld' values.
Or have I misunderstood this? It wouldn't surprise me, as this stuff
is difficult for a non-specialist like me to get to grips with.
--
Pauline Ross
Gerrit Hanenburg
>This is a fascinating thread, if a little difficult to follow for
>those of us without access to the original papers (although I have
>ordered the Ungar and Teaford book - thanks for that reference). Any
>chance of someone posting the Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp paper somewhere
>for everyone to mull over?
>
>One question: while googling for more information on this, I came
>across a paper by Price, Burton & Bentley (Archaeometry 44, 1; 2002)
>on the use of strontium isotope analysis for prehistoric migration,
>and table 2 on p123 shows mean Sr 87/86 ratios for a variety of
>species. The two salmon sample groups were the 4th lowest and 2nd
>highest of the 18 listed. This indicates a wide variation, and
>suggests that some fish (perhaps migratory species?) may also give
>high 'open veld' values.
>
>Or have I misunderstood this? It wouldn't surprise me, as this stuff
>is difficult for a non-specialist like me to get to grips with.
Well, of course it depends on the species composition of your
comparative sample. If your sample consists of fish species only then
you have no reference with regard to terrestrial vertebrates (the
range of values in your fish sample may be relatively small and both
Salmon values may be at the low end relative to terrestrial taxa).
And Salmon values may indeed vary depending on life history stage and
locality sampled and yet still be in the wet range (There's also the
possibility that fish like trout pick up a more terrestrial isotopic
signature via their insect food, just like hippo's do by grazing
outside the water at night).
Gerrit
Philip Deitiker
<G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net.> did some sarious thank'n
and scribbled:
>But these items are at odds with apith gnathic morphology, in
>particular the trend toward (hyper)robusticity, e.g. as reflected by
>postcanine megadontia (reversed in Homo). These items do not require
>much masticatory processing, while apith gnathic morphology suggests
>these hominins were munching something that required significant
>processing.
Grass? lol.
>>In this case it was not a waste, at least I did not know
>>about the Sr data and I am guessing many others here didn't
>>either. However, I also have to point out the recently
>>Africanus has been named a grassland specialist, and while
>>many are trying to shove africanus into proto-homo lineage I
>>don't see this yet as a probable argument.
>
>In a recent phylogenetic analysis (Strait & Grine 2001) A. africanus
>is either part of a robust clade (as the most basal taxon, sister
>taxon of Paranthropus) or it's the sister taxon of a clade
>Paranthropus + Homo. Both topologies are equally parsimonious.
>This position of A. africanus makes it quite possible that it
>represents proto-Homo morphology.
>
>Strait, D.S. & Grine, F.E. (2001). The systematics of Australopithecus
>garhi. Ludus Vitalis 9: 109-135.
Yes, I know but I also don't buy their interpretation. I
think the only thing africanus has potentially human is a
non-crested upper crania, slightly large vault volume.
Where as I find something morphologically transition between
sahelensis and rudolfensis.
Pauline M Ross
<G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote:
>Well, of course it depends on the species composition of your
>comparative sample. If your sample consists of fish species only then
>you have no reference with regard to terrestrial vertebrates (the
>range of values in your fish sample may be relatively small and both
>Salmon values may be at the low end relative to terrestrial taxa).
No, apart from the two salmon groups, all the other species were
terrestrial. The 18 species (in strontium order, from low to high)
were: rabbit, rhino, snail, salmon, rabbit, squirrel, mouse, deer,
elephant, rhino, deer, rhino, rhino, rhino, rhino, snail, salmon,
elephant. Each sample group from a different location, of course, so
it may be that an analysis of multiple species from a single location
would give more meaningful results.
>And Salmon values may indeed vary depending on life history stage and
>locality sampled and yet still be in the wet range (There's also the
>possibility that fish like trout pick up a more terrestrial isotopic
>signature via their insect food, just like hippo's do by grazing
>outside the water at night).
Yes, interesting point.
--
Pauline Ross
Philip Deitiker
<pmr...@ross-software.co.uk> did some sarious thank'n and
scribbled:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:04:14 +0200, Gerrit Hanenburg
Or the carp that primarily feed on their dung. As far as
trout and insect feeding, many of the insects feed on the
side of the river, and thus would probably represent lowland
riparian C and Sr isotope ratios versus grassland. Most
salmon however, derive a majority of the calories from deep
ocean feeding, while related the Brook and stream trout are
generally restricted to faster moving streams and rivers in
mountainous or hilly regions and are replaced by fish like
Bass, Crappie, Sunfish and the like in the lowland streams
and rivers. Thus, I would not expect any of the trout/salmon
family to derive alot of their calories from grassland
carbon isotope levels. Alot of the insects they feed on are
often mayflies or other insect that are the adult version of
an aquatic insects. There have been studies done on bass
that live in rivers that cross through grasslands. The have
found lizards and feild rats and the like in their guts
during period of flooding. However most of the time if you
cut open the gut of a fish you will tend to find the remains
of aqautic crustaceans and small fish.
Pauline M Ross
<pmr...@ross-software.co.uk> wrote:
>Any
>chance of someone posting the Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp paper somewhere
>for everyone to mull over?
OK, I found it - Gerrit had already uploaded it to the [PaleoAnthro]
Yahoo group files. Thanks, Gerrit.
--
Pauline Ross
Marc Verhaegen
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:vp65dbe...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > Sedges & wetland plants were already suggested by electron
microsc.stuides on microwear years before Sponh<. Why do you think apiths
were bipedal if not to wade in swamps to get these plants?
No answer.
> Show me where it says that "this SEM observation indicates the consumption
of that plant".
Why should I??
Marc Verhaegen
> In a recent phylogenetic analysis (Strait & Grine 2001) A. africanus is
either part of a robust clade (as the most basal taxon, sister taxon of
Paranthropus) or it's the sister taxon of a clade Paranthropus + Homo. Both
topologies are equally parsimonious. This position of A. africanus makes it
quite possible that it represents proto-Homo morphology.
Both these interpretations are wrong: it's obvious that the E & the
S.African robusts evolved in parallel (IOW, "Paranthropus" is paraphyletic):
A.africanus almost overlaps with robustus, but is very different from
aethiopicus-boisei.
Marc Verhaegen
> >>And per implication it also eliminates significant amounts of fish and
shellfish which have an isotopic signal that reflects their aquatic habitat.
> >I thought you were the smartest of the savanna believers. Inform a bit on
our ideas. Fish & shellfish have nothing to do with apiths.
> Lee-Thorp also analyzed early Homo (e.g. SK 847). It too has the high
Sr87/Sr86 ratio of the "open veld" taxa. SK 847 is very similar to the
KNM-ER 3733 morph, usually assigned to Homo ergaster/erectus.
Thanks. Yes, I know, but I have no idea where to place SK-847 (Pan? Homo?
offshoot?) or what to think of its lifestyle & diet.
Marc
Marc Verhaegen
> >> As already pointed out earlier, Sr87/Sr86 isotopic ratios at Swartkrans
discriminate between "riverine" and "open veld" environments (Lee-Thorp
2002). The Sr87/Sr86 data of hominids at Swartkrans fall into the "open
veld" range (with Wildebeest, Hyrax, and Gelada). "The lack of riverine
foraging suggested by the Sr87/Sr86 data militates against one class of
(possibly) edible and less phytolith-rich plants, namely sedges, which grow
in damp areas" (Lee-Thorp 2002). This makes it very unlikely that the apith
diet consisted for 90% of sedges. Lee-Thorpe, J. (2002). Hominid Dietary
Niches from Proxy Chemical Indicators in Fossils: The Swartkrans Example. In
"Human Diet: Its Origin and Evolution", P. Ungar & M. Teaford (Eds.), Bergin
& Garvey pp. 123-141.
> >That's the opinion of Sponh<.
> It's hardly an opinion, it's a logical consequence that follows from the
analysis. Low Sr87/Sr86 values in wet environments, high values in "open
veld" environments. These values are reflected in Sr87/Sr86 values of the
tissues of the organisms that live in these environments. Now, if both Homo
and apiths fall into the high end of the range of these isotopic ratios what
does that suggest to you?
OK, it's an argument.
> >Point is: we hypothesised years ago that apiths ate wetlands plants on
comparative (M.V.) as well as on microwear (P-F.P.) arguments.
> Perhaps you should reconsider the interpretation of that data in the light
of this new isotopic data.
Well, they didn't exclude wetland plants which we hypothesised on other (IMO
firmer) grounds (esp.Puech's Scann.Microsc.paper).
> >Matt Sponheimer & Julia A. Lee-Thorp 2003 "Differential resource
utilization by extant great apes and australopithecines: towards solving the
C4 conundrum" Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 136:27-34 ...
Conklin-Brittain et al. (2002) reasoned that this loss of forest habitat
forced australopithecines into environments that were most similar to their
ancestral forest habitats, namely wetlands, swamps and river margins. Sedges
are readily available in these environments and have been argued to be among
the possible sources of the C signal in australopithecines (Sponheimer and
Lee-Thorp, 1999a; Conklin-Brittain et al., 2002). Some sedges have
underground storage organs that have protein levels equal to those of most
chimpanzee foods (9% crude protein), but much lower fiber levels (16% fiber)
than foods consumed by chimpanzees (33 %) (Conklin-Brittain et al., 2002).
Equally important, these underground parts are abundant yet inaccessible to
most other mammals, making sedges a high-quality resource for which there is
very little competition. Thus, the regular inclusion of sedges in
australopithecine diets would represent an increase in dietary quality over
extant great apes. ...
> Yes it would, but it seems they didn't (at least not 90% of their menu,
needed to explain the 33% C4 signature) or else their Sr87/Sr86 signature
would have been more like Mystromys, not like wildebeest, hyrax, and gelada.
Gerrit
I see no major problem for our ideas: S.African are possibly some sort of
Pan IMO (see my Med.Hyp.papers). Pan eats eggs, termites etc. Added to
sedges...
Marc
Michael Clark
[..]
> > Show me where it says that "this SEM observation indicates the
consumption
> of that plant".
>
> Why should I??
It's your contention, Marco. Don't tell me that I have to
explain your argument to you.....
Marc Verhaegen
> > > Show me where it says that "this SEM observation indicates the
consumption of that plant".
> > Why should I??
> It's your contention, Marco. Don't tell me that I have to explain your
argument to you.....
It's no my contemption, you idiot.
Michael Clark
It isn't? You mean you have ~not~ said that microwear indicates
the exploitation of wetland plants? I could have sworn it was you.
I'll have to remember to quote this post when "whoever-it-was"
pipes up again.
Spiznet
Mike, FYI:
Message 3 in thread
From: Marc Verhaegen (fa20...@skynet.be)
Subject: Re: S.Afr.apiths ate 90% sedges?
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: 2003-10-17 08:02:41 PST
"Spiznet" <ma...@spiznet.com> wrote in message
news:cb2e44af.03101...@posting.google.com...
> It would be a stronger case if C4 were only found in swamps or only in
>sedges. The above quote specifies arid and woodland C4 plants also.
Spiznet, I suggest you read the original paper. As everybody knows (eg,
Sponh< as well as our papers) savanna grasses give a totally different
microwear - not seen in apiths.
-Mark
Marc Verhaegen
Yes, an where is my contention on "this observation indicates the
consumption of that plant"??
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>In a recent phylogenetic analysis (Strait & Grine 2001) A. africanus is
>>either part of a robust clade (as the most basal taxon, sister taxon of
>>Paranthropus) or it's the sister taxon of a clade Paranthropus + Homo. Both
>>topologies are equally parsimonious. This position of A. africanus makes it
>>quite possible that it represents proto-Homo morphology.
>Both these interpretations are wrong: it's obvious that the E & the
>S.African robusts evolved in parallel (IOW, "Paranthropus" is paraphyletic):
>A.africanus almost overlaps with robustus, but is very different from
>aethiopicus-boisei.
Present a numerical cladistic analysis to support that position (and I
don't mean the crap from Human Evolution 9: 121-139 and 11: 35-41).
That is a minimum requirement in systematics today. So, put up or shut
up.
Gerrit
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>Lee-Thorp also analyzed early Homo (e.g. SK 847). It too has the high
>>Sr87/Sr86 ratio of the "open veld" taxa. SK 847 is very similar to the
>>KNM-ER 3733 morph, usually assigned to Homo ergaster/erectus.
>Thanks. Yes, I know, but I have no idea where to place SK-847 (Pan? Homo?
>offshoot?) or what to think of its lifestyle & diet.
Then maybe you should leave alpha taxonomy to the people qualified to
do the job.
The consensus is that the specimen represents early Homo, but opinions
differ with regard to specific allocation (ER 3733 morph (H. ergaster)
or ER 1813 morph (H. habilis), or a distinct species of Homo not
sampled in eastern Africa).
Grine, F.E. et al. (1993). Taxonomic affinity of the early Homo
cranium from Swartkrans. Journal of Human Evolution 92: 411-426.
Gerrit
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>In a recent phylogenetic analysis (Strait & Grine 2001) A. africanus
>>is either part of a robust clade (as the most basal taxon, sister
>>taxon of Paranthropus) or it's the sister taxon of a clade
>>Paranthropus + Homo. Both topologies are equally parsimonious.
>>This position of A. africanus makes it quite possible that it
>>represents proto-Homo morphology.
>>
>>Strait, D.S. & Grine, F.E. (2001). The systematics of Australopithecus
>>garhi. Ludus Vitalis 9: 109-135.
>Yes, I know but I also don't buy their interpretation. I
>think the only thing africanus has potentially human is a
>non-crested upper crania, slightly large vault volume.
>Where as I find something morphologically transition between
>sahelensis and rudolfensis.
Well, H. rudolfensis certainly has a rather odd combination of apith
and human features, but in particular the flat orthognathic face with
tall forward facing malar region and rather straight anterior tooth
row hint of robust morphology (reason why Alan Walker initially
couldn't concur with its assignment to Homo).
And robust morphology is incipient in more orthognathic
representatives of A. africanus such as Sts 71.
But the link to Sahelanthropus (if that's what you mean) I fail to
see.
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
You're frustrated by your failing to find arguments against it. Open your
eyes, man: your "systematics today" neglects parallel evolution, with or
without numeriacal analyses. It's obvious that the large E.African & the
S.Afr.apiths were paraphyletic. Moreover the E.Africans seem to have had
striking resemblances to gorillas, & the S.Africans to chimps:
Large E.African apiths:
- "Incisal dental microwear in A. afarensis is most similar to that observed
in Gorilla". Ryan & Johanson, 1989.
- The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens "looked
very much like a small female gorilla". Johanson & Edey, 1981, p. 351.
- "Other primitive [= advanced gorilla-like? MV] features found in KNM-WT
17000, but not know or much discussed for A. afarensis, are: very small
cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far
above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and
extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some
gorillas". Walker et al., 1986.
- As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and
KNM-ER 406 "the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean:
both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized
bases". Kennedy, 1991 (see also his fig. 1).
- In O.H.5, "the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus
skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla". Robinson, 1960.
- The A. boisei "lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the
degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history". Leakey &
Walker, 1988.
- A. boisei teeth showed "a relative absence of prism decussation"; among
extant hominoids, "Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...".
Beynon & Wood, 1986 (cf. Beynon et al., 1991).
S.African apiths:
- "Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus robustus teeth
and they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth
patterns look like those of chimpanzees... Then, when be looked at some Homo
erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed". Leakey, 1981, pp. 74-75.
- "The 'keystone' nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic
of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids,
particularly clearly in some chimpanzees". Eckhardt, 1987.
- "P. paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5];
they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and... even in cranial
and facial features". Zihlman et al., 1978.
- "A. africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan
troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous"". Ferguson, 1989a.
- In Taung, "I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth
definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the
skull of a modern young chimpanzee". Woodward, 1925.
- "The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than
it resembles L338y-6", a juvenile A. boisei. Rak & Howell, 1978.
- "In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung
and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of
the extant chimpanzee". Bromage, 1985.
- "I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a
mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham's curve for brain development in
Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early
hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain
volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and
australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that 'as with pongids, the
australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design'". Falk,
1987.
- In Taung, "pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard
palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the
maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust
australopithecines among higher primates". Bromage & Dean, 1985.
- "That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] 'is distinguished from all
living apes by the... unfused nasal bones.' as claimed by Dart (1940),
cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of
separate nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding
to that of Australopithecus". Schultz, 1941.
Marc Verhaegen
> >>Lee-Thorp also analyzed early Homo (e.g. SK 847). It too has the high
Sr87/Sr86 ratio of the "open veld" taxa. SK 847 is very similar to the
KNM-ER 3733 morph, usually assigned to Homo ergaster/erectus.
> >Thanks. Yes, I know, but I have no idea where to place SK-847 (Pan? Homo?
offshoot?) or what to think of its lifestyle & diet.
> Then maybe you should leave alpha taxonomy to the people qualified to do
the job. The consensus is that the specimen represents early Homo
Don't talk nonsense. There is no consensus on what early Homo is, see the
work of Wood cs. Taxonomy of related species is often wrong: there are too
many parallelisms, as we see in other taxa, read White & Harris 1977 "Suid
evolution and correlation of African hominid localities" Science 198:13-21.
What is interesting is how they might have lived.
Philip Deitiker
>Well, H. rudolfensis certainly has a rather odd combination of apith
>and human features, but in particular the flat orthognathic face with
>tall forward facing malar region and rather straight anterior tooth
>row hint of robust morphology (reason why Alan Walker initially
>couldn't concur with its assignment to Homo).
>And robust morphology is incipient in more orthognathic
>representatives of A. africanus such as Sts 71.
>But the link to Sahelanthropus (if that's what you mean) I fail to
>see.
But africanus was not the only robust australopith.
Afarensis is probably the ancestor of paraanthrops and there
are plenty of robust representatives in paraanthrops.
Robusticity certainly can be a variant in any apith
population, and the version of robusticity will depend on
selective issues. I think that one needs to look at the
overall morphology of the crania and the longer term trends.
Africanus needs to do a whole lot of evolution and fast to
converge on the rudolfensis/erectoid morphology at 1.8
million years. Even so its a bit of a stretch for
rudolfensis to transit to erectoids in 0 my. I am willing to
entertain rudolfensis only because of similarity with
"Toumaï" skull because it gets away from the dreadfully
inadequate paths between 'Ape'/human through
africanus/afarensis. The only real possibility I see for
either of these in human evolution is if there was a big fat
old mono specific population with bunches of variants and
these were just 2 of many, with more human like variants
living elsewhere [doing other unknown things]
I like the idea of africanus being a grassland specialist;
however, I see this as only a fringe group on the greater
whole of regional specialization within africa. I am not
particularly fond of any ape theory, and I might even
postulate that the origins of homo might lie in a biped
forest specialist from west central africa close to lake
chad. Seconadarily it also supports an older branching of
C/H and places itself on the H side of that branch, which
means some of the human like derivative traits not seen in
afarensis or africanus would place either of these as a side
branch and not mainstream. Once again I think the fossil
hunters are trying to shove some known hominid into the slot
of protohomo when in fact that slot should be left empty in
lieu of a better fit.
Having said that, I can give the whole savanah ape
hypothesis a run, why is it that the skeletal material we
see for most recent humans (or human-like) in africa all
proximal to the coast of africa, and with a pMRCA in central
west africa (cameroon, nigeria, central african republic).
It creates a bit of a trapping logic, either the skeletal
finds from africa are unrepresentative, and the population
was generally much larger for erectoids and predeccessors,
that later fractured into species like homo sapiens, or the
whole homo thing was a shift to coastal areas with the
entire african hominid (homo) population of 10,000
individuals living in a band along the coast of africa (and
its only because congo has rich inland waterways that the
pMRCA is approximately there)
That does not make much sense if protohumans became a
grassland specialist. The 'truth' in this contradiction is
that the physical anthropology even of recent africa is not
representative of what was going on, and earlier
anthropology is even less representative, and a result the
missing links are still present within the specific homo
lineages. Whether or not humans were a coastal band remains
an unresolvable issue as with who else was in africa when
humans were at their population minima >150 kya. Even if one
accepts that humans radiated recently from some center in
africa, the morphology of africa in 150 ky is rather
diverse, now, which leads one to question how much more
diverse an old mono-specific population might have been
before 1 mya. Again I am assuming that the transition to
modern human changed the whole selective balance in africa,
the change to erectus less so, but still prominent. These to
events would act to homogenize hominid morphology; however
before the appearance of erectoids/ergaster I think that the
selection on hominids was not as 'unifromly' competitive as
later and that many variants in many places could have
existed and that africanus was but only one version.
I can easily say that there is no evidence that refutes the
above, but my point is to africanus fans, is that
statistically the argument for africanus and afarensis being
the 2 and only 2 choices is weak, and given the weakness
and the high probability of other morphologies there is no
reason to select africanus morphology as intermediate
between 'ape' and homo, but more potently as a minor
contributer. Given this and given the rather bizarre
association of africanus with grassland, one could also
argue that the grassland cultural/phenotypic adaptations
would also be minor contributors to the inclinations of
lines that eventually evolve into homo. I think it is up to
the africanus supporters to demonstrate why other hominids
in africa would not have existed or that none of these would
be more potent as protohomo. I don't think that Strait can
do this. One has to play the devil's advocate to straiten
out whatever hypothesis one wants to support.
Michael Clark
From Spiznet post (quoting Marco):
> > Spiznet, I suggest you read the original paper. As everybody knows (eg,
> > Sponh< as well as our papers) savanna grasses give a totally different
> > microwear - not seen in apiths.
> >
> > -Mark
>
> Yes, an where is my contention on "this observation indicates the
> consumption of that plant"??
That is the problem, Marco. You have not established a link
between ~aquatic herbaceous vegetation~ and apith microwear.
Yet you are continually parading this *bald-faced assertion* as
if it were a done deal. It is ~not~ and your dogged evasion of the
issue just goes to show that you cannot establish such a link.
So in a spirit of fairness I offer you yet another chance.
Show me where your friend Puech documents --
"... the electron microsc.evidence of wetland plant feeding..."
(You may recognize that quote from one of ~your~ posts)
Ross Macfarlane
...
> Show me where your friend Puech documents --
>
> "... the electron microsc.evidence of wetland plant feeding..."
>
> (You may recognize that quote from one of ~your~ posts)
And in fact a claim repeated in the second post of this very thread:
<Insert Cut & Paste>
"Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<3f90054f$0$3668$ba62...@reader2.news.skynet.be>...
> "Ross Macfarlane" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:18fa6145.03101...@posting.google.com...
>
> > What Marc's selective radar has overlooked is Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp's
> clear implication that it's highly UNlikely that sedges alone could account
> for the C4 spectrum in australopiths. It's clear from the abstract that
> there's a choice of causes for the high C4 - either "australopithecines
> would have had to have been extreme sedge specialists", or "if sedges did
> comprise an important resource for early hominids, they were likely
> supplemented with other C4 foods". *Likely* supplemented with other C4
> foods. Get it Marc?
>
> Sedges & wertland plants were already suggested by electron microsc.stuides
> on microwear years before Sponh<. Why do you think apiths were bipedal if
> not to wade in swamps to get these plants? Get it??
>
<End Cut & Paste>
So Marc - *can* you show us where Puech documents "... the electron
microsc.evidence of wetland plant feeding..."? Which "electron
microsc.stuides" [sic] were you referring to?
Ross Macfarlane
Marc Verhaegen
> That is the problem, Marco. You have not established a link between
~aquatic herbaceous vegetation~ and apith microwear.
Why keep I answering this uninformed idiot?? Still not read P-F.Puech 1992
"Microwear studies of early African hominid teeth" Scann.Microsc.6:1083-8?
Before opening your big mouth again, try to read it...
Marc Verhaegen
> So Marc - *can* you show us where Puech documents
Why keep I answering these uninformed idiots?? Still not read P-F.Puech 1992
Pauline M Ross
<pmr...@ross-software.co.uk> wrote:
>>Any
>>chance of someone posting the Sponheimer & Lee-Thorp paper somewhere
>>for everyone to mull over?
>
>OK, I found it - Gerrit had already uploaded it to the [PaleoAnthro]
>Yahoo group files. Thanks, Gerrit.
Well, having read the paper, it doesn't seem worth the grief it
appears to have caused. The authors ask whether the C4 component in
Australopithecine diet could be the result of eating grasses, sedges
or animal foods, and not surprisingly conclude that none of the three
alone is likely to be responsible, and Apiths most likely ate a
mixture.
On the sedges, they say that "if we accept that approximately 40% of
the sedges that hominids encountered used the C4 pathway, over 90% of
their diet would have had to have been sedges to account for a 33% C4
signature." I can't get a 90% figure out of this - if a 33% C4 figure
is caused by 40% of sedges consumed, surely that equates to 82.5%
sedges in the diet? And using the 43% number the authors themselves
found instead of 40% gives only 77% sedges in the diet. And if you
take the maximum C4 component found (50%) instead of the average of
33% gives figures over 100% (does not compute). Somebody please jump
in here and tell me where the 90% comes from.
The other interesting point about Apith diet is the variability in C4
component - from 0% to 50%. The authors don't really address this
point, using only the average value of 33%. However, it occurs to me
that the variation would be easy to explain if we suppose that all the
Apiths were eating sedges, but different individuals, either from
personal preference or availability, ate varying amounts of C3 and C4
sedges. That way, you don't have to puzzle over apparently widely
differing diets within a species.
Now I just have to read the strontium paper to get the anti-sedge
point of view :-)
--
Pauline Ross
Michael Clark
Marc Verhaegen
> Show me where your friend Puech documents -- "... the electron
microsc.evidence of wetland plant feeding..."
Read the paper.
Michael Clark
Quote the paper.
Marc Verhaegen
Do your own homework.
Michael Clark
It's not my homework to do, Macro Man. I want to know
where you get the idea that microwear indicates anything
~other than~ broad generalizations about the mechanical properties
of the stuff being eaten. The burden of proof is on you since
it is you making the assertion. How many times do I have
to ask the question?
From http://www.laboratorytalk.com/news/ade/ade217.html
"...To Dr Walker's research team, it is becoming clear that simple analogies
between the microwear patterns on the teeth of living animals of known diet
and those of extinct animals with similar microwear patterns can lead to
serious errors in reconstructing the diets of extinct species."
--
Hey Marco. Got that A'pith menu yet?
Marc Verhaegen
> "Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3f9703e2$0$3650$ba62...@reader2.news.skynet.be...
> >
> > "Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> > news:vpdsk99...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > > news:3f96a7fd$0$298$ba62...@reader3.news.skynet.be...
> > > >
> > > > "Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:vpcr5c2...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Show me where your friend Puech documents -- "... the electron
> > > > microsc.evidence of wetland plant feeding..."
> > > >
> > > > Read the paper.
> > >
> > > Quote the paper.
> >
> > Do your own homework.
>
> It's not my homework to do, Macro Man.
It's yours.
Michael Clark
It's not my homework to do, Macro Man. I want to know
Spiznet
> > > > Show me where your friend Puech documents -- "... the electron
> > > microsc.evidence of wetland plant feeding..."
> > >
> > > Read the paper.
> >
> > Quote the paper.
>
> Do your own homework.
Lets see-
from doing a google search, the last time Marc & Rich T. went over
this Rich was not that impressed either, and that was 1999:
----quote----
= >The isotope studies came out after the papers you mention...
=
= No, man. See Lee-Thorpe's earlier paper. I told you that already.
Deaf?
Let's see. You mentioned: Robinson, 1954; Du Brul, 1977;
Walker, 1981; Puech, 1992; Demes & Creel, 1988; Puech et al.,
1986; Grine & Kay, 1988; Ungar & Grine, 1989; Puech et al.,
1983b; Puech, 1984. The latest date in that is Puech 1992.
Lee-Thorps paper is 1994. LeeThorp's is 1994, clearly after
the papers you mention. Sillen's is 1992, as the last by
Puech, but unless there was some foreknowledge of the Sillen
paper...
= [...]
= >= IOW, Sillen's facts say the same as what Grine & Ungar & Puech &
= >=DuBrul say.
= >
= >Then it would appear Grine & Ungar & Puech & DuBrul are
= >incomplete in their analysis.
---------endquote
...
and on and on.
-Mark
Richard Wagler
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
It.s not his homework. It's yours. You would
dispute L & S. Why? On what grounds? If you
are not willing to say then your objections are
just so much white noise. Your attempting to
establish the argument without actually making
one. Most peculiar....
Rick Wagler
Marc Verhaegen
> It's not my homework to do, Macro Man. I want to know
> where you get the idea that microwear indicates anything
> ~other than~ broad generalizations about the mechanical properties
> of the stuff being eaten.
For the Xth time: inform a little bit: Puech P.-F., 1992. Microwear studies
of early African hominid teeth. Scanning Microscopy, 6: 1083-1088
Marc Verhaegen
"Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3F97504A...@shaw.ca...
>
>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > "Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> > news:vpdsk99...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> > > news:3f96a7fd$0$298$ba62...@reader3.news.skynet.be...
> > > >
> > > > "Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:vpcr5c2...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Show me where your friend Puech documents -- "... the electron
> > > > microsc.evidence of wetland plant feeding..."
> > > >
> > > > Read the paper.
> > >
> > > Quote the paper.
> >
> > Do your own homework.
>
> It.s not his homework. It's yours.
It's not. I don't care what this imbecile believes. It's his problem.
Michael Clark
It's not my problem, Marco. The world already knows what I think
of you but I'm not, like you, ~so~ dull that I would drag out invectives
every
time I ask the question. Calling me an idiot, moron, imbecile, or what-
have-you, is not answering the question.
Again:
"I want to know where you get the idea that microwear indicates anything
~other than~ broad generalizations about the mechanical properties
of the stuff being eaten."
"Puech P.-F., 1992. Microwear studies of early African hominid teeth.
Scanning Microscopy, 6: 1083-1088 "
--DOES NOT answer the question.
Maybe ~you~ should inform a bit?
http://comp.uark.edu/~pungar/referenc.html
From http://www.laboratorytalk.com/news/ade/ade217.html
"...To Dr Walker's research team, it is becoming clear that simple analogies
between the microwear patterns on the teeth of living animals of known diet
and those of extinct animals with similar microwear patterns can lead to
serious errors in reconstructing the diets of extinct species."
(When we're done with the microwear nonsense, we'll be moving
on to the other planks of your platform.)
Marc Verhaegen
> "Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3f979e3c$0$311$ba62...@reader3.news.skynet.be...
> >
> > "Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
> > news:vpedmsq...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > It's not my homework to do, Macro Man. I want to know
> > > where you get the idea that microwear indicates anything
> > > ~other than~ broad generalizations about the mechanical properties
> > > of the stuff being eaten.
> >
> > For the Xth time: inform a little bit: Puech P.-F., 1992. Microwear
> studies
> > of early African hominid teeth. Scanning Microscopy, 6: 1083-1088
>
> It's not my problem, Marco.
It is.
Michael Clark
Well then, we'll just have to conclude from this childish display
of SNIPPING, RUNNING and HIDING that you ~cannot~ link
any particular microwear with any particular vegetation --regardless
of your repeated assertions to the contrary. Do you hear that,
interested bystanders? Marco refuses to defend his position because
he is *unable* to do so.
Can we move on to flipper feet now, or would you rather do
fat for flotation....?
Al Zeller
Michael Clark wrote:
>
>>
> Can we move on to flipper feet now, or would you rather do
> fat for flotation....?
How about snorkel noses on Neanderthals? That's always been a favorite.
Al Zeller
Marc Verhaegen
Sigh. Read the paper, man...
Marc Verhaegen
"Al Zeller" <Zel...@nscl.msu.edu> thought he had something to say in message
news:3F984837...@nscl.msu.edu...
> How about snorkel noses on Neanderthals? That's always been a favorite.
I don't believe this hypothesis, but I'm waiting for an argument against
it... Found one??
Michael Clark
> > Well then, we'll just have to conclude from this childish display
> > of SNIPPING, RUNNING and HIDING that you ~cannot~ link
> > any particular microwear with any particular vegetation --regardless
> > of your repeated assertions to the contrary. Do you hear that,
> > interested bystanders? Marco refuses to defend his position because
> > he is *unable* to do so.
>
> Sigh. Read the paper, man...
I have. I didn't see anything that said "this microwear means that plant".
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point it out, "man"....?
Richard Wagler
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
We can read the paper, Marc, but you just don't get
it. You are - or should be - engaged in a debate. Just
promenading with an allegedly inimpeachable statement
of what you believe just doesn't cut it. If you would
actually engage people on these fora guess what? Lots
of people would read your stuff. But this arrogant
bombast just serves to remind us all ot the sad reality
that life is too short.
Rick Wagler
Richard Wagler
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Yeah....the structure and function of what every
rational person recognizes as a device commonly
known as a snorkel. A snorkel that is 3 or 4 inches
long and points down is not a snorkel. It's something
else.
I'll save you some time and provide your stock
answer. "Snip bla-bla. Can't come up with one
argument why our scenario must be wrong?"
Rick Wagler
Jason Eshleman
You seem to be assuming that Marc is sane enough to recognize what he's
doing.
Michael Clark
news:bnakje$mbk$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
[...]
> >> Sigh. Read the paper, man...
> >
> >We can read the paper, Marc, but you just don't get
> >it. You are - or should be - engaged in a debate. Just
> >promenading with an allegedly inimpeachable statement
> >of what you believe just doesn't cut it. If you would
> >actually engage people on these fora guess what? Lots
> >of people would read your stuff. But this arrogant
> >bombast just serves to remind us all ot the sad reality
> >that life is too short.
>
> You seem to be assuming that Marc is sane enough to recognize what he's
> doing.
Yea. So I've been going toe-to-toe with the macro man for what
seems like months now and have gotten precisely nowhere.
Silly me, I thought it might be worth a shot. Maybe if I step
outside and pound my head into a brick wall, I'd get farther --
and feel much better.
Marc Verhaegen
> > > How about snorkel noses on Neanderthals? That's always been a
favorite.
> > I don't believe this hypothesis, but I'm waiting for an argument against
it... Found one??
> Yeah....the structure and function of what every rational person
recognizes as a device commonly known as a snorkel. A snorkel that is 3 or 4
inches long and points down is not a snorkel. It's something else.
This is where I used the word snorkel: "Aquatic ape theory and fossil
hominids" Med.Hypotheses 35:108-114, 1991: "While apes and australopiths
(OH-62 included) have flat noses, all Homo specimens (ER-1470 included) show
external noses (54,55). The Neandertal midface and piriform aperture
strongly protruded ventrally (33,55,56). When the Moustier Neandertal was
excavated (1908), the nostrils, which could still be discerned then, were
situated at the top instead of underneath the nose as in H.sapiens (55). The
proboscis monkey is the only non-human primate with a big nose; when the
baby accompanies its swimming mother, it floats on its back with its nose
above the water (18). Also sea-otters float on the back while opening
shellfish, the nose well above the surface. In a Neandertal swimming on his
back, the large nose with distal nostrils and the protruding midface
surrounded by large air sinuses functioned as a snorkel." I don't believe
this hypothesis, but I can't find a counter-argument. Can you?
Marc Verhaegen
> I have. I didn't see anything that said "this microwear means that
plant".
Did you expect to see that?? I knew you were stupid, but that stupid...
Marc Verhaegen
> We can read the paper, Marc, but you just don't get it. You are - or
should be - engaged in a debate.
No, Wagler, I'm not engaged in "discussions" with short-sighted people who
know in advantage what the truth is.
Bob Keeter
>
> We can read the paper, Marc, but you just don't get
> it. You are - or should be - engaged in a debate. Just
> promenading with an allegedly inimpeachable statement
> of what you believe just doesn't cut it. If you would
> actually engage people on these fora guess what? Lots
> of people would read your stuff. But this arrogant
> bombast just serves to remind us all ot the sad reality
> that life is too short.
>
> Rick Wagler
>
What ARE you trying to do here, Mr. Wagler?
Are you actually trying to get Marc to add some sort of marginal credibility
to the good ole AAT?
Are you by any chance trying to suggest that intelligent, and even
challenging scientific debate might add some tiny bit of creedence to Marc's
ideas? Surely not! 8-)
OBTW, IMHO true scientific debate recognizes some modicum of logic vs
egotistical yammering even if that hard logic dictates AGAINST ones pet
hypotheses! But then that kind of concession would require a certain level
of integrity, intellectual honesty and personal fortitude.
Isnt that sort of a lowbrow citation of one of Aristotle's pistes, to wit
"ethos" of course, where one's arguements are supported or tainted by one's
character? But then ethos has never been Marc's long suit.
Regards
bk
Michael Clark
Well gosh, Macro Man, you keep telling me to read the article when
I ask the question, so naturally I assumed.....
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>>Thanks. Yes, I know, but I have no idea where to place SK-847 (Pan? Homo?
>>>offshoot?) or what to think of its lifestyle & diet.
>>Then maybe you should leave alpha taxonomy to the people qualified to do
>>the job. The consensus is that the specimen represents early Homo
>Don't talk nonsense. There is no consensus on what early Homo is, see the
>work of Wood cs. Taxonomy of related species is often wrong: there are too
>many parallelisms, as we see in other taxa, read White & Harris 1977 "Suid
>evolution and correlation of African hominid localities" Science 198:13-21.
>What is interesting is how they might have lived.
Ron Clarke has made the most detailed comparative study of this
specimen (it is the subject of his 1977 PhD dissertation) with the
result that "In each case it was found that SK 847 has more in common
with the genus Homo than it does with either Australopithecus or
Paranthropus. His conclusion is that "SK 847 should be classified as a
member of the genus Homo" (Clarke 1977: v).
Later, when comparing SK 847 with KNM-ER 3733 and "being struck by the
similarities" (Clarke 1994: 189) he concluded that the two specimens
should be placed in the same species.
A redefinition of the genus Homo, as proposed by Wood and Collard,
does not change that affinity.
Clarke, R.J. (1977). The Cranium of the Swartkrans Hominid, SK 847 and
its Relevance to Human Origins. PhD thesis, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Clarke, R.J. (1994). The Significance of the Swartkrans Homo to the
Homo erectus Problem. Courier Forshungs-Institut Seckenberg 171:
185-193.
Gerrit
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>>Both these interpretations are wrong: it's obvious that the E & the
>>>S.African robusts evolved in parallel (IOW, "Paranthropus" is paraphyletic):
>>>A.africanus almost overlaps with robustus, but is very different from
>>>aethiopicus-boisei.
>
>>Present a numerical cladistic analysis to support that position (and I
>>don't mean the crap from Human Evolution 9: 121-139 and 11: 35-41). That is
>>a minimum requirement in systematics today. So, put up or shut up.
>You're frustrated by your failing to find arguments against it.
The evidence is phylogenetic analyses that recover a clade
Paranthropus on the basis of a large number of shared characters.
>Open your eyes, man: your "systematics today" neglects parallel evolution, with or
>without numeriacal analyses.
Er, is doesn't, there's even a special term for it: homoplasy.
And it shows itself (a posteriori) through multiple derivations of a
character on a cladogram.
You obviously are not well versed in the matter. You may want to
consult a text like "Biological Systematics: Principles and
Applications" by Randall T. Schuh (Cornell Univeristy Press, 2000).
>It's obvious that the large E.African & the
>S.Afr.apiths were paraphyletic. Moreover the E.Africans seem to have had
>striking resemblances to gorillas, & the S.Africans to chimps:
The confusion of a misguided medic far outside his field of
competence.
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in message
news:b17lpvobgoj4r9kc9...@4ax.com...
> >>>Both these interpretations are wrong: it's obvious that the E & the
S.African robusts evolved in parallel (IOW, "Paranthropus" is paraphyletic):
A.africanus almost overlaps with robustus, but is very different from
aethiopicus-boisei.
> >>Present a numerical cladistic analysis to support that position (and I
don't mean the crap from Human Evolution 9: 121-139 and 11: 35-41). That is
minimum requirement in systematics today. So, put up or shut up.
> >You're frustrated by your failing to find arguments against it.
> The evidence is phylogenetic analyses that recover a clade Paranthropus on
the basis of a large number of shared characters.
Yes, of course, but:
1) All evol.trees accept there was a lot of parallel evolution involved.
2) The frequence of parallel evolution is often underestimated (esp. in PA).
4) There was overlap between africanus & robustus (of some specimens it's
difficult to say whether they belong to africanus or to robustus), idem with
aethiopicus & boisei, and robustus appears after the large E.African
robusts, IOW, they probably evolved in parallel.
4) See some details below.
> >Open your eyes, man: your "systematics today" neglects parallel
evolution, with or without numeriacal analyses.
> Er, is doesn't, there's even a special term for it: homoplasy. And it
shows itself (a posteriori) through multiple derivations of a character on a
cladogram. You obviously are not well versed in the matter.
I'm not interested in your prejudices.
>You may want to consult a text like "Biological Systematics: Principles and
Applications" by Randall T. Schuh (Cornell Univeristy Press, 2000).
Yes.
> >It's obvious that the large E.African & the S.Afr.apiths were
paraphyletic. Moreover the E.Africans seem to have had striking resemblances
to gorillas, & the S.Africans to chimps:
> The confusion of a misguided medic far outside his field of competence.
Again: I'm not interested in your prejudices, eg,
Large E.African apiths:
- "Incisal dental microwear in A. afarensis is most similar to that observed
in Gorilla". Ryan & Johanson, 1989.
- The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens "looked
very much like a small female gorilla". Johanson & Edey, 1981, p. 351.
- "Other primitive [IMO advanced gorilla-like? MV] features found in KNM-WT
17000, but not know or much discussed for A. afarensis, are: very small
cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far
above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and
extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some
gorillas". Walker et al., 1986.
- As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and
KNM-ER 406 "the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean:
both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized
bases". Kennedy, 1991.
- In O.H.5, "the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus
skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla". Robinson, 1960.
- The A. boisei "lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the
degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history". Leakey &
Walker, 1988.
- A. boisei teeth showed "a relative absence of prism decussation"; among
extant hominoids, "Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...".
Beynon & Wood, 1986 (cf. Beynon et al., 1991).
S.African apiths:
- "Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus robustus teeth
and they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth
patterns look like those of chimpanzees... Then, when be looked at some Homo
erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed". Leakey, 1981, pp. 74-75.
- "The 'keystone' nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic
of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids,
particularly clearly in some chimpanzees". Eckhardt, 1987.
- "P. paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5];
they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and... even in cranial
and facial features". Zihlman et al., 1978.
- "A. africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan
troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous"". Ferguson, 1989a.
- In Taung, "I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth
definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the
skull of a modern young chimpanzee". Woodward, 1925.
- "The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than
it resembles L338y-6", a juvenile A. boisei. Rak & Howell, 1978.
- "In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung
and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of
the extant chimpanzee". Bromage, 1985.
- "I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a
mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham's curve for brain development in
Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early
hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain
volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and
australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that 'as with pongids, the
australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design'". Falk,
1987.
- In Taung, "pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard
palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the
maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust
australopithecines among higher primates". Bromage & Dean, 1985.
- "That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] 'is distinguished from all
living apes by the... unfused nasal bones.' as claimed by Dart (1940),
cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of
separate nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding
to that of Australopithecus". Schultz, 1941
I may well be wrong, eg, the E.Afr.robusts may have nothing to do with
Gorilla, and the S.Afr.apiths nothing with Pan, I don't care, but I'd like
to see some evidence that's wrong.
Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Marc Verhaegen
> >>>Thanks. Yes, I know, but I have no idea where to place SK-847 (Pan?
Homo? offshoot?) or what to think of its lifestyle & diet.
> >>Then maybe you should leave alpha taxonomy to the people qualified to do
the job. The consensus is that the specimen represents early Homo
> >Don't talk nonsense. There is no consensus on what early Homo is, see the
work of Wood cs. Taxonomy of related species is often wrong: there are too
many parallelisms, as we see in other taxa, read White & Harris 1977 "Suid
evolution and correlation of African hominid localities" Science 198:13-21.
What is interesting is how they might have lived.
> Ron Clarke has made the most detailed comparative study of this specimen
(it is the subject of his 1977 PhD dissertation) with the result that "In
each case it was found that SK 847 has more in common with the genus Homo
than it does with either Australopithecus or Paranthropus. His conclusion is
that "SK 847 should be classified as a member of the genus Homo" (Clarke
1977: v).
OK, but Wood cs. place most "early Homo" into Australopith.
> Later, when comparing SK 847 with KNM-ER 3733 and "being struck by the
similarities" (Clarke 1994: 189) he concluded that the two specimens should
be placed in the same species.
OK.
Marc
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>The evidence is phylogenetic analyses that recover a clade Paranthropus on
>>the basis of a large number of shared characters.
>Yes, of course, but:
>1) All evol.trees accept there was a lot of parallel evolution involved.
They also suggest that there's usually more homology than parallelism.
>2) The frequence of parallel evolution is often underestimated (esp. in PA).
You don't know that until it shows, e.g. when molecular data provides
strong support for separation of "Edentata" into a monophyletic
Xenarthra and Pholidota, and Pholidota groups with Carnivora into a
monophyletic Ferae.
>4) There was overlap between africanus & robustus (of some specimens it's
>difficult to say whether they belong to africanus or to robustus),
Only in the case of the more fragmentary specimens that do not
preserve diagnostic morphology.
>idem with aethiopicus & boisei, and robustus appears after the large E.African
>robusts, IOW, they probably evolved in parallel.
A stratigraphic gap may simply be a case of sampling error,
particularly when it is as small as half a million years. South
African "robust" sites such as Swartkrans, Drimolen, and Kromdraai do
not sample the period prior to ca. 2 mya. Or, if the paleomagnetic
date of 2.48-1.87 mya for Kromdraai is correct (Kaszycka 2002) then
the gap is virtually non-existent.
Kaszycka, K.A. (2002). Status of Kromdraai. CNRS Editions, Paris.
>>>Open your eyes, man: your "systematics today" neglects parallel
>>>evolution, with or without numeriacal analyses.
>>Er, is doesn't, there's even a special term for it: homoplasy. And it
>>shows itself (a posteriori) through multiple derivations of a character on a
>>cladogram. You obviously are not well versed in the matter.
>I'm not interested in your prejudices.
It's not a prejudice, it's an inference on the basis of your muddly
talk on the subject. Did you ever follow a course in biological
systematics?
>>>It's obvious that the large E.African & the S.Afr.apiths were
>>>paraphyletic. Moreover the E.Africans seem to have had striking resemblances
>>>to gorillas, & the S.Africans to chimps:
>>The confusion of a misguided medic far outside his field of competence.
>Again: I'm not interested in your prejudices, eg,
>Large E.African apiths:
>- "Incisal dental microwear in A. afarensis is most similar to that observed
>in Gorilla". Ryan & Johanson, 1989.
Little more than a functional assessment. Need not have any
phylogenetic significance.
>- The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens "looked
>very much like a small female gorilla". Johanson & Edey, 1981, p. 351.
An overall assessment in a piece of popular literature.
It is based on the 1979 composite reconstruction incorporating 12
different specimens (Kimbel et al. 1984) and with a lot of speculative
aspects (in particular the diagnostic supraorbital and frontal region)
such that later revision was required when new material became
available (Kimbel & White 1988).
Any such assessment should be based on a more complete skull from a
single individual, such as A.L. 444-2 (that doesn't look particularly
gorilla-like) (Kimbel et al. in press)).
It is such easy, unsystematic, popular assessment that causes the
confusion in a misguided, uncritical, paleoanthropologically
incompetent medic.
Kimbel, W.H. et al. (1984). Cranial morphology of Australopithecus
afarensis: a comparative study based on a composite reconstruction of
the adult skull. American journal of Physical Anthropology 64:
337-388.
Kimbel, W.H. & White, T.D. (1988). A revised reconstruction of the
adult skull of Australopithecus afarensis. Journal of Human Evolution
17: 545-550.
Kimbel, W.H. et al. (in press). The skull of Australopithecus
afarensis. Oxford University Press.
>- "Other primitive [IMO advanced gorilla-like? MV] features found in KNM-WT
>17000, but not know or much discussed for A. afarensis, are:
>very small cranial capacity;
410 cc is within the range of both A. africanus and A. afarensis, and
much closer to the average of Pan than Gorilla.
>low posterior profile of the calvaria;
Not uniquely gorilla-like.
>nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture
Character 1 of Strait & Grine (2001), present in Pan, Gorilla, A.
afarensis, P. aethiopicus, P. robustus, P. boisei, variable in A.
africanus.
Strait, D.S. & Grine, F.E. (2001). The systematics of Australopithecus
garhi. Ludus Vitalis 9: 109-135.
>and well onto an uninflated glabella;
Not similar to the situation in Gorilla. In Paranthropus glabella
position low (below the level of the superior orbital margin, in
Gorilla glabella position very high, above the level of the superior
orbital margin.
>and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some
>gorillas".
Character 2 of Strait & Grine (2001), Absent in Pan, variable in
Gorilla, absent in A. afarensis, A. africanus and P.boisei, present
in P. aethiopicus and P. robustus.
Besides, close inspection of this character shows it to be of a
different nature in P. aethiopicus when compared to Gorilla. In P.
aethiopicus it is achieved by the extreme elevation and anterior
projection of the malar region which brings the nearly horizontal
malar surface on a level with the floor of the orbit. As a result the
orbital floor grades smoothly onto the malar surface (like the bottom
of an elevator becomes level with floor where it stops). This
configuration is never seen in Gorilla where it is the obital margin
itself that is rounded.
You see, Marc, even if these characters are included into a cladistic
analysis they still do not provide any support for your hypothesis.
Face it pal, your case is extremely weak.
<snip> rest of the crap.
Been there, done that.
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
> >>The evidence is phylogenetic analyses that recover a clade Paranthropus
on the basis of a large number of shared characters.
> >Yes, of course, but: 1) All evol.trees accept there was a lot of parallel
evolution involved.
> They also suggest that there's usually more homology than parallelism.
On the long run, not in related species.
> >2) The frequence of parallel evolution is often underestimated (esp. in
PA).
> You don't know that until it shows, e.g. when molecular data provides
strong support for separation of "Edentata" into a monophyletic Xenarthra
and Pholidota, and Pholidota groups with Carnivora into a monophyletic
Ferae.
Yes. Think also of the Ramapith story.
> >4) There was overlap between africanus & robustus (of some specimens it's
difficult to say whether they belong to africanus or to robustus),
> Only in the case of the more fragmentary specimens that do not preserve
diagnostic morphology.
Well, it's still debated whether Taung was africanus or robustus. They
overlap. Same with aethipoicus & boisei. IOW, the more robust ones evolved
in parallel from the more gracile ones. Logical: we see comparable things
("molarisation") at that time in suids & a lot of other herbivores in Africa
(probably due to colder & drier climate).
> >idem with aethiopicus & boisei, and robustus appears after the large
E.African robusts, IOW, they probably evolved in parallel.
> A stratigraphic gap may simply be a case of sampling error, particularly
when it is as small as half a million years. South African "robust" sites
such as Swartkrans, Drimolen, and Kromdraai do not sample the period prior
to ca. 2 mya. Or, if the paleomagnetic date of 2.48-1.87 mya for Kromdraai
is correct (Kaszycka 2002) then the gap is virtually non-existent. Kaszycka,
K.A. (2002). Status of Kromdraai. CNRS Editions, Paris.
Not impossible, but far-fetched.
> >>>Open your eyes, man: your "systematics today" neglects parallel
evolution, with or without numeriacal analyses.
> >>Er, is doesn't, there's even a special term for it: homoplasy. And it
shows itself (a posteriori) through multiple derivations of a character on a
cladogram. You obviously are not well versed in the matter.
> >I'm not interested in your prejudices.
> It's not a prejudice, it's an inference on the basis of your muddly talk
on the subject. Did you ever follow a course in biological systematics?
If so, so what? Facts, man, not your prejudices.
> >>>It's obvious that the large E.African & the S.Afr.apiths were
paraphyletic. Moreover the E.Africans seem to have had striking resemblances
to gorillas, & the S.Africans to chimps:
> >>The confusion of a misguided medic far outside his field of competence.
> >Again: I'm not interested in your prejudices, eg, Large E.African
apiths: - "Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that
observed in Gorilla". Ryan & Johanson, 1989.
> Little more than a functional assessment. Need not have any phylogenetic
significance.
Not necessarily, no. We can say the same, even more so, about boisei &
robustus.
> >- The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens "looked
very much like a small female gorilla". Johanson & Edey, 1981, p. 351.
> An overall assessment in a piece of popular literature.
1) You call Johanson "popular"?
2) This overall assessment is clear & important: it gives a good impression
of resemblances.
> It is based on the 1979 composite reconstruction incorporating 12
different specimens (Kimbel et al. 1984) and with a lot of speculative
aspects (in particular the diagnostic supraorbital and frontal region) such
that later revision was required when new material became available (Kimbel
& White 1988). Any such assessment should be based on a more complete skull
from a single individual, such as A.L. 444-2 (that doesn't look particularly
gorilla-like) (Kimbel et al. in press)).
Nor un-gorilla-like.
> It is such easy, unsystematic, popular assessment that causes the
confusion in a misguided, uncritical, paleoanthropologically incompetent
medic.
Again: I'm not interested in your prejudices.
> >- "Other primitive [IMO advanced gorilla-like? MV] features found in
KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A. afarensis, are: very
small cranial capacity;
> 410 cc is within the range of both A. africanus and A. afarensis, and much
closer to the average of Pan than Gorilla.
OK, it's apelike.
> >low posterior profile of the calvaria;
> Not uniquely gorilla-like.
Not uniquely.
> >nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture
> Character 1 of Strait & Grine (2001), present in Pan, Gorilla,
A.afarensis, P. aethiopicus, P. robustus, P. boisei, variable in
A.africanus. Strait, D.S. & Grine, F.E. (2001). The systematics of
stralopithecus garhi. Ludus Vitalis 9: 109-135.
OK, it's apelike.
> >and well onto an uninflated glabella;
> Not similar to the situation in Gorilla. In Paranthropus glabella position
low (below the level of the superior orbital margin, in Gorilla glabella
position very high, above the level of the superior orbital margin.
Of course not identical. BTW, "Paranthropus" does not exist: it's
paraphyletic.
> >and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in
some gorillas".
> Character 2 of Strait & Grine (2001), Absent in Pan, variable in Gorilla,
absent in A. afarensis, A. africanus and P.boisei, present in P.
aethiopicus and P. robustus. Besides, close inspection of this character
shows it to be of a different nature in P. aethiopicus when compared to
Gorilla. In P.aethiopicus it is achieved by the extreme elevation and
anterior projection of the malar region which brings the nearly horizontal
malar surface on a level with the floor of the orbit. As a result the
orbital floor grades smoothly onto the malar surface (like the bottom of an
elevator becomes level with floor where it stops). This configuration is
never seen in Gorilla where it is the obital margin itself that is rounded.
You see, Marc, even if these characters are included into a cladistic
analysis they still do not provide any support for your hypothesis. Face it
pal, your case is extremely weak.
1) You're simply too biased to see the possibility.
2) Where are the relatives of Pan & Gorilla? Not 1? Do you really believe
all those hominids were closer relatives of Homo??
3) Include the temoral data: apiths are simply more primitive than living
hominids: they lived 4-1 Ma, Pan & Homo & Gorilla live today.
4) Kennedy 1991: OH-5 cranial base "valeus near the Gorilla mean".
5) Robinson 1960: "the curious and characteristic features of the
Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla" (overall
impression).
6) Leakey & Walker 1988: sex.dimorphism as in modern Gorilla.
7) Beynon & Wood 1986: only Gorilla & boisei teeth show rel.little prism
decussation.
8) You're unable to tell us why it would be impossible. You've only told us
why you think it's unlikely IYO.
A little bit of logic: hominid ancestorsprobably lived in Africa (certainly
those of P & G, possibly not those of Homo, see Benveniste & Todaro 1976
Nat.261:101). The HPG LCA first split into HP (smaller) & Gorilla
(larger-bodied). What is more logical that placing the larger hominids in
Gorilla & the smaller ones in HP? That is the most logical hypothesis: the
large-bodied relatives into Gorilla, the smaller ones into HP. Unless you
can give good arguments that this is wrong, we have to keep this hypothesis.
Rich Travsky
And a related bit of research showing that microwear alone is inadequate
for determining dietary matters is Science 1999 Feb 5; 283:824-827
Extinction of 5-Million-Year-Old Horses from Florida
Bruce J. MacFadden, Nikos Solounias, Thure E. Cerling
Six sympatric species of 5-million-year-old (late Hemphillian) horses from
Florida existed during a time of major global change and extinction in
terrestrial ecosystems. Traditionally, these horses were interpreted to have
fed on abrasive grasses because of their high-crowned teeth. However, carbon
isotopic and tooth microwear data indicate that these horses were not all C4
grazers but also included mixed feeders and C3 browsers. The late Hemphillian
sister species of the modern genus Equus was principally a browser, unlike
the grazing diet of modern equids. Late Hemphillian horse extinctions in
Florida involved two grazing and one browsing species.
From the conclusion:
Before this study, traditional hypotheses about horse evolution would have
asserted that the Bone Valley hypsodont horses indicated a grazing adaptation.
This now must be modified in light of the carbon isotope and microwear
evidence. Our study indicates that the Bone Valley horses partitioned their
available food resources across a broad spectrum from almost pure C4 grazers
to principally C3 browsers.
No one method is going to give the complete picture.
Rich Travsky
Marc, this Moustier fantasy was debunked in
Thompson, J.L., and B. Illerhaus. 1998. A new reconstruction of the Le
Moustier 1 skull and investigation of internal structures using 3-D-uCT
data. _Journal of Human Evolution_, vol. 35, no. 6: 647-665.
Phillip Bigelow posted some nice extracts a few years ago.
You can see the reconstruction at
http://www.unlv.edu/Colleges/Liberal_Arts/Anthropology/thompsonj/
with bigger image at
http://www.unlv.edu/Colleges/Liberal_Arts/Anthropology/thompsonj/facelfl.GIF
The bones around the nose are missing...
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:3F9CB060...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > This is where I used the word snorkel: "Aquatic ape theory and fossil
hominids" Med.Hypotheses 35:108-114, 1991: "While apes and australopiths
(OH-62 included) have flat noses, all Homo specimens (ER-1470 included) show
external noses (54,55). The Neandertal midface and piriform aperture
strongly protruded ventrally (33,55,56). When the Moustier Neandertal was
excavated (1908), the nostrils, which could still be discerned then, were
situated at the top instead of underneath the nose as in H.sapiens (55). The
proboscis monkey is the only non-human primate with a big nose; when the
baby accompanies its swimming mother, it floats on its back with its nose
above the water (18). Also sea-otters float on the back while opening
shellfish, the nose well above the surface. In a Neandertal swimming on his
back, the large nose with distal nostrils and the protruding midface
surrounded by large air sinuses functioned as a snorkel." I don't believe
this hypothesis, but I can't find a counter-argument. Can you?
> Marc, this Moustier fantasy was debunked in Thompson, J.L., and B.
Illerhaus. 1998. A new reconstruction of the Le Moustier 1 skull and
investigation of internal structures using 3-D-uCT data. _Journal of Human
Evolution_, vol. 35, no. 6: 647-665. Phillip Bigelow posted some nice
extracts a few years ago. You can see the reconstruction at
http://www.unlv.edu/Colleges/Liberal_Arts/Anthropology/thompsonj/ with
bigger image at
http://www.unlv.edu/Colleges/Liberal_Arts/Anthropology/thompsonj/facelfl.GIF
The bones around the nose are missing...
1) Sigh. Nostrils are no bones, Travsky... IOW, totally irrelevant. But have
a good look at the reconstruction of the nasal opening in the websites you
provided (thanks, interesting). Look very carefully... :-)
2) I'm not responsible for what Otto Hauser wrote, I see few reasons why he
would be wrong, but I would rephrase my text now something like this: "When
O.Hauser excavated the Moustier Neandertal, he said he could still discern
nostrils before the soft parts fell apart, and IHO they were situated at the
top instead of underneath the nose as in H.sapiens (55)."
3) Apparently you're incapable of giving otherwise 1 good argument against
my text.
Facts, Travsky, instead of your ridiculous short-sighted biases. Open your
eyes, man...
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> No one method is going to give the complete picture.
Who ever had expected this?? you? That's why we tried to use as many data as
possible: Our interpretation is corroborated by (1) comparisons of
postcranial skeleton, (2) tooth enamel microwear, (3) strontium:calcium
ratios and (4) isotopic evidence.
(1) Fossilized footprints and skeletal remains suggest that australopiths
had a mixture of bipedal, tree-climbing and probably20 knuckle-walking
features. These would have been ideal for wetlands: bipedalism in waist-deep
water, knuckle-walking in knee-deep water, and grasping fruits and climbing
arms-overhead in the waterside vegetation, as seen today to varying degrees
in pygmy chimpanzees and lowland gorillas in flooded rainforests or forest
swamps15. Australopith short-legged bipedalism was different from human
bipedalism21, probably including a somewhat forward-leaning trunk posture22,
and would have been suitable for aquarborealism. The A. africanus StW-573
foot from Sterkfontein, South Africa, for instance, "had both bipedal and
climbing adaptations. This skeleton's foot morphology is consistent with the
bipedal Laetoli footprints, which are not those of fully human feet, but
which have very clear ape-like morphology"23. Tree-climbing features (which
are less obvious in the robust australopiths) include apelike
upward-directed shoulder joints and curved finger and toe phalanges.
(2) Our tooth microwear studies indicate that A. afarensis molar enamel has
a glossy polished surface that is typical of the molars of capybaras
Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa24. Both these
semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs, grasses and the bark of
young trees. The microwear of Australopithecus boisei displays more pits,
wide parallel striations and deep-recessed occlusal dentine features when
compared to A. afarensis25,26, resembling that of beavers Castor fiber,
which feed on riverine herbs, roots of water-lilies, bark and woody plants.
Apparently, an early australopith diet of fruits (larger front-teeth) and
swamp herbs (polishing) was supplemented with woody plants in the robust
australopiths (more wear). Walker's suggestion that A. boisei were
bulk-eaters of "small, hard fruits with casings, pulp, seeds and all"27
could explain the deep-recessed dentine, but not the heavily polished enamel
that is typical of marsh-plant feeders24,25.
(3-4) These microwear data are consistent with two studies on South-African
australopiths28,29. Sillen provides three possibilities for low
strontium:calcium ratios in A. robustus: partial carnivory; eating leaves
and shoots of forbs and woody plants; and eating food derived from
well-drained streamside soils28. Sponheimer and Lee-Thorp state that A.
africanus "ate not only fruits and leaves but also large quantities of
carbon-13-enriched foods such as grasses and sedges or animals that ate
these plants, or both"29. However, regular consumption of savannah grasses
is incompatible with the polished, rounded microwear24,29 and predominant
meat eating is unlikely in view of the blunt molars27. More probable is a
diet of sedges and other marshland plants supplemented with fruits and
animals (e.g. tools attributed to A. robustus now suggest termite-eating30).
Independent lines of evidence thus suggest that different australopith
species regularly waded for shallow-water plants, possibly like lowland
gorillas do today15, only much more frequently. Papyrus or reed sedges were
abundant in australopith environments (Table 2) and are part of the diet of
extant hominids. Gorillas eat bamboo shoots and stalks, as well as swamp
herbs and sedges (Table 1); all hominids eat cane; bipedally wading
chimpanzees and humans collect water-lilies; and rice growing in shallow
water and other cereals are staple foods for humans.
Rich Travsky
Then how could the nostrils have left an impression with out the nasal bones?
> a good look at the reconstruction of the nasal opening in the websites you
> provided (thanks, interesting). Look very carefully... :-)
I suggest YOU do the same.
> 2) I'm not responsible for what Otto Hauser wrote, I see few reasons why he
> would be wrong, but I would rephrase my text now something like this: "When
> O.Hauser excavated the Moustier Neandertal, he said he could still discern
> nostrils before the soft parts fell apart, and IHO they were situated at the
> top instead of underneath the nose as in H.sapiens (55)."
And not supported by the facts.
> 3) Apparently you're incapable of giving otherwise 1 good argument against
> my text.
Apparently you're incapable of supporting such a fantasy.
> Facts, Travsky, instead of your ridiculous short-sighted biases. Open your
> eyes, man...
My eyes look at the reconstruction and once again affirm you don't know
what you're talking about.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F9CAD04...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> > No one method is going to give the complete picture.
>
> Who ever had expected this?? you? That's why we tried to use as many data as
> possible: Our interpretation is corroborated by (1) comparisons of
> postcranial skeleton, (2) tooth enamel microwear, (3) strontium:calcium
> ratios and (4) isotopic evidence.
Yawn. You tend to deny the conclusions of the people who did the actual
research in order to pander to your biases.
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > > This is where I used the word snorkel: "Aquatic ape theory and
fossil hominids" Med.Hypotheses 35:108-114, 1991: "While apes and
australopiths (OH-62 included) have flat noses, all Homo specimens (ER-1470
included) show external noses (54,55). The Neandertal midface and piriform
aperture strongly protruded ventrally (33,55,56). When the Moustier
Neandertal was excavated (1908), the nostrils, which could still be
discerned then, were situated at the top instead of underneath the nose as
in H.sapiens (55). The proboscis monkey is the only non-human primate with a
big nose; when the baby accompanies its swimming mother, it floats on its
back with its nose above the water (18). Also sea-otters float on the back
while opening shellfish, the nose well above the surface. In a Neandertal
swimming on his back, the large nose with distal nostrils and the protruding
midface surrounded by large air sinuses functioned as a snorkel." I don't
believe this hypothesis, but I can't find a counter-argument. Can you?
> > > Marc, this Moustier fantasy was debunked in Thompson, J.L., and
B.Illerhaus. 1998. A new reconstruction of the Le Moustier 1 skull and
investigation of internal structures using 3-D-uCT data. _Journal of Human
Evolution_, vol. 35, no. 6: 647-665. Phillip Bigelow posted some nice
extracts a few years ago. You can see the reconstruction at
http://www.unlv.edu/Colleges/Liberal_Arts/Anthropology/thompsonj/ with
bigger image at
http://www.unlv.edu/Colleges/Liberal_Arts/Anthropology/thompsonj/facelfl.GIF
The bones around the nose are missing...
> > 1) Sigh. Nostrils are no bones, Travsky... IOW, totally irrelevant. But
have
> Then how could the nostrils have left an impression with out the nasal
bones?
Ask Hauser.
> > a good look at the reconstruction of the nasal opening in the websites
you provided (thanks, interesting). Look very carefully... :-)
> I suggest YOU do the same.
I did.
> > 2) I'm not responsible for what Otto Hauser wrote, I see few reasons why
he would be wrong, but I would rephrase my text now something like this:
"When O.Hauser excavated the Moustier Neandertal, he said he could still
discern nostrils before the soft parts fell apart, and IHO they were
situated at the top instead of underneath the nose as in H.sapiens (55)."
> And not supported by the facts.
I don't care what you want to believe.
> > 3) Apparently you're incapable of giving otherwise 1 good argument
against my text.
> Apparently you're incapable of supporting such a fantasy.
Then why are you like me incapable if giving 1 argument against this
fantasy?
> > Facts, Travsky, instead of your ridiculous short-sighted biases. Open
your eyes, man...
> My eyes look at the reconstruction and once again affirm you don't know
what you're talking about.
You're crazy. If Neandertals swam or floated on their back, this nose
obviously worked as some kind of snorkel. Only imbeciles deny this.
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > No one method is going to give the complete picture.
> > Who ever had expected this?? you? That's why we tried to use as many
data as possible: Our interpretation is corroborated by (1) comparisons of
postcranial skeleton, (2) tooth enamel microwear, (3) strontium:calcium
ratios and (4) isotopic evidence.
Travsky's evasion:
> Yawn. You tend to deny the conclusions of the people who did the actual
research in order to pander to your biases.
Don't be ridiculous. I nowhere denied any facts. I deny wrong
interpreatations.
Rich Travsky
We don't have to. Without the nasal bones it would have been very hard
to leave nostril impressions.
> > > a good look at the reconstruction of the nasal opening in the websites
> you provided (thanks, interesting). Look very carefully... :-)
>
> > I suggest YOU do the same.
>
> I did.
Then we're agreed there were no nostrils on top of the nose.
> > > 2) I'm not responsible for what Otto Hauser wrote, I see few reasons why
> he would be wrong, but I would rephrase my text now something like this:
> "When O.Hauser excavated the Moustier Neandertal, he said he could still
> discern nostrils before the soft parts fell apart, and IHO they were
> situated at the top instead of underneath the nose as in H.sapiens (55)."
>
> > And not supported by the facts.
>
> I don't care what you want to believe.
The bones are what's to be believed.
> > > 3) Apparently you're incapable of giving otherwise 1 good argument
> against my text.
>
> > Apparently you're incapable of supporting such a fantasy.
>
> Then why are you like me incapable if giving 1 argument against this
> fantasy?
The bones are evidence against your fantasy. Look at finds like La Ferrassie 1
or Gibraltar 1. There is no way to do a reconstruction and put the nostrils
on top of the nose.
Here's a nice forensic reconstruction of a neanderthal:
http://www.uniqueartistic.com/3_Browser/Portfolio/musnathist_pages/face.html
Feel fre to produce or commission one of your own that can show otherwise.
> > > Facts, Travsky, instead of your ridiculous short-sighted biases. Open
> your eyes, man...
>
> > My eyes look at the reconstruction and once again affirm you don't know
> what you're talking about.
>
> You're crazy. If Neandertals swam or floated on their back, this nose
> obviously worked as some kind of snorkel. Only imbeciles deny this.
Humans can swim and float on their backs right now. AND with the nostrils
at the bottom of the nose. Only imbeciles deny this.
Rich Travsky
We don't have to. Without the nasal bones it would have been very hard
to leave nostril impressions.
> > > a good look at the reconstruction of the nasal opening in the websites
> you provided (thanks, interesting). Look very carefully... :-)
>
> > I suggest YOU do the same.
>
> I did.
Then we're agreed there were no nostrils on top of the nose.
> > > 2) I'm not responsible for what Otto Hauser wrote, I see few reasons why
> he would be wrong, but I would rephrase my text now something like this:
> "When O.Hauser excavated the Moustier Neandertal, he said he could still
> discern nostrils before the soft parts fell apart, and IHO they were
> situated at the top instead of underneath the nose as in H.sapiens (55)."
>
> > And not supported by the facts.
>
> I don't care what you want to believe.
The bones are what's to be believed.
> > > 3) Apparently you're incapable of giving otherwise 1 good argument
> against my text.
>
> > Apparently you're incapable of supporting such a fantasy.
>
> Then why are you like me incapable if giving 1 argument against this
> fantasy?
The bones are evidence against your fantasy. Look at finds like La Ferrassie 1
or Gibraltar 1. There is no way to do a reconstruction and put the nostrils
on top of the nose.
Here's a nice forensic reconstruction of a neanderthal:
http://www.uniqueartistic.com/3_Browser/Portfolio/musnathist_pages/face.html
Feel fre to produce or commission one of your own that can show otherwise.
> > > Facts, Travsky, instead of your ridiculous short-sighted biases. Open
> your eyes, man...
>
> > My eyes look at the reconstruction and once again affirm you don't know
> what you're talking about.
>
> You're crazy. If Neandertals swam or floated on their back, this nose
> obviously worked as some kind of snorkel. Only imbeciles deny this.
Humans can swim and float on their backs right now. AND with the nostrils
Rich Travsky
Marc's evasion: I said you denied their *interpretations*...
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > This is where I used the word snorkel: "Aquatic ape theory and
fossil hominids" Med.Hypotheses 35:108-114, 1991: "While apes and
australopiths (OH-62 included) have flat noses, all Homo specimens (ER-1470
included) show external noses (54,55). The Neandertal midface and piriform
aperture strongly protruded ventrally (33,55,56). When the Moustier
Neandertal was excavated (1908), the nostrils, which could still be
discerned then, were situated at the top instead of underneath the nose as
in H.sapiens (55). The proboscis monkey is the only non-human primate with a
big nose; when the baby accompanies its swimming mother, it floats on its
back with its nose above the water (18). Also sea-otters float on the back
while opening shellfish, the nose well above the surface. In a Neandertal
swimming on his back, the large nose with distal nostrils and the protruding
midface surrounded by large air sinuses functioned as a snorkel." I don't
believe this hypothesis, but I can't find a counter-argument. Can you?
> > > > > Marc, this Moustier fantasy was debunked in Thompson, J.L., and
B.Illerhaus. 1998. A new reconstruction of the Le Moustier 1 skull and
investigation of internal structures using 3-D-uCT data. _Journal of Human
Evolution_, vol. 35, no. 6: 647-665. Phillip Bigelow posted some nice
extracts a few years ago. You can see the reconstruction at
http://www.unlv.edu/Colleges/Liberal_Arts/Anthropology/thompsonj/ with
bigger image at
http://www.unlv.edu/Colleges/Liberal_Arts/Anthropology/thompsonj/facelfl.GIF
The bones around the nose are missing.
> > > > 1) Sigh. Nostrils are no bones, Travsky... IOW, totally irrelevant.
But have
> > > Then how could the nostrils have left an impression with out the nasal
bones?
> > Ask Hauser.
> We don't have to. Without the nasal bones it would have been very hard to
leave nostril impressions.
So? Again: Hauser said the nose left an impression at the time of discovery
before the soft parts fell apart. Hauser was there. You were not.
> > > > a good look at the reconstruction of the nasal opening in the
websites you provided (thanks, interesting). Look very carefully... :-)
> > > I suggest YOU do the same.
> > I did.
> Then we're agreed there were no nostrils on top of the nose.
Don't be ridiculous: primary source: Hauser.
> > > > 2) I'm not responsible for what Otto Hauser wrote, I see few reasons
why he would be wrong, but I would rephrase my text now something like this:
"When O.Hauser excavated the Moustier Neandertal, he said he could still
discern nostrils before the soft parts fell apart, and IHO they were
situated at the top instead of underneath the nose as in H.sapiens (55)."
> > > And not supported by the facts.
> > I don't care what you want to believe.
> The bones are what's to be believed.
Stop being ridiculous. See above.
> > > > 3) Apparently you're incapable of giving otherwise 1 good argument
against my text.
> > > Apparently you're incapable of supporting such a fantasy.
> > Then why are you like me incapable if giving 1 argument against this
fantasy?
> The bones are evidence against your fantasy. Look at finds like La
Ferrassie 1 or Gibraltar 1.
Evading as usual?? Le Moustier, Travsky!
> There is no way to do a reconstruction and put the nostrils on top of the
nose.
Don't be ridiculous.
> Here's a nice forensic reconstruction of a neanderthal:
http://www.uniqueartistic.com/3_Browser/Portfolio/musnathist_pages/face.html
So? How can they reconstruct the nostrils if they have no bones?? This is no
way contradicts what hauser said.
> Feel fre to produce or commission one of your own that can show otherwise.
?? Not following? I'm not even saying it was otherwise, Travsky.
> > > > Facts, Travsky, instead of your ridiculous short-sighted biases.
Open your eyes, man...
> > > My eyes look at the reconstruction and once again affirm you don't
know what you're talking about.
> > You're crazy. If Neandertals swam or floated on their back, this nose
obviously worked as some kind of snorkel. Only imbeciles deny this.
> Humans can swim and float on their backs right now. AND with the nostrils
at the bottom of the nose. Only imbeciles deny this.
Yes. As with neandertals. Intelligent talk, Travsky. Finally become a bit
wiser?? Again: the point: you can't give 1 objection to this text: "While
apes & apiths (OH-62 included) have flat noses, all Homo specimens (ER-1470
included) show external noses (54,55). The Neandertal midface & piriform
aperture strongly protruded ventrally (33,55,56). When O.Hauser excavated
the Moustier Neandertal, he said he could still discern nostrils before the
soft parts fell apart, and IHO they were situated at the top instead of
underneath the nose as in H.sapiens (55). The proboscis monkey is the only
non-human primate with a big nose; when the baby accompanies its swimming
mother, it floats on its back with its nose above the water (18). Also
sea-otters float on the back while opening shellfish, the nose well above
the surface. In a Neandertal swimming on his back, the large nose with
distal nostrils and the protruding midface surrounded by large air sinuses
functioned as a snorkel." I don't believe this hypothesis, but I can't find
a better explanation. Can you?
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > No one method is going to give the complete picture.
> > > > Who ever had expected this?? you? That's why we tried to use as many
data as possible: Our interpretation is corroborated by (1) comparisons of
postcranial skeleton, (2) tooth enamel microwear, (3) strontium:calcium
ratios and (4) isotopic evidence.
> > Travsky's evasion:
> > > Yawn. You tend to deny the conclusions of the people who did the
actual research in order to pander to your biases.
> > Don't be ridiculous. I nowhere denied any facts. I deny wrong
interpreatations.
> Marc's evasion: I said you denied their *interpretations*...
Sorry. I must have read this in a hurry (like all your blabla). Of course:
only imbeciles believe such ridiculous interpretations. Thanks for agreeing.
Rich Travsky
What soft parts???
> > > > > a good look at the reconstruction of the nasal opening in the
> websites you provided (thanks, interesting). Look very carefully... :-)
>
> > > > I suggest YOU do the same.
>
> > > I did.
>
> > Then we're agreed there were no nostrils on top of the nose.
>
> Don't be ridiculous: primary source: Hauser.
Primary source: the bones themselves.
> > > > > 2) I'm not responsible for what Otto Hauser wrote, I see few reasons
> why he would be wrong, but I would rephrase my text now something like this:
> "When O.Hauser excavated the Moustier Neandertal, he said he could still
> discern nostrils before the soft parts fell apart, and IHO they were
> situated at the top instead of underneath the nose as in H.sapiens (55)."
>
> > > > And not supported by the facts.
>
> > > I don't care what you want to believe.
>
> > The bones are what's to be believed.
>
> Stop being ridiculous. See above.
Stop being ridiculous. See above.
> > > > > 3) Apparently you're incapable of giving otherwise 1 good argument
> against my text.
>
> > > > Apparently you're incapable of supporting such a fantasy.
>
> > > Then why are you like me incapable if giving 1 argument against this
> fantasy?
>
> > The bones are evidence against your fantasy. Look at finds like La
> Ferrassie 1 or Gibraltar 1.
>
> Evading as usual?? Le Moustier, Travsky!
Evading as usual? What's LM1 going to do for you? We've other neanderthal
skulls to work from.
> > There is no way to do a reconstruction and put the nostrils on top of the
> nose.
>
> Don't be ridiculous.
Show one then.
> > Here's a nice forensic reconstruction of a neanderthal:
> http://www.uniqueartistic.com/3_Browser/Portfolio/musnathist_pages/face.html
>
> So? How can they reconstruct the nostrils if they have no bones?? This is no
> way contradicts what hauser said.
>
> > Feel fre to produce or commission one of your own that can show otherwise.
>
> ?? Not following? I'm not even saying it was otherwise, Travsky.
Then we're agreed there were no nostrils on top of the nose.
> > > > > Facts, Travsky, instead of your ridiculous short-sighted biases.
> Open your eyes, man...
>
> > > > My eyes look at the reconstruction and once again affirm you don't
> know what you're talking about.
>
> > > You're crazy. If Neandertals swam or floated on their back, this nose
> obviously worked as some kind of snorkel. Only imbeciles deny this.
>
> > Humans can swim and float on their backs right now. AND with the nostrils
> at the bottom of the nose. Only imbeciles deny this.
>
> Yes. As with neandertals. Intelligent talk, Travsky. Finally become a bit
Marc admits neanderthal nostrils were at the *bottom* of the nose.
>[...]
Rich Travsky
Poor Marc. No where did I say that *I* disagreed with their interpretations...
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> What soft parts???
You simply don't know what you're talking about. Waste your own time.
Rich Travsky
I'm not the one claiming snorkel noses.
Trinkaus already settled this.