Op dinsdag 28 maart 2023 om 22:10:41 UTC+2 schreef
peter2...@gmail.com:
A comment on the "earliest apes" in your thread title: Hominoidea are informally known as
"great apes" to the exclusion of the Barbary ape [more modern name: Barbary macaque].
My impression is that the traditional use of "ape" makes it synonymous with "tailless monkey".
Specifically, it excludes Homo sapiens.
OK.
On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 6:40:40 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
Bipedal locomotion in zoo apes:
Revisiting the hylobatian model for bipedal origins
Kyle H Rosen, Caroline E Jones & Jeremy M DeSilva 2022
Evol.Hum.Sci. doi org/10.1017/ehs.2022.9
I'm glad to see you using sources besides your own writings, or writings of obvious amateurs
like the fan of yours who authored: https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
:-) Unprejudiced people (not indoctrinated by savanna beliefs) understand immediately what we want to say.
Bipedal locomotion is a hallmark of being human.(& of hylobatids, kangaroos, birds etc. --mv) Yet the body form from which bipedalism evolved remains unclear.(no: google "aquarboreal" --mv)
Your first parenthetical comment is factual, the second a mere hypothesis.
No: I predicted this in the 1990s, and a few years later, the wading lowland gorillas of Ndoki were discovered, still later also wading bonobos & the wading orangutans. :-)
Evolution is gradual: primates are arboreal, H.erectus was diving (POS etc.): the intermediate phase was arbor+aqua = aquarboreal.
Aquarboreality explains hominoid tail loss, very broad build (Hominoidea=Latisternalia), arm-hanging etc.
Apes later in parallel reduced the aquatic part, possibly of Pleist.coolings? other foods? ...?
Specifically, the positional behaviour (i.e. orthograde vs. pronograde) and the length of the lumbar spine (i.e. long and mobile vs. short and stiff) of the last common ancestor (LCA) of the African great apes and humans require further investigation.
While fossil evidence would be the most conclusive, the paucity of hominid fossils from 5–10 million years ago makes this field of research challenging.
Paucity is, of course, a relative concept. I suppose the contrast is with Australopithecus and
Ardipithecus and Paranthropus. If you had your way, would you exclude them from Hominini and reassign
them to Panini? Or some to Panini and others to Gorillini?
The terms "pannini/hominini/..." are only confusing.
I only use "hominid" vs "pongid" vs "hylobatid".
"Paranthropus" is paraphyletic: boisei = fossil Gorilla, robustus = fossil Pan, see my Hum.Evol.papers:
Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus evolved in parallel with Pan fossil subgenus Australopithecus:
schematically late-Plio-->early-Pleist.: E.African afarensis->boisei // S.African africanus->robustus.
(paucity? Oreo-, Ourano-, Graecopith were probably hominid & aquarboreal,
I was surprised to see that the Wikipedia entry for Oreopithecus favors "aquarboreal".
:-)
I was even more surprised to read the following:
"In addition, a meticulous re-description of Graecopithecus specimens in 2017 further evidenced that Graecopithecus is more related to humans than to apes,[19] while Ouranopithecus specimens have strict ape-like characters. Separate genus are therefore
continued to be generally adopted.[20][21][22]."
[19] is here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5439669/
IMO, Oreo-, Ourano-, Graecopith were aquarboreal stem-hominids, equally related to Homo, Pan or Gorilla.
It's encouraging to see that you are not one of the co-authors. You need more such
references if you want to be taken seriously here in talk.origins.
All really-seriously thinking people agree with me... :-)
Are you familiar with the line, "We are not in Kansas anymore, Toto."?
You are not in sci.anthropology.paleo or sci.bio.paleontology anymore, Marc.
??
the Trachilos BP footprints were clearly BP: most likely late-Miocene hominids in Medit.swamp forests were BP & aquarboreal --mv) In their absence(no: Oreo-Ourano-Graecopithecus... --mv), extant primate anatomy and behaviour may offer some insight
into the ancestral body form from which bipedalism could most easily evolve.(yes, google "aquarboreal" --mv)
Here, we quantify the frequency of bipedalism in a large sample (N = 496) of zoo-housed hominoids and cercopithecines. Our results show that while each studied species of ape and monkey can move bipedally, hylobatids are significantly more bipedal
and engage in bipedal locomotion more frequently and for greater distances than any other primate sampled.(yes, see our Med.Hypoth. & Hum.Evol.papers --mv) These data support hypotheses of an orthograde, long-backed(?? apes have less lumbar vertebrae
than OWMs --mv)
And giraffes have the same number of neck vertebrae as we do, so number is a poor guide to length.
OK.
and arboreal LCA, which is consistent with hominoid fossils from the middle-to-late Miocene.(of course: the hominoid LCA was already BP & aquarboreal --mv) If true, knuckle-walking evolved in parallel in Pan and Gorilla, and the human body form,
particularly the long lower back(no: 5 lumbar vertebrae, 7 in cercopiths --mv) and orthograde posture, is conserved.(I was one of the first to hypothesize parallel evolution of KWing in Pan//Gorilla, Med.Hypoth.16:17-32,1985 & Hum.Evol.9:121-139,1994 --
mv)
____
IOW, not revisiting but confirming our view: Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were already BP in coastal & swamp forests: wading upright + climbing arms overhead in the branches above the water, google "aquarboreal".
This also implies that BP australopiths were related to Gorilla or Pan (E & S.Afr.apiths resp.), e.g. Hum.Evol.9:121-139,1994 & Hum.Evol.11:35-41,1996
You need to give us your reasoning. You know about a photo of Pan wading, hence aquarboreal.
So how do you justify your implication?
1990 Hum Evol 5:295-7 "African Ape Ancestry"
1994 Hum Evol 9:121-139 "Australopithecines: Ancestors of the African apes?"
1996 Hum Evol 11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
No reasoning: simple facts, e.g.
Table 2 - Quotations on gorilla-like features in large East African australopith crania
• “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 1981:351.
• “Other primitive [or 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 cs 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 cs 1991).
Table 3 - Quotations on chimp-like features in South African australopith crania
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Au.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, he found that the
pattern changed”. Leakey 1981:74-75.
• “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 cs 1978.
• “A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson 1989.
• 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.
IOW, early PAs knew it far better than the brain-washed present-day afro+anthropocentic savanna-believers.
Today, PAs find everywhere in Africa "human ancestors" - curiously (statistically +-imposible) never fossil relatives of chimp/bonobo/gorilla...
Lucy was simply a fossil Gorilla, Taung a fossil Pan, etc.
Pliocene Homo was in S-Asia: early-Pleist.Mojokerto etc.
rather than to Homo: Pliocene Homo was on his way to Java (Mojokerto early-Pleistocene),
Since we have no Pliocene Homo fossils, this implication that they were all on the way
to Java is sheer speculation. A million years intervene between the end of the Pliocene
and the most widely accepted dating for Mojokerto.
We also don't find Pliocene Pan in the E.Afr.coast, only inland: Transvaal etc. Pliocene Pan & Homo fossils lie 10s of metres below today's sea-level along Ind.Ocean coasts?
e.g. see my book p.299-300, google "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen".
The latter is by your amateur fan mentioned above. Not expected to impress talk.origins regulars.
They should.
But thinking a little bit logically should suffice... --marc
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)