Re: Faithful Ancestors was Re: Doesn't ANYONE have anything new to say?
- From: "deowll" <deowll@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:10:30 -0500
"Lorenzo L. Love" <lllove@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1GCwe.10905$jX6.1341@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> firstjois wrote:
>
>> rmacfarl wrote:
>>
>>>>Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>rmacfarl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>>>Firstly, I don't understand how you deduce from the article that
>>>>>>Lovejoy's methodology was any less arbitrary than Plavcan's or
>>>>>>McHenry's.
>>>>
>>>>Comment?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Secondly, Gabriel Reeses or Lauren Jacksons (a plug for the
>>>>>>Aussies if we're talking giant wimmin who "got game"), or Danny
>>>>>>DeVitos, don't appear once in every 22 individuals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thirdly, in nature pathological giants & midgets generally have
>>>>>>poor survival &/or reproductive success, all else being equal.
>>>>>
>>>>>We're not talking about pathological conditions, just the outside
>>>>>edges of the bell curve. It only takes one misidentification to
>>>>>throw the results off. Note Plavcan only used seven specimens.
>>>>
>>>>A 6-foot-4 woman is a bit more than "just outside the edges of the
>>>>bell curve".
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>>>Not so. It's been a while since I read Birute Galdikas, but as I
>>>>>>recall, what the big orang males do is monopolise the best bits of
>>>>>>forest, & specifically the best fruiting trees. They do use size to
>>>>>>keep the rival males away, they do attract a disproportionate
>>>>>>percentage of females, and they do attract a highly
>>>>>>disproportionate percentage of successful matings.
>>>>>
>>>>>No matter how big an orangutan's territory is, they don't form
>>>>>harems but go from one isolated female to another. One at a time.
>>>>
>>>>No matter how often they're in company, large mature males do use
>>>>their size to keep out rivals, and they do attract a highly
>>>>disproportionate percentage of successful matings.
>>>>
>>>>There are precedents for complex social structures amongst mammals
>>>>who are solitary most of the time. Brown hyenas for example.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Sexual dimorphism between males & females is no accident. In most
>>>>>>vertebrates, & as far as I know all primates, males are bigger than
>>>>>>females, and there is a correlation between the degree of
>>>>>>dimorphism and the level of competition between males for
>>>>>>reproductive success. It tells us a lot.
>>
>>
>> Isn't it true of all (nearly all?) mammals? It should all hang in with
>> the
>> variations in female/male hormones producing different growth patterns
>> and
>> with many other factors kicking in but the default should be that males
>> will be larger and females smaller. Changes from this pattern should be
>> attributed to sexual selection, I guess.
>
> Dimorphic yes. How much is the question. Homo and Pan are roughly 15%,
> Gorilla and Pongo roughly 50%. Were afarnsis (and the other
> Australopithecus) moderately dimorphic like Homo and Pan or highly
> dimorphic like Gorilla and Pongo? Not enough data to tell, but if I was
> drawing a picture of an afarnsis family, I would show Daddy 15% bigger
> then Mommy.
>
>>
>> While the argument goes along the lines of competition for females it
>> could
>> also be the relative food cost for males vs pregnant females. If a
>> certain location could support a grown male, it would also support a
>> pregnant/nursing female? Hum.
>
> It's complicated by the range of males often being larger then that of
> females. In the case of orangutans, many times larger, sometims
> incorporating several female ranges. Also different food foraging
> techniques. Male chimps hunt, females don't. While males share some meat
> with female friends, most of it they eat themselves. Don't female chimps
> do more nut cracking then males? I seem to recall that from somewhere.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>It tells us zip about social and sexual behavior as the similar
>>>>>dimorphism between gorilla and orangutans and the very different
>>>>>social and sexual behavior shows us.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, come on! Why are orangs so much bigger than females, if not
>>>>because of competition and sexual selection?
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Aren't male orangs solitary? How would the female know there were
>> several
>> choices to choose from?
>>
>
> They don't, the males come to them. Females have little choice in the
> matter. If a male finds a female in estrus, he's going to mate with her
> whether she likes it or not. Not real gentlemen, those orangutans. Has
> anyone considered the large dimorphism of orangutans has as much to do
> with the male's ability to overpower the female as male to male
> competition?
A male organgutan around large powerful adults won't even finish growing up
until the adults thin out but will try to mate on the sly using force if
they must. Once they do start to grow and start to look like adult males
they may be killed by other males. Saw a picture of a deep cut several
inches long on the back of a dead male named Robert that looked like he'd
been slashed with a knife. Those guys have sharp teeth and they use them.
They are also God awful strong.
>
>>
>> Jois
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>>Ross Macfarlane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What is AK47?
>>>>
>>>>- Marc Verhaegen, 23-Jun-2005.
>>
>>
>> La la la la
>>
>>
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> ?Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything remotely
> true.?
> Homer Simpson
>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Human territoriality [was A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.]
- Next by Date: Re: Faithful Ancestors was Re: Doesn't ANYONE have anything new to say?
- Previous by thread: Re: Human territoriality [was A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.]
- Next by thread: Re: Faithful Ancestors was Re: Doesn't ANYONE have anything new to say?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
