Re: micro-wear (Re: Lucy partial KWer (Re: Lucy not a knuckle-walker (Re: Obligate Bimanualism


"Mario Petrinovich" <mario.petrinovic1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dkhpjm$5th$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > I said (you snipped): P-F.Puech thinks the OH-16 diet included acidic
parts of papyrus: "Cyperaceae fruits were common in H.habilis habitat
(Bonnefille 1984). Ancient Egyptians ate Cyperus papyrus root which was also
present at Olduvai in swamp-margins and river banks" (Puech 1992). "...in
the sediments of Beds I and II ... swamp vegetation is indicated by abundant
vertical roots channels and casts possibly made by some kind of reed. Fossil
rhizomes of papyrus also suggest the presence of marshland and/or shallow
water" (Conroy 1990). A likely evolution is this: according to their
microwear & to where they were found, early apiths ate mashland plants
("afarensis AL.333 bones were found in swale-like features ... they died and
partially rotted at or very near this site ... buried in streamside gallery
woodland" (Radosevich cs.1992)). In their successors in E.Africa after 2
Ma, this had split into 2 diets: 1) one including more woody parts, eg,
parts of reeds or sedges: boisei, eg, Chesowanja: "The fossiliferous
sediments were deposited in a lagoon ... Abundant root casts ... suggest
that the embayment was flanked by reeds and the presence of calcareous algae
indicates that the lagoon was warm and shallow. Bellamya and catfish are
animals tolerant of relatively stagnant water..." (Carney cs.1971), 2)
one more omnivorous: habilis (apith IMO, possibly not Homo), see above.

> >> > it's a gradual evolution which fits all known data, and there are no
serious alternatives. --Marc

> >> Yes, I am aware of this. It is good model (if you ask me). The only
thing is that it isn't true. Because we never ate raw meat

> Well, I am not that good at plants. What did I snipped (I don't know what
"swale" is, though)?

"low marshy ground"

> Puech thinks that OH-16 ate acidic parts of papyrus. I have nothing
against this. I ate some vegetable just the other day. I often eat
vegetables. They are good cooked, and some uncooked (carrot). I didn't eat
papyrus roots, though. Are they good raw? I do eat (and like) a lot of raw
plants. They are prepared as a salad. I put vinegar and oil in it, and
definitely salt. Without those three, it isn't good. I wouldn't be surprised
if our ancestors ate something similar. It is delicious, excellent addition
to meat. Do some other people eat this on some other way (without vinegar,
oil or salt)? When you burn everything, marsh isn't likely to burn. Isn't
rice from similar environment?

I'm not sure.

> > Totally irrelevant: I'm speaking about apiths, not Homo.

> I am speaking about bipedals.

Bipedalism is totally irrelevant here: we were discussing tooth wear.

> >> , and appearance of bipedals is in coordination with appearance of
savanna ecology

> > Nonsense: just-so story without arguments. To the contrary probably,
eg, Oreopith in a swamp forest has been claimed to have been bipedal.

> By whom? Only Marcel?

No, no, Marcel gets it ideas from, eg, M.Köhler & S.Moya-Sola 1997 "Ape-like
or hominid-like? The positional behavior of Oreopithecus bambolii
reconsidered" PNAS 94:11747-51: "Compar.morphol.& funct.analyses of the
skeletal remains ... provides evidence that bipedal activities made up a
significant part of the positional behavior of this primate. The mosaic
pattern of its postcran.morphology is to some degree convergent with that of
Australopith, and functionally intermediate betw.apes & early hominids ..."

> > No savanna mammal except kangaroos (ex-arboreal) are bipedal. One must
be crazy to start running on 2 instead of 4 legs in open plains.

> I never claimed that we ran through plains. I even don't claim that
Apiths lived in savanna. I claim that they made savanna,

?? Apes creating savanna??

> and that they were living at the edges of savanna. It is doubtful to what
extent savanna existed before Homo. I am claiming that Apiths (actually
bipeds, from Ouranopith to Homo)

1) We don't know anything on Ouranopith locomotion.
2) Apiths had arm-hanging (esp. graciles) & knuckle-walking
(esp.E.Afr.apiths) features.

> are the cause of deforestation. IOW, they burned trees. Trees aren't
savanna features. They caused savanna by burning trees in rain forest.
Burning was good for spreading of pyrophytes, which caused more fire. This
is good for grass. Which produced grazers, who spread grassland even more.
Maybe apiths never came deep into savanna. But then came Homo, who had
tools, which enabled him to hunt big savanna animals. Homo went into
savanna.

1) Evidence for fire-using apiths is nihil.
2) Although some Homo spms might have been found in "savanna" there's no
positive correlation Homo/savanna: Flores, Dmanisi, Gibraltar, Eritrea...
all savanna???


> IOW, Apiths lived closer to forest. I am not sure where, yet. They had
good climbing abilities. Especially cliff climbing. They were good swimmers.

1) Not the slightest evidence for cliff climbing.
2) Evidence for swimming not very firm (broad thorax & lateral arms (hippo,
platypus, beaver)?? large basicranial sinuses??).

> > Our locomotion is composed of different elements: truncal erectness cf.
gibbons, tarsiers...; aligned body cf. swimming animals...; v.long legs
cf.ostrich, flamingo...; 2-leggedness cf.gibbon, kangaroo, bird, dino,
penguin...; stretched legs (instead of bent-knees-bent-hips). All this is
to be expected in an ex-arboreal that became littoral. It's ridiculous to
believe that our locomotion has anything to do with savanna-running.

I forgot:
- vertical spine in tarsiers, gibbons, penguins, humans;
- oblique spine in dinos, kangaroos (heavy tails);
- horizontal spine in most birds.

> I never said savanna running. Besides, for emergence of our locomotion,
I am talking about the time before savanna. Remember? The time of
Ouranopith.

Before savanna?? Our ancestors never were savanna animals: otherwise we
had had more powerful kidneys, less SC fat, higher velocity, no plantigrady
etc.etc.: it's a ridiculous just-so story which has to be forgotten as soon
as possible: this nonsensical idea has retarded PA for half a century. If
some of our relatives lived in "savannas", they lived at the waters there.


> >> , and bipedals is the only thing that is needed to explain appearance
of savanna ecology, as you can see from papers I provided. The other thing
is the loss of canines.

> > ?? That robusts had smaller canines is probably due to their poorer
diet, see above. This has nothing to do with bipedality, of course, but
with diet.

> The only thing canines has with, is fighting (in primates), AFAIK.

Primates also long canines for stripping bark, opening fruits etc., but the
difference of males vs females might be predom.for fighting. But we're
talking about canine reduction: in robusts, no doubt necessary for
consumption of calorie poor vegetal foods (Homo OTOH has incisiform canines
& closed tooth row cf.Callicebus, probably for better suction).

--Marc


.

Relevant Pages