Vestigial tree-climbing traits
- From: "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:37:46 -0000
JAE wrote (in thread 'Obligate Bipedalism')
> There's quite a bit of reason to believe that the trait reported by
> Richmond and Strait is vestigial. On cladistic grounds alone such an
> interpretation makes phylogenetic sense. And as otherwise the apith
> arms didn't show any signs of being used in quadrupedal locomotion, any
> of the vast number of clear characteristics of a creature who uses its
> forelimbs for support, the interpretation that the trait was on the way
> out further makes sense.
Richmond & Strait's work is about the only useful
achievement of the past 50 years in this discipline
-- apart from the 'gardening' -- the finding of fossils.
One other topic where, probably, similar work could
be done is on 'climbing'.
Standard-PA (and even the great proportion of PA
heretics) maintain that the hominid line continued
to live in trees up to some uncertain time around
2 mya.
(By 'live in trees', I mean spend around half of their
existence in them; that would cover the hours of
darkness -- which are 12 out of the 24, a fact not
generally known -- plus some further time, sleeping
during the day, finding food, and avoiding predators
in daylight. In other words, early homo (including
the Apiths) would -- under this theory -- spend
almost the same amount of time in trees as many,
or most, chimps.)
However, there will be a radical morphological
difference between trees-sleeping animals, and
those that sleep in the ground.
Does anyone want to suggest what they might be?
And how they could be identified in fossils?
Paul.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Vestigial tree-climbing traits
- From: JAE
- Re: Vestigial tree-climbing traits
- Prev by Date: Re: Lucy had KWing features (Richmond & Strait Nature 404:382)
- Next by Date: Vestigial tree-climbing traits
- Previous by thread: review: Futureshocks
- Next by thread: Re: Vestigial tree-climbing traits
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
