Marc Verha
Thu, Jun-22-06, 17:18
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT1/files/PA20060036.pdf
Wolpoff MH, Hawks J, Senut B, Pickford M & Ahern J 2006 "An
ape or the ape: is the Toumaļ TM 266 cranium a hominid?"
PaleoAnthropology 2006:36-50
Thanks, Rob.
Very beautiful paper + illustrations, full of interesting
facts & thoughts, eg,
- Sahelanthr had a supra-orbital torus comparable to gorillas
& H.erectus;
- the authors think it had a chimp-like pattern of locomotion;
- its cranial base was gorilla-like, but with
rubust-apith-like expanded glenoid fossa (powerful
chewing?);
- it showed powerful mastication, pucture crushing, canine
wear comparable to Ouranoptih & Gigantopith (Gigantopith is
sometimes thought to have fed on hard grasses or bamboo).
Unfortunately the authors start from the usual prejudices:
"Obligate bipedalism is the most significant autapomorphy
describing the hominid clade (Caspari, 2002; Dart, 1925;
Lovejoy et al., 2002; Senut, 2003; White et al., 1994; and
many others)." But there's no reason to think that chimps &
gorillas could not have had more bipedal ancestors (to the
contrary: see "Apithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolut-
ion.html ); nor that bipedalism could not have evolved more
than once (eg, in Oreopith?). If the authors had read our
"Aquarboreal ancestors?" http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/OP%2-
0Verhaegen%20final%20styled.doc.pdf , they could have agreed
that Sahelanthr might be just one of the several aquarboreal
peri-Tethys/Mediterranean hominids (sensu Homo-Pan-Gorilla, as
opposed to pongids), with a diet (& possibly a locomotion) not
unlike Ouranopith in Greece a bit earlier.
--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
Wolpoff MH, Hawks J, Senut B, Pickford M & Ahern J 2006 "An
ape or the ape: is the Toumaļ TM 266 cranium a hominid?"
PaleoAnthropology 2006:36-50
Thanks, Rob.
Very beautiful paper + illustrations, full of interesting
facts & thoughts, eg,
- Sahelanthr had a supra-orbital torus comparable to gorillas
& H.erectus;
- the authors think it had a chimp-like pattern of locomotion;
- its cranial base was gorilla-like, but with
rubust-apith-like expanded glenoid fossa (powerful
chewing?);
- it showed powerful mastication, pucture crushing, canine
wear comparable to Ouranoptih & Gigantopith (Gigantopith is
sometimes thought to have fed on hard grasses or bamboo).
Unfortunately the authors start from the usual prejudices:
"Obligate bipedalism is the most significant autapomorphy
describing the hominid clade (Caspari, 2002; Dart, 1925;
Lovejoy et al., 2002; Senut, 2003; White et al., 1994; and
many others)." But there's no reason to think that chimps &
gorillas could not have had more bipedal ancestors (to the
contrary: see "Apithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolut-
ion.html ); nor that bipedalism could not have evolved more
than once (eg, in Oreopith?). If the authors had read our
"Aquarboreal ancestors?" http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/OP%2-
0Verhaegen%20final%20styled.doc.pdf , they could have agreed
that Sahelanthr might be just one of the several aquarboreal
peri-Tethys/Mediterranean hominids (sensu Homo-Pan-Gorilla, as
opposed to pongids), with a diet (& possibly a locomotion) not
unlike Ouranopith in Greece a bit earlier.
--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT