Analysis of Gibbon Bipedality

[Rich Travs]

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060717/full/060717-17.html

Gibbons swing through the air with the greatest of ease, but
Evie Vereecke, a PhD student at the University of Antwerp in
Belgium, wondered how they fared on the ground. Turns out,
they do just fine on two legs, but their gait is much
different from ours. ... To get more specific, Vereecke and
two colleagues introduced an 'instrumented walkway' to the
enclosure of four white-handed gibbons (Hylobates lar) in a
Belgian zoo. As the apes ambled over it, their every move was
filmed and every footfall recorded. An analysis is published
this week in the Journal of Experimental Biology.

Whereas humans and horses have two very distinct gaits,
walking and running, gibbons only rarely engage in a way of
locomotion that resembles our walk, where the legs are swung
like pendulums. Instead, at all speeds, they propel
themselves in a springy, bouncy fashion closer to our run.

But unlike humans, they do not use their Achilles tendons as
the main spring. Vereecke hypothesizes that they might use
their quadriceps muscles instead.

Also unlike a human, they never have both feet off the ground
at the same time. Vereecke suggests that this 'aerial phase'
(think of this lovely expression on your next jog) should not
be a requirement to call something a run.

Vereecke says that the apes are good at bipedalism, even
though the animals are much more often found swinging from
limb to limb. She wonders whether there is some fundamental
aspect of physiology that might make swinging animals
adaptable to walking. "Probably there is a biomechanical
overlap between bipedal and arboreal locomotion," she says,
"which might have something to say about the evolution of
human bipedalism."

Liza Shapiro, a primate locomotion specialist at the
University of Texas, Austin, is a bit less impressed with the
gibbon bouncy gait. She points out that the study also shows
that the gibbons' centre of mass tends to roil about during
this funny walk. "I get the impression that maybe their
bipedalism isn't very energy-efficient at all," she says.

Still, she says, she is intigued by Vereecke's hypothesis:
perhaps there is some common energy-efficiency pattern in all
primates that are fundamentally adapted to arboreal
environments, but that can also stand up and walk.

Interesting video at

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060717/multimedia/gibbon%20c-
lip%202.mov

[Paul Crowl]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44C4F1F8.64370A95@hotmMOVEail.com...
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060717/full/060717-17.html

>"Probably there is a biomechanical overlap between bipedal
>and arboreal locomotion," she says, "which might have
>something to say about the evolution of human bipedalism."

Err . . . primates have upright trunks, most of the time. So
they find it easier to adopt a bipedal stance more readily
than animals that hold their trunks horizontally nearly all
their waking time,

> Liza Shapiro, a primate locomotion specialist at the
> University of Texas, Austin, is a bit less impressed with
> the gibbon bouncy gait. She points out that the study
> also shows that the gibbons' centre of mass tends to roil
> about during this funny walk. "I get the impression that
> maybe their bipedalism isn't very energy-efficient at
> all," she says.

Who cares about 'energy efficiency'? What is the matter with
PA types, in that they keep going on about it? Even if it was
horendously 'energy inefficient' would it matter? The gibbon
has found a perfectly satisfactory niche, and if it had to
expend a lot of energy over a short time doing an unusual
activity . . so what?

It probably all comes from the standard failure to grasp the
concept of niche.

> Still, she says, she is intigued by Vereecke's hypothesis:
> perhaps there is some common energy-efficiency pattern in
> all primates that are fundamentally adapted to arboreal
> environments, but that can also stand up and walk.

Drivel, and more drivel. These PA types know that there is
something going on, but they can't quite put their finger on
it. Somehow they've latched on to the wholly irrelevant
concept of 'energy-efficiency', and feel that deep in its
bowels lies the solution to life, the universe and everything.

Both amazing and sad.

Paul/

[Spiznet]

Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:44C4F1F8.64370A95@hotmMOVEail.com...
> >
> > http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060717/full/060717-17.html
>
<snip>
>
> > Still, she says, she is intigued by Vereecke's hypothesis:
> > perhaps there is some common energy-efficiency pattern in
> > all primates that are fundamentally adapted to arboreal
> > environments, but that can also stand up and walk.
>
> Drivel, and more drivel. These PA types know that there is
> something going on, but they can't quite put their finger on
> it. Somehow they've latched on to the wholly irrelevant
> concept of 'energy-efficiency', and feel that deep in its
> bowels lies the solution to life, the universe and
> everything.
>
> Both amazing and sad. Paul

Or sadly amazing!!

[Mario Petr]

Rich Travsky:
> http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060717/full/060717-17.html

This is what I wrote in the AAT group: "Yes, no use of
Achilles tendom. ...No use of Achilles tendom (the
strongest tendom in our body) on one side, but also no
use of big toe on the other side. This is from Primate
Anathomy, Ankel-Simons: "Humans who have accidentally
lost their big toes have great difficulties standing
upright for any lenght of time without the support of
a cane.". So, when did those two features evolve?
Before bipedality emerged? I can add more from Primate
Anathomy. "The human foot is clearly specialized: it
is stiff all over, the hallux is in alignment with
other four toes, and it is no longer very well adapted
for grasping. The talus (or astralagus) and calcaneus
are also aligned with the long axis of the foot and
are positioned on top of each other. The neck with the
head of the human talus does not diverge medially from
long axis of the foot as much as in other primates.
This appears to be in context of weight-bearing
properties of human feet and a morphological
expression of the fact that the human hallux lost its
grasping function." So, when did all this evolve?
Before bipedalisam? Did we lose grasping foot
capability before bipedalism? Weight bearing also? If
we had BHBK posture with diverged big toe, would we
evolve other form of bipedality. Which bipedal animal
has stiff foot? And why we have it? Which has aligned
big toe? Especially an animal that had so diverged big
toe (primates have this more than other animals).
Also, can kangaroo stand on one leg, and why it is
important for human to stand on one leg (weight
bearing)? So that they can walk? Well, this is a
classic case. Why adapting for future use if that use
isn't in use? How about other bipedal animals. Do they
have such developed weight bearing features." -- Mario

[Spiznet]

> Also, can kangaroo stand on one leg, and why it is
> important for human to stand on one leg (weight
> bearing)? So that they can walk? Well, this is a
> classic case. Why adapting for future use if that
> use isn't in use? How about other bipedal animals.
> Do they have such developed weight bearing
> features." -- Mario

I don't think it's a good idea to make fun of A. Gibbon,
she'll wag her cyber-finger all the way to Croatia!!!

[Nickname]

spiznet wrote:
> > Also, can kangaroo stand on one leg, and why it is
> > important for human to stand on one leg (weight
> > bearing)? So that they can walk? Well, this is a
> > classic case. Why adapting for future use if that
> > use isn't in use? How about other bipedal animals.
> > Do they have such developed weight bearing
> > features." -- Mario
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to make fun of A. Gibbon,
> she'll wag her cyber-finger all the way to Croatia!!!

Giblet,

them Croatians ain't sceered a no syber-meta-tarsals no-how.
20' great white sharks don't even phase'em. They just laugh at
the world's biggest pyramids next door. Croatians are tough
cookies! DD

[Rich Travs]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:44C4F1F8.64370A95@hotmMOVEail.com...
> >
> > http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060717/full/060717-17.html
>
> >"Probably there is a biomechanical overlap between bipedal
> >and arboreal locomotion," she says, "which might have
> >something to say about the evolution of human bipedalism."
>
> Err . . . primates have upright trunks, most of the time. So
> they find it easier to adopt a bipedal stance more readily
> than animals that hold their trunks horizontally nearly all
> their waking time,

That's what the article sez ... "biomechanical overlap"...
"facultative biped" should come to mind.

> > Liza Shapiro, a primate locomotion specialist at the
> > University of Texas, Austin, is a bit less impressed with
> > the gibbon bouncy gait. She points out that the study
> > also shows that the gibbons' centre of mass tends to roil
> > about during this funny walk. "I get the impression that
> > maybe their bipedalism isn't very energy-efficient at
> > all," she says.
>
> Who cares about 'energy efficiency'? What is the matter with
> PA types, in that they keep going on about it? Even if it
> was horendously 'energy inefficient' would it matter? The
> gibbon has found a perfectly satisfactory niche, and if it
> had to expend a lot of energy over a short time doing an
> unusual activity . . so what?
>
> It probably all comes from the standard failure to grasp the
> concept of niche.

Who cares about "energy efficiency"? Biologists of all kinds.

Here's a recent one on elephants

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/725/2

It may not be much of a surprise that elephants aren't
mountaineers. They weigh an average of 5000 kilograms, after
all. And anecdotal evidence suggests that the pachyderms
avoid hills when they migrate. So Iain Douglas-Hamilton, a
zoologist and chief executive of the Save the Elephants
charity based in Nairobi, Kenya, decided to spy on a group of
elephants in Northern Kenya. Over 8 years, Douglas-Hamilton
and colleagues tracked 60 elephants with global positioning
technology.

By plotting the routes on topographical maps, they learned
that the pachyderms consistently avoided all slopes with
inclines over 33 degrees. Even hills with lush vegetation
that would have been tempting during droughts were judged
off-limits. On the surface, it may be difficult to imagine
why a little exercise would stand between an elephant and a
five-star meal, especially because elephants walk up to 30
kilometers a day searching for the 150 odd kilos of food they
need to satisfy their appetites.

More than sloth is to blame, says Douglas-Hamilton. "If
you're as heavy as an elephant, you look at the landscape in
a very different way." He notes that the animals are probably
considering risks such as overheating and injury. Moreover,
says first author and landscape ecologist Jake Wall, large
animals consume many more calories when climbing than smaller
ones do. "It's over 2500% more costly to move a vertical
meter than a horizontal meter if you're an elephant," he
says. Climbing an extra 100 meters would require an elephant
to add another half hour of foraging to its daily dietary
regime just to keep from losing weight, the team reports 25
July in Current Biology. For elephants, says Wall, even mole
hills seem like mountains. ...

And another

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/209/4/633
Effects of limb mass distribution on mechanical power outputs
during quadrupedalism David A. Raichlen

Many researchers have suggested that cursorial mammals
concentrate limb muscle mass proximally to reduce energy
costs during locomotion. Although supported by experiments
where mass is added to an individual's limbs, mammals with
naturally occurring distally heavy limbs such as primates
have similar energy costs compared with other mammals. This
study presents a new hypothesis to explain how animals with
distally heavy limbs maintain low energy costs. ...

Not just PAs...

> > Still, she says, she is intigued by Vereecke's hypothesis:
> > perhaps there is some common energy-efficiency pattern in
> > all primates that are fundamentally adapted to arboreal
> > environments, but that can also stand up and walk.
>
> Drivel, and more drivel. These PA types know that there is
> something going on, but they can't quite put their finger on
> it. Somehow they've latched on to the wholly irrelevant
> concept of 'energy-efficiency', and feel that deep in its
> bowels lies the solution to life, the universe and
> everything.
>
> Both amazing and sad.

[Paul Crowl]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DD7588.94CD4A4A@hotmMOVEail.com...

>> > http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060717/full/060717-17-
>> > .html
>>
>> >"Probably there is a biomechanical overlap between bipedal
>> >and arboreal locomotion," she says, "which might have
>> >something to say about the evolution of human bipedalism."
>>
>> Err . . . primates have upright trunks, most of the time.
>> So they find it easier to adopt a bipedal stance more
>> readily than animals that hold their trunks horizontally
>> nearly all their waking time,
>
> That's what the article sez ... "biomechanical overlap"...
> "facultative biped" should come to mind.

The differences are: (a) One is in plain English, using short
anglo-saxon words. The other is in Latinised garbage --
because the clots who put it together think it sounds better;
one result of this is to perpetuate their inability to think;
(if you can't write clearly, you won't think clearly);
(b) They say 'probably' -- they can't even decide whether or
not an upright trunk would make it easier for an animal
to become bipedal (in comparison to one with a
horizontal trunk).

'Biomechanical overlap' = nine syllables 'Upright trunk' =
three syllables.

>> > Liza Shapiro, a primate locomotion specialist at the
>> > University of Texas, Austin, is a bit less impressed with
>> > the gibbon bouncy gait. She points out that the study
>> > also shows that the gibbons' centre of mass tends to roil
>> > about during this funny walk. "I get the impression that
>> > maybe their bipedalism isn't very energy-efficient at
>> > all," she says.
>>
>> Who cares about 'energy efficiency'? What is the matter
>> with PA types, in that they keep going on about it? Even if
>> it was horendously 'energy inefficient' would it matter?
>> The gibbon has found a perfectly satisfactory niche, and if
>> it had to expend a lot of energy over a short time doing an
>> unusual activity . . so what?
>>
>> It probably all comes from the standard failure to grasp
>> the concept of niche.
>
> Who cares about "energy efficiency"? Biologists of all
> kinds.

We are talking about the supposed relative advantages and
disadvantages of different methods of locomotion. So, maybe,
you'd want to compare a swallow with a mouse with a guppy
fish, working on the assumption that each might want to change
into the others.

> Here's a recent one on elephants

Forget it. You haven't a clue.

Paul.

[Jim McGinn]

Paul Crowley wrote:

> The differences are: (a) One is in plain English, using
> short anglo-saxon words. The other is in Latinised garbage
> -- because the clots who put it together think it sounds
> better; one result of this is to perpetuate their inability
> to think; (if you can't write clearly, you won't think
> clearly);

Paul, it's clear that you have a lot of opinions that you are
unable to support with content.

[Paul Crowl]

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155418356.072958.41430@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
>> The differences are: (a) One is in plain English, using
>> short anglo-saxon words. The other is in Latinised garbage
>> -- because the clots who put it together think it sounds
>> better; one result of this is to perpetuate their inability
>> to think; (if you can't write clearly, you won't think
>> clearly);
>
> Paul, it's clear that you have a lot of opinions that you
> are unable to support with content.

Such as . . . . ?

You don't have to be an academic, nor a standard PA person, to
be incapable of thought. You are one of those bad writers who
loves to create long phrases of long Latin-derived words to
produce meaningless nonsense, i.e. you can't write clearly
because you can't think clearly.

Paul.

[Jim McGinn]

Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:11-
> 55418356.072958.41430@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> >> The differences are: (a) One is in plain English, using
> >> short anglo-saxon words. The other is in Latinised
> >> garbage -- because the clots who put it together think it
> >> sounds better; one result of this is to perpetuate their
> >> inability to think; (if you can't write clearly, you
> >> won't think clearly);
> >
> > Paul, it's clear that you have a lot of opinions that you
> > are unable to support with content.
>
> Such as . . . . ?
>
> You don't have to be an academic, nor a standard PA person,
> to be incapable of thought. You are one of those bad writers
> who loves to create long phrases of long Latin-derived words
> to produce meaningless nonsense, i.e. you can't write
> clearly because you can't think clearly.

Paul, you're a phoney.

[Rich Travs]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:44DD7588.94CD4A4A@hotmMOVEail.com...
> >> > http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060717/full/060717-17.-
> >> > html
> >>
> >> >"Probably there is a biomechanical overlap between
> >> >bipedal and arboreal locomotion," she says, "which might
> >> >have something to say about the evolution of human
> >> >bipedalism."
> >>
> >> Err . . . primates have upright trunks, most of the time.
> >> So they find it easier to adopt a bipedal stance more
> >> readily than animals that hold their trunks horizontally
> >> nearly all their waking time,
> >
> > That's what the article sez ... "biomechanical overlap"...
> > "facultative biped" should come to mind.
>
> The differences are: (a) One is in plain English, using
> short anglo-saxon words. The other is in Latinised garbage
> -- because the clots who put it together think it sounds
> better; one result of this is to perpetuate their inability
> to think; (if you can't write clearly, you won't think
> clearly);
> (b) They say 'probably' -- they can't even decide whether or
> not an upright trunk would make it easier for an animal
> to become bipedal (in comparison to one with a
> horizontal trunk).
>
> 'Biomechanical overlap' = nine syllables

Precise scientific description.

Don't blame others if you can't understand it.

> 'Upright trunk' = three syllables.

Layman's terms. For the less... educated.

> >> > Liza Shapiro, a primate locomotion specialist at the
> >> > University of Texas, Austin, is a bit less impressed
> >> > with the gibbon bouncy gait. She points out that the
> >> > study also shows that the gibbons' centre of mass tends
> >> > to roil about during this funny walk. "I get the
> >> > impression that maybe their bipedalism isn't very
> >> > energy-efficient at all," she says.
> >>
> >> Who cares about 'energy efficiency'? What is the matter
> >> with PA types, in that they keep going on about it? Even
> >> if it was horendously 'energy inefficient' would it
> >> matter? The gibbon has found a perfectly satisfactory
> >> niche, and if it had to expend a lot of energy over a
> >> short time doing an unusual activity . . so what?
> >>
> >> It probably all comes from the standard failure to grasp
> >> the concept of niche.
> >
> > Who cares about "energy efficiency"? Biologists of all
> > kinds.
>
> We are talking about the supposed relative advantages and
> disadvantages of different methods of locomotion. So, maybe,
> you'd want to compare a swallow with a mouse with a guppy
> fish, working on the assumption that each might want to
> change into the others.

No, we're talking about energy efficiency for a single
species. The article is solely about gibbons.

> > Here's a recent one on elephants
>
> Forget it. You haven't a clue.

Perhaps if you actually read it you'd see energy efficiency is
a valid concept.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/725/2

It may not be much of a surprise that elephants aren't
mountaineers. They weigh an average of 5000 kilograms, after
all. And anecdotal evidence suggests that the pachyderms
avoid hills when they migrate. So Iain Douglas-Hamilton, a
zoologist and chief executive of the Save the Elephants
charity based in Nairobi, Kenya, decided to spy on a group of
elephants in Northern Kenya. Over 8 years, Douglas-Hamilton
and colleagues tracked 60 elephants with global positioning
technology.

By plotting the routes on topographical maps, they learned
that the pachyderms consistently avoided all slopes with
inclines over 33 degrees. Even hills with lush vegetation
that would have been tempting during droughts were judged
off-limits. On the surface, it may be difficult to imagine
why a little exercise would stand between an elephant and a
five-star meal, especially because elephants walk up to 30
kilometers a day searching for the 150 odd kilos of food they
need to satisfy their appetites.

More than sloth is to blame, says Douglas-Hamilton. "If
you're as heavy as an elephant, you look at the landscape in
a very different way." He notes that the animals are probably
considering risks such as overheating and injury. Moreover,
says first author and landscape ecologist Jake Wall, large
animals consume many more calories when climbing than smaller
ones do. "It's over 2500% more costly to move a vertical
meter than a horizontal meter if you're an elephant," he
says. Climbing an extra 100 meters would require an elephant
to add another half hour of foraging to its daily dietary
regime just to keep from losing weight, the team reports 25
July in Current Biology. For elephants, says Wall, even mole
hills seem like mountains. ...

And another

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/209/4/633
Effects of limb mass distribution on mechanical power outputs
during quadrupedalism David A. Raichlen

Many researchers have suggested that cursorial mammals
concentrate limb muscle mass proximally to reduce energy
costs during locomotion. Although supported by experiments
where mass is added to an individual's limbs, mammals with
naturally occurring distally heavy limbs such as primates
have similar energy costs compared with other mammals. This
study presents a new hypothesis to explain how animals with
distally heavy limbs maintain low energy costs. ...

Your assertion "Who cares about 'energy efficiency'" is
demonstrated to be false.

[Paul Crowl]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:451609A9.2F851E1A@hotmMOVEail.com...

>> >> >"Probably there is a biomechanical overlap between
>> >> >bipedal and arboreal locomotion," she says, "which
>> >> >might have something to say about the evolution of
>> >> >human bipedalism."

>> We are talking about the supposed relative advantages and
>> disadvantages of different methods of locomotion. So,
>> maybe, you'd want to compare a swallow with a mouse with a
>> guppy fish, working on the assumption that each might want
>> to change into the others.
>
> No, we're talking about energy efficiency for a single
> species. The article is solely about gibbons.

No, it is not. It is about the transition from one taxon using
one form of locomotion into another -- using an entirely
different one.

>> > Here's a recent one on elephants
>>
>> Forget it. You haven't a clue.
>
> Perhaps if you actually read it you'd see energy efficiency
> is a valid concept.

Of course it's a valid concept -- when talking, for example,
about why an elephant might walk 20 miles to go around a
mountain rather than go 1 mile over it. But when we are
talking about the transition (over tens of thousand of
generations) from one taxon to another quite different one, it
has no use whatever. You have to be especially thick not to
see this -- i.e. the norm for standard PA types.

Paul.