Allen's Swamp Monkey

[Rich Travs]

Interesting critter.

http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus_ni-
groviridis.html

Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)

The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp monkey is
around 7 kilograms, and for the female it is around 3
kilograms. ...Between the fingers and the toes there is
webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe, 1996). ... ... The
Allen's swamp monkey is found in the country of Zaire, in the
central Congo Basin and the eastern Congo (Zeeve, 1985). This
species prefers to live in swamp forests. This species also
been reported to live in gallery forests (Zeeve, 1985).

The Allen's swamp monkey is primarily a frugivorous species.
This species also consumes vertebrates, pith, roots, and
invertebrates (Zeeve, 1985). Among the vertebrates include
fish hatchlings that are collected from river beds during the
dry season (Zeeve, 1985)... Sleeping sites for this species
are usually located near water and the same sites are used
repeatedly (Gautier, 1985). Allen's swamp monkey is a
semi-terrestrial and a diurnal species (Gautier, 1985). This
species will dive into the water when a predator is detected
(Gautier-Hion, 1988).

The Allen's swamp monkey moves through the forest in a
quadrupedal manner (Fleagle,
1988). This species is capable of swimming and diving
(Zeeve, 1985).

Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to bipedalism
or hairlessness...

[Firstjois]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E44208E.4CB19C1C@hotMOVEmail.com...
: Interesting critter.
:
:
:
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus_nig-
roviridis.html
:
: Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
:
: The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp monkey is
: around 7
kilograms,
: and for the female it is around 3 kilograms. ...Between the
: fingers and
the toes
: there is webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe, 1996). ...
: ... The Allen's swamp monkey is found in the country of
: Zaire, in the
central Congo
: Basin and the eastern Congo (Zeeve, 1985). This species
: prefers to live
in swamp
: forests. This species also been reported to live in gallery
: forests
(Zeeve, 1985).
:
: The Allen's swamp monkey is primarily a frugivorous
: species. This
species also
: consumes vertebrates, pith, roots, and invertebrates
: (Zeeve, 1985).
Among the
: vertebrates include fish hatchlings that are collected from
: river beds
during the
: dry season (Zeeve, 1985)... Sleeping sites for this species
: are usually
located
: near water and the same sites are used repeatedly
: (Gautier, 1985).
Allen's swamp
: monkey is a semi-terrestrial and a diurnal species
: (Gautier, 1985). This
species
: will dive into the water when a predator is detected
: (Gautier-Hion,
1988).
:
: The Allen's swamp monkey moves through the forest in a
: quadrupedal
manner (Fleagle,
: 1988). This species is capable of swimming and diving
: (Zeeve, 1985).
:
: Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
: bipedalism or
hairlessness...

Nice catch, Rick. Photo here:

http://www.zooregon.org/Cards/Rainforest/monkey.allens.swamp.-
htm

Does anyone have a photo of MV?

Jois

[Mario Petr]

Rich Travsky :
> Interesting critter.
>
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus_nig-
roviridis.html
>
> Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
>
> The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp monkey is
> around 7 kilograms, and for the female it is around 3
> kilograms. ...Between the fingers and the toes there is
> webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe, 1996). ... ... The
> Allen's swamp monkey is found in the country of Zaire, in
> the central Congo Basin and the eastern Congo (Zeeve,
> 1985). This species prefers to live in swamp forests. This
> species also been reported to live in gallery forests
> (Zeeve, 1985).
>
> The Allen's swamp monkey is primarily a frugivorous
> species. This species also consumes vertebrates, pith,
> roots, and invertebrates (Zeeve, 1985). Among the
> vertebrates include fish hatchlings that are collected from
> river beds during the dry season (Zeeve, 1985)... Sleeping
> sites for this species are usually located near water and
> the same sites are used repeatedly (Gautier, 1985). Allen's
> swamp monkey is a semi-terrestrial and a diurnal species
> (Gautier, 1985). This species will dive into the water when
> a predator is detected (Gautier-Hion,
> 1988).
>
> The Allen's swamp monkey moves through the forest in a
> quadrupedal manner (Fleagle,
> 1988). This species is capable of swimming and diving
> (Zeeve, 1985).
>
> Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> bipedalism or hairlessness...

No hint of salt. No hint of rocky coast
environment, IMO.
--
Mario

AAT Yahoo! Group

[Richard Wa]

firstjois wrote:

> "Rich Travsky" <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E44208E.4CB19C1C@hotMOVEmail.com...
> : Interesting critter.
> :
> :
> :
> http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus_n-
> igroviridis.html
> :
> : Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
> :
> : The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp monkey
> : is around 7
> kilograms,
> : and for the female it is around 3 kilograms. ...Between
> : the fingers and
> the toes
> : there is webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe, 1996). ...
> : ... The Allen's swamp monkey is found in the country of
> : Zaire, in the
> central Congo
> : Basin and the eastern Congo (Zeeve, 1985). This species
> : prefers to live
> in swamp
> : forests. This species also been reported to live in
> : gallery forests
> (Zeeve, 1985).
> :
> : The Allen's swamp monkey is primarily a frugivorous
> : species. This
> species also
> : consumes vertebrates, pith, roots, and invertebrates
> : (Zeeve, 1985).
> Among the
> : vertebrates include fish hatchlings that are collected
> : from river beds
> during the
> : dry season (Zeeve, 1985)... Sleeping sites for this
> : species are usually
> located
> : near water and the same sites are used repeatedly
> : (Gautier, 1985).
> Allen's swamp
> : monkey is a semi-terrestrial and a diurnal species
> : (Gautier, 1985). This
> species
> : will dive into the water when a predator is detected
> : (Gautier-Hion,
> 1988).
> :
> : The Allen's swamp monkey moves through the forest in a
> : quadrupedal
> manner (Fleagle,
> : 1988). This species is capable of swimming and diving
> : (Zeeve, 1985).
> :
> : Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> : bipedalism or
> hairlessness...
>
> Nice catch, Rick. Photo here:
>
> http://www.zooregon.org/Cards/Rainforest/monkey.allens.s-
> wamp.htm
>
> Does anyone have a photo of MV?
>
> Jois

Third from the left in that infamous filmclip of wading
proboscis monkeys:-))

Since he is completely unable to provide a reference for his
oft-repeated claim that they are the most bipedal of monkeys
he must be speaking from personal experience :-))

Rick Wagler

[Marc Verha]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E44208E.4CB19C1C@hotMOVEmail.com...
> Interesting critter.
>
>
>
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus_nig-
roviridis.html
>
> Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
>
> The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp monkey is
> around 7
kilograms,
> and for the female it is around 3 kilograms. ...Between the
> fingers and
the toes
> there is webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe, 1996). ...
> ... The Allen's swamp monkey is found in the country of
> Zaire, in the central
Congo
> Basin and the eastern Congo (Zeeve, 1985). This species
> prefers to live
in swamp
> forests. This species also been reported to live in gallery
> forests
(Zeeve, 1985).
>
> The Allen's swamp monkey is primarily a frugivorous
> species. This species
also
> consumes vertebrates, pith, roots, and invertebrates
> (Zeeve, 1985). Among
the
> vertebrates include fish hatchlings that are collected from
> river beds
during the
> dry season (Zeeve, 1985)... Sleeping sites for this species
> are usually
located
> near water and the same sites are used repeatedly
> (Gautier, 1985).
Allen's swamp
> monkey is a semi-terrestrial and a diurnal species
> (Gautier, 1985). This
species
> will dive into the water when a predator is detected
> (Gautier-Hion,
1988).
>
> The Allen's swamp monkey moves through the forest in a
> quadrupedal manner
(Fleagle,
> 1988). This species is capable of swimming and diving
> (Zeeve, 1985).
>
> Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> bipedalism or
hairlessness...

?? Why would you think that??

[Rich Travs]

Richard Wagler wrote:
>
> firstjois wrote:
>
> > "Rich Travsky" <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in
> > message news:3E44208E.4CB19C1C@hotMOVEmail.com...
> > : Interesting critter.
> > :
> > :
> > :
> > http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus-
> > _nigroviridis.html
> > :
> > : Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
> > :
> > : The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp monkey
> > : is around 7
> > kilograms,
> > : and for the female it is around 3 kilograms. ...Between
> > : the fingers and
> > the toes
> > : there is webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe, 1996).
> > : ... ... The Allen's swamp monkey is found in the
> > : country of Zaire, in the
> > central Congo
> > : Basin and the eastern Congo (Zeeve, 1985). This species
> > : prefers to live
> > in swamp
> > : forests. This species also been reported to live in
> > : gallery forests
> > (Zeeve, 1985).
> > :
> > : The Allen's swamp monkey is primarily a frugivorous
> > : species. This
> > species also
> > : consumes vertebrates, pith, roots, and invertebrates
> > : (Zeeve, 1985).
> > Among the
> > : vertebrates include fish hatchlings that are collected
> > : from river beds
> > during the
> > : dry season (Zeeve, 1985)... Sleeping sites for this
> > : species are usually
> > located
> > : near water and the same sites are used repeatedly
> > : (Gautier, 1985).
> > Allen's swamp
> > : monkey is a semi-terrestrial and a diurnal species
> > : (Gautier, 1985). This
> > species
> > : will dive into the water when a predator is detected
> > : (Gautier-Hion,
> > 1988).
> > :
> > : The Allen's swamp monkey moves through the forest in a
> > : quadrupedal
> > manner (Fleagle,
> > : 1988). This species is capable of swimming and diving
> > : (Zeeve, 1985).
> > :
> > : Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> > : bipedalism or
> > hairlessness...
> >
> > Nice catch, Rick. Photo here:
> >
> > http://www.zooregon.org/Cards/Rainforest/monkey.allens.sw-
> > amp.htm
> >
> > Does anyone have a photo of MV?
> >
> > Jois
>
> Third from the left in that infamous filmclip of wading
> proboscis monkeys:-))
>
> Since he is completely unable to provide a reference for his
> oft-repeated claim that they are the most bipedal of monkeys
> he must be speaking from personal experience :-))

Ol Marc claimed proboscis monkeys are the most bipedal of
monkeys???

LOL.

[John Roth]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E44208E.4CB19C1C@hotMOVEmail.com...
> Interesting critter.
>
>
>
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus_nig-
roviridis.h tml
>
> Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
>
> The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp monkey is
> around 7
kilograms,
> and for the female it is around 3 kilograms. ...Between the
> fingers
and the toes
> there is webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe, 1996). ...
> ... The Allen's swamp monkey is found in the country of
> Zaire, in the
central Congo
> Basin and the eastern Congo (Zeeve, 1985). This species
> prefers to
live in swamp
> forests. This species also been reported to live in gallery
> forests
(Zeeve, 1985).
>
> The Allen's swamp monkey is primarily a frugivorous
> species. This
species also
> consumes vertebrates, pith, roots, and invertebrates
> (Zeeve, 1985).
Among the
> vertebrates include fish hatchlings that are collected
> from river
beds during the
> dry season (Zeeve, 1985)... Sleeping sites for this
> species are
usually located
> near water and the same sites are used repeatedly
> (Gautier, 1985).
Allen's swamp
> monkey is a semi-terrestrial and a diurnal species
> (Gautier, 1985).
This species
> will dive into the water when a predator is detected
> (Gautier-Hion,
1988).
>
> The Allen's swamp monkey moves through the forest in a
> quadrupedal
manner (Fleagle,
> 1988). This species is capable of swimming and diving
> (Zeeve, 1985).
>
> Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> bipedalism or
hairlessness...

It's also rather small. I was quite impressed by this paper:

http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/anth501.html

which, among other things, relates hairlessness with size.
Quite a bit to think about there.

John Roth

[Pauline M]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:17:22 -0500, "John Roth"
<johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote:

>It's also rather small. I was quite impressed by this paper:
>
>http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/anth501.html
>
>which, among other things, relates hairlessness with size.
>Quite a bit to think about there.

There is a relationship, but it's not totally
straightforward. There are other possible factors involved.
Have a look at this paper:

http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/langdon.htm

which has some interesting tables on hairlessness and
aquatic habitat, plus a very interesting one on hairless
terrestrial mammals.

--
Pauline Ross

[Firstjois]

"John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:v4f9fhjerjr9b0@news.supernews.com...

[snip] I was quite impressed by this paper:
:
: http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/anth501.html
:
: which, among other things, relates hairlessness with size.
: Quite a bit to think about there.
:
: John Roth
:

I'm still reading this paper (many interruptions) but have
touched a couple of spots that reminded me that the
adaptations to heat regulations are lost to the very elderly.
The subcutaneous fat layer eventually is no longer maintained
and the very elderly are left with "paper thin" skin. Anyway,
it is interesting to read with both Allen's Swamp Monkey and
ourselves in mind.

Jois

[Nick Macla]

In article <1nhf4vo842ihi7tlssv74k7tqjlcbj1a00@4ax.com>,
Pauline M Ross <pmross@ross-software.co.uk> writes:
|> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:17:22 -0500, "John Roth"
|> <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote:
|>
|> >It's also rather small. I was quite impressed by this
|> >paper:
|> >
|> >http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/anth501.html
|> >
|> >which, among other things, relates hairlessness with size.
|> >Quite a bit to think about there.
|>
|> There is a relationship, but it's not totally
|> straightforward. There are other possible factors involved.
|> Have a look at this paper:
|>
|> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/langdon.htm
|>
|> which has some interesting tables on hairlessness and
|> aquatic habitat, plus a very interesting one on hairless
|> terrestrial mammals.

The aspect that most such papers seem to miss is that all of
the other hairless and even sparsely haired terrestrial
animals (except probably the mole rats) have a protective,
thick skin. Humans have a very thin one.

Anyone who has walked through the savanna and similar
terrains lightly clad will know that our skin is inadequate
for protection against even the thornless plants! We are also
very attractive to parasites, though hairlessness can also
help there.

I don't see that this helps ANY of the parties, as even
the more aquatic hairless terrestrial mammals have thick
skins. Odd.

Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing
Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44
1223 334679

[Nick Macla]

In http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/langdon.htm, he says:

Bipedalism has arisen several times - e.g., in dinosaurs,
kangaroos, kangaroo rats, and possibly birds. Again there
are different stories for different taxa, but none of
them involve water. Bipedalism in hominids has driven a
large number of anatomical and behavioral changes. Some
of these are:

Agreed.

Obviously at some point our ancestors shifted from an
arboreal climbing niche to a non arboreal bipedal one. The
AAH explains this as a shift from arboreal resources to
aquatic resources. Terrestrial models suggest a shift from
arboreal resources to ground resources. There is little
difference between them at this point.

Agreed.

Again, the evolution of bipedalism required only a small
amount of tinkering at any one time. Primates are all
facultatively bipedal. Hominoids in particular commonly
position the trunk in upright positions and support body
weight on the lower limbs when climbing. Contrary to the
arguments of the AAT (e.g., Morgan 1990), obligate
bipedalism is a small step away.

Sigh. That is partially true, but misleading and the last
sentence is almost certainly wrong. The problem of developing
bipedal locomotion (as distinct from merely the ability to
stand on hind legs, as in bears and ground sloths) is that the
intermediate state is seriously counter-survival IN THE
PRESENCE OF A SERIOUS THREAT FROM CURSORY PREDATORS.

Bipedalism is efficient, but ONLY in adapted animals. Almost
all facultative "bipedal" animals drop to all fours for escape
from cursory predators or for travelling any distance.
Quadrupedal locomotion is SO much faster and more efficient in
unadapted mammals. So how did we get here?

Birds are obviously irrelevant, as they could not have
developed any other form of ground locomotion without
sacrificing efficient flight first.

Some mammals have adopted bipedalism in circumstances when
they had few major cursory predators. Bears and ground sloths
are obvious examples, but it also applies to dinosaurs and
arguably the bipedal desert rodents etc.

How did kangaroos adopt bipedalism? I don't have a clue, but
they COULD have been another desert adaptation.

But what is NOT justified by the facts is the claim that the
development of obligate bipedalism from facultative bipedalism
is a trivial matter, ESPECIALLY in the context of Africa's
savanna, where predators like hunting dogs were common. Even
hyaenas are fair middle distance runners.

Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing
Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44
1223 334679

[Nick Macla]

In article <BA6EAFBB.2655A%rkeeter@earthlink.net>, Bob Keeter
<rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Weapons are definitely a real possibility, but would imply
>> that they developed earlier than many people think.
>
>Not earlier that ALL people think! ;-) Stone weapons are
>definitely a much later occurence, but wood weapons,
>ranging from simple clubs to stabbing spears MAY have been
>around for a very long time with basically no evidence
>(short of the undeniable survival of a small, relatively
>defenseless primate in an environment full of large hungry
>predators! 8-) )

Wooden stabbing spears are definitely enough to discourage
most predators, and would not last long in a terrain that
includes termites. Many of the older Masai spears were
entirely wooden but were, of course, well made and sharpened.
However, even rubbing the end of a straight hardwood branch
(and there are some very hard woods in Africa) gives a pretty
fair edge.

>> Mud squelching is, of course, another possibility, but your
>> point abour predators (meaning crocodiles, I assume)
>> remains.
>
>Croc's for certain, but remember a LOT of other predators
>tend to do a great deal of their hunting around water
>sources. Hanging around good sources of drinking water would
>have put any hypothetical aquatic ape very much at danger not
>just from the aquatic predators but also from the
>forest/savanna predators that came for a drink.

Hmm. I don't think that many of the African predators like
water much, though some of that will be because of
crocodiles, and there are almost certainly none that would go
out beyond waist depth. But crocodiles are a major obstacle
to that theory.

>Bet on tools. Just cant see any other "advantages" for
>bipedalism that could have sustained the "unnatural" mode of
>locomotion long enough for the physical adaptations that
>would have made it truely advantageous in its own right.

Tools don't necessarily mean weapons, though, and there are
several possibilities in shallow water. Driving fish into a
channel blocked by thorn branches is a very simple and fairly
effective form of hunting, and works much better bipedally.

I quite agree that such activities would not have caused the
changes in locomotion, but they could have caused the changes
in behaviour, which then could have caused the adoption of
tools, which THEN could have led to movement onto the savanna,
which then would have had the observed effect.

Where we agree is that the physiological changes could only
happen by regular bipedal locomotion in open country, and a
prerequisite for that is a form of defence that does not rely
on speed. Hence weapons. But it may not have been the first
change in behaviour.

Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing
Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44
1223 334679

[Bob Keeter]

in article b2avs4$pg$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk, Nick Maclaren at
nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk wrote on 2/11/03 2:03 PM:

Snippage. . . .

>
>> Again, the evolution of bipedalism required only a small
>> amount of tinkering at any one time. Primates are all
>> facultatively bipedal. Hominoids in particular commonly
>> position the trunk in upright positions and support body
>> weight on the lower limbs when climbing. Contrary to the
>> arguments of the AAT (e.g., Morgan 1990), obligate
>> bipedalism is a small step away.
>>
> Sigh. That is partially true, but misleading and the last
> sentence is almost certainly wrong. The problem of
> developing bipedal locomotion (as distinct from merely the
> ability to stand on hind legs, as in bears and ground
> sloths) is that the intermediate state is seriously
> counter-survival IN THE PRESENCE OF A SERIOUS THREAT FROM
> CURSORY PREDATORS.
>

I think that perhaps both suggestions are "partially true".
Bipedalism (terrestrial or aquatic) does not give a hominid
any real advantage over the predators of that environment. I
think that we would all agree that primates are neither truely
creatures of an aquatic or savanna environment. Our ancestors
could neither outswim, outwade nor outrun the predators found
in these two environments, bipedalism not withstanding. The
reproductive rates of hominids are just plain not high enough
to sustain the species in the face of sustained predation as
if we were large bipedal rabbits.

I have to suggest an indirect approach to it. Bipedalism had
SOME survival advantage else we would not be bipedal nor
around today! The AATers claim it was better access to
aquatic food sources. There are a LONG list of claims and
counter claims, but the one inescapable fact is that a
bipedal aquatic ape would simply be no match for the
predators in that environment. Similarly, the bipedal ape
would be at a major disadvantage (or at most a "push") when
it came to the savanna and all of the predators of that
environment. . . . . unless there was an "edge". That edge Id
suggest is tools, i.e. WEAPONS!

Humans have no fangs, claws, constricting coils, beaks or
other "predatory" or defensive natural tools. They dont run
fast enough, swim fast enough or even wade fast enough to
excape most predators, and they certainly cant "outfight"
most predators.. . . without help. That help is
tools/weapons, and to effectively use those tools/weapons the
forlimbs must be free of "locomotion tasking". Cant be
running quadrupedally while beating off that hunting dog with
your club now can you! 8-)

> Bipedalism is efficient, but ONLY in adapted animals. Almost
> all facultative "bipedal" animals drop to all fours for
> escape from cursory predators or for travelling any
> distance. Quadrupedal locomotion is SO much faster and more
> efficient in unadapted mammals. So how did we get here?
>
> Birds are obviously irrelevant, as they could not have
> developed any other form of ground locomotion without
> sacrificing efficient flight first.
>
> Some mammals have adopted bipedalism in circumstances when
> they had few major cursory predators. Bears and ground
> sloths are obvious examples, but it also applies to
> dinosaurs and arguably the bipedal desert rodents etc.
>

and beavers, weasels, squirrels, meerkats, etc, etc, etc. The
fact is that these are "occasionally" bipedal. They do get up
on their back legs from time to time, but the evolutionary
advantages apparently are just not strong enough to "drive"
evolution in the direction of any real bipedal adaptations.
(Certainly not to the extent seen in humans!). So. . . What
collateral benefit could there be in bipedalism, that would
have enough "survival impact" to push the refinement of that
bipedalism through Darwinian Evolution? . . . . my only
logical answer is "free hands".

> How did kangaroos adopt bipedalism? I don't have a clue, but
> they COULD have been another desert adaptation.
>

Yep.

> But what is NOT justified by the facts is the claim that the
> development of obligate bipedalism from facultative
> bipedalism is a trivial matter, ESPECIALLY in the context of
> Africa's savanna, where predators like hunting dogs were
> common. Even hyaenas are fair middle distance runners.
>

You certainly have to have that "edge" beyond any trivially
small advantage in efficiency, if for nothing else to bridge
that gap you have identified. A quadrupedal creature with
minimal adaptation to a bipedal posture needed "really good
reasons" to put up with the difficulties of that poorly
adapted body in this new posture to keep it up!

Regards bk

[Marc Verha]

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b2avs4$pg$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...

Langdon: >> Obviously at some point our ancestors shifted
from an arboreal climbing niche to a non arboreal bipedal
one. The AAH explains this as a shift from arboreal
resources to aquatic resources.

This is nonsense. I don't understand why these savanna idiots
believe "AAH" (??) does this??

For the Xth time, IMO
- early hominids (HPG) were predom.waders-climbers in swamp
forests (short-legged, bipedal wading & possibly on the
knuckles, cf. lowland gorillas),
- early Homo were predom.waders-divers along the Medit.Sea &
Indian Ocean shores ca.1.8 Ma (reduction of climbing),
- early sapiens were predom.bipedal walkers (long-legged). Is
this hypothesis so diffucult to understand?? Why don't they
inform a bit??

Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

[Nick Macla]

In article <BA6E795C.2653D%rkeeter@earthlink.net>, Bob Keeter
<rkeeter@earthlink.net> writes:
|>
|> I have to suggest an indirect approach to it. Bipedalism
|> had SOME survival advantage else we would not be bipedal
|> nor around today! The AATers claim it was better access to
|> aquatic food sources. There are a LONG list of claims and
|> counter claims, but the one inescapable fact is that a
|> bipedal aquatic ape would simply be no match for the
|> predators in that environment. Similarly, the bipedal ape
|> would be at a major disadvantage (or at most a "push") when
|> it came to the savanna and all of the predators of that
|> environment. . . . . unless there was an "edge". That edge
|> Id suggest is tools, i.e. WEAPONS!

Agreed. My point wasn't that it was counter-survival overall,
but that there had to be some MAJOR advantage to overcome its
major disadvantages.

Weapons are definitely a real possibility, but would imply
that they developed earlier than many people think.

Mud squelching is, of course, another possibility, but your
point abour predators (meaning crocodiles, I assume) remains.

Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing
Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44
1223 334679

[Bob Keeter]

in article b2b53k$5fk$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk, Nick Maclaren
at nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk wrote on 2/11/03 3:33 PM:

>
> In article <BA6E795C.2653D%rkeeter@earthlink.net>, Bob
> Keeter <rkeeter@earthlink.net> writes:
> |>
> |> I have to suggest an indirect approach to it. Bipedalism
> |> had SOME survival advantage else we would not be bipedal
> |> nor around today! The AATers claim it was better access
> |> to aquatic food sources. There are a LONG list of claims
> |> and counter claims, but the one inescapable fact is that
> |> a bipedal aquatic ape would simply be no match for the
> |> predators in that environment. Similarly, the bipedal ape
> |> would be at a major disadvantage (or at most a "push")
> |> when it came to the savanna and all of the predators of
> |> that environment. . . . . unless there was an "edge".
> |> That edge Id suggest is tools, i.e. WEAPONS!
>
> Agreed. My point wasn't that it was counter-survival
> overall, but that there had to be some MAJOR advantage to
> overcome its major disadvantages.
>
> Weapons are definitely a real possibility, but would imply
> that they developed earlier than many people think.
>

Not earlier that ALL people think! ;-) Stone weapons are
definitely a much later occurence, but wood weapons, ranging
from simple clubs to stabbing spears MAY have been around for
a very long time with basically no evidence (short of the
undeniable survival of a small, relatively defenseless primate
in an environment full of large hungry predators! 8-) )

> Mud squelching is, of course, another possibility, but your
> point abour predators (meaning crocodiles, I assume)
> remains.
>

Croc's for certain, but remember a LOT of other predators tend
to do a great deal of their hunting around water sources.
Hanging around good sources of drinking water would have put
any hypothetical aquatic ape very much at danger not just from
the aquatic predators but also from the forest/savanna
predators that came for a drink.

Bet on tools. Just cant see any other "advantages" for
bipedalism that could have sustained the "unnatural" mode of
locomotion long enough for the physical adaptations that would
have made it truely advantageous in its own right.

Regards bk

[Rich Travs]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E44208E.4CB19C1C@hotMOVEmail.com...
> > Interesting critter.
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus_n-
> igroviridis.html
> >
> > Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
> >
> > The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp monkey
> > is around 7
> kilograms,
> > and for the female it is around 3 kilograms. ...Between
> > the fingers and
> the toes
> > there is webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe, 1996). ...
> > ... The Allen's swamp monkey is found in the country of
> > Zaire, in the central
> Congo
> > Basin and the eastern Congo (Zeeve, 1985). This species
> > prefers to live
> in swamp
> > forests. This species also been reported to live in
> > gallery forests
> (Zeeve, 1985).
> >
> > The Allen's swamp monkey is primarily a frugivorous
> > species. This species
> also
> > consumes vertebrates, pith, roots, and invertebrates
> > (Zeeve, 1985). Among
> the
> > vertebrates include fish hatchlings that are collected
> > from river beds
> during the
> > dry season (Zeeve, 1985)... Sleeping sites for this
> > species are usually
> located
> > near water and the same sites are used repeatedly
> > (Gautier, 1985).
> Allen's swamp
> > monkey is a semi-terrestrial and a diurnal species
> > (Gautier, 1985). This
> species
> > will dive into the water when a predator is detected
> > (Gautier-Hion,
> 1988).
> >
> > The Allen's swamp monkey moves through the forest in a
> > quadrupedal manner
> (Fleagle,
> > 1988). This species is capable of swimming and diving
> > (Zeeve, 1985).
> >
> > Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> > bipedalism or
> hairlessness...
>
> ?? Why would you think that??

Why would you think they *are* moving to bipedalism or
hairlessness? The observations show otherwise.

[Marc Verha]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E49EC51.50476519@hotMOVEmail.com...

> > > Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> > > bipedalism or
hairlessness...

> > ?? Why would you think that??

> Why would you think they *are* moving to bipedalism or
> hairlessness?

?? I don't! Why do you think I do?? Man, inform!

[Rich Travs]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> In article <1nhf4vo842ihi7tlssv74k7tqjlcbj1a00@4ax.com>,
> Pauline M Ross <pmross@ross-software.co.uk> writes:
> |> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:17:22 -0500, "John Roth"
> |> <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote:
> |>
> |> >It's also rather small. I was quite impressed by this
> |> >paper:
> |> >
> |> >http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/anth501.html
> |> >
> |> >which, among other things, relates hairlessness with
> |> >size. Quite a bit to think about there.
> |>
> |> There is a relationship, but it's not totally
> |> straightforward. There are other possible factors
> |> involved. Have a look at this paper:
> |>
> |> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/langdon.htm
> |>
> |> which has some interesting tables on hairlessness and
> |> aquatic habitat, plus a very interesting one on hairless
> |> terrestrial mammals.
>
> The aspect that most such papers seem to miss is that all of
> the other hairless and even sparsely haired terrestrial
> animals (except probably the mole rats) have a protective,
> thick skin. Humans have a very thin one.
>
> Anyone who has walked through the savanna and similar
> terrains lightly clad will know that our skin is inadequate
> for protection against even the thornless plants! We are
> also very attractive to parasites, though hairlessness can
> also help there.
>
> I don't see that this helps ANY of the parties, as even
> the more aquatic hairless terrestrial mammals have thick
> skins. Odd.

Good point about the thin skin. Thick skinned aquatics need
that thick skin as there are also numerous opportunities for
being cut in shore areas - shells, rocks, branches, etc.

[Bob Keeter]

in article b2blms$jkp$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk, Nick Maclaren
at nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk wrote on 2/11/03 8:16 PM:

Snippage. . . .

> Wooden stabbing spears are definitely enough to discourage
> most predators, and would not last long in a terrain that
> includes termites. Many of the older Masai spears were
> entirely wooden but were, of course, well made and
> sharpened. However, even rubbing the end of a straight
> hardwood branch (and there are some very hard woods in
> Africa) gives a pretty fair edge.

Wooden stabbing spears (assegis-like), wielded by a pack of
angry and scared primates would have put a very different
light on those tasty little morsels (at least after the first
encounter, and assuming that the predator survived). Certainly
a lot more "amenable" prey out there.

8-)

Also, dont forget that its a very small jump from a digging
stick to a stabbing spear. And I believe that there are even
instances of modern chimps using digging sticks.

>
>>> Mud squelching is, of course, another possibility, but
>>> your point abour predators (meaning crocodiles, I assume)
>>> remains.
>>
>> Croc's for certain, but remember a LOT of other predators
>> tend to do a great deal of their hunting around water
>> sources. Hanging around good sources of drinking water
>> would have put any hypothetical aquatic ape very much at
>> danger not just from the aquatic predators but also from
>> the forest/savanna predators that came for a drink.
>
> Hmm. I don't think that many of the African predators like
> water much, though some of that will be because of
> crocodiles, and there are almost certainly none that would
> go out beyond waist depth. But crocodiles are a major
> obstacle to that theory.
>

Yep. Croc's do make it rather chancy for most any species when
that species is down by the ole watering hole. Was not
thinking so much about being at danger from lions or leopards
while "in" the water, but rather in transit. Watch any of the
"nature shows" and what do you see when the terrestrial beasts
come down to the water to drink. They keep a wary eye on the
water for signs of croc's AND what appears to be a very alert
posture for prowling terrestrial predators. As for the
predators, it helps to hunt in areas where there is an assured
supply of prey, at least some sizable percentage of which have
their heads down drinking. 8-)

>> Bet on tools. Just cant see any other "advantages" for
>> bipedalism that could have sustained the "unnatural" mode
>> of locomotion long enough for the physical adaptations that
>> would have made it truely advantageous in its own right.
>
> Tools don't necessarily mean weapons, though, and there are
> several possibilities in shallow water. Driving fish into a
> channel blocked by thorn branches is a very simple and
> fairly effective form of hunting, and works much better
> bipedally.
>

True, but a very big croc can hide in just a couple of feet of
muddy river water. Again witness some of the filmed croc
attacks on grazers down by the watering hole. The croc will
approach very near to the drinking antelopes and then lung up
out of the water to grab lunch.

> I quite agree that such activities would not have caused
> the changes in locomotion, but they could have caused
> the changes in behaviour, which then could have caused
> the adoption of tools, which THEN could have led to
> movement onto the savanna, which then would have had the
> observed effect.
>

Only if the activities were repeated often enough and were
significant enough in the sustenance of the species to cause
selection to occur. An occasional dip into the water (for
example during a seasonal flood or to excape the attack of a
terrestrial predator), just would not give you that sustained
evolutionary "pressure" to make the move up to bipedalism.
That is the one real flaw in all of the AAH approaches (aside
from the simple lack of any real evidence , of course!).

> Where we agree is that the physiological changes could only
> happen by regular bipedal locomotion in open country, and a
> prerequisite for that is a form of defence that does not
> rely on speed. Hence weapons. But it may not have been the
> first change in behaviour.
>

You got it, my friend! ;-) It certainly was not the FIRST
change in behavior, but I believe that the habitual use of
weapons was one of those "long tent poles" in the process AND
that it came very, very early in the process. But then what do
I know! 8-)

Regards bk

[Alan McInt]

Bob Keeter <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<BA6E795C.2653D%rkeeter@earthlink.net>...
> in article b2avs4$pg$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk, Nick Maclaren
> at nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk wrote on 2/11/03 2:03 PM:
>
> Snippage. . . .
>
> >
> >> Again, the evolution of bipedalism required only a small
> >> amount of tinkering at any one time. Primates are all
> >> facultatively bipedal. Hominoids in particular commonly
> >> position the trunk in upright positions and support body
> >> weight on the lower limbs when climbing. Contrary to the
> >> arguments of the AAT (e.g., Morgan 1990), obligate
> >> bipedalism is a small step away.
> >>
> > Sigh. That is partially true, but misleading and the last
> > sentence is almost certainly wrong. The problem of
> > developing bipedal locomotion (as distinct from merely the
> > ability to stand on hind legs, as in bears and ground
> > sloths) is that the intermediate state is seriously
> > counter-survival IN THE PRESENCE OF A SERIOUS THREAT FROM
> > CURSORY PREDATORS.
> >
>
> I think that perhaps both suggestions are "partially true".
> Bipedalism (terrestrial or aquatic) does not give a hominid
> any real advantage over the predators of that environment. I
> think that we would all agree that primates are neither
> truely creatures of an aquatic or savanna environment. Our
> ancestors could neither outswim, outwade nor outrun the
> predators found in these two environments, bipedalism not
> withstanding. The reproductive rates of hominids are just
> plain not high enough to sustain the species in the face of
> sustained predation as if we were large bipedal rabbits.
>
> I have to suggest an indirect approach to it. Bipedalism had
> SOME survival advantage else we would not be bipedal nor
> around today! The AATers claim it was better access to
> aquatic food sources. There are a LONG list of claims and
> counter claims, but the one inescapable fact is that a
> bipedal aquatic ape would simply be no match for the
> predators in that environment. Similarly, the bipedal ape
> would be at a major disadvantage (or at most a "push") when
> it came to the savanna and all of the predators of that
> environment. . . . . unless there was an "edge". That edge
> Id suggest is tools, i.e. WEAPONS!

Donald Johanssen addressed this in his book, "Lucy". I
forget the name of the party he was quoting, but someone
speculated that one advantage was to free the hands of
females to carry children.

Two extreme reproductive strategies are to have a high
reproduction rate and take no care of children, as is done
by clams, or have few children and invest a lot in their
care; the other extreme is the great apes. Someone
speculated that the great apes are at a dead end because
they invest too much time in the care of each child. He
thought that by being able to walk on two legs and carry
infants, and still have one hand free, early hominids could
reproduce more frequently, and got around the bottleneck.
>
> Humans have no fangs, claws, constricting coils, beaks or
> other "predatory" or defensive natural tools. They dont run
> fast enough, swim fast enough or even wade fast enough to
> excape most predators, and they certainly cant "outfight"
> most predators.. . . without help. That help is
> tools/weapons, and to effectively use those tools/weapons
> the forlimbs must be free of "locomotion tasking". Cant be
> running quadrupedally while beating off that hunting dog
> with your club now can you! 8-)
>
> > Bipedalism is efficient, but ONLY in adapted animals.
> > Almost all facultative "bipedal" animals drop to all
> > fours for escape from cursory predators or for travelling
> > any distance. Quadrupedal locomotion is SO much faster
> > and more efficient in unadapted mammals. So how did we
> > get here?
> >
> > Birds are obviously irrelevant, as they could not have
> > developed any other form of ground locomotion without
> > sacrificing efficient flight first.
> >
> > Some mammals have adopted bipedalism in circumstances when
> > they had few major cursory predators. Bears and ground
> > sloths are obvious examples, but it also applies to
> > dinosaurs and arguably the bipedal desert rodents etc.
> >
>
> and beavers, weasels, squirrels, meerkats, etc, etc, etc.
> The fact is that these are "occasionally" bipedal. They do
> get up on their back legs from time to time, but the
> evolutionary advantages apparently are just not strong
> enough to "drive" evolution in the direction of any real
> bipedal adaptations. (Certainly not to the extent seen in
> humans!). So. . . What collateral benefit could there be in
> bipedalism, that would have enough "survival impact" to push
> the refinement of that bipedalism through Darwinian
> Evolution? . . . . my only logical answer is "free hands".
>
> > How did kangaroos adopt bipedalism? I don't have a clue,
> > but they COULD have been another desert adaptation.
> >
>
> Yep.
>
> > But what is NOT justified by the facts is the claim that
> > the development of obligate bipedalism from facultative
> > bipedalism is a trivial matter, ESPECIALLY in the context
> > of Africa's savanna, where predators like hunting dogs
> > were common. Even hyaenas are fair middle distance
> > runners.
> >
>
> You certainly have to have that "edge" beyond any trivially
> small advantage in efficiency, if for nothing else to bridge
> that gap you have identified. A quadrupedal creature with
> minimal adaptation to a bipedal posture needed "really good
> reasons" to put up with the difficulties of that poorly
> adapted body in this new posture to keep it up!
>
> Regards bk

[Nick Macla]

In article <BA6F0B22.26597%rkeeter@earthlink.net>, Bob Keeter
<rkeeter@earthlink.net> writes:
|>
|> Also, dont forget that its a very small jump from a digging
|> stick to a stabbing spear. And I believe that there are
|> even instances of modern chimps using digging sticks.

Yes. And, even if any survived, telling a digging stick or
crude spear from, well, just a stick is not easy ....

|> True, but a very big croc can hide in just a couple of feet
|> of muddy river water. Again witness some of the filmed croc
|> attacks on grazers down by the watering hole. The croc will
|> approach very near to the drinking antelopes and then lung
|> up out of the water to grab lunch.

Oh, yes, indeed.

|> Only if the activities were repeated often enough and were
|> significant enough in the sustenance of the species to
|> cause selection to occur. An occasional dip into the water
|> (for example during a seasonal flood or to excape the
|> attack of a terrestrial predator), just would not give you
|> that sustained evolutionary "pressure" to make the move up
|> to bipedalism. That is the one real flaw in all of the AAH
|> approaches (aside from the simple lack of any real evidence
|> , of course!).

Yes. And the same applies to brief excursions onto open
ground.

Where the aquatics have a good point is that shellfish and
water plant gathering is something that is possible when there
is little food in drier terrain. And gathering food IS
something that is done for long enough to affect selection.
This need not be in actual water, of course, which is why I
refer to mud squelching. And it is harder for crocodiles to
hide in mud as well as being more likely to select for
hairlessness.

But there is no reason for this to be done to the exclusion of
the use of other terrains or even for the majority of the
time. Mud squelching for one season every five years would be
enough to affect selection, IF it happened during a period of
severe food shortage and consequential population loss.

Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing
Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44
1223 334679

[Bob Keeter]

in article 48658b64.0302111705.4316009c@posting.google.com,
Alan McIntire at mcintire4@earthlink.net wrote on 2/12/03 1:05
AM:

SNip. . ..

>>
>> I think that perhaps both suggestions are "partially true".
>> Bipedalism (terrestrial or aquatic) does not give a hominid
>> any real advantage over the predators of that environment.
>> I think that we would all agree that primates are neither
>> truely creatures of an aquatic or savanna environment. Our
>> ancestors could neither outswim, outwade nor outrun the
>> predators found in these two environments, bipedalism not
>> withstanding. The reproductive rates of hominids are just
>> plain not high enough to sustain the species in the face of
>> sustained predation as if we were large bipedal rabbits.
>>
>> I have to suggest an indirect approach to it. Bipedalism
>> had SOME survival advantage else we would not be bipedal
>> nor around today! The AATers claim it was better access to
>> aquatic food sources. There are a LONG list of claims and
>> counter claims, but the one inescapable fact is that a
>> bipedal aquatic ape would simply be no match for the
>> predators in that environment. Similarly, the bipedal ape
>> would be at a major disadvantage (or at most a "push") when
>> it came to the savanna and all of the predators of that
>> environment. . . . . unless there was an "edge". That edge
>> Id suggest is tools, i.e. WEAPONS!
>
> Donald Johanssen addressed this in his book, "Lucy". I
> forget the name of the party he was quoting, but someone
> speculated that one advantage was to free the hands of
> females to carry children.
>
> Two extreme reproductive strategies are to have a high
> reproduction rate and take no care of children, as is done
> by clams, or have few children and invest a lot in their
> care; the other extreme is the great apes. Someone
> speculated that the great apes are at a dead end because
> they invest too much time in the care of each child. He
> thought that by being able to walk on two legs and carry
> infants, and still have one hand free, early hominids could
> reproduce more frequently, and got around the bottleneck.

Well, I guess that is certainly one of the angles to it. On
the other hand an upright primate, carrying a young one would
STILL be a pretty easy catch for just about any of the big
predators. Carrying the baby does assist its survival in
certain ways (perhaps about the same as simply having the baby
instictively cling to its mother as so many of the other
primates do). Under the circumstance of being protected from
the big predators, it would probably offer some encouragement,
but unless you have that shield, Im afraid that it is just not
feeling like a "long pole" kind of issue.

Regards bk

[Paul Crowl]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E44208E.4CB19C1C@hotMOVEmail.com...

> Interesting critter.
>
> http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus_-
> nigroviridis.html
>
> Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
>
> The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp monkey is
> around 7 kilograms, and for the female it is around 3
> kilograms. ...Between the fingers and the toes there is
> webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe, 1996). ... ... The
> Allen's swamp monkey is found in the country of Zaire, in
> the central Congo Basin and the eastern Congo (Zeeve,
> 1985). This species prefers to live in swamp forests. This
> species also been reported to live in gallery forests
> (Zeeve, 1985).

Very interesting. Thanks for posting the link.

Points to make:
1) A 'swamp monkey' is likely to be small. It needs to get
around the swamps fairly quickly. Anything bigger is
likely to sink in through most vegetation, get wet too
often, and find the going too hard.
2) It will also have to be small enough to sleep in the
smallish trees growing in swamps or on their margins
3) It is only likely to be found in the lower reaches of a
large river system, where the swamps will be more constant.
Even there, dry seasons will reduce their size. Periodic
devastating droughts (say every few hundred years) will
sometimes come close to eliminating them altogether.
4) The animal will almost certainly need an alternative
habitat for the dry season (where it will find intense
competition). This will probably be in the gallery
forest. So it will need to be a fast mover in those
trees, and not lose any capability in competing with
other small tree- dwellers.

Of course, there is _no_ niche available here for a large,
slow hominoid.

Paul.

[Paul Crowl]

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b2aobr$n38$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> The aspect that most such papers seem to miss is that all of
> the other hairless and even sparsely haired terrestrial
> animals (except probably the mole rats) have a protective,
> thick skin. Humans have a very thin one.

Human skin does 'toughen up' with exposure to, say, vegetation
(in a similar way as the hands of labourers get hard). But
your basic point is entirely sound.

> Anyone who has walked through the savanna and similar
> terrains lightly clad will know that our skin is inadequate
> for protection against even the thornless plants! We are
> also very attractive to parasites, though hairlessness can
> also help there.
>
> I don't see that this helps ANY of the parties, as even
> the more aquatic hairless terrestrial mammals have thick
> skins. Odd.

It is an argument against the AAT. We are essentially normal
primates which have lost the hair, but retained the same skin
-- although we have developed the sc fat as well. The reasons
for that very unusual set of developments need to be found.

If our evolution had been similar to those of other aquatic
hairless terrestrial mammals, we'd have thick skins.

Paul.

[Bob Keeter]

in article b2d0jv$ld0$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk, Nick Maclaren
at nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk wrote on 2/12/03 8:28 AM:

Snip. . . .

> |> Only if the activities were repeated often enough and
> |> were significant enough in the sustenance of the species
> |> to cause selection to occur. An occasional dip into the
> |> water (for example during a seasonal flood or to excape
> |> the attack of a terrestrial predator), just would not
> |> give you that sustained evolutionary "pressure" to make
> |> the move up to bipedalism. That is the one real flaw in
> |> all of the AAH approaches (aside from the simple lack of
> |> any real evidence , of course!).
>
> Yes. And the same applies to brief excursions onto
> open ground.
>

Absolutely correct. "Once in a blue moon" excursions into wet
or dry land would have absolutely no impact on an evolutionary
issue (except maybe for some pruning of the genome if done to
excess without that 'edge' ! 8-) )

> Where the aquatics have a good point is that shellfish and
> water plant gathering is something that is possible when
> there is little food in drier terrain. And gathering food IS
> something that is done for long enough to affect selection.
> This need not be in actual water, of course, which is why I
> refer to mud squelching. And it is harder for crocodiles to
> hide in mud as well as being more likely to select for
> hairlessness.
>

From one of your prior postings I get the impression that you
have spent some time in the tropics, maybe even Africa? If so,
what did the "mud flats" look like? Was there any "saw grass"
(which of course might just include the shoots of those edible
water plants!) around? Imagine wading through such mud flats
with no pants! Id suggest that habitual "mud squelching" might
be a prime factor for developing thick matted body hair not
hairlessness! 8-) Furthermore, what kinds of edible shellfish
actually live in mud flats? Our N. American fresh water
shellfish seem to much prefer rather clear running water.

> But there is no reason for this to be done to the exclusion
> of the use of other terrains or even for the majority of
> the time. Mud squelching for one season every five years
> would be enough to affect selection, IF it happened during
> a period of severe food shortage and consequential
> population loss.
>

Perhaps. If the "selection process" simply eliminated the
"non-mud squelching" crew, the future population would
probalby be habitual mud-squelchers. Then you end up with the
behavior that will "fine tune" the physical adaptations, but
then you would expect to see some very real, incontrovertable
adaptations. For example, have you ever waded in a muddy lake
bed? How deep did your feet go in the mud? Could you move
very quick?

Now think. . . . if you wre wearing canvas-webbed snowshoes do
you think you could have moved around on the mud better? That
is the kind of evolutionary adaptation that WADERS produce.
Big advantage, IF that is in fact the environment that can
actually have enough impact on survival to drive evolutionary
adaptations.

Regards bk

[Nick Macla]

In article <BA6FC079.265F2%rkeeter@earthlink.net>, Bob Keeter
<rkeeter@earthlink.net> writes:
|>
|> From one of your prior postings I get the impression that
|> you have spent some time in the tropics, maybe even Africa?
|> If so, what did the "mud flats" look like? Was there any
|> "saw grass" (which of course might just include the shoots
|> of those edible water plants!) around? Imagine wading
|> through such mud flats with no pants! Id suggest that
|> habitual "mud squelching" might be a prime factor for
|> developing thick matted body hair not hairlessness! 8-)
|> Furthermore, what kinds of edible shellfish actually live
|> in mud flats? Our N. American fresh water shellfish seem to
|> much prefer rather clear running water.

I lived there until the age of 9. The grasses tend to be
rough, but not that rough. Some of the thorns are vicious,
but the areas of savanna I was in weren't as harsh on
unclad humans as the chaparral, for example. I don't know
how many of the local shellfish are mud dwellers, but some
European ones are.

|> Perhaps. If the "selection process" simply eliminated the
|> "non-mud squelching" crew, the future population would
|> probalby be habitual mud-squelchers. Then you end up with
|> the behavior that will "fine tune" the physical
|> adaptations, but then you would expect to see some very
|> real, incontrovertable adaptations. For example, have you
|> ever waded in a muddy lake bed? How deep did your feet go
|> in the mud? Could you move very quick?

Grin :-)

|> Now think. . . . if you wre wearing canvas-webbed snowshoes
|> do you think you could have moved around on the mud better?
|> That is the kind of evolutionary adaptation that WADERS
|> produce. Big advantage, IF that is in fact the environment
|> that can actually have enough impact on survival to drive
|> evolutionary adaptations.

That is one reason that the umbrella form of the hypothesis
doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But the wet/dry season
difference is very important in east, central and southern
Africa, and it is possible that they might have lived in one
habitat in the dry season and another in the wet.

Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing
Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44
1223 334679

[Nick Macla]

In article <AaA2a.9270$V6.12341@news.indigo.ie>, Paul Crowley
<sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote:
>
>Points to make:
>1) A 'swamp monkey' is likely to be small. It needs to get
> around the swamps fairly quickly. Anything bigger is
> likely to sink in through most vegetation, get wet too
> often, and find the going too hard.

Hmm. Generally, yes, but there are a fair number of heavier
mammals that live in such conditions.

>2) It will also have to be small enough to sleep in the
> smallish trees growing in swamps or on their margins

Or large enough not to need to. Most swamps have dry areas,
and the real issue is whether they can avoid crocodiles.

>3) It is only likely to be found in the lower reaches of a
> large river system, where the swamps will be more
> constant. Even there, dry seasons will reduce their size.
> Periodic devastating droughts (say every few hundred
> years) will sometimes come close to eliminating them
> altogether.

No. Definitely not. Similar constant swamps are found around
lakes and in "near lakes" where the land floods extensively
and rarely dries out entirely. Think of, for example, Lake
Bangweulu.

>4) The animal will almost certainly need an alternative
> habitat for the dry season (where it will find intense
> competition). This will probably be in the gallery
> forest. So it will need to be a fast mover in those
> trees, and not lose any capability in competing with
> other small tree- dwellers.

Why can't it follow the waterline?

>Of course, there is _no_ niche available here for a large,
>slow hominoid.

Debatable. One could use the same argument to say that there
could be no such thing as moose or hippopotamus :-)

Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing
Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44
1223 334679

[Paul Crowl]

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b2ekmf$51g$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...

> >1) A 'swamp monkey' is likely to be small. It needs to get
> > around the swamps fairly quickly. Anything bigger is
> > likely to sink in through most vegetation, get wet too
> > often, and find the going too hard.
>
> Hmm. Generally, yes, but there are a fair number of heavier
> mammals that live in such conditions.

Those heavier animals eat grass (or similar vegetation).
Whereas we are talking about a primarily frugivorous animal
that needs to cover distance to forage, finding small items,
usually widely scattered.

> >2) It will also have to be small enough to sleep in the
> > smallish trees growing in swamps or on their margins
>
> Or large enough not to need to. Most swamps have dry areas,
> and the real issue is whether they can avoid crocodiles.

The territory would be mixed (especially in the dry season)
and often open to lions, leopards, etc. Even if the adults
were all the size of male gorillas (which is very unlikely)
they would still have to grow up. Since primates are
night-blind, that means they have to sleep in trees. So they
cannot travel far from the right sorts of trees.

Allen's Swamp Monkey seems to have trouble finding good
sleeping sites (using the same ones regularly). The problems
of a larger animal would be much worse.

> >3) It is only likely to be found in the lower reaches of a
> > large river system, where the swamps will be more
> > constant. Even there, dry seasons will reduce their
> > size. Periodic devastating droughts (say every few
> > hundred years) will sometimes come close to eliminating
> > them altogether.
>
> No. Definitely not. Similar constant swamps are found around
> lakes and in "near lakes" where the land floods extensively
> and rarely dries out entirely. Think of, for example, Lake
> Bangweulu.

I am only talking of rare occasions. You cannot postulate a
viable species in a scenario where you know that its numbers
will often (over evolutionary timescales) be reduced to the
barely survivable. That, plus the unpredictable, means that it
is a non-runner.

> >4) The animal will almost certainly need an alternative
> > habitat for the dry season (where it will find intense
> > competition). This will probably be in the gallery
> > forest. So it will need to be a fast mover in those
> > trees, and not lose any capability in competing with
> > other small tree- dwellers.
>
> Why can't it follow the waterline?

Its numbers get too small. It ceases to be a 'swamp ape' and
becomes a 'river ape'.

> >Of course, there is _no_ niche available here for a large,
> >slow hominoid.
>
> Debatable. One could use the same argument to say that there
> could be no such thing as moose or hippopotamus :-)

If it can eat grass then it's a remarkable primate. That's
possible, of course, but you need to say what advantages the
herds of the grass-eating primates will have over herds of
grass-eating bovids (or other grass-eaters).

Paul.

[Nick Macla]

In article <q5R2a.9433$V6.12322@news.indigo.ie>, "Paul
Crowley" <sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> writes:
|>
|> Those heavier animals eat grass (or similar vegetation).
|> Whereas we are talking about a primarily frugivorous animal
|> that needs to cover distance to forage, finding small
|> items, usually widely scattered.

It could have adapted to eating shellfish, worms and the roots
of water plants in a generation. Chimpanzees could. That is
not a major obstacle.

|> The territory would be mixed (especially in the dry season)
|> and often open to lions, leopards, etc. Even if the adults
|> were all the size of male gorillas (which is very unlikely)
|> they would still have to grow up. Since primates are
|> night-blind, that means they have to sleep in trees. So
|> they cannot travel far from the right sorts of trees.

Not really. Neither lions nor leopards are keen on wet
conditions and, if I recall correctly, always were rare in the
swampland around Lake Bangweulu (to give one example).

|> > No. Definitely not. Similar constant swamps are found
|> > around lakes and in "near lakes" where the land floods
|> > extensively and rarely dries out entirely. Think of, for
|> > example, Lake Bangweulu.
|>
|> I am only talking of rare occasions. You cannot postulate a
|> viable species in a scenario where you know that its
|> numbers will often (over evolutionary timescales) be
|> reduced to the barely survivable. That, plus the
|> unpredictable, means that it is a non-runner.

Lake Bangweulu is c. 1500 square miles, with c. 2000 square
miles of swamp around it. I wouldn't be so certain that the
area wouldn't have had at least 500 square miles of swampland
for the past 5 million years. I don't have a clue whether it
DID - just that your claim needs justification.

|> > Why can't it follow the waterline?
|>
|> Its numbers get too small. It ceases to be a 'swamp ape'
|> and becomes a 'river ape'.

See above.

|> If it can eat grass then it's a remarkable primate. That's
|> possible, of course, but you need to say what advantages
|> the herds of the grass-eating primates will have over herds
|> of grass-eating bovids (or other grass-eaters).

The giant Panda? However, I agree. Grass is implausible.
Shellfish, worms and aquatic plant roots are not.

Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing
Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44
1223 334679

[Nick Macla]

In article <D9b3a.9654$V6.13108@news.indigo.ie>, Paul Crowley
<sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote:
>
>I don't think that is a reasonable guess. IF that food is
>available why isn't it exploited? What advantages would
>chimps have over other mammals? Their strengths are
>manipulating hands, high intelligence, an ability to sleep in
>trees (so avoiding nocturnal predators) and an ability to
>cooperate. Do any apply here?

Yes. Manipulating hands (shellfish and root gathering) and
ability to cooperate (fish driving).

>If the water plants are reasonably edible, then we should
>expect that they would be consumed by an ordinary bovid (or a
>hippo or a pig) which might also get at the shellfish and
>worms as well as (or better than) a chimp. I can see nothing
>in the chimp anatomy or behaviour that fits it better for
>such a role -- and much that makes it less effective.

To a great extent, I agree, except that a only a pig would be
better and that there IS a disadvantage for the latter in
having to root under water and wet, clinging mud.

My point is that a reasonably unadapted chimpanzee-like ape
COULD get food in such conditions (e.g. I could!) whereas that
is not true in many of the hypothesised habitats. I would not
claim that this speculation is without its drawbacks.

>> Not really. Neither lions nor leopards are keen on wet
>> conditions and, if I recall correctly, always were rare in
>> the swampland around Lake Bangweulu (to give one example).
>
>They are rare in swampland mainly because there is nothing
>much for them to eat. Smaller cats (and other predators such
>as crocs) prey on the few small mammals and reptiles in such
>places. [..]

Not entirely. Lions really don't like such conditions and are
more likely to be found at the desert end of the spectrum, and
leopards aren't too keen. There is a fair amount of potential
prey (e.g. lechwe).

What I can't say is HOW fertile that swampland is, because I
don't have any clear references. Swampland in general can vary
from being a very poor habitat with a low animal biomass to a
very rich one with a massive one.

Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing
Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH,
England. Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44
1223 334679

[Paul Crowl]

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b2gpco$1q9$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> "Paul Crowley" <sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> writes:
> |>
> |> Those heavier animals eat grass (or similar vegetation).
> |> Whereas we are talking about a primarily frugivorous
> |> animal that needs to cover distance to forage, finding
> |> small items, usually widely scattered.
>
> It could have adapted to eating shellfish, worms and the
> roots of water plants in a generation. Chimpanzees could.
> That is not a major obstacle.

I don't think that is a reasonable guess. IF that food is
available why isn't it exploited? What advantages would chimps
have over other mammals? Their strengths are manipulating
hands, high intelligence, an ability to sleep in trees (so
avoiding nocturnal predators) and an ability to cooperate. Do
any apply here?

We can guess how Allen's Swamp Monkey forged a niche --
nothing else is able to range over that kind of ground with
such speed and economy and is able to pick the fruit and find
the vertebrates and invertebrates so effectively -- combined
with an ability to find a safe place to sleep at night.

If the water plants are reasonably edible, then we should
expect that they would be consumed by an ordinary bovid (or a
hippo or a pig) which might also get at the shellfish and
worms as well as (or better than) a chimp. I can see nothing
in the chimp anatomy or behaviour that fits it better for such
a role -- and much that makes it less effective.

> |> The territory would be mixed (especially in the dry
> |> season) and often open to lions, leopards, etc. Even if
> |> the adults were all the size of male gorillas (which is
> |> very unlikely) they would still have to grow up. Since
> |> primates are night-blind, that means they have to sleep
> |> in trees. So they cannot travel far from the right sorts
> |> of trees.
>
> Not really. Neither lions nor leopards are keen on wet
> conditions and, if I recall correctly, always were rare in
> the swampland around Lake Bangweulu (to give one example).

They are rare in swampland mainly because there is nothing
much for them to eat. Smaller cats (and other predators such
as crocs) prey on the few small mammals and reptiles in such
places. [..]

Paul.

[Rich Travs]

Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
> Rich Travsky :
> > Interesting critter.
> >
> http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus_n-
> igroviridis.html
> >
> > Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
> >
> > The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp monkey
> > is around 7 kilograms, and for the female it is around 3
> > kilograms. ...Between the fingers and the toes there is
> > webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe, 1996). ... ... The
> > Allen's swamp monkey is found in the country of Zaire, in
> > the central Congo Basin and the eastern Congo (Zeeve,
> > 1985). This species prefers to live in swamp forests.
> > This species also been reported to live in gallery
> > forests (Zeeve, 1985).
> >
> > The Allen's swamp monkey is primarily a frugivorous
> > species. This species also consumes vertebrates, pith,
> > roots, and invertebrates (Zeeve, 1985). Among the
> > vertebrates include fish hatchlings that are collected
> > from river beds during the dry season (Zeeve, 1985)...
> > Sleeping sites for this species are usually located near
> > water and the same sites are used repeatedly (Gautier,
> > 1985). Allen's swamp monkey is a semi-terrestrial and a
> > diurnal species (Gautier, 1985). This species will dive
> > into the water when a predator is detected (Gautier-Hion,
> > 1988).
> >
> > The Allen's swamp monkey moves through the forest in a
> > quadrupedal manner (Fleagle,
> > 1988). This species is capable of swimming and diving
> > (Zeeve, 1985).
> >
> > Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> > bipedalism or hairlessness...
>
> No hint of salt. No hint of rocky coast environment,
> IMO.

So?

[Rich Travs]

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E49EC51.50476519@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > > > Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> > > > bipedalism or
> hairlessness...
>
> > > ?? Why would you think that??
>
> > Why would you think they *are* moving to bipedalism or
> > hairlessness?
>
> ?? I don't! Why do you think I do?? Man, inform!

You don't? Then why ask the question? After all, there are two
primates that actually developed aquatic features - proboscis
and Allen's - they even swim under water (breath control
without speech!) and not a sign of moving towards bipedality.
Unless you can point those out for us...

[Marc Verha]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E4FFA5B.289A1B10@hotMOVEmail.com...

> > > > > Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> > > > > bipedalism or
hairlessness...

> > > > ?? Why would you think that??

> > > Why would you think they *are* moving to bipedalism or
> > > hairlessness?

> > ?? I don't! Why do you think I do?? Man, inform!

> You don't? Then why ask the question?

I asked: why do you think aquatic adaptations should hint to
bipedalism?? Do you really believe whales are bipedal??

> After all, there are two primates that actually
> developed aquatic
features - proboscis and Allen's - they even swim under water
(breath control without speech!) and not a sign of moving
towards bipedality. Unless you can point those out for us...

1) Forgetting macaques?
2) Ever seen monkeys dive for several minutes??
3) Why do you believe these "aquatic" primates are
incompatible with our view??

[Mario Petr]

Rich Travsky :
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > Rich Travsky :
> > > Interesting critter.
> > >
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus_nig-
roviridis.html
> > >
> > > Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
> > >
> > > The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp monkey
> > > is around 7 kilograms, and for the female it is around
> > > 3 kilograms. ...Between the fingers and the toes there
> > > is webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe, 1996). ... ...
> > > The Allen's swamp monkey is found in the country of
> > > Zaire, in the central Congo Basin and the eastern Congo
> > > (Zeeve, 1985). This species prefers to live in swamp
> > > forests. This species also been reported to live in
> > > gallery forests (Zeeve, 1985).
> > >
> > > The Allen's swamp monkey is primarily a frugivorous
> > > species. This species also consumes vertebrates, pith,
> > > roots, and invertebrates (Zeeve, 1985). Among the
> > > vertebrates include fish hatchlings that are collected
> > > from river beds during the dry season (Zeeve, 1985)...
> > > Sleeping sites for this species are usually located
> > > near water and the same sites are used repeatedly
> > > (Gautier, 1985). Allen's swamp monkey is a
> > > semi-terrestrial and a diurnal species (Gautier, 1985).
> > > This species will dive into the water when a predator
> > > is detected (Gautier-Hion,
> > > 1988).
> > >
> > > The Allen's swamp monkey moves through the forest in a
> > > quadrupedal manner (Fleagle,
> > > 1988). This species is capable of swimming and diving
> > > (Zeeve, 1985).
> > >
> > > Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> > > bipedalism or hairlessness...
> >
> > No hint of salt. No hint of rocky coast
> > environment, IMO.
>
> So?

For fur to perform its function, it has to be in a
good shape. This is achieved by grooming. How you are
imagining to groom all that salt from your hair.
You'll never do it satisfactorily. Ok, you can try to
lick salt. And it is good if you have apetit for salt.
At least you don't have to go to salt licks. And where
there is no hair anymore, it can even be sexy. So
grooming can transform into licking. A sign of
friendship (or love). And if you are up to neck into
sea, it can even transform into a kiss. Rocky coast
I'll try to explain in "Gluteus maximus" post.
--
Mario

AAT Yahoo! Group

[Mario Petr]

Rich Travsky :
> there are two primates that actually developed aquatic
> features - proboscis and Allen's - they even swim under
> water (breath control without speech!)

Do they stay whole day in water? If water is your
sanctionary, you need good communication skills, IMO.
In a sea you don't sense smell (which we don't sense
anyway), you cannot hear hush sounds (because of
sound of waves), you cannot see all around you
because you would vaste all your energy in constant
turning around.
--
Mario

AAT Yahoo! Group

[Rich Travs]

Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
> Rich Travsky :
> > Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > > Rich Travsky :
> > > > Interesting critter.
> > > >
> http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/factsheets/allenopithecus_n-
> igroviridis.html
> > > >
> > > > Allen's Swamp Monkey (Allenopithecus nigroviridis)
> > > >
> > > > The average body mass for the male Allen's swamp
> > > > monkey is around 7 kilograms, and for the female it
> > > > is around 3 kilograms. ...Between the fingers and the
> > > > toes there is webbing to assist in swimming (Rowe,
> > > > 1996). ... ... The Allen's swamp monkey is found in
> > > > the country of Zaire, in the central Congo Basin and
> > > > the eastern Congo (Zeeve, 1985). This species prefers
> > > > to live in swamp forests. This species also been
> > > > reported to live in gallery forests (Zeeve, 1985).
> > > >
> > > > The Allen's swamp monkey is primarily a frugivorous
> > > > species. This species also consumes vertebrates,
> > > > pith, roots, and invertebrates (Zeeve, 1985). Among
> > > > the vertebrates include fish hatchlings that are
> > > > collected from river beds during the dry season
> > > > (Zeeve, 1985)... Sleeping sites for this species are
> > > > usually located near water and the same sites are
> > > > used repeatedly (Gautier, 1985). Allen's swamp monkey
> > > > is a semi-terrestrial and a diurnal species (Gautier,
> > > > 1985). This species will dive into the water when a
> > > > predator is detected (Gautier-Hion,
> > > > 1988).
> > > >
> > > > The Allen's swamp monkey moves through the forest in
> > > > a quadrupedal manner (Fleagle,
> > > > 1988). This species is capable of swimming and diving
> > > > (Zeeve, 1985).
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm. Aquatic adaptations and no hint of moving to
> > > > bipedalism or hairlessness...
> > >
> > > No hint of salt. No hint of rocky coast
> > > environment, IMO.
> >
> > So?
>
> For fur to perform its function, it has to be in a
> good shape. This is achieved by grooming. How you
> are imagining to groom all that salt from your hair.
> You'll never do it satisfactorily. Ok, you can try
> to lick salt. And it is good if you have apetit for
> salt. At least you don't have to go to salt licks.
> And where there is no hair anymore, it can even be
> sexy. So grooming can transform into licking. A sign
> of friendship (or love). And if you are up to neck
> into sea, it can even transform into a kiss. Rocky
> coast I'll try to explain in "Gluteus maximus" post.

Primatess don't need salt for their coats. Primates groom on
land without all that salt nonsense.

[Rich Travs]

Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
> Rich Travsky :
> > there are two primates that actually developed aquatic
> > features - proboscis and Allen's - they even swim under
> > water (breath control without speech!)
>
> Do they stay whole day in water? If water is your
> sanctionary, you

Of course not.

> need good communication skills, IMO. In a sea you don't
> sense smell (which we don't sense anyway), you cannot hear
> hush sounds (because of sound of waves), you cannot see all
> around you because you would vaste all your energy in
> constant turning around.

So? On land you may not be able to hear over noises too. Wind,
for example, with rustling leaves.