Date   

Re: "Trust me, I'm a paleoanthropologist"

fceska_gr
 

"And you don’t want to bother arguing with them. Let them have their harmless delusions. It makes life more interesting for everyone."

Spot on, Allan.


On 3/10/2021 3:00 μ.μ., Allan Krill wrote:
On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 02:27 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
Very few scientists have actually refuted the paper. Mostly they just ignore it,
 
Marine sedimentary rocks show many interesting patterns, but not mammal footprints. This is like mermaids: some people might think they have seen some, but you can be pretty sure they didn’t. And you don’t want to bother arguing with them. Let them have their harmless delusions. It makes life more interesting for everyone. 
--
Francesca Mansfield Odyssey Sailing Tel: 0030 24280 94128 Mobile/WhatsAp: +30 6974 659 156 f-ceska@...


Re: Apiths ancestral to gorillas?

Gareth Morgan
 

I can't imagine how you can claim that this article supports the idea

Yes, gaslighting is a favourite tactic of stalkers. 

I said "Encyclopedia Britannica mentions..." that there are people who do.

You are simply in denial. 


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 11:59 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Apiths ancestral to gorillas?
 
On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 06:58 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
Elaine's stalker was asking if anyone other than Francesca and Marc thought that gorillas were descended from apiths.
 
Encyclopedia Britannica mentions
"the possibility that Graecopithecus is close to the great-ape ancestry of Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) and Gorilla..."
"In the former model, Dryopithecus is ancestral to Pan and Gorilla."
"others would have Dryopithecus ancestral to Pan and Australopithecus on the way to Homo, with Graecopithecus ancestral to Gorilla."
 
So, yes.
Gareth: Here is a link to the article in Encyclopedia Britannica that you are referring to, and here is the figure that goes with that article. 

I can't imagine how you can claim that this article supports the idea that gorillas were descended from Australopithecus. 


 
--
AquaticApe.net


Re: Apiths ancestral to gorillas?

alandarwinvanarsdale
 

Graecopithecus is in my opinion an australopith. Trachilos is not, and is either Homo or some sort of near basal hominin. Some australopiths are closer to Gorilla than to Homo, others are closer to Homo than Gorilla. Australopiths graded into African great apes and Homo. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________Homo grades into Asiatic great apes and australopiths. Looking for a lot of ancestral forms is unlikely to be correct and comes from 19th century European typology and linear evolution concepts. Most populations are mixtures of different morphotypes with great apes and humans. So there is no one ancestral form, and when there is, it usually is not found in the fossil record.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Allan Krill
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 2:59 PM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] Apiths ancestral to gorillas?

 

On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 06:58 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:

Elaine's stalker was asking if anyone other than Francesca and Marc thought that gorillas were descended from apiths.

 

Encyclopedia Britannica mentions

"the possibility that Graecopithecus is close to the great-ape ancestry of Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) and Gorilla..."

"In the former model, Dryopithecus is ancestral to Pan and Gorilla."

"others would have Dryopithecus ancestral to Pan and Australopithecus on the way to Homo, with Graecopithecus ancestral to Gorilla."

 

So, yes.

Gareth: Here is a link to the article in Encyclopedia Britannica that you are referring to, and here is the figure that goes with that article. 

I can't imagine how you can claim that this article supports the idea that gorillas were descended from Australopithecus. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net

 


Re: Apiths ancestral to gorillas?

 

On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 06:58 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
Elaine's stalker was asking if anyone other than Francesca and Marc thought that gorillas were descended from apiths.
 
Encyclopedia Britannica mentions
"the possibility that Graecopithecus is close to the great-ape ancestry of Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) and Gorilla..."
"In the former model, Dryopithecus is ancestral to Pan and Gorilla."
"others would have Dryopithecus ancestral to Pan and Australopithecus on the way to Homo, with Graecopithecus ancestral to Gorilla."
 
So, yes.
Gareth: Here is a link to the article in Encyclopedia Britannica that you are referring to, and here is the figure that goes with that article. 

I can't imagine how you can claim that this article supports the idea that gorillas were descended from Australopithecus. 


 
--
AquaticApe.net


Pierolapith.catalaunicus patella 12 Ma

Marc Verhaegen
 

The Middle Miocene Ape Pierolapithecus catalaunicus Exhibits Extant Great Ape-Like Morphometric Affinities on its Patella:
Inferences on Knee Function and Evolution
Marta Pina cs 2014 PLOS doi org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091944

The mosaic nature of the Miocene ape postcranium hinders the reconstruction of their positional behavior & locomotion based on isolated elements only.
Pier.catalaunicus IPS 21350 (11.9 Ma) exhibits
- a rel.wide & shallow thorax,
- moderate hand length & phalangeal curvature,
- dorsally-oriented metacarpo-phalangeal joints,
- loss of ulno-carpal articulation.
This reveals enhanced orthogrady, without modern ape-like below-branch suspensory adaptations:
did natural selection enhance vertical climbing (and not suspension per se) in Pier.catalaunicus?
Limb long bones are not available for this species, but its patella IPS 21350.37 can potentially provide insights into its knee function, and thus on the complexity of its total morphological pattern.

Here we provide a detailed description & morphometric analyses of IPS 21350.37, based on 4 external dimensions, intended to capture the overall patellar shape.
Our results:
the patella is similar to that of extant great apes: proximo-distally short, medio-laterally broad, antero-posteriorly thin.
Previous bio-mechanical studies of the anthropoid knee based on the same measurements proposed:
- the modern great ape patella reflects a mobile knee joint,
- the platyrrhines & esp. cercopithecoid long, narrow, thick patella would increase the quadriceps moment arm in knee extension during walking, galloping, climbing & leaping.

Pierolapithecus' patella differs not only from monkeys & hylobatids, but also from that of basal hominoids:
Proconsul & Nacholapithecus which display slightly thinner patellae than extant great apes (the previously-inferred plesiomorphic hominoid condition).

If patellar shape in Pierolapithecus is related to modern great ape-like knee function, our results suggest:
increased knee mobility might have originally evolved in relation to enhanced climbing capabilities in great apes (such as specialized vertical climbing).

_______



Middle Miocene Pierolapithecus provides a first glimpse into early hominid pelvic morphology
Ashley S Hammond cs 2013 JHE 64:658-666 doi org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.03.002

Here we describe the pelvis from the holotype spm of Pierolapith.catalaunicus (IPS-21350, c 11.9 Ma, stem-hominid, Barranc de Can Vila 1, Abocador de Can Mata, Catalonia, Spain):
the oldest known great ape pelvic materials:
- a fragment from the ilium IPS-21350.38,
- one from the ischium IPS-21350.39.

The ischium consists of just a small fragment from the caudal acetabulum, but the preserved morphology is consistent with the basal hominoid Proconsul nyanzae.
The ilium is similar to Pr.nyanzae: concave gluteal surface & linea arcuata form (was much of the iliac & pubic form primitive?),
but the ilium was rel.more flaring than Pr.nyanzae & most monkeys: it could be within the range of extant lesser apes.
The iliac tuberosity width was probably intermediate between extant gr.apes & monkeys, but max.& min.estimates could be accommodated within either group.
The ilium reflects incipient modifications of the basal hominoid torso for more frequent orthogrady, described for this taxon on the basis of other preserved anatomical regions,
it also supports claims that extant ape pelvic morphology could be homoplastic, given the hypothesized phylogenetic positions of Pierolapithecus.


Pierolapith.catalaunicus pelvis 12 Ma

Marc Verhaegen
 

Middle Miocene Pierolapithecus provides a first glimpse into early hominid pelvic morphology
Ashley S Hammond cs 2013 JHE 64:658-666 doi org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.03.002

Here we describe the pelvis from the holotype spm of Pierolapith.catalaunicus (IPS-21350, c 11.9 Ma, stem-hominid, Barranc de Can Vila 1, Abocador de Can Mata, Catalonia, Spain):
the oldest known great ape pelvic materials:
- a fragment from the ilium IPS-21350.38,
- one from the ischium IPS-21350.39.

The ischium consists of just a small fragment from the caudal acetabulum, but the preserved morphology is consistent with the basal hominoid Proconsul nyanzae.
The ilium is similar to Pr.nyanzae: concave gluteal surface & linea arcuata form (was much of the iliac & pubic form primitive?),
but the ilium was rel.more flaring than Pr.nyanzae & most monkeys: it could be within the range of extant lesser apes.
The iliac tuberosity width was probably intermediate between extant gr.apes & monkeys, but max.& min.estimates could be accommodated within either group.
The ilium reflects incipient modifications of the basal hominoid torso for more frequent orthogrady, described for this taxon on the basis of other preserved anatomical regions,
it also supports claims that extant ape pelvic morphology could be homoplastic, given the hypothesized phylogenetic positions of Pierolapithecus.


Apiths ancestral to gorillas?

Gareth Morgan
 



Elaine's stalker was asking if anyone other than Francesca and Marc thought that gorillas were descended from apiths.

Encyclopedia Britannica mentions
"the possibility that Graecopithecus is close to the great-ape ancestry of Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) and Gorilla..."
"In the former model, Dryopithecus is ancestral to Pan and Gorilla."
"others would have Dryopithecus ancestral to Pan and Australopithecus on the way to Homo, with Graecopithecus ancestral to Gorilla."

So, yes.


Re: "Trust me, I'm a paleoanthropologist"

 

On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 02:27 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
Very few scientists have actually refuted the paper. Mostly they just ignore it,
 
Marine sedimentary rocks show many interesting patterns, but not mammal footprints. This is like mermaids: some people might think they have seen some, but you can be pretty sure they didn’t. And you don’t want to bother arguing with them. Let them have their harmless delusions. It makes life more interesting for everyone. 


Re: Lake Tana conundrum

Gareth Morgan
 

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Why bother with facts at all when you have Wikipedia? Or you might as well just guess, like the Bioko delusion.

The Mississippi delta is over 240 km long. It deposits and then it erodes. Lakes don't unsilt. Ever.





From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 10:20 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Lake Tana conundrum
 
On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 11:05 PM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
If the lake has been silting up at the rate of 15 mm a year for 5 million years, then it would originally have been 75 kilometres deep -- twice the thickness of the Earth's crust.
Yet, however insane that proposition is, I am confident that everyone will still believe that Lake Tana is 5 million years old, based on no evidence whatsoever
Gareth, your conjectures often remind me of this observation by Mark Twain:

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Life on the Mississippi

See this compilation of Mark Twain quotes (hundreds of them): http://www.twainquotes.com/Conjecture.html
 
--
AquaticApe.net


Re: "Trust me, I'm a paleoanthropologist"

fceska_gr
 

"... you believe the Trachilos layer shows authentic footprints. The photograph you show of those footprints is an obvious falsification.  https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69489
Fake footprints were stained or photo-shopped using brown color, which has nothing to do with the actual structures seen or the natural color of the rock. The footprints and the layer itself were destroyed, either naturally or intentionally, and cannot be studied.
The sedimentary layer of those supposed footprints is marine, not terrestrial. It was dated using marine microfossils (forams) not terrestrial pollen. Marine sediments simply don't preserve mammal footprints, and commonly have strange patterns such as these. The footprints themselves are probably some sort of dewatering structures -- not fossils at all. "

The footprints have not been stained, or faked. Google 'Trachilos footprints' (images) and you'll see plenty of images as they appear, preserved in the rock.

Gierlinski gives a perfectly adequate account of the dating methods used in his paper. These have not been disputed by anyone as being a flawed method. You can read his paper here:

Very few scientists have actually refuted the paper. Mostly they just ignore it, as they did with Elaine, as it doesn't fit the scenario that hominins evolved in Africa and several million years later. As far as I'm concerned, these tracks are very real and a game changer in our understanding of where we came from. There are a number of academics who agree:

David Begun, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Toronto, said the people with the most influence on the major journals are committed Africanists.

“They simply cannot see the possibility that any important event in ape and human evolution could have occurred outside Africa until the first Homo left that continent about 2 million years ago,” he wrote in an email. He said there’s “no earthly reason why there could not have been (pre)humans on Crete 6 million years ago.”

You choose to poo-poo it for the same reasons. It doesn't fit your Bioko model.

The prints have not been destroyed:

Shortly after the research was published, four or five of the 29 prints were chiselled out of the rock in Trachilos and stolen. Fortunately, local authorities soon arrested a 55-year-old high school teacher from the area, and the damaged footprints were recovered, according to Greek news site Themanews.

No scientific data was lost, since the prints had already been laser-scanned in 3D. But Matthew Bennett told CBC Radio’s Quirks & Quarks that what has been lost is the ability to “get that emotional connection with one’s ancestor, to touch those footprints… It’s not as bad as it could have been, but it’s still very, very sad to see.”

The footprints have since been buried under gravel and rocks on the beach in Trachilos, for their protection, and will remain so until spring.

Gierlinski said local authorities are now debating whether to remove the entire slab of footprints and relocate it to the local museum or build a protective structure so it can be viewed on the beach at the very place where it was found — his preferred option. He has also looked into options for removing graffiti that has been sprayed on the surface.

In the meantime, science will have to wait for more discoveries to be made in order to understand the truth behind the footprints found in Crete.


Francesca


On 1/10/2021 11:39 μ.μ., Allan Krill wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 03:45 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
If we really want to be taken seriously, we have to play them at their own game. We need to turn their own evidence against them. Many of us here have been trying to do exactly that
I think that you can't beat paleoanthropologists at their own game, because they don't play fair. They claim to have picked up fossils that were lying loose on the ground ('surface finds'), with nothing more found by digging. They don't try to use chemical analyses, DNA tests, or carbon-14 tests to demonstrate that the fossils actually are old or came from that particular ground. They won't let skeptics or impartial scientists test their materials, or even inspect them. No scientists are allowed to publish doubts about the authenticity of other's material. These are the same old problems that led to the Piltdown Man hoax.

These guys are like sleight-of-hand artists, stage-performing magicians, and card sharks that use tapered and marked playing cards. They can impress people, but they won't let anyone inspect the cards, or 'look behind the curtain'. People are happy because they want to be impressed.

You have been trying to 'play their game': To promote your model of early bipedal hominins in Europe, you believe the Trachilos layer shows authentic footprints. The photograph you show of those footprints is an obvious falsification.  https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69489
Fake footprints were stained or photo-shopped using brown color, which has nothing to do with the actual structures seen or the natural color of the rock. The footprints and the layer itself were destroyed, either naturally or intentionally, and cannot be studied.
The sedimentary layer of those supposed footprints is marine, not terrestrial. It was dated using marine microfossils (forams) not terrestrial pollen. Marine sediments simply don't preserve mammal footprints, and commonly have strange patterns such as these. The footprints themselves are probably some sort of dewatering structures -- not fossils at all. 

So you can play their own game, but don't suggest that I am 'Stepping up on to the podium with no research, no evidence, plenty of counter evidence, nothing more than a fairly fantastic hypothesis that seems to collapse at the first hurdle.' That is simply not true.

Do you really think that the Y-DNA haplogoup being right next to Bioko should be ignored, and that you can say there is 'no evidence'? That is actually evidence, and there is more, in support of Bioko. 
 
--
AquaticApe.net
--
Francesca Mansfield Odyssey Sailing Tel: 0030 24280 94128 Mobile/WhatsAp: +30 6974 659 156 f-ceska@...


Re: Lake Tana conundrum

 

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 11:05 PM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
If the lake has been silting up at the rate of 15 mm a year for 5 million years, then it would originally have been 75 kilometres deep -- twice the thickness of the Earth's crust.
Yet, however insane that proposition is, I am confident that everyone will still believe that Lake Tana is 5 million years old, based on no evidence whatsoever
Gareth, your conjectures often remind me of this observation by Mark Twain:

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Life on the Mississippi

See this compilation of Mark Twain quotes (hundreds of them): http://www.twainquotes.com/Conjecture.html
 
--
AquaticApe.net


Re: Lake Tana conundrum

Gareth Morgan
 

50 points for anyone who can tell me why this doesn't make any sense

No takers?

If the lake has been silting up at the rate of 15 mm a year for 5 million years, then it would originally have been 75 kilometres deep -- twice the thickness of the Earth's crust.

Yet, however insane that proposition is, I am confident that everyone will still believe that Lake Tana is 5 million years old, based on no evidence whatsoever... because Wikipedia says so.

It's very lonely here on planet Rational.

G.


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Gareth Morgan <garethmorgan@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 11:16 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: [AAT] Lake Tana conundrum
 
There is greater annual rainfall in the Ethiopian highlands than there is in England. I've been looking at Google Earth to see why none of it any longer runs down into the Eastern Rift Valley, which would have carried the water to the coast near the southern end of the Red Sea.
 
I was surprised to see a huge lake in the middle of the highlands called lake Tana.

I was unaware that Lake Tana is actually the source of the Blue Nile. All the rain falling on the central highlands flows into the lake via seven rivers and is then channeled all the way round to the north-west, where it joins the White Nile.

Wikipedia tells me that the lake sits in a volcanic crater that formed 5 million years ago.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Tana  

This seemed a promising cause of the drying out of the Eastern Rift Valley, where most early hominin fossils are found. 


I read a little more about the lake and found that it is 15 metres deep and that the seven rivers deposit 15 mm of silt on the lake floor every year.   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169555X20304074#:~:text=The%20rate%20of%20lake%20sedimentation,lifetime%20is%20only%20918%20years.


50 points for anyone who can tell me why this doesn't make any sense at all and 150 point bonus for anyone who can solve the conundrum.

Hint: Try some simple arithmetic.

G.


naledi hand

Marc Verhaegen
 

The hand of Homo naledi
Tracy L Kivell cs 2015

Nature Communications 6:8431

doi 10.1038/ncomms9431 open


A nearly complete right hand of an adult hominin was recovered from the Rising Star cave-system.

Based on associated hominin material, it is attributed to Homo naledi.

It reveals a long, robust thumb & derived wrist morphology, shared with Hn & Hs, considered adaptive for intensified manual manipulation,

but the finger-bones are longer, more curved than in most australopiths, indicating frequent use for strong grasping during climbing & suspension.

These markedly curved digits + an otherwise human-like wrist & palm indicate a significant degree of climbing, despite the derived nature of many aspects of the hand & other postcrania in H.naledi.


____


I'd think it's Australopith.naledi: below-branch locomotion.


Re: hominoid LCA: morphology & milieu

alandarwinvanarsdale
 

Curved phalanges are the plesiomorphic (primitive) condition in monkeys including great apes, and most likely in humans as well. Homo luzonensis (Philippines) has curved phalanges. Curved phalanges suggest arboreal habits, not any particular type of arboreal habit. Or potentially rock climbing habits (Homo naledi). Curved phalanges for Homo are known only in H. naledi and H. luzonensis.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Marc Verhaegen
Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 12:06 PM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] hominoid LCA: morphology & milieu

 

Last Common Ancestor of Apes and Humans:

  Morphology and Environment

  Peter Andrews 2020

  Folia Primatologica 91:122–148 free access

  https://doi.org/10.1159/000501557

 

  For much of their history, fossil apes retained many monkey-like

features in posture & body structure.

  They also occupied a  range of habitats:

  -tropical forest was only a part,

  -there is evidence of increasing terrestriality in the fossil record

(2019).

 

  Early-Miocene (18–20 Ma) fossil apes were pronograde arboreal slow

climbers,

  - mainly ass.x forest environments & deciduous woodland,

  - with some indications of terrestrial behaviour, particularly the

larger spp.

  Their hands had long & opposable thumbs.  The phalanges were curved.

  (curved phalanges = already suspensory? --mv)

 

  Early-mid-Miocene (15–16 Ma) apes were still monkey-like in body-plan

& posture,

  almost entirely ass.x non-forest, deciduous woodland habitats, with

increasing evidence of terrestrial adaptations.

  Hand proportions remained the same.

 

  Towards  the end of the mid-Miocene (12 Ma), some fossil ape spp had

broadened chests, long clavicles, medial torsion of the humerus &

re-positioning of the scapula to the back.

  These adaptations may have  been linked with more upright posture, as

in the living apes,

  but unlike  them, the hand phalanges were short, robust & less curved,

the thumb remained long.

  Associated environments were deciduous woodland, rather than forest.

  (broad sternum-throax-pelvis = lateral arm+leg movements = more

aquarboreal?? --mv)

 

  This body-plan was retained in part in some later Miocene apes 10 Ma.

  1) Some also had more elongated limbs & hands (thumb length not

known),

  hind-limbs modified for greater  flexibility, analogous with the

orang-utan.

  Associated environments were subtropical deciduous woodlands &

subtropical evergreen laurophyllous woodland in S-Europe.

  (orang-like susensory? --mv)

  2) Other late-Miocene European apes had adaptations for living on the

ground,

  some of these also shared  characters of the skull with orangs.

  They are ass.x more open deciduous woodland habitats.

  (still aquarboreal?  --mv)

 

  This body-plan & environment were retained in the early hominin

Ardipithecus ramidus, but with a more robust postcranial skeleton &

incipient BPism.

  Based on shared character states in fossil apes, living apes & early

hominins, 27 characters are identified as probable attributes of the LCA

of apes & humans.

  The likely environment of the LCA was tropical deciduous woodland,

with some evidence of more open habitats,

  this remained unchanged in the transition from apes to early hominins.

 

  _____

 

I just read the whole paper: very interesting + excellent overwiew of

Miocene hominoid fossil skeletons,

but the section on hunting savanna "chimps" should be omitted, of

course.

 

I have a great admiration for most of Peter Andrews' work, but here, in

most cases, he should have written "aquarboreal" instead of

"terrestrial", 'bipedal", "more open".

He seems equate "bipedal" & "terrestrial", which is wrong: not unlikely,

our bipedality began with wading, cf Nasalis larvatus?

 

I was surprised that the broad thorax & sternum (& pelvis?) appeared so

late in the hominoid fossil record.

Did tail loss precede broad sterna in hominoids (= Latisternalia)?

Did different inland side-branches (in //?) become more monkey-like

again (e.g. narrower thorax-pelvis etc.) than the original

(aquarboreal?) peri-Tethys hominoids?

 

As Andrews partly realizes, extant chimps are not primitive, but derived

from the H/P LCA:

already vertical, not KWing, shorter canines, thicker enamel, shorter

arms & fingers,  low ilia etc.:

most P & G "apelike" features evolved in //.

 

Tables:

"hominin/i/ae" should simply be "hominid".

  Graeco-, Ourano- & Oreopith = hominid (not pongid).

 

  Introduction:

  "... chimpanzees except they have almost no known fossil history..."

  ???   the traditional anthropocentric preassumptions!

S.Afr.apiths were Pan, E.Afr.apiths Gorilla, see my HumEvol.papers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Re: hominoid LCA: morphology & milieu

Marc Verhaegen
 

The paper cites Stephen's thesis:
Munro SJ 2010
"Molluscs as Ecological Indicators in Palaeoanthropological Contexts"
PhD thesis Austr.Nat.Univ. Canberra
:-)

______


Last Common Ancestor of Apes and Humans:
Morphology and Environment
Peter Andrews 2020
Folia Primatologica 91:122–148 free access
https://doi.org/10.1159/000501557

For much of their history, fossil apes retained many monkey-like features in posture & body structure.
They also occupied a range of habitats:
-tropical forest was only a part,
-there is evidence of increasing terrestriality in the fossil record (2019).

Early-Miocene (18–20 Ma) fossil apes were pronograde arboreal slow climbers,
- mainly ass.x forest environments & deciduous woodland,
- with some indications of terrestrial behaviour, particularly the larger spp.
Their hands had long & opposable thumbs. The phalanges were curved.
(curved phalanges = already suspensory? --mv)

Early-mid-Miocene (15–16 Ma) apes were still monkey-like in body-plan & posture,
almost entirely ass.x non-forest, deciduous woodland habitats, with increasing evidence of terrestrial adaptations.
Hand proportions remained the same.

Towards the end of the mid-Miocene (12 Ma), some fossil ape spp had broadened chests, long clavicles, medial torsion of the humerus & re-positioning of the scapula to the back.
These adaptations may have been linked with more upright posture, as in the living apes,
but unlike them, the hand phalanges were short, robust & less curved, the thumb remained long.
Associated environments were deciduous woodland, rather than forest.
(broad sternum-throax-pelvis = lateral arm+leg movements = more aquarboreal?? --mv)

This body-plan was retained in part in some later Miocene apes 10 Ma.
1) Some also had more elongated limbs & hands (thumb length not known),
hind-limbs modified for greater flexibility, analogous with the orang-utan.
Associated environments were subtropical deciduous woodlands & subtropical evergreen laurophyllous woodland in S-Europe.
(orang-like susensory? --mv)
2) Other late-Miocene European apes had adaptations for living on the ground,
some of these also shared characters of the skull with orangs.
They are ass.x more open deciduous woodland habitats.
(still aquarboreal? --mv)

This body-plan & environment were retained in the early hominin Ardipithecus ramidus, but with a more robust postcranial skeleton & incipient BPism.
Based on shared character states in fossil apes, living apes & early hominins, 27 characters are identified as probable attributes of the LCA of apes & humans.
The likely environment of the LCA was tropical deciduous woodland, with some evidence of more open habitats,
this remained unchanged in the transition from apes to early hominins.

_____

I just read the whole paper: very interesting + excellent overwiew of Miocene hominoid fossil skeletons,
but the section on hunting savanna "chimps" should be omitted, of course.

I have a great admiration for most of Peter Andrews' work, but here, in most cases, he should have written "aquarboreal" instead of "terrestrial", 'bipedal", "more open".
He seems equate "bipedal" & "terrestrial", which is wrong: not unlikely, our bipedality began with wading, cf Nasalis larvatus?

I was surprised that the broad thorax & sternum (& pelvis?) appeared so late in the hominoid fossil record.
Did tail loss precede broad sterna in hominoids (= Latisternalia)?
Did different inland side-branches (in //?) become more monkey-like again (e.g. narrower thorax-pelvis etc.) than the original (aquarboreal?) peri-Tethys hominoids?

As Andrews partly realizes, extant chimps are not primitive, but derived from the H/P LCA:
already vertical, not KWing, shorter canines, thicker enamel, shorter arms & fingers, low ilia etc.:
most P & G "apelike" features evolved in //.

Tables:
"hominin/i/ae" should simply be "hominid".
Graeco-, Ourano- & Oreopith = hominid (not pongid).

Introduction:
"... chimpanzees except they have almost no known fossil history..."
??? the traditional anthropocentric preassumptions!
S.Afr.apiths were Pan, E.Afr.apiths Gorilla, see my HumEvol.papers:


Re: hominoid LCA: morphology & milieu

Marc Verhaegen
 

Last Common Ancestor of Apes and Humans:
Morphology and Environment
Peter Andrews 2020
Folia Primatologica 91:122–148 free access
https://doi.org/10.1159/000501557

For much of their history, fossil apes retained many monkey-like features in posture & body structure.
They also occupied a range of habitats:
-tropical forest was only a part,
-there is evidence of increasing terrestriality in the fossil record (2019).

Early-Miocene (18–20 Ma) fossil apes were pronograde arboreal slow climbers,
- mainly ass.x forest environments & deciduous woodland,
- with some indications of terrestrial behaviour, particularly the larger spp.
Their hands had long & opposable thumbs. The phalanges were curved.
(curved phalanges = already suspensory? --mv)

Early-mid-Miocene (15–16 Ma) apes were still monkey-like in body-plan & posture,
almost entirely ass.x non-forest, deciduous woodland habitats, with increasing evidence of terrestrial adaptations.
Hand proportions remained the same.

Towards the end of the mid-Miocene (12 Ma), some fossil ape spp had broadened chests, long clavicles, medial torsion of the humerus & re-positioning of the scapula to the back.
These adaptations may have been linked with more upright posture, as in the living apes,
but unlike them, the hand phalanges were short, robust & less curved, the thumb remained long.
Associated environments were deciduous woodland, rather than forest.
(broad sternum-throax-pelvis = lateral arm+leg movements = more aquarboreal?? --mv)

This body-plan was retained in part in some later Miocene apes 10 Ma.
1) Some also had more elongated limbs & hands (thumb length not known),
hind-limbs modified for greater flexibility, analogous with the orang-utan.
Associated environments were subtropical deciduous woodlands & subtropical evergreen laurophyllous woodland in S-Europe.
(orang-like susensory? --mv)
2) Other late-Miocene European apes had adaptations for living on the ground,
some of these also shared characters of the skull with orangs.
They are ass.x more open deciduous woodland habitats.
(still aquarboreal? --mv)

This body-plan & environment were retained in the early hominin Ardipithecus ramidus, but with a more robust postcranial skeleton & incipient BPism.
Based on shared character states in fossil apes, living apes & early hominins, 27 characters are identified as probable attributes of the LCA of apes & humans.
The likely environment of the LCA was tropical deciduous woodland, with some evidence of more open habitats,
this remained unchanged in the transition from apes to early hominins.

_____

I just read the whole paper: very interesting + excellent overwiew of Miocene hominoid fossil skeletons,
but the section on hunting savanna "chimps" should be omitted, of course.

I have a great admiration for most of Peter Andrews' work, but here, in most cases, he should have written "aquarboreal" instead of "terrestrial", 'bipedal", "more open".
He seems equate "bipedal" & "terrestrial", which is wrong: not unlikely, our bipedality began with wading, cf Nasalis larvatus?

I was surprised that the broad thorax & sternum (& pelvis?) appeared so late in the hominoid fossil record.
Did tail loss precede broad sterna in hominoids (= Latisternalia)?
Did different inland side-branches (in //?) become more monkey-like again (e.g. narrower thorax-pelvis etc.) than the original (aquarboreal?) peri-Tethys hominoids?

As Andrews partly realizes, extant chimps are not primitive, but derived from the H/P LCA:
already vertical, not KWing, shorter canines, thicker enamel, shorter arms & fingers, low ilia etc.:
most P & G "apelike" features evolved in //.

Tables:
"hominin/i/ae" should simply be "hominid".
Graeco-, Ourano- & Oreopith = hominid (not pongid).

Introduction:
"... chimpanzees except they have almost no known fossil history..."
??? the traditional anthropocentric preassumptions!
S.Afr.apiths were Pan, E.Afr.apiths Gorilla, see my HumEvol.papers:


Re: hominoid LCA: morphology & milieu

Marc Verhaegen
 

Sorry, this was by accindent sent prematurely... :-(


------ Origineel bericht ------
Van: m_verhaegen@skynet.be
Aan: AAT@groups.io
Verzonden: zaterdag 2 oktober 2021 14:25
Onderwerp: [AAT] hominoid LCA: morphology & milieu
...


hominoid LCA: morphology & milieu

Marc Verhaegen
 

Last Common Ancestor of Apes and Humans:
Morphology and Environment
Peter Andrews 2020
Folia Primatologica 91:122–148 free access
https://doi.org/10.1159/000501557

For much of their history, fossil apes retained many monkey-like features in posture & body structure.
They also occupied a range of habitats:
-tropical forest was only a part,
-there is evidence of increasing terrestriality in the fossil record (2019).

Early-Miocene (18–20 Ma) fossil apes were pronograde arboreal slow climbers,
- mainly ass.x forest environments & deciduous woodland,
- with some indications of terrestrial behaviour, particularly the larger spp.
Their hands had long & opposable thumbs. The phalanges were curved.
(curved phalanges = already suspensory? --mv)

Early-mid-Miocene (15–16 Ma) apes were still monkey-like in body-plan & posture,
almost entirely ass.x non-forest, deciduous woodland habitats, with increasing evidence of terrestrial adaptations.
Hand proportions remained the same.

Towards the end of the mid-Miocene (12 Ma), some fossil ape spp had broadened chests, long clavicles, medial torsion of the humerus & re-positioning of the scapula to the back.
These adaptations may have been linked with more upright posture, as in the living apes,
but unlike them, the hand phalanges were short, robust & less curved, the thumb remained long.
Associated environments were deciduous woodland, rather than forest.
(broad sternum-throax-pelvis = lateral arm+leg movements = more aquarboreal?? --mv)

This body-plan was retained in part in some later Miocene apes 10 Ma.
1) Some also had more elongated limbs & hands (thumb length not known),
hind-limbs modified for greater flexibility, analogous with the orang-utan.
Associated environments were subtropical deciduous woodlands & subtropical evergreen laurophyllous woodland in S-Europe.
(orang-like susensory? --mv)
2) Other late-Miocene European apes had adaptations for living on the ground,
some of these also shared characters of the skull with orangs.
They are ass.x more open deciduous woodland habitats.
(still aquarboreal? --mv)

This body-plan & environment were retained in the early hominin Ardipithecus ramidus, but with a more robust postcranial skeleton & incipient BPism.
Based on shared character states in fossil apes, living apes & early hominins, 27 characters are identified as probable attributes of the LCA of apes & humans.
The likely environment of the LCA was tropical deciduous woodland, with some evidence of more open habitats,
this remained unchanged in the transition from apes to early hominins.

_____

Very interesting paper + excellent overwiew of Miocene hominoids.
I have a great admiration for P.Andrews' work, but IMO he should have said "aquarboreal" instead of "terrestrial", 'bipedal", "more open"?

Did tail loss precede broad sterna in hominoids (= Latisternalia)?

Did inland side-branches (in //?) become more monkey-like again (e.g. narrower thorax-pelvis etc.) than the original (aquarboreal?) peri-Tethys hominoids?

____

Some comments IMO:
most importantly (as Andrews partly realizes), extant chimps are not primitive, but derived from the H/P LCA: no KWing, shorter canines, thicker enamel, shorter arms, low ilia etc.:
most P & G "apelike" features evolved in //.

Tables:
"hominin/i/ae" should simply be "hominid".
Graeco-, Ourano- & Oreopith = hominid (not pongid).

Introduction:
"... chimpanzees except they have almost no known fossil history..."
??? the traditional anthropocentric bias!
(S.Afr.apiths were Pan, E.Afr.apiths Gorilla, see my HumEvol.papers)
Wh


In the second part of this paper, I will consider the third method of reconstructing the LCA by examining the shared morphologies and behaviours of humans with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Chimpanzees and humans have many characters and behaviours in common [McGrew, 1992, 2010, 2014]. It is a mistake, however, to imagine that the LCA looked anything like a chimpanzee, for it, like humans, has evolved from the common ancestor by “descent with modification” [Darwin, 1859]. It should have been no surprise that when fossil remains of early hominin ancestors such as Australopithecus anamensis were found [Leakey et al., 1995, 1998], this 4-million-year-old human ancestor looked nothing like a chimpanzee, while on the other hand it had similarities in its jaws and teeth to the Miocene apes [Andrews, 1995]. Similarly, the early hominin Ardipithecus ramidus has many similarities to fossil apes [White et al., 1994; Lovejoy et al., 2009a–c], but since both have human attributes such as incipient adaptations for bipedalism, they were already on the human lineage and could not themselves be the LCA.



The second method of reconstructing the LCA, through a review of fossil apes insofar as they relate to the LCA, take up the first part of this paper [Andrews and Harrison, 2005; Andrews, 2015]. At the present time, 36 species of Miocene apes are known during the period leading up to the origin of the human lineage [Harrison, 2010b], but this can only be a fraction of the species that actually lived during this period from 20 to 5 million years ago (Ma). Compared with today, for example, there are 185 species of Old World higher primates [Groves, 2001; Mittermeier et al., 2013], and it is reasonable to suppose that in the past there may have been as many fossil species living at any one time so that the present fossil record falls far short of the species and morphological diversity present in the Miocene. There is no evidence that any one of these 36 species was ancestral to any of the living apes or humans, but what they can provide is an overview of the ranges of morphologies and environments from which both humans and chimpanzees may have evolved. The taxonomy used here for fossil apes is summarised in Table


Au.robustus cheekteeth apelike

Marc Verhaegen
 

Growth and development of the third permanent molar in Paranthropus robustus from Swartkrans, South Africa

Chr.Dean...Rob.Macchiarelli 2020 Scient.Reports 10(19053)


M3s are the last tooth to form, but have not been used to estimate age at dental maturation in early fossil hominins, because direct histological evidence for the timing of their growth has been lacking.


We investigated an isolated maxillary M3 (SK-835, 1.5-1.8-Ma), attributed to Par.robustus:

-Tissue proportions were assessed, using 3D RX micro-tomography.

-Thin ground sections were used, to image daily growth increments in enamel & dentine.

-Transmitted light microscopy & synchrotron RX fluorescence imaging revealed fluctuations in Ca-concentration, that coincide with daily growth increments.

-We used regional daily secretion rates & Sr-marker-lines, to reconstruct tooth-growth along the enamel/dentine & then cementum/dentine boundaries.


Cumulative growth curves for increasing enamel thickness & tooth height & age-of-attainment estimates for fractional stages of tooth fm differed from Hs.

These now provide additional means for assessing late maturation in early hominins.


M3 fm took ≥ 7 yrs in SK 835, root completion would have occurred between 11 & 14 yrs of age.

Estimated age at dental maturation in this fossil hominin compares well with what is known for living gr.apes.




Lake Tana conundrum

Gareth Morgan
 

There is greater annual rainfall in the Ethiopian highlands than there is in England. I've been looking at Google Earth to see why none of it any longer runs down into the Eastern Rift Valley, which would have carried the water to the coast near the southern end of the Red Sea.
 
I was surprised to see a huge lake in the middle of the highlands called lake Tana.

I was unaware that Lake Tana is actually the source of the Blue Nile. All the rain falling on the central highlands flows into the lake via seven rivers and is then channeled all the way round to the north-west, where it joins the White Nile.

Wikipedia tells me that the lake sits in a volcanic crater that formed 5 million years ago.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Tana  

This seemed a promising cause of the drying out of the Eastern Rift Valley, where most early hominin fossils are found. 


I read a little more about the lake and found that it is 15 metres deep and that the seven rivers deposit 15 mm of silt on the lake floor every year.   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169555X20304074#:~:text=The%20rate%20of%20lake%20sedimentation,lifetime%20is%20only%20918%20years.


50 points for anyone who can tell me why this doesn't make any sense at all and 150 point bonus for anyone who can solve the conundrum.

Hint: Try some simple arithmetic.

G.

801 - 820 of 73385