The taxonomic attribution of African hominin postcrania from the Miocene through the Pleistocene:
associations and assumptions
Frederick Grine, Carrie S Mongle, John G Fleagle & Ashley S Hammond cs 2022 J.hum.Evol.173,103255 doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103255

Postcranial bones may provide valuable information about fossil taxa: locomotor habits, manipulative abilities, body sizes.
Distinctive postcranial featuresare sometimes noted in species diagnoses. Numerous isolated postcranial fossils have become accepted by many workers as belonging to a particular species,
but it is worthwhile revisiting the evidence for each attribution, before including them in comparative samples cf. descriptions of new fossils, functional analyses in relation to particular taxa, or in evolutionary contexts.
Some workers eschew the taxonomic attribution of postcrania as being less important (or interesting) than interpreting their functional morphology,
but it is impossible to consider the evolution of functional anatomy in a taxonomic & phylogenetic vacuum.

There are 21 widely recognized hominin taxa that have been described from sites in Africa dated from late-Miocene to mid-Pleistocene,
postcranial elements have been attributed to 17 of these.
The bones that have been thus assigned range from many parts of a skeleton, to isolated elements,
but the extent to which postcranial material can be reliably attributed to a specific taxon varies considerably, from site to site, and species to species,
it is often the subject of considerable debate.

Here, we review the postcranial remains attributed to African hominin taxa from late-Miocene to mid- & late-Pleistocene,
we place these assignations into categories of reliability.
The catalog of attribution presented here may serve as a guide for making taxonomic decisions in the future.

_______

Very beautiful & interesting paper, but what is "hominin"?
"hominin" = fossil relative of humans rather than of chimps, bonobos or gorillas?
The authors assume anthropocentrically (like most paleo-anthropologists) that australopiths ("hominins") are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla.
That is statistically & otherwise impossible, of course
(e.g. Pongo has several fossil relatives, but for some curious reason, it's believed that Pan nor Gorilla have +-no fossil relatives).

In fact, a'piths were no fossils halfway African apes & humans (as traditionally, but anthropocentrically believed),
but were halfway the hominid LCA (Gorilla-Homo-Pan) & extant African apes:
we showed that
-East-African a'piths were closer relatives of Gorilla than of Homo or Pan, -South-African a'piths were closer relatives of Pan than of Homo or Gorilla:
-E & S.African a'piths evolved in parallel, schematically from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleistocene "robust":
-- Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis cs --> boisei cs //
-- Pan fossil subgenus Australopithecus africanus cs --> robustus cs,
e.g.
1994 Hum.Evol.9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
1996 Hum.Evol.11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

The taxonomic attribution of African hominin postcrania from the Miocene through the Pleistocene:
associations and assumptions
Frederick Grine, Carrie S Mongle, John G Fleagle & Ashley S Hammond cs 2022 J.hum.Evol.173,103255 doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103255

Postcranial bones may provide valuable information about fossil taxa: locomotor habits, manipulative abilities, body sizes.
Distinctive postcranial featuresare sometimes noted in species diagnoses. Numerous isolated postcranial fossils have become accepted by many workers as belonging to a particular species,
but it is worthwhile revisiting the evidence for each attribution, before including them in comparative samples cf. descriptions of new fossils, functional analyses in relation to particular taxa, or in evolutionary contexts.
Some workers eschew the taxonomic attribution of postcrania as being less important (or interesting) than interpreting their functional morphology,
but it is impossible to consider the evolution of functional anatomy in a taxonomic & phylogenetic vacuum.

There are 21 widely recognized hominin taxa that have been described from sites in Africa dated from late-Miocene to mid-Pleistocene,
postcranial elements have been attributed to 17 of these.
The bones that have been thus assigned range from many parts of a skeleton, to isolated elements,
but the extent to which postcranial material can be reliably attributed to a specific taxon varies considerably, from site to site, and species to species,
it is often the subject of considerable debate.

Here, we review the postcranial remains attributed to African hominin taxa from late-Miocene to mid- & late-Pleistocene,
we place these assignations into categories of reliability.
The catalog of attribution presented here may serve as a guide for making taxonomic decisions in the future.

_______

Very beautiful & interesting paper, but what is "hominin"?
"hominin" = fossil relative of humans rather than of chimps, bonobos or gorillas?
The authors assume anthropocentrically (like most paleo-anthropologists) that australopiths ("hominins") are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla.
That is statistically & otherwise impossible, of course
(e.g. Pongo has several fossil relatives, but for some curious reason, it's believed that Pan nor Gorilla have +-no fossil relatives).

In fact, a'piths were no fossils halfway African apes & humans (as traditionally, but anthropocentrically believed),
but were halfway the hominid LCA (Gorilla-Homo-Pan) & extant African apes:
we showed that
-East-African a'piths were closer relatives of Gorilla than of Homo or Pan, -South-African a'piths were closer relatives of Pan than of Homo or Gorilla: -E & S.African a'piths evolved in parallel, schematically from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleistocene "robust":
-- Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis cs --> boisei cs //
-- Pan fossil subgenus Australopithecus africanus cs --> robustus cs,
e.g.
1994 Hum.Evol.9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
1996 Hum.Evol.11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls".

A quarter of a century old. Got anything actually current?

A clearer copy and paste:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001154
The taxonomic attribution of African hominin postcrania from the Miocene through the Pleistocene: Associations and assumptions

Abstract
Postcranial bones may provide valuable information about fossil
taxa relating to their locomotor habits, manipulative abilities and
body sizes. Distinctive features of the postcranial skeleton are
sometimes noted in species diagnoses. Although numerous
isolated postcranial fossils have become accepted by many workers
as belonging to a particular species, it is worthwhile revisiting the
evidence for each attribution before including them in comparative
samples in relation to the descriptions of new fossils, functional
analyses in relation to particular taxa, or in evolutionary contexts.
Although some workers eschew the taxonomic attribution of
postcranial fossils as being less important (or interesting) than
interpreting their functional morphology, it is impossible to consider
the evolution of functional anatomy in a taxonomic and
phylogenetic vacuum. There are 21 widely recognized hominin
taxa that have been described from sites in Africa dated from the
Late Miocene to the Middle Pleistocene; postcranial elements have
been attributed to 17 of these. The bones that have been thus
assigned range from many parts of a skeleton to isolated elements.
However, the extent to which postcranial material can be reliably
attributed to a specific taxon varies considerably from site to site
and species to species, and is often the subject of considerable
debate. Here, we review the postcranial remains attributed to
African hominin taxa from the Late Miocene to the Middle and
Late Pleistocene and place these assignations into categories of
reliability. The catalog of attributions presented here may serve
as a guide for making taxonomic decisions in the future.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 12:53:21 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

The taxonomic attribution of African hominin postcrania from the Miocene through the Pleistocene:
associations and assumptions
Frederick Grine, Carrie S Mongle, John G Fleagle & Ashley S Hammond cs 2022 >J.hum.Evol.173,103255 doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103255

Postcranial bones may provide valuable information about fossil taxa: locomotor habits, manipulative abilities, body sizes.
Distinctive postcranial featuresare sometimes noted in species diagnoses. >Numerous isolated postcranial fossils have become accepted by many workers as belonging to a particular species,
but it is worthwhile revisiting the evidence for each attribution, before including them in comparative samples cf. descriptions of new fossils, functional analyses in relation to particular taxa, or in evolutionary contexts.
Some workers eschew the taxonomic attribution of postcrania as being less important (or interesting) than interpreting their functional morphology,
but it is impossible to consider the evolution of functional anatomy in a taxonomic & phylogenetic vacuum.

There are 21 widely recognized hominin taxa that have been described from sites in Africa dated from late-Miocene to mid-Pleistocene,
postcranial elements have been attributed to 17 of these.
The bones that have been thus assigned range from many parts of a skeleton, to isolated elements,
but the extent to which postcranial material can be reliably attributed to a specific taxon varies considerably, from site to site, and species to species,
it is often the subject of considerable debate.

Here, we review the postcranial remains attributed to African hominin taxa from late-Miocene to mid- & late-Pleistocene,
we place these assignations into categories of reliability.
The catalog of attribution presented here may serve as a guide for making taxonomic decisions in the future.

_______

Very beautiful & interesting paper, but what is "hominin"?
"hominin" = fossil relative of humans rather than of chimps, bonobos or gorillas?

Hominins (Hominini) can be defined as a stem-based or maximum-clade
using two specifiers/reference taxa, one internal and one external, in accordance with the phylocode (art. 9.6).
http://phylonames.org/code/

Thus, Hominini (hominins) is the maximum clade containing Homo sapiens
Linnaeus 1758 but not Pan (originally Simia) troglodytes Blumenbach
1775.

Reference phylogeny is Mongle et al. (2019): https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

The authors assume anthropocentrically (like most paleo-anthropologists) that australopiths ("hominins") are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla.

Not anthropocentrically but methodically, using methods of
phylogenetic systematics that are also widely recognized and used in
the field of biology outside of paleoanthropology.

That is statistically & otherwise impossible, of course

Something is statistically impossible only when it is not part of the
universe of possibilities. That's not the case with the lack of a
fossil record or ghost lineages. Those are numerous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_lineage

(e.g. Pongo has several fossil relatives, but for some curious reason, it's believed that Pan nor Gorilla have +-no fossil relatives).

See: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6125548_A_New_Species_of_Great_Ape_from_the_Late_Miocene_Epoch_in_Ethiopia

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294278272_New_geological_and_palaeontological_age_constraint_for_the_gorilla-human_lineage_split

In fact, a'piths were no fossils halfway African apes & humans (as traditionally, but anthropocentrically believed),
but were halfway the hominid LCA (Gorilla-Homo-Pan) & extant African apes:
we showed that
-East-African a'piths were closer relatives of Gorilla than of Homo or Pan, >-South-African a'piths were closer relatives of Pan than of Homo or Gorilla: >-E & S.African a'piths evolved in parallel, schematically from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleistocene "robust":
-- Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis cs --> boisei cs //
-- Pan fossil subgenus Australopithecus africanus cs --> robustus cs,
e.g.
1994 Hum.Evol.9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
1996 Hum.Evol.11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls".

Your persistent exclusive reference to your own outdated publications
is egocentric, and that's even more narrow-minded than
anthropocentric.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op zaterdag 12 november 2022 om 15:11:25 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

The taxonomic attribution of African hominin postcrania from the Miocene through the Pleistocene:
associations and assumptions
Frederick Grine, Carrie S Mongle, John G Fleagle & Ashley S Hammond cs 2022 >J.hum.Evol.173,103255 doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103255
Postcranial bones may provide valuable information about fossil taxa: locomotor habits, manipulative abilities, body sizes.
Distinctive postcranial featuresare sometimes noted in species diagnoses. >Numerous isolated postcranial fossils have become accepted by many workers as belonging to a particular species,
but it is worthwhile revisiting the evidence for each attribution, before including them in comparative samples cf. descriptions of new fossils, functional analyses in relation to particular taxa, or in evolutionary contexts.
Some workers eschew the taxonomic attribution of postcrania as being less important (or interesting) than interpreting their functional morphology,
but it is impossible to consider the evolution of functional anatomy in a taxonomic & phylogenetic vacuum.
There are 21 widely recognized hominin taxa that have been described from sites in Africa dated from late-Miocene to mid-Pleistocene,
postcranial elements have been attributed to 17 of these.
The bones that have been thus assigned range from many parts of a skeleton, to isolated elements,
but the extent to which postcranial material can be reliably attributed to a specific taxon varies considerably, from site to site, and species to species,
it is often the subject of considerable debate.
Here, we review the postcranial remains attributed to African hominin taxa from late-Miocene to mid- & late-Pleistocene,
we place these assignations into categories of reliability.
The catalog of attribution presented here may serve as a guide for making taxonomic decisions in the future.

_______

Very beautiful & interesting paper, but what is "hominin"?
"hominin" = fossil relative of humans rather than of chimps, bonobos or gorillas?

...

Thus, Hominini (hominins) is the maximum clade containing Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758 but not Pan (originally Simia) troglodytes Blumenbach 1775.

Of course, thanks, my boy, that confirms that apiths are no Hominini.
Only incredible imbeciles believe apiths are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Op zaterdag 12 november 2022 om 15:11:25 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

...

Thus, Hominini (hominins) is the maximum clade containing Homo sapiens
Linnaeus 1758 but not Pan (originally Simia) troglodytes Blumenbach 1775.

Of course, thanks, my boy, that confirms that apiths are no Hominini.
Only incredible imbeciles believe apiths are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla.

Did you bother to follow any of the links he posted? Here's one

https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
Expanded character sampling underscores
phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as
a basal hominin

Abstract
Phylogenetic relationships among hominins provide a necessary
framework for assessing their evolution. Reconstructing these
relationships hinges on the strength of the character data analyzed.
The phylogenetic position of Ardipithecus ramidus is critical to
understanding early hominin evolution, and while many accept that
it is most likely the sister taxon to all later hominins, others have
argued that Ar. ramidus was ancestral to Pan. Although the study by
Strait and Grine (2004) suggested the former, available evidence
permitted only 26% of characters in their matrix to be assessed for
Ar. ramidus. Fossils described subsequently by Suwa, White and
colleagues in 2009 have enabled the number of characters that can
be coded for this species to be expanded to 78% of the matrix. Here,
we incorporate these new character data to evaluate their impact on
the phylogenetic relationships of Ar. ramidus. Moreover, we have
further revised the Strait and Grine (2004) matrix as necessitated by
additions to the hypodigms of other fossil taxa. This updated matrix
was analyzed using both parsimony and Bayesian techniques in a
sequence of four iterative steps to independently evaluate the impact
of matrix and expanded character revisions on tree topology. Despite
the new data and matrix revisions, tree topology has remained
remarkably stable. The addition of new craniodental material has
served to markedly strengthen the support for the placement of
Ar. ramidus as being derived relative to Sahelanthropus, and as the
sister taxon of all later hominins. These findings support the
phylogenetic hypothesis originally proposed by White and colleagues
in 1994. This updated matrix provides a basis for the assessment of
additional extinct species.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op zondag 13 november 2022 om 06:46:29 UTC+1 schreef Primum Sapienti:

...

Thus, Hominini (hominins) is the maximum clade containing Homo sapiens
Linnaeus 1758 but not Pan (originally Simia) troglodytes Blumenbach 1775.

Of course, thanks, my boy, that confirms that apiths are no Hominini.
Only incredible imbeciles believe apiths are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla.

Did you bother to follow any of the links he posted? Here's one https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
Expanded character sampling underscores
phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as a basal hominin

Yes, a beautiful example of the traditional unscientific prejudices that apiths are closer relatives of us than of Pan or Gorilla:
-When Ardip lived, Homo=Pan.
-They neglect parallel evolution (here Pan//Gorilla) & still believe Homo had knuckle-walking ancestors.
Luckily, most PAs now follow my view that KWing evolved in // in Pan//Gorilla.

One of the problems is that S.Afr.apiths are indeed closer relatives of Homo than of Gorilla,
but that G & P evolved to become more(!!) ape- & less human-like: from late-Pliocene "gracila" to early-Pleistocene "robust":
robustus is no close relative of boisei: both became "robust" in parallel!

I've read all PA papers since the '80s. It struck me in the descriptions that E.Afr.apiths are often described as resembling G, and S.Afr.apiths as resembling P.
A simple systematic comparison (my 1996 Hum.Evol.paper) confirmed this (to my own surprise), but since I was a promotor of our waterside evolution, I was neglected: nobody could ever say I was wrong.
Some examples until 1993 (confirmed by numerous PA papers after that time):

Quotations on gorilla-like features in large East African australopith crania: • “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.
• “Other primitive [or advanced gorilla-like? MV] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar
suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.
• As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 & KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids & the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
• In O.H.5, “the curious & characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960.
• The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker, 1988.
• A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood, 1986 (cf. Beynon et al., 1991).

Quotations on chimp-like features in South African australopith crania:
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Au.robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category: their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees ... Then, when be looked at some H.erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed”.
Leakey 1981:74-75.
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt 1987.
• “P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and ... even in cranial & facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978.
• “A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson 1989.
• In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”. Woodward, 1925.
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile A.boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung & Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage 1985.
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that
of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids & australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design�
��”. Falk 1987.
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma & hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees & robust australopithecines among higher primates”.
Bromage & Dean 1985.
• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones
among orang-utans & chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941.

Not my words, but those of repected PAs...
One of the difficulties is, of course, the parallel evolution of Plio-Pleistocene P & G, which many PAs don't understand: they still believe boisei & robustus are close relatives, sometimes even placed together in an apart genus Praeanthropus or so!!

The most parsimonious (the only?) view is that
-early hominids lived in coastal forests along the (incipient?) Red Sea (e.g. google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?"),
-G & HP split 8 or 7 Ma, when G followed the incipient Rift to Afar etc. -> E.Afr.apiths,
-H & P split 6 or 5 Ma, when the Red Sea opened into the Ind.Ocean (5.3 Ma):
-- Pan went right -> E.Afr.coasts -> S.Afr.apiths,
-- Homo went left -> S.Asian coasts, explaining the absence of retroviral DNA that is found in all Afr.primates, but in no Asian pimates (e.g. CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11): human Pliocene ancestors were not in Africa, but in Asia.
The first real Homo (H.erectus: most "habilis" are apiths, possibly most related to bonobos) were indeed found in Java,
see also erectus' shell engravings that Stephen Munro found in Dubois' Java collection in the NL (José Joordens cs 2015 Nature 518:228).

This scenario (esp. the splitting times) is remarkably well supported geologically (Plate tectonics):
- India approaching Eurasia c 40 Ma = archipel formation: plenty of coastal forests: the Catarrhini that reached these island became Hominoidea: gradually becoming already bipedal=vertical for wading upright in the swamp forests & for climbing arms
overhead in the branches above the swamp, explaining their broad build (pelvis, thorax & esp.sternum=breast-bone: "Latisternalia", turning the arms lateral rather than ventral), the centrally placed spine (central rather than dorsal in monkeys & +-all
mammals), tail loss (very unexpected in arboreal mammals), their larger body etc.
- India further underneath Eurasia c 30 Ma split lesser apes (E) & large apes (W): Tethys Ocean coastal forests.
- The Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma split pongids-sivapiths (E) & hominids-dryopiths (W): pongids followed the Ind.Ocean coastal forests, forcing hylobatids higher into the trees.
- Med.Sea hominids-dryopiths died out (Messinian Salinity Crisis), but those in Africa survived: Gorilla in the Rift & Homo-Pan along the Red Sea.
- The Zanclean mega-flood re-filled the Med.Sea 5.3 Ma, and at about the same time (not impossibly caused by the mega-flood) the Red Sea opened into the Ind.Ocean: H went left, P went right.

Some problems remain:
- was our (archaic Homo) transition aquarboreal->littoral already Pliocene? or only early-Pleistocene? e.g. lower tps & shellfish?? H.erectus Trinil etc.
- why did all hominoids become less aquatic (but google "wading gorilla", "wading bonobo", "wading orangutan", "diving humans")? Pleistocene coolings?

Whatever, in any case, the endurance running idea of Pleistocene Homo is incredible nonsense!
:-DDD

And please see Gareth Morgan's WHAT-talk within 3 hours:

"Please consider yourself invited to the next in the WHAT talks series
which will take place on Sunday at 2pm UK time, 9pm West Australian.
The link to the Zoom meeting is at the end.
Gareth Morgan
Gareth is Elaine Morgan’s middle son, which explains his interest in
aquatic theories of human evolution, and he has done a considerable
amount of original research on the subject.
He has written for various publications including New Scientist,
SCUBA & Philosophy Today and his papers on different aspects of human
evolution have kept him in the top 0.3 % of researchers on Academia.edu,
while his ranking reached the top 0.1 % in both virology & atmospheric
science last year on the strength of his work in other fields.
He brings this multi-disciplinary approach to his interest in human
evolution, where it found practical application in his recent
experiments on salt water immersion in humans.
Talk Abstract.
There has been a great deal of research into the diet of early
hominins that clearly indicates their dependence on marine food sources,
but very little thought has been given to what they drank. If their time
was spent foraging in the sea, what did they do for fresh water?
A series of immersion experiments was carried out to test the
hypothesis that modern humans retain the ability to extract fresh water
from sea water through the eccrine sweat glands by reverse osmosis.
Meeting Link
Algis Kuliukas is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Topic: WHAT #13 Gareth Morgan - Taking on water
Time: Nov 13, 2022 01:30 PM London
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83063982970?pwd=c2hRbzNvL0RSUkNYWlFTQ3djZU5PZz09
Meeting ID: 830 6398 2970
Passcode: 443305
One tap mobile
+13602095623,,83063982970#,,,,*443305# US
+13863475053,,83063982970#,,,,*443305# US
Dial by your location
+1 360 209 5623 US
+1 386 347 5053 US
+1 507 473 4847 US
+1 564 217 2000 US
+1 646 931 3860 US
+1 669 444 9171 US
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 689 278 1000 US
+1 719 359 4580 US
+1 929 436 2866 US (New York)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 309 205 3325 US
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
Meeting ID: 830 6398 2970
Passcode: 443305
Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kccV0SHzJ5
Dr Algis Kuliukas Anatomy,
Physiology and Human Biology


______

Phylogenetic relationships among hominins provide a necessary
framework for assessing their evolution. Reconstructing these
relationships hinges on the strength of the character data analyzed.
The phylogenetic position of Ardipithecus ramidus is critical to understanding early hominin evolution, and while many accept that
it is most likely the sister taxon to all later hominins, others have
argued that Ar.ramidus was ancestral to Pan. Although the study by
Strait & Grine (2004) suggested the former, available evidence
permitted only 26% of characters in their matrix to be assessed for Ar.ramidus. Fossils described subsequently by Suwa, White cs
(2009) have enabled the number of characters that can
be coded for this species to be expanded to 78 % of the matrix. Here,
we incorporate these new character data to evaluate their impact on
the phylogenetic relationships of Ar.ramidus. Moreover, we have
further revised the Strait & Grine (2004) matrix as necessitated by additions to the hypodigms of other fossil taxa. This updated matrix
was analyzed using both parsimony & Bayesian techniques in a
sequence of 4 iterative steps to independently evaluate the impact
of matrix & expanded character revisions on tree topology. Despite
the new data & matrix revisions, tree topology has remained
remarkably stable. The addition of new cranio-dental material has
served to markedly strengthen the support for the placement of
Ar.ramidus as being derived relative to Sahelanthropus, and as the
sister taxon of all later hominins. These findings support the
phylogenetic hypothesis originally proposed by White cs
(1994). This updated matrix provides a basis for the assessment of additional extinct spp.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 22:46:30 -0700, Primum Sapienti
<invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Op zaterdag 12 november 2022 om 15:11:25 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

...

Thus, Hominini (hominins) is the maximum clade containing Homo sapiens
Linnaeus 1758 but not Pan (originally Simia) troglodytes Blumenbach 1775. >>

Of course, thanks, my boy, that confirms that apiths are no Hominini.
Only incredible imbeciles believe apiths are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla.

Did you bother to follow any of the links he posted? Here's one

https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
Expanded character sampling underscores
phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as
a basal hominin

And of course each of these authors, based on their current academic
position, CV, and publications in major journals, i.e. their
expertise, has much more credibility than Verhaegen.

https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/anthropology/faculty-and-staff/mongle-c.php https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/anthropology/faculty-and-staff/grine-f.php https://anthropology.wustl.edu/people/david-strait

That Verhaegen qualifies them as "incredible imbeciles" says a lot
about his own disrespectful, resentful, unqualified personality.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op zondag 13 november 2022 om 12:45:11 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

...

That Verhaegen qualifies them as "incredible imbeciles" says a lot
about his own disrespectful, resentful, unqualified personality.

My little little boy, I do indeed qualify people who believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes as incredible imbeciles.
Grow up!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op zondag 13 november 2022 om 12:45:11 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

That Verhaegen qualifies them as "incredible imbeciles" says a lot
about his own disrespectful, resentful, unqualified personality.

Haven't you even read what I wrote??
I do respect serious descriptions of PAs (but not the ridiculous atelope running religion, of course):

Quotations on gorilla-like features in large East African australopith crania: • “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.
• “Other primitive [or advanced gorilla-like? MV] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar
suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.
• As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 & KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids & the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
• In O.H.5, “the curious & characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960.
• The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker, 1988.
• A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood, 1986 (cf. Beynon et al., 1991).

Quotations on chimp-like features in South African australopith crania:
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Au.robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category: their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees ... Then, when be looked at some H.erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed”.
Leakey 1981:74-75.
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt 1987.
• “P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and ... even in cranial & facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978.
• “A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson 1989.
• In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”. Woodward, 1925.
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile A.boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung & Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage 1985.
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that
of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids & australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design�
��”. Falk 1987.
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma & hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees & robust australopithecines among higher primates”.
Bromage & Dean 1985.
• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones
among orang-utans & chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941.

Not my words, but those of repected PAs...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 04:27:16 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Op zondag 13 november 2022 om 12:45:11 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

...

That Verhaegen qualifies them as "incredible imbeciles" says a lot
about his own disrespectful, resentful, unqualified personality.

My little little boy, I do indeed qualify people who believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes as incredible imbeciles.
Grow up!

Liar, you said "Only incredible imbeciles believe apiths are closer
relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla.", which implies that you
consider Carrie Mongle, Fred Grine, and David Strait as such, people
who are obviously better qualified for the job than you, as are Daniel Lieberman and Dennis Bramble.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/dlieberman/publications/endurance-running-and-evolution-homo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 04:31:30 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Op zondag 13 november 2022 om 12:45:11 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

That Verhaegen qualifies them as "incredible imbeciles" says a lot
about his own disrespectful, resentful, unqualified personality.

Haven't you even read what I wrote??
I do respect serious descriptions of PAs (but not the ridiculous atelope running religion, of course):

Liar, you said "Only incredible imbeciles believe apiths are closer
relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla.", while all Mongle et al did
was test that hypothesis with much more and better data and methods
than you had at your disposal in 1994/96.
And you just can't stand it that they found support for that
hypothesis and falsified yours.

Quotations on gorilla-like features in large East African australopith crania: >� �Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla�. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
� The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens �looked very much like a small female gorilla�. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.
� �Other primitive [or advanced gorilla-like? MV] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar

suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas�. Walker cs 1986.

� As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 & KNM-ER 406 �the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids & the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases�. Kennedy 1991.
� In O.H.5, �the curious & characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla�. Robinson 1960.
� The A.boisei �lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history�. Leakey & Walker, 1988.
� A.boisei teeth showed �a relative absence of prism decussation�; among extant hominoids, �Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...�. Beynon & Wood, 1986 (cf. Beynon et al., 1991).

Quotations on chimp-like features in South African australopith crania:
� �Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Au.robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category: their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees ... Then, when be looked at some H.erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed�. Leakey

1981:74-75.

� �The �keystone� nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees�. Eckhardt 1987.
� �P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and ... even in cranial & facial features�. Zihlman cs 1978.
� �A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous�". Ferguson 1989.
� In Taung, �I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee�. Woodward, 1925.
� �The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6�, a juvenile A.boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
� �In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung & Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee�. Bromage 1985.
� �I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham�s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of

chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids & australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that �as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design��.
Falk 1987.

� In Taung, �pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma & hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees & robust australopithecines among higher primates�. Bromage &

Dean 1985.

� �That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] �is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones�� as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-

utans & chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus�. Schultz 1941.

Not my words, but those of repected PAs...

Selective, out-of-context quote mining is not a substitute for
science.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 22:46:30 -0700, Primum Sapienti
<invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Op zaterdag 12 november 2022 om 15:11:25 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

...

Thus, Hominini (hominins) is the maximum clade containing Homo sapiens
Linnaeus 1758 but not Pan (originally Simia) troglodytes Blumenbach 1775. >>

Of course, thanks, my boy, that confirms that apiths are no Hominini.
Only incredible imbeciles believe apiths are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla.

Did you bother to follow any of the links he posted? Here's one

https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
Expanded character sampling underscores
phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as
a basal hominin

Verhaegen doesn't like to read such papers because of cognitive
dissonance, and probably also because it's somewhat technical (e.g.
Bayesian Inference Analysis), which is way over his head.
It's obvious that Verhaegen isn't well-versed in modern phylogenetic systematics. He's stuck in the previous century with his 1994/96
papers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op maandag 14 november 2022 om 16:19:42 UTC+1 schreef Pandora:

...

That Verhaegen qualifies them as "incredible imbeciles" says a lot
about his own disrespectful, resentful, unqualified personality.

Haven't you even read what I wrote??
I do respect serious descriptions of PAs (but not the ridiculous atelope running religion, of course):

Liar, you said "Only incredible imbeciles believe apiths are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla.", while all Mongle et al did
was test that hypothesis with much more and better data and methods
than you had at your disposal in 1994/96.

Sigh. No, my little boy (when will you grow up??), you just can't stand it that we found support for E.Afr.apiths=Gorilla & S.Afr.piths=Pan, and falsified your ridiculous antelope running nonsense.

Quotations on gorilla-like features in large East African australopith crania:
• “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.
• “Other primitive [or advanced gorilla-like? MV] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar

suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.

• As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 & KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids & the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
• In O.H.5, “the curious & characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960.
• The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker, 1988.
• A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood, 1986 (cf. Beynon et al., 1991).
Quotations on chimp-like features in South African australopith crania: >• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Au.robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category: their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees ... Then, when be looked at some H.erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed”.

Leakey 1981:74-75.

• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt 1987.
• “P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and ... even in cranial & facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978.
• “A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson 1989.
• In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”. Woodward, 1925.
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile A.boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung & Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage 1985.
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates

that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids & australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in
design’”. Falk 1987.

• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma & hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees & robust australopithecines among higher primates”.

Bromage & Dean 1985.

• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones

among orang-utans & chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941.

Not my words, but those of repected PAs...

Selective, out-of-context quote mining i

Liar!
Keep running after your antelopes, or grow up!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Some kudu runner:

It's obvious that Verhaegen isn't well-versed in modern phylogenetic systematics. He's stuck in the previous century with his 1994/96
papers.

:-DDD
Your only *argument*!
Grow up, my little little boy.

No, no, my boy, e.g.

1) I've read +-all PA papers after that time, and all confirm my view:
- E.Afr.apiths were fossil relatives of Gorilla,
- S.Afr.apiths, of Pan (IOW, they were indeed more closely related to us than to Gorilla - got it??).

2) I've (co)written a few papers since 1996, incl.2 books:
1997 R Bender, --, N Oser Anthropol Anz 55:1-14 "Der Erwerb menschlicher Bipedie aus der Sicht der Aquatic Ape Theory"
1997 New Scientist 2091:53 "Sweaty humans"
1997 Hadewijch Antwerp 220pp "In den Beginne was het Water – Nieuwste Inzichten in de Evolutie van de Mens"
1998 MA Raath ... PV Tobias eds 1998 Dual Congress Univ Witwatersrand Jo'burg:128-9 "Australopithecine ancestors of African apes?"
1998 ibid.:131 "Human/ape brain differences and speech origins"
1998 --, P-F Puech ibid.:47 "Wetland apes: hominid palaeo-environment and diet"
1999 --, N McPhail, S Munro ESS Newsletter 50:4-12 "Bipedalism in chimpanzee and gorilla forebears"
1999 --, S Munro Water & Human Evolution Symposium Univ.Gent :11-23 "Australopiths wading? Homo diving?"
1999 --, S Munro Mother Tongue V:161-168 "Bipeds, tools and speech"
2000 --, P-F Puech Hum Evol 15:175-186 "Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered: paleo-environmental and comparative data"
2000 --, S Munro in J-L Dessalles, L Ghadakpour eds 2000 "The Evolution of Language" Ecole Nat Sup Télécommunications Paris:236-240 "The origins of phonetic abilities: a study of the comparative data with reference to the aquatic theory"
2002 --, S Munro Nutr Health 16:25-27 "The continental shelf hypothesis"
2002 --, P-F Puech, S Munro Trends Ecol Evol 17:212-7 (google: aquarboreal) "Aquarboreal ancestors?"
2004 --, S Munro Hum Evol 19:53-70 "Possible preadaptations to speech – a preliminary comparative approach"
2007 --, S Munro in SI Muñoz ed 2007 "Ecology Research Progress" Nova NY:1-4 "New directions in palaeoanthropology"
2007 --, S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender, N Oser ibid.:155-186 google econiche Homo "The original econiche of the genus Homo: open plain or waterside?"
2009 --, S Munro in NI Xirotiris cs eds 2009 "Fish and Seafood – Anthropological and Nutritional Perspectives" 28th ICAF Conference Kamilari:37-38 "Littoral diets in early hominoids and/or early Homo?"
2009 S Munro, -- ibid.:28-29 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo exploited sessile littoral foods"
2010 New Scientist 2782:69 Lastword 16.10.10 "Oi, big nose!"
2011 --, S Munro HOMO – J compar hum Biol 62:237-247 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods"
2011 S Munro, -- in M Vaneechoutte cs eds 2011 ebook Bentham Sci Publ "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?":82-105 "Pachyosteosclerosis in archaic Homo: heavy skulls for diving, heavy legs for wading?"
2011 --, S Munro, P-F Puech, M Vaneechoutte ibid.:67-81 "Early Hominoids: orthograde aquarboreals in flooded forests?"
2011 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, -- ibid.:181-9 "Seafood, diving, song and speech"
2012 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, -- HOMO J compar hum Biol 63:496-503 "Book review: Reply to John Langdon’s review of the eBook Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Bentham Sci Publ"
2013 Hum Evol 28:237-266 "The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis"
2016 E Schagatay cs (google: Schagatay Brenna reply) "A reply to Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin: Our ancestors may indeed have evolved at the shoreline – and here is why..."
2022 Eburon Acad Uitg Utrecht 325pp "De Evolutie van de Mens – Waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken"

3) Recent insight, very interestingly IMO (preliminarily described in my recent book):
the connection between hominoid+hominid speciations & plate tectonics: -cercopith/hominoid split c 30 Ma: India approaching Eurasia: archipel fm: aquarborealism
-lesser/great ape split c 20 Ma: India fully under Eurasia -hominid-dryopith/pongid-sivapith split c 15 Ma: Mesopotamian Seaway closure -hominid s.l./s.s. split c 10 Ma: Red Sea colonisation
-HP/G split c 8 Ma: E.Afr.Rift fm: Gorilla-Praeanthropus -Homo/Pan-Australopith.s.s. split c 5 Ma: Red Sea opening into Ind.Ocean

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 4:48:28 PM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

Some kudu runner:

It's obvious that Verhaegen isn't well-versed in modern phylogenetic systematics. He's stuck in the previous century with his 1994/96
papers.

:-DDD
Your only *argument*!
Grow up, my little little boy.

No, no, my boy, e.g.

1) I've read +-all PA papers after that time, and all confirm my view:
- E.Afr.apiths were fossil relatives of Gorilla,
- S.Afr.apiths, of Pan (IOW, they were indeed more closely related to us than to Gorilla - got it??).

2) I've (co)written a few papers since 1996, incl.2 books:
1997 R Bender, --, N Oser Anthropol Anz 55:1-14 "Der Erwerb menschlicher Bipedie aus der Sicht der Aquatic Ape Theory"
1997 New Scientist 2091:53 "Sweaty humans"
1997 Hadewijch Antwerp 220pp "In den Beginne was het Water – Nieuwste Inzichten in de Evolutie van de Mens"
1998 MA Raath ... PV Tobias eds 1998 Dual Congress Univ Witwatersrand Jo'burg:128-9 "Australopithecine ancestors of African apes?"
1998 ibid.:131 "Human/ape brain differences and speech origins"
1998 --, P-F Puech ibid.:47 "Wetland apes: hominid palaeo-environment and diet"
1999 --, N McPhail, S Munro ESS Newsletter 50:4-12 "Bipedalism in chimpanzee and gorilla forebears"
1999 --, S Munro Water & Human Evolution Symposium Univ.Gent :11-23 "Australopiths wading? Homo diving?"
1999 --, S Munro Mother Tongue V:161-168 "Bipeds, tools and speech"
2000 --, P-F Puech Hum Evol 15:175-186 "Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered: paleo-environmental and comparative data"
2000 --, S Munro in J-L Dessalles, L Ghadakpour eds 2000 "The Evolution of Language" Ecole Nat Sup Télécommunications Paris:236-240 "The origins of phonetic abilities: a study of the comparative data with reference to the aquatic theory"
2002 --, S Munro Nutr Health 16:25-27 "The continental shelf hypothesis" 2002 --, P-F Puech, S Munro Trends Ecol Evol 17:212-7 (google: aquarboreal) "Aquarboreal ancestors?"
2004 --, S Munro Hum Evol 19:53-70 "Possible preadaptations to speech – a preliminary comparative approach"
2007 --, S Munro in SI Muñoz ed 2007 "Ecology Research Progress" Nova NY:1-4 "New directions in palaeoanthropology"
2007 --, S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender, N Oser ibid.:155-186 google econiche Homo "The original econiche of the genus Homo: open plain or waterside?"
2009 --, S Munro in NI Xirotiris cs eds 2009 "Fish and Seafood – Anthropological and Nutritional Perspectives" 28th ICAF Conference Kamilari:37-38 "Littoral diets in early hominoids and/or early Homo?"
2009 S Munro, -- ibid.:28-29 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo exploited sessile littoral foods"
2010 New Scientist 2782:69 Lastword 16.10.10 "Oi, big nose!"
2011 --, S Munro HOMO – J compar hum Biol 62:237-247 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods"
2011 S Munro, -- in M Vaneechoutte cs eds 2011 ebook Bentham Sci Publ "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?":82-105 "Pachyosteosclerosis in archaic Homo: heavy skulls for diving, heavy legs for wading?"
2011 --, S Munro, P-F Puech, M Vaneechoutte ibid.:67-81 "Early Hominoids: orthograde aquarboreals in flooded forests?"
2011 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, -- ibid.:181-9 "Seafood, diving, song and speech"
2012 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, -- HOMO J compar hum Biol 63:496-503 "Book review: Reply to John Langdon’s review of the eBook Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Bentham Sci Publ"
2013 Hum Evol 28:237-266 "The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis"
2016 E Schagatay cs (google: Schagatay Brenna reply) "A reply to Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin: Our ancestors may indeed have evolved at the shoreline – and here is why..."
2022 Eburon Acad Uitg Utrecht 325pp "De Evolutie van de Mens – Waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken"

3) Recent insight, very interestingly IMO (preliminarily described in my recent book):
the connection between hominoid+hominid speciations & plate tectonics: -cercopith/hominoid split c 30 Ma: India approaching Eurasia: archipel fm: aquarborealism
-lesser/great ape split c 20 Ma: India fully under Eurasia -hominid-dryopith/pongid-sivapith split c 15 Ma: Mesopotamian Seaway closure -hominid s.l./s.s. split c 10 Ma: Red Sea colonisation
-HP/G split c 8 Ma: E.Afr.Rift fm: Gorilla-Praeanthropus -Homo/Pan-Australopith.s.s. split c 5 Ma: Red Sea opening into Ind.Ocean

Amazing how mermaids & marathoners and their infants survived seemingly without shelters for millions of years, yet nearly all extant Homo dwell in constructed shelters.
Funny that nobody notices that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 13:48:27 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

Some kudu runner:

It's obvious that Verhaegen isn't well-versed in modern phylogenetic
systematics. He's stuck in the previous century with his 1994/96
papers.

:-DDD
Your only *argument*!
Grow up, my little little boy.

No, no, my boy, e.g.

1) I've read +-all PA papers after that time, and all confirm my view:

These ones, specifically addressing the issue of phylogeny, definitely
do not:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.008

https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

2) I've (co)written a few papers since 1996, incl.2 books:
2022 Eburon Acad Uitg Utrecht 325pp "De Evolutie van de Mens � Waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken"

https://eburon.nl/product/de-evolutie-van-de-mens/

"Marc Verhaegen is arts en antropoloog"

When and where did you study anthropology, dude?
Self-proclaimed I'm sure.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)