Slow arboreal bipedal walking with hands grasping branches above,
sometimes alternating with slow brachiation
allowing grasping toes to pluck food below. Broad chested.
Take a look at the cladogram (top left) in this image:Are you drunk?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/09/16/2021.09.14.460388/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
It comes from a paper (already mentioned in this
group) on the genetics of tail loss: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.14.460388v1
Note where the paper states:
" . . The loss of the tail is one of the main anatomical evolutionary changes to have occurred along the lineage leading to humans and to
the “anthropomorphous apes”. This morphological reprogramming in
the ancestral hominoids has been long considered to have
accommodated a characteristic style of locomotion and contributed
to the evolution of bipedalism in humans . . "
The cladogram shows the split from monkeys
(and the loss of tails) at around 25 ma. Yet
obligate bipedalism doesn't arrive until after
6 ma. They happily skip over ~20 Myr.
The 'thinking' (amid the 'professionals') is a
close match to much of the stuff we see
around here.
Can anyone think of a reason why having a
tail might not suit a gibbon?
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves (in 'hominoid evolution')
Oct 3, 2021, 1:49:29 PM
Slow arboreal bipedal walking with hands grasping branches above, sometimes alternating with slow brachiation
The body plan of apes (including gibbons)
is very different from that of monkeys.
A drastic change in morphology took place
in our ancestral line in the period 25-20 ma.
It could only have come about for major
reasons -- and certainly not for 'slow
brachiation'.
allowing grasping toes to pluck food below. Broad chested.
The standard primate pattern is to have
'hands' at the end of each limb -- whether
narrow-chested or broad-chested. Every
primate except homo) can hold on while
reaching down to pluck food from below.
What matters in all evolution is the
competition between species and between
conspecifics for _everything_ -- the ones
that survive and leave progeny are those
best at getting food, at achieving high
status within the group, at escaping
predators, at fighting over females, at
protecting their young, at ensuring that
the mother and the infant get sufficient
food and shelter, at forming alliances
with stronger members, etc., etc. Speed
is almost everything, but agility matters
as well. Neither is helped by seeking to
adopt a new form of locomotion, at the
cost of a poorer performance at the long-
standing ancient one.
Walking on branches is neither here nor
there. 'Slow brachiation' would be
extremely difficult to acquire and
(compared with whatever it is Daud
Deden believes preceded it) yield few
benefits in the real world.
Daud has questioned before why gibbons
evolved in South-East Asia, and are present
only there. Theoretically, they 'should'
have also evolved elsewhere -- in Europe,
Africa, South America, etc. But they didn't.
In fact, the reasons are not too hard to
work out.
See if you can do so.
Take a look at the cladogram (top left) in this image:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/09/16/2021.09.14.460388/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
It comes from a paper (already mentioned in this
group) on the genetics of tail loss: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.14.460388v1
Note where the paper states:
" . . The loss of the tail is one of the main anatomical evolutionary
changes to have occurred along the lineage leading to humans and to
the “anthropomorphous apes”. This morphological reprogramming in
the ancestral hominoids has been long considered to have
accommodated a characteristic style of locomotion and contributed
to the evolution of bipedalism in humans . . "
The cladogram shows the split from monkeys
(and the loss of tails) at around 25 ma. Yet
obligate bipedalism doesn't arrive until after
6 ma. They happily skip over ~20 Myr.
The 'thinking' (amid the 'professionals') is a
close match to much of the stuff we see
around here.
Can anyone think of a reason why having a
tail might not suit a gibbon?
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves (in 'hominoid evolution')
Oct 3, 2021, 1:49:29 PM
Slow arboreal bipedal walking with hands grasping branches above,
sometimes alternating with slow brachiation
The body plan of apes (including gibbons)
is very different from that of monkeys.
A drastic change in morphology took place
in our ancestral line in the period 25-20 ma.
It could only have come about for major
reasons -- and certainly not for 'slow
brachiation'.
allowing grasping toes to pluck food below. Broad chested.
The standard primate pattern is to have
'hands' at the end of each limb -- whether
narrow-chested or broad-chested. Every
primate except homo) can hold on while
reaching down to pluck food from below.
What matters in all evolution is the
competition between species and between
conspecifics for _everything_ -- the ones
that survive and leave progeny are those
best at getting food, at achieving high
status within the group, at escaping
predators, at fighting over females, at
protecting their young, at ensuring that
the mother and the infant get sufficient
food and shelter, at forming alliances
with stronger members, etc., etc. Speed
is almost everything, but agility matters
as well. Neither is helped by seeking to
adopt a new form of locomotion, at the
cost of a poorer performance at the long-
standing ancient one.
Walking on branches is neither here nor
there. 'Slow brachiation' would be
extremely difficult to acquire and
(compared with whatever it is Daud
Deden believes preceded it) yield few
benefits in the real world.
Daud has questioned before why gibbons
evolved in South-East Asia, and are present
only there. Theoretically, they 'should'
have also evolved elsewhere -- in Europe,
Africa, South America, etc. But they didn't.
In fact, the reasons are not too hard to
work out.
See if you can do so.
On 9.10.2021. 17:11, Paul Crowley wrote:
Take a look at the cladogram (top left) in this image:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/09/16/2021.09.14.460388/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
It comes from a paper (already mentioned in this
group) on the genetics of tail loss: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.14.460388v1
Note where the paper states:
" . . The loss of the tail is one of the main anatomical evolutionary changes to have occurred along the lineage leading to humans and to
the “anthropomorphous apes”. This morphological reprogramming in
the ancestral hominoids has been long considered to have
accommodated a characteristic style of locomotion and contributed
to the evolution of bipedalism in humans . . "
The cladogram shows the split from monkeys
(and the loss of tails) at around 25 ma. Yet
obligate bipedalism doesn't arrive until after
6 ma. They happily skip over ~20 Myr.
The 'thinking' (amid the 'professionals') is a
close match to much of the stuff we see
around here.
Can anyone think of a reason why having a
tail might not suit a gibbon?
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves (in 'hominoid evolution')
Oct 3, 2021, 1:49:29 PM
Slow arboreal bipedal walking with hands grasping branches above,
sometimes alternating with slow brachiation
The body plan of apes (including gibbons)
is very different from that of monkeys.
A drastic change in morphology took place
in our ancestral line in the period 25-20 ma.
It could only have come about for major
reasons -- and certainly not for 'slow
brachiation'.
allowing grasping toes to pluck food below. Broad chested.
The standard primate pattern is to have
'hands' at the end of each limb -- whether
narrow-chested or broad-chested. Every
primate except homo) can hold on while
reaching down to pluck food from below.
What matters in all evolution is the
competition between species and between
conspecifics for _everything_ -- the ones
that survive and leave progeny are those
best at getting food, at achieving high
status within the group, at escaping
predators, at fighting over females, at
protecting their young, at ensuring that
the mother and the infant get sufficient
food and shelter, at forming alliances
with stronger members, etc., etc. Speed
is almost everything, but agility matters
as well. Neither is helped by seeking to
adopt a new form of locomotion, at the
cost of a poorer performance at the long-
standing ancient one.
Walking on branches is neither here nor
there. 'Slow brachiation' would be
extremely difficult to acquire and
(compared with whatever it is Daud
Deden believes preceded it) yield few
benefits in the real world.
Daud has questioned before why gibbons
evolved in South-East Asia, and are present
only there. Theoretically, they 'should'
have also evolved elsewhere -- in Europe,
Africa, South America, etc. But they didn't.
In fact, the reasons are not too hard to
work out.
See if you can do so.I am a bit confused by the form of this post, but I'll say a few words.
Tail is used to balance the body. Above branch, or during running. Of course, in primates it is above branch. So, we weren't above branch, and
we weren't running.
Apes remained in areas with big precipitation. You have two such
areas, Congo and SE Asia. So, gibbons can be only in one of those two. Ancestors of gibbons were found in Spain, AFAIK. Those weren't
brachiators, AFAIK.
Apes in SE Asia live exclusively on trees, while those in Africa live
mostly on the ground (they sleep on trees). So, brachiating gibbon
should be in SE Asia.
The body shape of early apes changed roughly like this (I would say), baboon-like => human-like. Brachiators and below branch hangers came later.
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 11:51:27 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 9.10.2021. 17:11, Paul Crowley wrote:
Take a look at the cladogram (top left) in this image:I am a bit confused by the form of this post, but I'll say a few words.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/09/16/2021.09.14.460388/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
It comes from a paper (already mentioned in this
group) on the genetics of tail loss:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.14.460388v1
Note where the paper states:
" . . The loss of the tail is one of the main anatomical evolutionary
changes to have occurred along the lineage leading to humans and to
the “anthropomorphous apes”. This morphological reprogramming in
the ancestral hominoids has been long considered to have
accommodated a characteristic style of locomotion and contributed
to the evolution of bipedalism in humans . . "
The cladogram shows the split from monkeys
(and the loss of tails) at around 25 ma. Yet
obligate bipedalism doesn't arrive until after
6 ma. They happily skip over ~20 Myr.
The 'thinking' (amid the 'professionals') is a
close match to much of the stuff we see
around here.
Can anyone think of a reason why having a
tail might not suit a gibbon?
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves (in 'hominoid evolution')
Oct 3, 2021, 1:49:29 PM
Slow arboreal bipedal walking with hands grasping branches above,
sometimes alternating with slow brachiation
The body plan of apes (including gibbons)
is very different from that of monkeys.
A drastic change in morphology took place
in our ancestral line in the period 25-20 ma.
It could only have come about for major
reasons -- and certainly not for 'slow
brachiation'.
allowing grasping toes to pluck food below. Broad chested.
The standard primate pattern is to have
'hands' at the end of each limb -- whether
narrow-chested or broad-chested. Every
primate except homo) can hold on while
reaching down to pluck food from below.
What matters in all evolution is the
competition between species and between
conspecifics for _everything_ -- the ones
that survive and leave progeny are those
best at getting food, at achieving high
status within the group, at escaping
predators, at fighting over females, at
protecting their young, at ensuring that
the mother and the infant get sufficient
food and shelter, at forming alliances
with stronger members, etc., etc. Speed
is almost everything, but agility matters
as well. Neither is helped by seeking to
adopt a new form of locomotion, at the
cost of a poorer performance at the long-
standing ancient one.
Walking on branches is neither here nor
there. 'Slow brachiation' would be
extremely difficult to acquire and
(compared with whatever it is Daud
Deden believes preceded it) yield few
benefits in the real world.
Daud has questioned before why gibbons
evolved in South-East Asia, and are present
only there. Theoretically, they 'should'
have also evolved elsewhere -- in Europe,
Africa, South America, etc. But they didn't.
In fact, the reasons are not too hard to
work out.
See if you can do so.
Tail is used to balance the body. Above branch, or during running. Of
course, in primates it is above branch. So, we weren't above branch, and
we weren't running.
Apes remained in areas with big precipitation. You have two such
areas, Congo and SE Asia. So, gibbons can be only in one of those two.
Ancestors of gibbons were found in Spain, AFAIK. Those weren't
brachiators, AFAIK.
Apes in SE Asia live exclusively on trees, while those in Africa live
mostly on the ground (they sleep on trees). So, brachiating gibbon
should be in SE Asia.
The body shape of early apes changed roughly like this (I would say),
baboon-like => human-like. Brachiators and below branch hangers came later.
Quasi-hylobatids were human ancestors, they both walked on 2 limbs with some other support and swung/hung below branches with 2 limbs with some other support.
On 13.10.2021. 1:33, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 11:51:27 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 9.10.2021. 17:11, Paul Crowley wrote:
Take a look at the cladogram (top left) in this image:I am a bit confused by the form of this post, but I'll say a few words. >> Tail is used to balance the body. Above branch, or during running. Of
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/09/16/2021.09.14.460388/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
It comes from a paper (already mentioned in this
group) on the genetics of tail loss:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.14.460388v1
Note where the paper states:
" . . The loss of the tail is one of the main anatomical evolutionary >>> changes to have occurred along the lineage leading to humans and to
the “anthropomorphous apes”. This morphological reprogramming in
the ancestral hominoids has been long considered to have
accommodated a characteristic style of locomotion and contributed
to the evolution of bipedalism in humans . . "
The cladogram shows the split from monkeys
(and the loss of tails) at around 25 ma. Yet
obligate bipedalism doesn't arrive until after
6 ma. They happily skip over ~20 Myr.
The 'thinking' (amid the 'professionals') is a
close match to much of the stuff we see
around here.
Can anyone think of a reason why having a
tail might not suit a gibbon?
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves (in 'hominoid evolution')
Oct 3, 2021, 1:49:29 PM
Slow arboreal bipedal walking with hands grasping branches above,
sometimes alternating with slow brachiation
The body plan of apes (including gibbons)
is very different from that of monkeys.
A drastic change in morphology took place
in our ancestral line in the period 25-20 ma.
It could only have come about for major
reasons -- and certainly not for 'slow
brachiation'.
allowing grasping toes to pluck food below. Broad chested.
The standard primate pattern is to have
'hands' at the end of each limb -- whether
narrow-chested or broad-chested. Every
primate except homo) can hold on while
reaching down to pluck food from below.
What matters in all evolution is the
competition between species and between
conspecifics for _everything_ -- the ones
that survive and leave progeny are those
best at getting food, at achieving high
status within the group, at escaping
predators, at fighting over females, at
protecting their young, at ensuring that
the mother and the infant get sufficient
food and shelter, at forming alliances
with stronger members, etc., etc. Speed
is almost everything, but agility matters
as well. Neither is helped by seeking to
adopt a new form of locomotion, at the
cost of a poorer performance at the long-
standing ancient one.
Walking on branches is neither here nor
there. 'Slow brachiation' would be
extremely difficult to acquire and
(compared with whatever it is Daud
Deden believes preceded it) yield few
benefits in the real world.
Daud has questioned before why gibbons
evolved in South-East Asia, and are present
only there. Theoretically, they 'should'
have also evolved elsewhere -- in Europe,
Africa, South America, etc. But they didn't.
In fact, the reasons are not too hard to
work out.
See if you can do so.
course, in primates it is above branch. So, we weren't above branch, and >> we weren't running.
Apes remained in areas with big precipitation. You have two such
areas, Congo and SE Asia. So, gibbons can be only in one of those two.
Ancestors of gibbons were found in Spain, AFAIK. Those weren't
brachiators, AFAIK.
Apes in SE Asia live exclusively on trees, while those in Africa live
mostly on the ground (they sleep on trees). So, brachiating gibbon
should be in SE Asia.
The body shape of early apes changed roughly like this (I would say),
baboon-like => human-like. Brachiators and below branch hangers came later.
Quasi-hylobatids were human ancestors, they both walked on 2 limbs with some other support and swung/hung below branches with 2 limbs with some other support.I don't get this view. Somebody has to correct this "walked on 2
limbs". See a dog walking on 2 limbs:
https://youtu.be/aF02roMiN5Y
"Walking on 2 limbs" isn't an ability, it isn't an the achievement, it
isn't an adaptation, it can be done, if there is a reason/need for it,
by *any* animal. But, of course, those same animals rather use 4 limbs,
it is faster that way, longer stride.
They hanged down below something, alright, but this "something"
doesn't necessarily be a branch.
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 11:11:01 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 13.10.2021. 1:33, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 11:51:27 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 9.10.2021. 17:11, Paul Crowley wrote:I don't get this view. Somebody has to correct this "walked on 2
Take a look at the cladogram (top left) in this image:I am a bit confused by the form of this post, but I'll say a few words. >>>> Tail is used to balance the body. Above branch, or during running. Of
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/09/16/2021.09.14.460388/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
It comes from a paper (already mentioned in this
group) on the genetics of tail loss:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.14.460388v1
Note where the paper states:
" . . The loss of the tail is one of the main anatomical evolutionary >>>>> changes to have occurred along the lineage leading to humans and to
the “anthropomorphous apes”. This morphological reprogramming in >>>>> the ancestral hominoids has been long considered to have
accommodated a characteristic style of locomotion and contributed
to the evolution of bipedalism in humans . . "
The cladogram shows the split from monkeys
(and the loss of tails) at around 25 ma. Yet
obligate bipedalism doesn't arrive until after
6 ma. They happily skip over ~20 Myr.
The 'thinking' (amid the 'professionals') is a
close match to much of the stuff we see
around here.
Can anyone think of a reason why having a
tail might not suit a gibbon?
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves (in 'hominoid evolution')
Oct 3, 2021, 1:49:29 PM
Slow arboreal bipedal walking with hands grasping branches above,
sometimes alternating with slow brachiation
The body plan of apes (including gibbons)
is very different from that of monkeys.
A drastic change in morphology took place
in our ancestral line in the period 25-20 ma.
It could only have come about for major
reasons -- and certainly not for 'slow
brachiation'.
allowing grasping toes to pluck food below. Broad chested.
The standard primate pattern is to have
'hands' at the end of each limb -- whether
narrow-chested or broad-chested. Every
primate except homo) can hold on while
reaching down to pluck food from below.
What matters in all evolution is the
competition between species and between
conspecifics for _everything_ -- the ones
that survive and leave progeny are those
best at getting food, at achieving high
status within the group, at escaping
predators, at fighting over females, at
protecting their young, at ensuring that
the mother and the infant get sufficient
food and shelter, at forming alliances
with stronger members, etc., etc. Speed
is almost everything, but agility matters
as well. Neither is helped by seeking to
adopt a new form of locomotion, at the
cost of a poorer performance at the long-
standing ancient one.
Walking on branches is neither here nor
there. 'Slow brachiation' would be
extremely difficult to acquire and
(compared with whatever it is Daud
Deden believes preceded it) yield few
benefits in the real world.
Daud has questioned before why gibbons
evolved in South-East Asia, and are present
only there. Theoretically, they 'should'
have also evolved elsewhere -- in Europe,
Africa, South America, etc. But they didn't.
In fact, the reasons are not too hard to
work out.
See if you can do so.
course, in primates it is above branch. So, we weren't above branch, and >>>> we weren't running.
Apes remained in areas with big precipitation. You have two such
areas, Congo and SE Asia. So, gibbons can be only in one of those two. >>>> Ancestors of gibbons were found in Spain, AFAIK. Those weren't
brachiators, AFAIK.
Apes in SE Asia live exclusively on trees, while those in Africa live
mostly on the ground (they sleep on trees). So, brachiating gibbon
should be in SE Asia.
The body shape of early apes changed roughly like this (I would say),
baboon-like => human-like. Brachiators and below branch hangers came later.
Quasi-hylobatids were human ancestors, they both walked on 2 limbs with some other support and swung/hung below branches with 2 limbs with some other support.
limbs". See a dog walking on 2 limbs:
https://youtu.be/aF02roMiN5Y
"Walking on 2 limbs" isn't an ability, it isn't an the achievement, it
isn't an adaptation, it can be done, if there is a reason/need for it,
by *any* animal. But, of course, those same animals rather use 4 limbs,
it is faster that way, longer stride.
True on open flat ground, which quasi-hylobatids avoided but gramnivorous geladas & baboons & carnivorous canids favor, but not true on large and small tree branches with fruit/nuts hanging above and below, which quasi-hylobatids favored.
They hanged down below something, alright, but this "something"
doesn't necessarily be a branch.
They could have climbed cliffs, but their main food source was arboreal. Being slow bipedal and slow bimanual because they had few arboreal predators. They have have had both convergent and divergent halluxes.
On 13.10.2021. 6:34, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 11:11:01 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 13.10.2021. 1:33, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 11:51:27 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:I don't get this view. Somebody has to correct this "walked on 2
On 9.10.2021. 17:11, Paul Crowley wrote:
Take a look at the cladogram (top left) in this image:I am a bit confused by the form of this post, but I'll say a few words. >>>> Tail is used to balance the body. Above branch, or during running. Of >>>> course, in primates it is above branch. So, we weren't above branch, and
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2021/09/16/2021.09.14.460388/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
It comes from a paper (already mentioned in this
group) on the genetics of tail loss:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.14.460388v1
Note where the paper states:
" . . The loss of the tail is one of the main anatomical evolutionary >>>>> changes to have occurred along the lineage leading to humans and to >>>>> the “anthropomorphous apes”. This morphological reprogramming in >>>>> the ancestral hominoids has been long considered to have
accommodated a characteristic style of locomotion and contributed >>>>> to the evolution of bipedalism in humans . . "
The cladogram shows the split from monkeys
(and the loss of tails) at around 25 ma. Yet
obligate bipedalism doesn't arrive until after
6 ma. They happily skip over ~20 Myr.
The 'thinking' (amid the 'professionals') is a
close match to much of the stuff we see
around here.
Can anyone think of a reason why having a
tail might not suit a gibbon?
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves (in 'hominoid evolution') >>>>> Oct 3, 2021, 1:49:29 PM
Slow arboreal bipedal walking with hands grasping branches above, >>>>>> sometimes alternating with slow brachiation
The body plan of apes (including gibbons)
is very different from that of monkeys.
A drastic change in morphology took place
in our ancestral line in the period 25-20 ma.
It could only have come about for major
reasons -- and certainly not for 'slow
brachiation'.
allowing grasping toes to pluck food below. Broad chested.
The standard primate pattern is to have
'hands' at the end of each limb -- whether
narrow-chested or broad-chested. Every
primate except homo) can hold on while
reaching down to pluck food from below.
What matters in all evolution is the
competition between species and between
conspecifics for _everything_ -- the ones
that survive and leave progeny are those
best at getting food, at achieving high
status within the group, at escaping
predators, at fighting over females, at
protecting their young, at ensuring that
the mother and the infant get sufficient
food and shelter, at forming alliances
with stronger members, etc., etc. Speed
is almost everything, but agility matters
as well. Neither is helped by seeking to
adopt a new form of locomotion, at the
cost of a poorer performance at the long-
standing ancient one.
Walking on branches is neither here nor
there. 'Slow brachiation' would be
extremely difficult to acquire and
(compared with whatever it is Daud
Deden believes preceded it) yield few
benefits in the real world.
Daud has questioned before why gibbons
evolved in South-East Asia, and are present
only there. Theoretically, they 'should'
have also evolved elsewhere -- in Europe,
Africa, South America, etc. But they didn't.
In fact, the reasons are not too hard to
work out.
See if you can do so.
we weren't running.
Apes remained in areas with big precipitation. You have two such
areas, Congo and SE Asia. So, gibbons can be only in one of those two. >>>> Ancestors of gibbons were found in Spain, AFAIK. Those weren't
brachiators, AFAIK.
Apes in SE Asia live exclusively on trees, while those in Africa live >>>> mostly on the ground (they sleep on trees). So, brachiating gibbon
should be in SE Asia.
The body shape of early apes changed roughly like this (I would say), >>>> baboon-like => human-like. Brachiators and below branch hangers came later.
Quasi-hylobatids were human ancestors, they both walked on 2 limbs with some other support and swung/hung below branches with 2 limbs with some other support.
limbs". See a dog walking on 2 limbs:
https://youtu.be/aF02roMiN5Y
"Walking on 2 limbs" isn't an ability, it isn't an the achievement, it
isn't an adaptation, it can be done, if there is a reason/need for it,
by *any* animal. But, of course, those same animals rather use 4 limbs, >> it is faster that way, longer stride.
True on open flat ground, which quasi-hylobatids avoided but gramnivorous geladas & baboons & carnivorous canids favor, but not true on large and small tree branches with fruit/nuts hanging above and below, which quasi-hylobatids favored.
They hanged down below something, alright, but this "something"
doesn't necessarily be a branch.
They could have climbed cliffs, but their main food source was arboreal. Being slow bipedal and slow bimanual because they had few arboreal predators. They have have had both convergent and divergent halluxes.But their teeth resemble the teeth of animals that feed on shellfish.
With thick enamel, as a consequence of sand from within shellfish,
abrasing enamel. They weren't feeding like today's apes.
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 67:50:57 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,332,028 |
