No, not a fossil, but new biogeographic evidence for primates, and major primate groups in the Jurassic and even anthropoids in the early Cretaceous. Abstract below of an article published in Zoologica Scripta that demonstrates how the patterns of distribution and diversity predict a Mesozoic differentiation of primates and put rest the otherwise contradictory and imaginative nonsense appealing to recent trans-oceanic dispersal to ‘explain’ monkeys in the New World and lemurs in Madagascar. Anyone interested in a pdf copy can request from me or the author.

This is a little outside paleoanthropology, but I anticipate some on this list might find the topic of interest.

John Grehan

Heads, M. Evolution and biogeography of primates: a new model based on molecular phylogenetics,

vicariance and plate tectonics. —Zoologica Scripta, **, ***–***.

The ages of the oldest fossils suggest an origin for primates in the Paleocene (_56 Ma).

Fossil-calibrated molecular clock dates give Cretaceous dates (_80–116 Ma). Both these

estimates are minimum dates although they are often ‘transmogrified’ and treated as maximum

or absolute dates. Oldest fossils can underestimate ages by tens of millions of years

and instead of calibrating the time-course of evolution with a scanty fossil record, the geographical

boundaries of the main molecular clades of primates are calibrated here with

radiometrically dated tectonic events. This indicates that primates originated when a globally

widespread ancestor (early Archonta) differentiated into a northern group (Plesiadapiformes,

extinct), a southern group (Primates), and two south-east Asian groups

(Dermoptera and Scandentia). The division occurred with the breakup of Pangea in the

Early Jurassic and the opening of the central Atlantic (_185 Ma). Within primates, the

strepsirrhines and haplorhines diverged with volcanism and buckling on the Lebombo

Monocline, a volcanic rifted margin in south-east Africa (Early Jurassic, _180 Ma). Within

strepsirrhines, lorises and galagos (Africa and Asia) and lemurs (Madagascar) diverged with

the formation of the Mozambique Channel (Middle Jurassic, _160 Ma). Within haplorhines,

Old World monkeys and New World monkeys diverged with the opening of the

Atlantic (Early Cretaceous, _130 Ma). The main aspects of primate distribution are interpreted

as the result of plate tectonics, phylogeny and vicariance, with some subsequent

range expansion leading to secondary overlap. Long-distance, trans-oceanic dispersal

events are not necessary. The primate ancestral complex was already widespread globally

when sea-floor spreading, strike-slip rifting and orogeny fractured and deformed distributions

through the Jurassic and Cretaceous, leading to the origin of the modern clades. The

model suggests that the topology of the phylogenetic tree reflects a sequence of differentiation

in a widespread ancestor rather than a series of dispersal events.

Corresponding author: Michael Heads, Buffalo Museum of Science, 1020 Humboldt Parkway,

Buffalo, NY 14211-1293, USA. E-mail: michael.heads@yahoo.com

Dr. John R. Grehan

Director of Science and Research

Buffalo Museum of Science

1020 Humboldt Parkway

Buffalo, NY 14211-1193

email: jgrehan@sciencebuff.org

Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372
Fax: (716) 897 6723

Panbiogeography

http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-grehan/evolutionary-biography

Ghost moth research

http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-grehan/ghost-moths

Human evolution and the great apes

http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-grehan/human-origins

Primates. 2009 Oct;50(4):311-9. Epub 2009 Jun 9.

New proconsuloid postcranials from the early Miocene of Kenya.

Gebo DL, Malit NR, Nengo IO.

Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA. dgebo@...

J Hum Evol. 2009 Oct 29. [Epub ahead of print]

Terrestrial adaptations in the hands of Equatorius africanus revisited.

Patel BA, Susman RL, Rossie JB, Hill A.

Department of Anatomical Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA.

My mistake guys!

Marcel F. Williams

--- In paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...>
wrote:
>
> Marcel, they say "adducted", not "abducted"!
>
> --marc
>
>
>
> > So now it turns out that the hobbit is another bipedal hominoid with an
> > abducted hallux: Oreopithecus, Ardipithecus, and now Homo floresiensis
> > which I believe will eventually be removed from Homo and will be given a
> > new generic designation:
> >
> > Journal of Human Evolution 57:538-554
> > Descriptions of the lower limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis
> > W.L. Jungers, S.G. Larson, W. Harcourt-Smith, M.J. Morwood, T. Sutikna,
> > Rokhus Due Awe, T. Djubiantono
> > Bones of the lower extremity have been recovered for up to nine
> > different individuals of Homo floresiensis – LB1, LB4, LB6, LB8,
> > LB9, LB10, LB11, LB13, and LB14. LB1 is represented by a bony pelvis
> > (damaged but now repaired), femora, tibiae, fibulae, patellae, and
> > numerous foot bones. LB4/2 is an immature right tibia lacking epiphyses.
> > LB6 includes a fragmentary metatarsal and two pedal phalanges. LB8 is a
> > nearly complete right tibia (shorter than that of LB1). LB9 is a
> > fragment of a hominin femoral diaphysis. LB10 is a proximal hallucal
> > phalanx. LB11 includes pelvic fragments and a fragmentary metatarsal.
> > LB13 is a patellar fragment, and LB14 is a fragment of an acetabulum.
> > All skeletal remains recovered from Liang Bua were extremely fragile,
> > and some were badly damaged when they were removed temporarily from
> > Jakarta. At present, virtually all fossil materials have been returned,
> > stabilized, and hardened. These skeletal remains are described and
> > illustrated photographically. The lower limb skeleton exhibits a
> > uniquely mosaic pattern, with many primitive-like morphologies; we have
> > been unable to find this combination of ancient and derived (more
> > human-like) features in either healthy or pathological modern humans,
> > regardless of body size. Bilateral asymmetries are slight in the
> > postcranium, and muscle markings are clearly delineated on all bones.
> > The long bones are robust, and the thickness of their cortices is well
> > within the ranges seen in healthy modern humans. LB1 is most probably a
> > female based on the shape of her greater sciatic notch, and the marked
> > degree of lateral iliac flaring recalls that seen in australopithecines
> > such as "Lucy" (AL 288-1). The metatarsus has a human-like
> > robusticity formula, but the proximal pedal phalanges are relatively
> > long and robust (and slightly curved). The hallux is fully adducted, but
> > we suspect that a medial longitudinal arch was absent.
>

Marcel, they say "adducted", not "abducted"!

--marc



> So now it turns out that the hobbit is another bipedal hominoid with an
> abducted hallux: Oreopithecus, Ardipithecus, and now Homo floresiensis
> which I believe will eventually be removed from Homo and will be given a
> new generic designation:
>
> Journal of Human Evolution 57:538-554
> Descriptions of the lower limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis
> W.L. Jungers, S.G. Larson, W. Harcourt-Smith, M.J. Morwood, T. Sutikna,
> Rokhus Due Awe, T. Djubiantono
> Bones of the lower extremity have been recovered for up to nine
> different individuals of Homo floresiensis – LB1, LB4, LB6, LB8,
> LB9, LB10, LB11, LB13, and LB14. LB1 is represented by a bony pelvis
> (damaged but now repaired), femora, tibiae, fibulae, patellae, and
> numerous foot bones. LB4/2 is an immature right tibia lacking epiphyses.
> LB6 includes a fragmentary metatarsal and two pedal phalanges. LB8 is a
> nearly complete right tibia (shorter than that of LB1). LB9 is a
> fragment of a hominin femoral diaphysis. LB10 is a proximal hallucal
> phalanx. LB11 includes pelvic fragments and a fragmentary metatarsal.
> LB13 is a patellar fragment, and LB14 is a fragment of an acetabulum.
> All skeletal remains recovered from Liang Bua were extremely fragile,
> and some were badly damaged when they were removed temporarily from
> Jakarta. At present, virtually all fossil materials have been returned,
> stabilized, and hardened. These skeletal remains are described and
> illustrated photographically. The lower limb skeleton exhibits a
> uniquely mosaic pattern, with many primitive-like morphologies; we have
> been unable to find this combination of ancient and derived (more
> human-like) features in either healthy or pathological modern humans,
> regardless of body size. Bilateral asymmetries are slight in the
> postcranium, and muscle markings are clearly delineated on all bones.
> The long bones are robust, and the thickness of their cortices is well
> within the ranges seen in healthy modern humans. LB1 is most probably a
> female based on the shape of her greater sciatic notch, and the marked
> degree of lateral iliac flaring recalls that seen in australopithecines
> such as "Lucy" (AL 288-1). The metatarsus has a human-like
> robusticity formula, but the proximal pedal phalanges are relatively
> long and robust (and slightly curved). The hallux is fully adducted, but
> we suspect that a medial longitudinal arch was absent.

Hi All,

I'd like to tell you about my new Stone Age Tools Website which has recently
been published at http://www.stoneagetools.co.uk and also about my new blog on
the same subject at http://thestoneagetoolsblog.blogspot.com/

Regards
Richard

I apologize for the link.  Click on the "ANIMALS" tab, hi-lited in yellow, and
you should be directed to the article.

             Stenta

This may be of interest:

   <http://www.livescience.com/animals/0911111-monkey-mates-baboon.html>

         Stenta

----- Original Message -----

From: Anne Gilbert

To: paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:47 PM

Subject: Re: [paleoanthropology] Re: hobbit phylogeny

 

Leigh:

 

I haven't seen any evidence for "hairy feet" on these "hobbits", either.  Hardly surprising, since, at the moment, all we have is fossil bones of same.  Unless there's something going on out there that neither you nor I know about.

Anne G

 

 

Without my going over the characters, at least one statement here is incorrect.  If only the 'hobbit' character state is in the outgroup, this indeed is evidence for plesiomorphy, but it implies that some or all other ingroup species are synapomorphic for another state, which is thus informative.

On Milton's comment, I haven't seen evidence for hairy feet on the Flores people, as distinct from those that Tolkien described.

Leigh

Posted by: "John Grehan" jgrehan@sciencebuff.org   vicariantlucy1

Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:01 am (PST)

Those interested in phylogenetic evidence for hominid evolution may have
seen the recent cladistic analysis of hobbit relationships in the
Journal of Human Evolution in which it is argued that the hobbit is
among the basal lineages of Homo. This may be correct, but the analysis
is problematic. Of the 60 characters 17 are cladistically invalid
because all the character states for the ingroup (hominids including
hobbit) are in the outgroup. This means that shared derived similarity
cannot be distinguished from primitive retention. A further 21
characters were uninformative (even if they are correctly documented)
for the hobbit because the hobbit character state is either in the
outgroup (most cases) and therefore does not represent a cladistic
feature, or is missing for the hobbit, or autapomorphic for the hobbit.

One character appears to be incorrectly documented or and
problematically compared (character 3).

This leaves only 17 characters (less than a third of the total) that
have the appearance of conforming to cladistic requirements and
informative for similarities between the hobbit and other hominids. But
even here the comparison are marred by the lack of descriptive
documentation (actual measurements and illustrations) as well as an
outgroup being limited to the African apes.

So whether the remaining 17 have any validity remains to be seen. But
at this point the description of 'cladistic' is somewhat misleading and
the result far from providing any confidence about its phylogenetic
placement.

Posted by: "Richard Milton" richard.milton@virgin.net   fredbloggs9992001

Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:48 am (PST)

May I add that there are two further troublesome features about claims for ancestral status of hobbits? The first is the uniquely (in my experience) circular construction of hobbit dwellings. The second is the elongated hairy feet which, though perhaps consonant with those of Australopithecus afarensis, are otherwise worryingly un-hominid in more developed species.

Richard

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.62/2499 - Release Date: 11/12/09 14:33:00

 

 

Without my going over the characters, at least one statement here is incorrect.  If only the 'hobbit' character state is in the outgroup, this indeed is evidence for plesiomorphy, but it implies that some or all other ingroup species are synapomorphic for another state, which is thus informative.

On Milton's comment, I haven't seen evidence for hairy feet on the Flores people, as distinct from those that Tolkien described.

Leigh

Posted by: "John Grehan" jgrehan@sciencebuff.org   vicariantlucy1

Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:01 am (PST)

Those interested in phylogenetic evidence for hominid evolution may have
seen the recent cladistic analysis of hobbit relationships in the
Journal of Human Evolution in which it is argued that the hobbit is
among the basal lineages of Homo. This may be correct, but the analysis
is problematic. Of the 60 characters 17 are cladistically invalid
because all the character states for the ingroup (hominids including
hobbit) are in the outgroup. This means that shared derived similarity
cannot be distinguished from primitive retention. A further 21
characters were uninformative (even if they are correctly documented)
for the hobbit because the hobbit character state is either in the
outgroup (most cases) and therefore does not represent a cladistic
feature, or is missing for the hobbit, or autapomorphic for the hobbit.

One character appears to be incorrectly documented or and
problematically compared (character 3).

This leaves only 17 characters (less than a third of the total) that
have the appearance of conforming to cladistic requirements and
informative for similarities between the hobbit and other hominids. But
even here the comparison are marred by the lack of descriptive
documentation (actual measurements and illustrations) as well as an
outgroup being limited to the African apes.

So whether the remaining 17 have any validity remains to be seen. But
at this point the description of 'cladistic' is somewhat misleading and
the result far from providing any confidence about its phylogenetic
placement.

Posted by: "Richard Milton" richard.milton@virgin.net   fredbloggs9992001

Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:48 am (PST)

May I add that there are two further troublesome features about claims for ancestral status of hobbits? The first is the uniquely (in my experience) circular construction of hobbit dwellings. The second is the elongated hairy feet which, though perhaps consonant with those of Australopithecus afarensis, are otherwise worryingly un-hominid in more developed species.

Richard

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.62/2499 - Release Date: 11/12/09 14:33:00

----- Original Message -----

From: Anne Gilbert

To: paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:47 PM

Subject: Re: [paleoanthropology] Re: hobbit phylogeny

 

Leigh:

 

I haven't seen any evidence for "hairy feet" on these "hobbits", either.  Hardly surprising, since, at the moment, all we have is fossil bones of same.  Unless there's something going on out there that neither you nor I know about.

Anne G

 

 

Without my going over the characters, at least one statement here is incorrect.  If only the 'hobbit' character state is in the outgroup, this indeed is evidence for plesiomorphy, but it implies that some or all other ingroup species are synapomorphic for another state, which is thus informative.

On Milton's comment, I haven't seen evidence for hairy feet on the Flores people, as distinct from those that Tolkien described.

Leigh

Posted by: "John Grehan" jgrehan@sciencebuff.org   vicariantlucy1

Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:01 am (PST)

Those interested in phylogenetic evidence for hominid evolution may have
seen the recent cladistic analysis of hobbit relationships in the
Journal of Human Evolution in which it is argued that the hobbit is
among the basal lineages of Homo. This may be correct, but the analysis
is problematic. Of the 60 characters 17 are cladistically invalid
because all the character states for the ingroup (hominids including
hobbit) are in the outgroup. This means that shared derived similarity
cannot be distinguished from primitive retention. A further 21
characters were uninformative (even if they are correctly documented)
for the hobbit because the hobbit character state is either in the
outgroup (most cases) and therefore does not represent a cladistic
feature, or is missing for the hobbit, or autapomorphic for the hobbit.

One character appears to be incorrectly documented or and
problematically compared (character 3).

This leaves only 17 characters (less than a third of the total) that
have the appearance of conforming to cladistic requirements and
informative for similarities between the hobbit and other hominids. But
even here the comparison are marred by the lack of descriptive
documentation (actual measurements and illustrations) as well as an
outgroup being limited to the African apes.

So whether the remaining 17 have any validity remains to be seen. But
at this point the description of 'cladistic' is somewhat misleading and
the result far from providing any confidence about its phylogenetic
placement.

Posted by: "Richard Milton" richard.milton@virgin.net   fredbloggs9992001

Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:48 am (PST)

May I add that there are two further troublesome features about claims for ancestral status of hobbits? The first is the uniquely (in my experience) circular construction of hobbit dwellings. The second is the elongated hairy feet which, though perhaps consonant with those of Australopithecus afarensis, are otherwise worryingly un-hominid in more developed species.

Richard

 

 

Without my going over the characters, at least one statement here is incorrect.  If only the 'hobbit' character state is in the outgroup, this indeed is evidence for plesiomorphy, but it implies that some or all other ingroup species are synapomorphic for another state, which is thus informative.

On Milton's comment, I haven't seen evidence for hairy feet on the Flores people, as distinct from those that Tolkien described.

Leigh

Posted by: "John Grehan" jgrehan@sciencebuff.org   vicariantlucy1

Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:01 am (PST)

Those interested in phylogenetic evidence for hominid evolution may have
seen the recent cladistic analysis of hobbit relationships in the
Journal of Human Evolution in which it is argued that the hobbit is
among the basal lineages of Homo. This may be correct, but the analysis
is problematic. Of the 60 characters 17 are cladistically invalid
because all the character states for the ingroup (hominids including
hobbit) are in the outgroup. This means that shared derived similarity
cannot be distinguished from primitive retention. A further 21
characters were uninformative (even if they are correctly documented)
for the hobbit because the hobbit character state is either in the
outgroup (most cases) and therefore does not represent a cladistic
feature, or is missing for the hobbit, or autapomorphic for the hobbit.

One character appears to be incorrectly documented or and
problematically compared (character 3).

This leaves only 17 characters (less than a third of the total) that
have the appearance of conforming to cladistic requirements and
informative for similarities between the hobbit and other hominids. But
even here the comparison are marred by the lack of descriptive
documentation (actual measurements and illustrations) as well as an
outgroup being limited to the African apes.

So whether the remaining 17 have any validity remains to be seen. But
at this point the description of 'cladistic' is somewhat misleading and
the result far from providing any confidence about its phylogenetic
placement.

Posted by: "Richard Milton" richard.milton@virgin.net   fredbloggs9992001

Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:48 am (PST)

May I add that there are two further troublesome features about claims for ancestral status of hobbits? The first is the uniquely (in my experience) circular construction of hobbit dwellings. The second is the elongated hairy feet which, though perhaps consonant with those of Australopithecus afarensis, are otherwise worryingly un-hominid in more developed species.

Richard

Posted by: "John Grehan" jgrehan@...   vicariantlucy1

Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:01 am (PST)

Those interested in phylogenetic evidence for hominid evolution may have
seen the recent cladistic analysis of hobbit relationships in the
Journal of Human Evolution in which it is argued that the hobbit is
among the basal lineages of Homo. This may be correct, but the analysis
is problematic. Of the 60 characters 17 are cladistically invalid
because all the character states for the ingroup (hominids including
hobbit) are in the outgroup. This means that shared derived similarity
cannot be distinguished from primitive retention. A further 21
characters were uninformative (even if they are correctly documented)
for the hobbit because the hobbit character state is either in the
outgroup (most cases) and therefore does not represent a cladistic
feature, or is missing for the hobbit, or autapomorphic for the hobbit.

One character appears to be incorrectly documented or and
problematically compared (character 3).

This leaves only 17 characters (less than a third of the total) that
have the appearance of conforming to cladistic requirements and
informative for similarities between the hobbit and other hominids. But
even here the comparison are marred by the lack of descriptive
documentation (actual measurements and illustrations) as well as an
outgroup being limited to the African apes.

So whether the remaining 17 have any validity remains to be seen. But
at this point the description of 'cladistic' is somewhat misleading and
the result far from providing any confidence about its phylogenetic
placement.

Posted by: "Richard Milton" richard.milton@...   fredbloggs9992001

Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:48 am (PST)

May I add that there are two further troublesome features about claims for ancestral status of hobbits? The first is the uniquely (in my experience) circular construction of hobbit dwellings. The second is the elongated hairy feet which, though perhaps consonant with those of Australopithecus afarensis, are otherwise worryingly un-hominid in more developed species.

Richard

----- Original Message -----

From: John Grehan

To: paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:06 PM

Subject: [paleoanthropology] hobbit phylogeny

 

Those interested in phylogenetic evidence for hominid evolution may have seen the recent cladistic analysis of hobbit relationships in the Journal of Human Evolution in which it is argued that the hobbit is among the basal lineages of Homo. This may be correct, but the analysis is problematic. Of the 60 characters 17 are cladistically invalid because all the character states for the ingroup (hominids including hobbit) are in the outgroup. This means that shared derived similarity cannot be distinguished from primitive retention. A further 21 characters were uninformative (even if they are correctly documented) for the hobbit because the hobbit character state is either in the outgroup (most cases) and therefore does not represent a cladistic feature, or is missing for the hobbit, or autapomorphic for the hobbit.

One character appears to be incorrectly documented or and problematically compared (character 3).

This leaves only 17 characters (less than a third of the total) that have the appearance of conforming to cladistic requirements and informative for similarities between the hobbit and other hominids. But even here the comparison are marred by the lack of descriptive documentation (actual measurements and illustrations) as well as an outgroup being limited to the African apes.

 So whether the remaining 17 have any validity remains to be seen. But at this point the description of ‘cladistic’ is somewhat misleading and the result far from providing any confidence about its phylogenetic placement.

John Grehan

Dr. John R. Grehan

Director of Science

Buffalo Museum of Science1020 Humboldt Parkway

Buffalo, NY 14211-1193

email: jgrehan@sciencebuff.org

Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372

Panbiogeography

http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-grehan/evolutionary-biography

Ghost moth research

http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-grehan/ghost-moths

Human evolution and the great apes

http://www.sciencebuff.org/research/current-research-activities/john-grehan/human-origins

Abstract

Using entire modern and ancient mitochondrial genomes of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) that are up to 44000 years old, we show that the rates of evolution of the mitochondrial genome are two to six times greater than those estimated from phylogenetic comparisons. Although the rate of evolution at constrained sites, including nonsynonymous positions and RNAs, varies more than twofold with time (between shallow and deep nodes), the rate of evolution at synonymous sites remains the same. The time-independent neutral evolutionary rates reported here would be useful for the study of recent evolutionary events.

Nov 10 2009, 1:21 PM EST

Ancient penguin DNA raises doubts about accuracy of genetic dating techniques

EUREKALERT

Contact: Dee Denver
denvedee@...
541-737-3698
Oregon State University

CORVALLIS,Ore. - Penguins that died 44,000 years ago in Antarctica have providedextraordinary frozen DNA samples that challenge the accuracy oftraditional genetic aging measurements, and suggest those approacheshave been routinely underestimating the age of many specimens by 200 to600 percent.

Inother words, a biological specimen determined by traditional DNAtesting to be 100,000 years old may actually be 200,000 to 600,000years old, researchers suggest in a new report in Trends in Genetics, a professional journal.

The findings raise doubts about the accuracy of many evolutionary rates based on conventional types of genetic analysis.

"Someearlier work based on small amounts of DNA indicated this same problem,but now we have more conclusive evidence based on the study of almostan entire mitochondrial genome," said Dee Denver, an evolutionarybiologist with the Center for Genome Research and Biocomputing atOregon State University.

"Theobservations in this report appear to be fundamental and should extendto most animal species," he added. "We believe that traditional DNAdating techniques are fundamentally flawed, and that the rates ofevolution are in fact much faster than conventional technologies haveled us to believe."

Thefindings, researchers say, are primarily a challenge to the techniquesused to determine the age of a sample by genetic analysis alone, ratherthan by other observations about fossils. In particular, they may forcea widespread re-examination of determinations about when one speciessplit off from another, if that determination was based largely ongenetic evidence.

Foryears, researchers have been using their understanding of the rates ofgenetic mutations in cells to help date ancient biological samples, andin what's called "phylogenetic comparison," used that information alongwith fossil evidence to determine the dates of fossils and the historyof evolution. The rates of molecular evolution "underpin much of modernevolutionary biology," the researchers noted in their report.

"Forthe genetic analysis to be accurate, however, you must have the rightmolecular clock rate," Denver said. "We now think that many geneticchanges were happening that conventional DNA analysis did not capture.They were fairly easy to use and apply but also too indirect, andinaccurate as a result."

Thisconclusion, researchers said, was forced by the study of many penguinbones that were well preserved by sub-freezing temperatures inAntarctica. These penguins live in massive rookeries, have inhabitedthe same areas for thousands of years, and it was comparatively simpleto identify bones of different ages just by digging deeper in areaswhere they died and their bones piled up.

Fortheir study, the scientists used a range of mitochondrial DNA found inbones ranging from 250 years to about 44,000 years old.

"Ina temperate zone when an animal dies and falls to the ground, their DNAmight degrade within a year," Denver said. "In Antarctica the sameremains are well-preserved for tens of thousands of years. It's aremarkable scientific resource."

Aprecise study of this ancient DNA was compared to the known ages of thebones, and produced results that were far different than conventionalanalysis would have suggested. Researchers also determined thatdifferent types of DNA sequences changed at different rates.

Asidefrom raising doubts about the accuracy of many specimens dated withconventional approaches, the study may give researchers tools toimprove their future dating estimates, Denver said.

Collaboratorson the research included scientists from OSU, Griffith University inAustralia, the University of Auckland in New Zealand, Massey Universityin New Zealand, University of North Carolina in Wilmington, the ScrippsResearch Institute, and Universita' di Pisa in Italy.

The studies were supported by the National Science Foundation, National Geographic Society, and other agencies.

Editor's Note: Digital images of Adelie penguins are available at these URLs:
Close-up of penguin: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oregonstateuniversity/4093180590/
Group of penguins: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oregonstateuniversity/4092424595/

HOME | SUBSCRIBE

© 2008 Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, All Rights Reserved - terms of use | legal information | privacy statement | contact | about GEN | SITE MAP

 

 

First, on Piltdown, it is a paradox that what goes into textbooks is often
decided by school boards made up of generally uneducated ding bats. I think
the inclusion of Piltdown is a deliberate creationists strategy. It
demonstrates the "flaws" of evolution. On the Apiths, they post date the
chimp-hominid split and I cannot see going from knuckle walking to erect and
back to knuckle walking. Orrorin, predating Apiths, might have been the
first of the hominids off of the assembly line of the chimp-human ancestor
but Orrorins femur is more like mine than Apiths. That's curious. Maybe
Apiths are a side line and we are still looking for Orrorins descendents.
If I was younger I would pick up a pick and trowel and head for Africa.

Jack

--------------------------------------------------
From: "jim" <canovan@twmi.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:01 AM
To: <paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [paleoanthropology] Re: New Ardipithecus finds ...

>
> Hi Jack,
>
> GOOD ONE!! Very nice column! Can't say I buy your 'Flores' clip but I
> just loved it when you noted that all future finds must carry the banner,
> "THIS one will CHANGE all we know about MAN's evolution" ...Ha HAHHH! You
> NAILED it, my friend!!
> (:))
> best,
> ~Jim
>
> PS-
> And PILTDOWN.....WHY on earth, after ALL these years, must PILTDOWN still
> be shown with other skulls??!! What POSSIBLE good can that do?!
> PPS -
> You got me going in the RANDOM THOUGHT DEPARTMENT NOW:
> I'm beginning to wonder if - as many as half our Australopith remains
> might not represent CHIMP ancestry??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hiya, Jim, Anne ole buddy:
>>
>> I can't help but think about what has happened in paleoanthropology since
>> I
>> first became interested in human evolution. My first text book had
>> Piltdown
>> Man in it with a reconstruction that, because he was "English," was much
>> more sophisticated than a stooped over, hairy Neanderthal and
>> Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus (The Chinese had to have their own also)
>> and Raymond Dart's infant skull of Australopithecus africanus. I wonder
>> where that old textbook is? Then along came the Leakeys and human
>> evolution
>> was concentrated almost solely on Africa and Olduvai gorge was the "womb"
>> of
>> human evolution. We had Zinjanthropus/Paranthropus/Australopithecus,
>> Kenyanthropus and Orrorin. A whole gaggle of Australopithecines began to
>> appear, garhi, aethiopicus, anamensis and I began to see different Homos
>> like habilis, rudolfensis, ergaster and heidelbergensis. When "Lucy" was
>> found, I think it had fossil hunters looking in new places and recently
>> Ardipithecus, Sahelanthropus competed in the search for the LCA of us and
>> chimps. Now we have those enigmatic little people of Flores. The
>> "family
>> trees" of hominids were always somewhat simple. A mysterious ancestor
>> splitting off chimps on one side and hominids on the other and there was
>> Apiths and Homo but the hominid side is starting to look more like a
>> mangrove tree with roots entangled and multiple branches. Now every time
>> we
>> find a new fossil you can bet money the article will say "rewriting human
>> evolution." It has been an interesting ride over the last half century
>> and
>> its just going to get more interesting because we probably have not seen
>> a
>> tenth of the genera and species of hominids. Flores is probably a new
>> Genus.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "jim" <canovan@...>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 9:03 AM
>> To: <paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: [paleoanthropology] Re: New Ardipithecus finds ...
>>
>> >
>> > Anne,
>> > Yes, they feel Ar. ramidus WAS bipedal and I do hope their conclusions
>> > to
>> > be correct. Perhaps future dicoveries will lend better evidence. I
>> > don't
>> > think there can be any doubt Ardi was VERY close to the later
>> > australopiths.
>> >
>> > Torfinn,
>> > OK. Your points ARE well taken. I don't wish to drag this thing on. I
>> > will
>> > only say that I've recently conferred with Milford Wolpoff on this
>> > 'hominid biped requirement' and he concurs my viewpoint.
>> > So, now that I might retain a modicum of dignity, please let me
>> > continue
>> > to hope I'm not alone in this stubborn & tenacious stance.
>> > (:))
>> > best,
>> > ~jim
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com, Anne Gilbert <avgilbert@>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jim:
>> >>
>> >> Yes, the opposable feet are kind of apish-looking, to me, at least.
>> >> OTOH, all I can say is, that according to White et al, Ar. ramidus
>> >> walked, after a fashion, upright, on two feet, and they claim the
>> >> pelvis
>> >> is more like that of australopithecines, who apparently always walked
>> >> upright. I'm not making any claims myself, though.
>> >> Anne G
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Anne,
>> >> No problem. I had no idea that was a typo; thought it was, like,
>> >> initials of something or other.
>> >> As for my questioning of hominid I.D. for Ardi, I don't mean to
>> >> imply
>> >> that I regard this genus as quad. I'm simply wondering about status
>> >> because of vague dates(before or after Pan/Homo split?) and the foot
>> >> morphology which plainly calls for simian locomotion. My actual hope
>> >> is
>> >> Ardi is BIPED(hence my questioning of the fully opposable big toe
>> >> reconstruction).
>> >>
>> >> .
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> > Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.4/2417 - Release Date:
>> > 10/06/09
>> > 06:50:00
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.59/2494 - Release Date: 11/10/09
> 07:38:00
>

 

 

Hiya, Jim, Anne ole buddy:

I can't help but think about what has happened in paleoanthropology since I
first became interested in human evolution. My first text book had Piltdown
Man in it with a reconstruction that, because he was "English," was much
more sophisticated than a stooped over, hairy Neanderthal and
Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus (The Chinese had to have their own also)
and Raymond Dart's infant skull of Australopithecus africanus. I wonder
where that old textbook is? Then along came the Leakeys and human evolution
was concentrated almost solely on Africa and Olduvai gorge was the "womb" of
human evolution. We had Zinjanthropus/Paranthropus/Australopithecus,
Kenyanthropus and Orrorin. A whole gaggle of Australopithecines began to
appear, garhi, aethiopicus, anamensis and I began to see different Homos
like habilis, rudolfensis, ergaster and heidelbergensis. When "Lucy" was
found, I think it had fossil hunters looking in new places and recently
Ardipithecus, Sahelanthropus competed in the search for the LCA of us and
chimps. Now we have those enigmatic little people of Flores. The "family
trees" of hominids were always somewhat simple. A mysterious ancestor
splitting off chimps on one side and hominids on the other and there was
Apiths and Homo but the hominid side is starting to look more like a
mangrove tree with roots entangled and multiple branches. Now every time we
find a new fossil you can bet money the article will say "rewriting human
evolution." It has been an interesting ride over the last half century and
its just going to get more interesting because we probably have not seen a
tenth of the genera and species of hominids. Flores is probably a new
Genus.

Jack

--------------------------------------------------
From: "jim" <canovan@twmi.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 9:03 AM
To: <paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [paleoanthropology] Re: New Ardipithecus finds ...

>
> Anne,
> Yes, they feel Ar. ramidus WAS bipedal and I do hope their conclusions to
> be correct. Perhaps future dicoveries will lend better evidence. I don't
> think there can be any doubt Ardi was VERY close to the later
> australopiths.
>
> Torfinn,
> OK. Your points ARE well taken. I don't wish to drag this thing on. I will
> only say that I've recently conferred with Milford Wolpoff on this
> 'hominid biped requirement' and he concurs my viewpoint.
> So, now that I might retain a modicum of dignity, please let me continue
> to hope I'm not alone in this stubborn & tenacious stance.
> (:))
> best,
> ~jim
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com, Anne Gilbert <avgilbert@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Jim:
>>
>> Yes, the opposable feet are kind of apish-looking, to me, at least.
>> OTOH, all I can say is, that according to White et al, Ar. ramidus
>> walked, after a fashion, upright, on two feet, and they claim the pelvis
>> is more like that of australopithecines, who apparently always walked
>> upright. I'm not making any claims myself, though.
>> Anne G
>>
>>
>>
>> Anne,
>> No problem. I had no idea that was a typo; thought it was, like,
>> initials of something or other.
>> As for my questioning of hominid I.D. for Ardi, I don't mean to imply
>> that I regard this genus as quad. I'm simply wondering about status
>> because of vague dates(before or after Pan/Homo split?) and the foot
>> morphology which plainly calls for simian locomotion. My actual hope is
>> Ardi is BIPED(hence my questioning of the fully opposable big toe
>> reconstruction).
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.4/2417 - Release Date: 10/06/09
> 06:50:00
>

>First, on Piltdown, it is a paradox that what goes into textbooks is often
>decided by school boards made up of generally uneducated ding bats. I think
>the inclusion of Piltdown is a deliberate creationists strategy. It
>demonstrates the "flaws" of evolution. On the Apiths, they post date the
>chimp-hominid split and I cannot see going from knuckle walking to erect
>and
>back to knuckle walking. Orrorin, predating Apiths, might have been the
>first of the hominids off of the assembly line of the chimp-human ancestor
>but Orrorins femur is more like mine than Apiths. That's curious. Maybe
>Apiths are a side line and we are still looking for Orrorins descendents.

So I have heard too, but I really wouldn't put any money on it.

According to Tim White (2006) the internal structure of the Orrorin femur is
more primitive than either australopithecines and Homo, and according to
Richmond & Jungers (2008) the external structure is not much different from
australopithecines. -Contrary to the (actually very weakly supported) claims
made by Senut and Pickford.

If I were to place a bet it could be that Orrorin is nothing more than an
early version of Ardipithecus kadabba. AFAIK the only documented difference
is a slightly more primitive canine...

>If I was younger I would pick up a pick and trowel and head for Africa.

There I am absolutely with you! :-)

refs:
Richmond, B.G. & Jungers, W.L. 2008. Orrorin tugenensis Femoral Morphology
and the Evolution of Hominin Bipedalism. - Science 319: 1662-1665.
White, T.D. 2006. Early hominid femora: The inside story. - C. R. Palevol 5
(1-2): 99-108.


Cheers
Torfinn

First, on Piltdown, it is a paradox that what goes into textbooks is often
decided by school boards made up of generally uneducated ding bats.  I think
the inclusion of Piltdown is a deliberate creationists strategy.  It
demonstrates the "flaws" of evolution.  On the Apiths, they post date the
chimp-hominid split and I cannot see going from knuckle walking to erect and
back to knuckle walking.  Orrorin, predating Apiths, might have been the
first of the hominids off of the assembly line of the chimp-human ancestor
but Orrorins femur is more like mine than Apiths.  That's curious.  Maybe
Apiths are a side line and we are still looking for Orrorins descendents.
If I was younger I would pick up a pick and trowel and head for Africa.

Jack

--------------------------------------------------
From: "jim" <canovan@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:01 AM
To: <paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [paleoanthropology] Re: New Ardipithecus finds ...

>
> Hi Jack,
>
> GOOD ONE!! Very nice column!  Can't say I buy your 'Flores' clip but I
> just loved it when you noted that all future finds must carry the banner,
> "THIS one will CHANGE all we know about MAN's evolution" ...Ha HAHHH!  You
> NAILED it, my friend!!
> (:))
> best,
> ~Jim
>
> PS-
> And PILTDOWN.....WHY on earth, after ALL these years, must PILTDOWN still
> be shown with other skulls??!! What POSSIBLE good can that do?!
> PPS -
> You got me going in the RANDOM THOUGHT DEPARTMENT NOW:
> I'm beginning to wonder if - as many as half our Australopith remains
> might not represent CHIMP ancestry??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hiya, Jim, Anne ole buddy:
>>
>> I can't help but think about what has happened in paleoanthropology since
>> I
>> first became interested in human evolution.  My first text book had
>> Piltdown
>> Man in it with a reconstruction that, because he was "English," was much
>> more sophisticated than a stooped over, hairy Neanderthal and
>> Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus (The Chinese had to have their own also)
>> and Raymond Dart's infant skull of Australopithecus africanus.  I wonder
>> where that old textbook is? Then along came the Leakeys and human
>> evolution
>> was concentrated almost solely on Africa and Olduvai gorge was the "womb"
>> of
>> human evolution.  We had Zinjanthropus/Paranthropus/Australopithecus,
>> Kenyanthropus and Orrorin. A whole gaggle of Australopithecines began to
>> appear, garhi, aethiopicus, anamensis and I began to see different Homos
>> like habilis, rudolfensis, ergaster and heidelbergensis.  When "Lucy" was
>> found, I think it had fossil hunters looking in new places and recently
>> Ardipithecus, Sahelanthropus competed in the search for the LCA of us and
>> chimps.  Now we have those enigmatic little people of Flores.  The
>> "family
>> trees" of hominids were always somewhat simple.  A mysterious ancestor
>> splitting off chimps on one side and hominids on the other and there was
>> Apiths and Homo but the hominid side is starting to look more like a
>> mangrove tree with roots entangled and multiple branches.  Now every time
>> we
>> find a new fossil you can bet money the article will say "rewriting human
>> evolution."  It has been an interesting ride over the last half century
>> and
>> its just going to get more interesting because we probably have not seen
>> a
>> tenth of the genera and species of hominids.  Flores is probably a new
>> Genus.
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "jim" <canovan@...>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 9:03 AM
>> To: <paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: [paleoanthropology] Re: New Ardipithecus finds ...
>>
>> >
>> > Anne,
>> > Yes, they feel Ar. ramidus WAS bipedal and I do hope their conclusions
>> > to
>> > be correct. Perhaps future dicoveries will lend better evidence. I
>> > don't
>> > think there can be any doubt Ardi was VERY close to the later
>> > australopiths.
>> >
>> > Torfinn,
>> > OK. Your points ARE well taken. I don't wish to drag this thing on. I
>> > will
>> > only say that I've recently conferred with Milford Wolpoff on this
>> > 'hominid biped requirement' and he concurs my viewpoint.
>> > So, now that I might retain a modicum of dignity, please let me
>> > continue
>> > to hope I'm not alone in this stubborn & tenacious stance.
>> > (:))
>> > best,
>> > ~jim
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com, Anne Gilbert <avgilbert@>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jim:
>> >>
>> >> Yes, the opposable feet are kind of apish-looking, to me, at least.
>> >> OTOH, all I can say is, that according to White et al, Ar. ramidus
>> >> walked, after a fashion, upright, on two feet, and they claim the
>> >> pelvis
>> >> is more like that of australopithecines, who apparently always walked
>> >> upright.  I'm not making any claims myself, though.
>> >> Anne G
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     Anne,
>> >>   No problem. I had no idea that was a typo; thought it was, like,
>> >> initials of something or other.
>> >>   As for my questioning of hominid I.D. for Ardi, I don't mean to
>> >> imply
>> >> that I regard this genus as quad. I'm simply wondering about status
>> >> because of vague dates(before or after Pan/Homo split?) and the foot
>> >> morphology which plainly calls for simian locomotion. My actual hope
>> >> is
>> >> Ardi is BIPED(hence my questioning of the fully opposable big toe
>> >> reconstruction).
>> >>
>> >>   .
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> > Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.4/2417 - Release Date:
>> > 10/06/09
>> > 06:50:00
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.59/2494 - Release Date: 11/10/09
> 07:38:00
>

Hi Jack,

GOOD ONE!! Very nice column!  Can't say I buy your 'Flores' clip but I just
loved it when you noted that all future finds must carry the banner, "THIS one
will CHANGE all we know about MAN's evolution" ...Ha HAHHH!  You NAILED it, my
friend!!
(:))
best,
~Jim

PS-
And PILTDOWN.....WHY on earth, after ALL these years, must PILTDOWN still be
shown with other skulls??!! What POSSIBLE good can that do?!
PPS -
You got me going in the RANDOM THOUGHT DEPARTMENT NOW:
I'm beginning to wonder if - as many as half our Australopith remains might not
represent CHIMP ancestry??







--- In paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
>
> Hiya, Jim, Anne ole buddy:
>
> I can't help but think about what has happened in paleoanthropology since I
> first became interested in human evolution.  My first text book had Piltdown
> Man in it with a reconstruction that, because he was "English," was much
> more sophisticated than a stooped over, hairy Neanderthal and
> Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus (The Chinese had to have their own also)
> and Raymond Dart's infant skull of Australopithecus africanus.  I wonder
> where that old textbook is? Then along came the Leakeys and human evolution
> was concentrated almost solely on Africa and Olduvai gorge was the "womb" of
> human evolution.  We had Zinjanthropus/Paranthropus/Australopithecus,
> Kenyanthropus and Orrorin. A whole gaggle of Australopithecines began to
> appear, garhi, aethiopicus, anamensis and I began to see different Homos
> like habilis, rudolfensis, ergaster and heidelbergensis.  When "Lucy" was
> found, I think it had fossil hunters looking in new places and recently
> Ardipithecus, Sahelanthropus competed in the search for the LCA of us and
> chimps.  Now we have those enigmatic little people of Flores.  The "family
> trees" of hominids were always somewhat simple.  A mysterious ancestor
> splitting off chimps on one side and hominids on the other and there was
> Apiths and Homo but the hominid side is starting to look more like a
> mangrove tree with roots entangled and multiple branches.  Now every time we
> find a new fossil you can bet money the article will say "rewriting human
> evolution."  It has been an interesting ride over the last half century and
> its just going to get more interesting because we probably have not seen a
> tenth of the genera and species of hominids.  Flores is probably a new
> Genus.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "jim" <canovan@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 9:03 AM
> To: <paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [paleoanthropology] Re: New Ardipithecus finds ...
>
> >
> > Anne,
> > Yes, they feel Ar. ramidus WAS bipedal and I do hope their conclusions to
> > be correct. Perhaps future dicoveries will lend better evidence. I don't
> > think there can be any doubt Ardi was VERY close to the later
> > australopiths.
> >
> > Torfinn,
> > OK. Your points ARE well taken. I don't wish to drag this thing on. I will
> > only say that I've recently conferred with Milford Wolpoff on this
> > 'hominid biped requirement' and he concurs my viewpoint.
> > So, now that I might retain a modicum of dignity, please let me continue
> > to hope I'm not alone in this stubborn & tenacious stance.
> > (:))
> > best,
> > ~jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com, Anne Gilbert <avgilbert@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Jim:
> >>
> >> Yes, the opposable feet are kind of apish-looking, to me, at least.
> >> OTOH, all I can say is, that according to White et al, Ar. ramidus
> >> walked, after a fashion, upright, on two feet, and they claim the pelvis
> >> is more like that of australopithecines, who apparently always walked
> >> upright.  I'm not making any claims myself, though.
> >> Anne G
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     Anne,
> >>   No problem. I had no idea that was a typo; thought it was, like,
> >> initials of something or other.
> >>   As for my questioning of hominid I.D. for Ardi, I don't mean to imply
> >> that I regard this genus as quad. I'm simply wondering about status
> >> because of vague dates(before or after Pan/Homo split?) and the foot
> >> morphology which plainly calls for simian locomotion. My actual hope is
> >> Ardi is BIPED(hence my questioning of the fully opposable big toe
> >> reconstruction).
> >>
> >>   .
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.4/2417 - Release Date: 10/06/09
> > 06:50:00
> >
>

Hiya, Jim, Anne ole buddy:

I can't help but think about what has happened in paleoanthropology since I
first became interested in human evolution.  My first text book had Piltdown
Man in it with a reconstruction that, because he was "English," was much
more sophisticated than a stooped over, hairy Neanderthal and
Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus (The Chinese had to have their own also)
and Raymond Dart's infant skull of Australopithecus africanus.  I wonder
where that old textbook is? Then along came the Leakeys and human evolution
was concentrated almost solely on Africa and Olduvai gorge was the "womb" of
human evolution.  We had Zinjanthropus/Paranthropus/Australopithecus,
Kenyanthropus and Orrorin. A whole gaggle of Australopithecines began to
appear, garhi, aethiopicus, anamensis and I began to see different Homos
like habilis, rudolfensis, ergaster and heidelbergensis.  When "Lucy" was
found, I think it had fossil hunters looking in new places and recently
Ardipithecus, Sahelanthropus competed in the search for the LCA of us and
chimps.  Now we have those enigmatic little people of Flores.  The "family
trees" of hominids were always somewhat simple.  A mysterious ancestor
splitting off chimps on one side and hominids on the other and there was
Apiths and Homo but the hominid side is starting to look more like a
mangrove tree with roots entangled and multiple branches.  Now every time we
find a new fossil you can bet money the article will say "rewriting human
evolution."  It has been an interesting ride over the last half century and
its just going to get more interesting because we probably have not seen a
tenth of the genera and species of hominids.  Flores is probably a new
Genus.

Jack



--------------------------------------------------
From: "jim" <canovan@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 9:03 AM
To: <paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [paleoanthropology] Re: New Ardipithecus finds ...

>
> Anne,
> Yes, they feel Ar. ramidus WAS bipedal and I do hope their conclusions to
> be correct. Perhaps future dicoveries will lend better evidence. I don't
> think there can be any doubt Ardi was VERY close to the later
> australopiths.
>
> Torfinn,
> OK. Your points ARE well taken. I don't wish to drag this thing on. I will
> only say that I've recently conferred with Milford Wolpoff on this
> 'hominid biped requirement' and he concurs my viewpoint.
> So, now that I might retain a modicum of dignity, please let me continue
> to hope I'm not alone in this stubborn & tenacious stance.
> (:))
> best,
> ~jim
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In paleoanthropology@yahoogroups.com, Anne Gilbert <avgilbert@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Jim:
>>
>> Yes, the opposable feet are kind of apish-looking, to me, at least.
>> OTOH, all I can say is, that according to White et al, Ar. ramidus
>> walked, after a fashion, upright, on two feet, and they claim the pelvis
>> is more like that of australopithecines, who apparently always walked
>> upright.  I'm not making any claims myself, though.
>> Anne G
>>
>>
>>
>>     Anne,
>>   No problem. I had no idea that was a typo; thought it was, like,
>> initials of something or other.
>>   As for my questioning of hominid I.D. for Ardi, I don't mean to imply
>> that I regard this genus as quad. I'm simply wondering about status
>> because of vague dates(before or after Pan/Homo split?) and the foot
>> morphology which plainly calls for simian locomotion. My actual hope is
>> Ardi is BIPED(hence my questioning of the fully opposable big toe
>> reconstruction).
>>
>>   .
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.4/2417 - Release Date: 10/06/09
> 06:50:00
>