Re: Bipedalism and other factors

Nicholas Rosen (
Tue, 27 Jun 1995 13:01:20 EDT

In article <3snvuk$>, Alex Duncan
<> says:
>In article <3snsv4$> Pat Dooley,
> writes:
>>Display? No sign of sexual dimorphism.
>Are you nuts? Most body weight reconstructions indicate male A.
>afarensis were about twice as large as females. The same was probably
>true of all other australopithecine species as well, and possibly even
>earliest Homo (depending on how we slice up the habiline group).

What I think Pat meant is that there is no sign of sexual dimorphism
in bipedalism. Males were neither more nor less bipedal than females
of the same species.

>>> And finally, a comment on leopards -- yes, they climb trees, but
>>>they don't hunt in trees (their prey are almost exclusively terrestrial
>>But they often hunt from trees. The Tatung boy was, apparently, an early
>I assume you mean Taung? The fact that leopards hunt from trees would
>certainly encourage a pre-hominid to stay IN a tree.

I'm not so certain. Leopards may normally hunt FROM trees, but if a
creature on the leopard diet climbs a tree, will the leopard decline
the opportunity to eat it because that isn't the way a leopard
usually hunts?

Nicholas Rosen
Standard disclaimers apply.