Gerrell Drawhorn (
6 Nov 1995 09:23:27 GMT

Angelique Skiman ( wrote:
: In article <47bm4d$>,
: Ludvig Mortberg <> wrote:
: B>
: >Forget Gigantopithecus. It was a dead end. Even though it's teeth show
: >similarity to hominid teeth, it cannot be closely related to us. It
: >has been well established, by molecular systematics that our
: >affinities lie with the chimpanzee. Did I say that molecular

: Ouch. I think it would be intersting to study Gigantopithecus for
: it' benefit. Why is somehting considrerd not valueable or a "dead end" if
: it does not relate to HUMAN evolution? I think ti would be fascinating to
: study Gigantopithecus to see why it got to be so large, it's ecological
: niche, etc.

Of course, do we know if Giganto was all that Giganto? Perhaps it was just Paranthropus...after all, giant Pandas have really,
really big heads (Grizzley size, actually), but teeny little bodies
(except for their tummies). There's a great exhibit of Ling-Ling in the
Natural History Museum foyer...with her skeleton as petite as can be
and this massive skull. Of course Pandas eat bamboo. And Giganto was
presumably eating...bamboo. Hmm!Too bad we only have mandibles.

By the clear is the evidence that H.erectus and Giganto
interacted? Aren't the sites where they "coexist" faunal mixtures from
different time periods, including more recent ones. The "H.erectus" teeth
may not be H. erectus, at all, but H.sapiens...from later deposits than
have become intermingled with Giganto faunas.

Jerry Drawhorn
UC Davis Anthropology