Re: Chad Site for pith finds?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: cameron manning: "Re: Beyond hairlessness"
• Previous message: Bill Burnett: "Re: Neoteny was Re: god makes hubey"
• Maybe in reply to: Gerrell Drawhorn: "Chad Site for pith finds?"

wbaird@nmsu.edu (William Baird) wrote:
>
>I'm surprised there's nothing about the Chad finds of the
>Australopithicine jaw fragment. I was back reading the paper at the
>library and found the article. Summarization is that they found an
>afarensis jaw (or like jaw) in Chad...which extends the
australopithicine
>range rather considerably. Could it be that the pith's were more common

>than originally thought? I mean with the find in Asia and the Chad
>one... admittedly, the Chad find extends the range, but the China (?)
>extends it much, much more...to extend comments, is the ASian fossil a
>member of homo or australopithecus?
>
>Thanx.
>wbaird@nmsu.edu (William Baird) wrote:

The Chad finds are assigned to Australopithcus while the asian fossils
are homo. The interesting thing about the China fossils is that the
authors of the Nature paper believe it to be ergaster or habilis as
opposed to erectus.

Neil

• Next message: cameron manning: "Re: Beyond hairlessness"
• Previous message: Bill Burnett: "Re: Neoteny was Re: god makes hubey"
• Maybe in reply to: Gerrell Drawhorn: "Chad Site for pith finds?"