Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo.....
Alex Duncan (aduncan@mail.utexas.edu)
19 Oct 1995 22:52:21 GMT
In article <814100543snz@crowleyp.demon.co.uk> Paul Crowley,
Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk writes:
>This is yet another nail in the coffin of the savanna/mosaic hypothesis.
>Such an environment was supposed to be the one where a bipedal hominid
>could carve out its own ecological niche.
>
>But if chimps were there first . . . . . . .
Gosh, there's just NO WAY two closely related taxa could share a portion
of the ecosystem with as many subhabitats as the "savanna." I mean, it's
absolutely impossible. After all, just look at bovids... oops, bad
example. I mean, what about rodents... oops, another bad example. Well,
I mean equids... darn, not them. OK, I meant felids... wait, that
doesn't work. Well, what I mean to say is that we have special rules
about this kind of thing that apply to primates and not other animals.
(Message for the perceptually impaired: the above post is SARCASM.)
BTW... there are no chimp fossils found in any of the deposits where
hominids are found, so they clearly aren't a competitive factor, even if
you believe in that kind of thing.
and BTW ... the post about chimps on the savanna was not intended as a
suggestion that this was how hominids got their start. It was merely a
counter to the authoritative statement from "he who thinks horse's knees
point backwards" that chimps don't venture into open country.
Alex Duncan
Dept. of Anthropology
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1086
512-471-4206
aduncan@mail.utexas.edu
|