Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo.....

H. M. Hubey (
27 Oct 1995 00:02:27 -0400

Alex Duncan <> writes:

>other parts of the body. Since these hypothetical animals are spending a
>lot of time in the water, they won't be supporting much weight over their
>hind limbs.

OK. YOu got a good point there. Would you also expect some real
reason for why the Neandertal bones are so massive? Yes, we
are told that they were all like olympic athletes.

>Therefore, weight estimates derived from hind limb
>parameters such as femoral midshaft diameter or femoral head articular
>surface area should be too small when compared to estimates from other

So you are looking for some hominid bones (or proto-hominid
i..e from the aquatic stage) in which you'd expect to see
lighter bones. It seems reasonable superficially, but why?

Their ancestors were quadpeds. They had four appendages to support
their bodies. Now they have two. Besides, the grasping foot didn't
go away overnight even when they were bipedal, so why should then
their bones (femurs) get lighter for the same duration?

The rest of them seem even more stringent and even less


Regards, Mark