Re: An alternative to ST and AAT
Phillip Bigelow (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:58:28 +0800
Paul Crowley wrote:
> In article <3272E177.5E16@scn.org> email@example.com "Phillip Bigelow" writes:
> > How do you think chimpanzees and gorillas
> > came to be? At some point, one of their arboreal ancestor taxa
> > moved from a purely arboreal niche to one less so.
> This is probably true, but a lot depends on how far back it
It depends on no such thing. The issue is whether it happened at all.
>I take the view that it could have been 20mya to 40mya;
> that there have long been largely terrestrial niches for primates;
There is no fossil evidence for terrestrial primates at 20-40mya.
Therefore, until this evidence shows up, a scientist assumes the
> that it is the largely terrestrial species that are more widely
> dispersed and are the most successful and most adaptable;
> owning to taphonic bias, terrestrial species are the least well
> represented in the fossil record and this has inevitably
> distorted PA thinking.
At least in the non-anthropoid animals, I know that the taphonomic bias
is even worse for arboreal creatures!
So what is your point?
> The primate species that adapted to the ground probably did it
> in the absence of competition. It would not have happened often.
Maybe...maybe not. Just speculation.
> > If it happened
> > with their ancestors, why not in the hominid clade as well?
> The niche would almost certainly have been already filled.