Re: why apes but no apemen?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Paul J. Gans: "Re: milk and human sociobiology"
• Previous message: Ed Conrad: "How to tarnish Andrew's HALO"
• Maybe in reply to: daniel hwang: "why apes but no apemen?"

daniel hwang (dhwang@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: why did the aust. and para. produce no surviving decedendents but the
: ancestors of pan trogolodytes continue to survive to this day?

It's called survival of the fittest. Robust australopithecines became
extinct because they seemingly overspecialized and when the environment
changed, they were not able to adapt. Therefore, extinction.

I think you meant Pan troglodytes, the descendants.

: wouldn't you expect aust. or para. to move into the chimp habit in the
: tanzania forest and drive them out, as they themselves were being driven
: out by the more advance homos

One big difference between australopithecines and chimps. The former, as
hominids, adapted to upright locomotion, therefore their likely
survivability in the forrests, when compared to the apes which hadn't
left their ancestral niche, is low. Kind of like that phrase,... "you
can't go home anymore.." because someone new has moved in.

Susan

-- 

                                             susansf@netcom.com

• Next message: Paul J. Gans: "Re: milk and human sociobiology"
• Previous message: Ed Conrad: "How to tarnish Andrew's HALO"
• Maybe in reply to: daniel hwang: "why apes but no apemen?"