|
|
Re: Who Killed the Australopithecines?
BARD (bard@netcom.com)
Sun, 2 Apr 1995 16:58:01 GMT
In article <3lm7a6$7jc_002@slip36-79.xs4all.nl>,
Paul Vinkenoog <dawn@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>BARD wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>
>An educated guess: because, in the ecological niche they occupied,
>they were outcompeted by Homo Habilis. Chimps occupy a niche that is
>different from that of both Homo and Australopithecus. If chimps would
>have had to compete with either A. or H. in the habitat of the latter,
>they wouldn't have stood a chance (chimps, that is).
>
>
Your theory suggests a scenerio where A.species and
H. Habilis compete over limited resources. This was not the case.
Although both were omnivores, fauna and flora were abundant.
-- BARD
>
>...I don't think it's likely that a large terrestrial
>animal like Australopithecus could survive up to this day, yet be
>completely absent in the fossil record since 1.5 million years, and
>not only never be seen by humans, but also leave no detectable traces
>of their food-gathering activities.
>
Recently, a mountain lion attacked and killed a female jogger
in California. A decade or so ago a WWII Japanese soldier was found
living deep in the Filipino jungles, a tiny area compared
to the vast African jungles. And keep in mind when
we talk about A. species we're talking about a creature
significantly more intelligent than any animal we know.
In addition, there are recent finds in Rwandan even Richard Leakey
can't explain (or get to, due to the war).
-- Bard
-- snipped --
|