Little Foot and Litoli

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Elaine Morgan: "Re: AAT is dogma"
• Previous message: ann.nunn@sstar.com: "AAT IS DOGMA"
• Next in thread: cc3265@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU: "Re: Little Foot and Litoli"

I have looked at the Tobias and Clark reconstruction in Science and
recently saw a picture of the Litoli footprints and to my eye they do
not look compatible. So what do people think? Over ambitious
reconstruction by the guys at Witwaterstrand (sp? or is it -stand), or
maybe the Leakeys were right after all with an old Homo lineage. Or
could it just be regional differences between East and South African
Australopithicenes. It looks like more and more people agree that the
homonid tree was a lot bushier than previously thought, could this lead
to the need for another branch?

Phil

• Next message: Elaine Morgan: "Re: AAT is dogma"
• Previous message: ann.nunn@sstar.com: "AAT IS DOGMA"
• Next in thread: cc3265@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU: "Re: Little Foot and Litoli"