|
|
Re: Okay seriously now (AAT again)
Pat Dooley (patdooley@aol.com)
17 Dec 1994 01:00:03 -0500
In article <1994Dec14.200600.21584@henson.cc.wwu.edu>,
n8010095@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Phillip Bigelow) writes:
I wrote:
>>Lucy, the first nearly complete skeleton of an Australopithecus
>>afarensis, had feet that were broader and larger than ours,
>>(35% of leg length instead of 26%). Her gait was described by
>>Roger Lewin as "not quite as bad as trying to walk on dry land
>>wearing swimming flippers but in the same direction."
> you wrote
> Reseachers who specialize in the study of A. afarensis (Lovejoy,
>Johanson, Mary Leaky, among others) have consistently stated that Lucy's
>gait was nearly humanlike. It has never been characterized by any
serious
>researcher as an awkward gait on land. The most convincing argument for
a
>smooth human-like gait on Lucy are the footprints that Mary Leakey found.
>The prints show the foot was directly aligned with the direction of
travel,
>and were surprisingly large in stride. There is clear evidence in the
>prints of a strong, well-developed arch. All other apes lack a arch in
the
>foot.
Roger Lewin is a name to be listed with Johanson, Leakey et al.
I have no problem with Lucy being able to walk like a human. She was
fully bipedal, after all, except for a slight problem with locking
her knees when upright.
> Johanson, Lovejoy and Leakey, all have noted that a strong arch is an
>absolute necessity for long-distance travel on land. Arch support is a
>"spring" to relieve the shock of locomotion on land. There is no reason
for
>a strong arch on an aquatic mammal, because an animal weighs less in the
>water.
If her ancestors were semi-aquatic
and she had to walk bipedally when she came ashore to sleep, forage,
warm-up, or whatever, a well-developed arch would be a great help.
Pat Dooley
----------------------- Headers -----------------------
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
|