Re: Why Large Gap Between Species...?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Ed Conrad: "Re: Yumpin' Yiminy! Conrad and Holden are taking over!"
• Previous message: Gerrit Hanenburg: "Re: Are we "special"?"
• Maybe in reply to: Nat Turner: "Why Large Gap Between Species...?"
• Next in thread: T&B Schmal: "Re: Why Large Gap Between Species...?"

Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk (Paul Crowley) wrote:

>However, this cycle puts chimpanzees into an evolutionary rut.
>Success is penalised. The breaking of this cycle by hominids
>must have been *the* major step. Learning how to manage stable
>groups of more than 14 males must have been exceedingly difficult
>and required great ability in diplomacy and made language and
>other social skills a high priority. Monogamy would probably
>have replaced promiscuity at an early stage.

Body size dimorphism in A.afarensis expressed as the ratio male/female
bodyweight is estimated to be 1.52 (human formulae) or 1.78 (ape
formulae) (McHenry 1991). Both figures are well above that of Pan
troglodytes (1.37) and make a monogamous mating system unlikely.

Reference:
McHenry,H.M.(1991), Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus afarensis.
J.Hum.Evol.20:21-32.

Gerrit

• Next message: Ed Conrad: "Re: Yumpin' Yiminy! Conrad and Holden are taking over!"
• Previous message: Gerrit Hanenburg: "Re: Are we "special"?"
• Maybe in reply to: Nat Turner: "Why Large Gap Between Species...?"
• Next in thread: T&B Schmal: "Re: Why Large Gap Between Species...?"