|
|
Re: Earliest Hominids
Harry Erwin (herwin@gmu.edu)
Thu, 29 Jun 1995 22:09:31 -0400
In article <3su7qh$bq2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Alex Duncan
<aduncan@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> In article <3sp58o$gib@portal.gmu.edu> HARRY R. ERWIN,
> herwin@osf1.gmu.edu writes:
> >I thought this, too, until I saw Holloway, Early Hominid Endocasts, in
> >Tuttle, where he used a figure of 20 kg for A. africanus. His arguments
> >make sense, too. It's a question of how much flesh you put on those bones,
> >and 28-30 kg corresponds to a moderate degree of robustness, while 20 kg
>
>
> I'm unfamiliar w/ this particular Holloway reference. More details?
>
in Tuttle, Primate Functional Morphology and Evolution, Mouton & Co, 1973.
>
> Estimating body weight is problematic. I find it encouraging, however,
> that regression equations using EITHER human or ape (or combination)
> derivations for either articular surface dimensions or diaphyseal
> dimensions seem to agree on around 28 - 30 kg for AL 288, and for Sts 14.
>
> I agree that as we go back further, we might expect to see hominids
> getting smaller and smaller. I suspect A. ramidus will turn out to be
> smaller than the other Australopithecines, and that our common ancestor
> w/ chimps may have weighed 10 - 15 kg.
>
BTW, I understand the post-cranial skeleton of A. ramidus is
indistinguishable from A. afarensis...
I think, though, you've got my gist. You're the expert; I'm just the modeler.
--
Harry Erwin
Internet: herwin@gmu.edu
Home Page: http://osf1.gmu.edu/~herwin (try again if necessary)
PhD student in comp neurosci: "Glitches happen" & "Meaning is emotional"
|