Re: Bipedalism and other factors
Nicholas Rosen (ndr102@psuvm.psu.edu)
Tue, 27 Jun 1995 13:01:20 EDT
In article <3snvuk$i6d@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Alex Duncan
<aduncan@mail.utexas.edu> says:
>
>In article <3snsv4$cvv@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Pat Dooley,
>patdooley@aol.com writes:
>
>>Display? No sign of sexual dimorphism.
>
>Are you nuts? Most body weight reconstructions indicate male A.
>afarensis were about twice as large as females. The same was probably
>true of all other australopithecine species as well, and possibly even
>earliest Homo (depending on how we slice up the habiline group).
What I think Pat meant is that there is no sign of sexual dimorphism
in bipedalism. Males were neither more nor less bipedal than females
of the same species.
>>> And finally, a comment on leopards -- yes, they climb trees, but
>>>they don't hunt in trees (their prey are almost exclusively terrestrial
>>>animals).
>>
>>But they often hunt from trees. The Tatung boy was, apparently, an early
>>victim.
>
>I assume you mean Taung? The fact that leopards hunt from trees would
>certainly encourage a pre-hominid to stay IN a tree.
I'm not so certain. Leopards may normally hunt FROM trees, but if a
creature on the leopard diet climbs a tree, will the leopard decline
the opportunity to eat it because that isn't the way a leopard
usually hunts?
Nicholas Rosen
Standard disclaimers apply.
|