Re: Bipedalism

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Richard Price: "Re: zoosexual cave art?"
• Previous message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: Is this all there is?"
• Maybe in reply to: Iboothby: "Bipedalism"
• Next in thread: J. Moore: "Re: Bipedalism"

In article <3pd85q$6fn@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Clara N. Fitzgerald <cfitzger@s.psych.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>iboothby@Direct.CA (Iboothby) writes:
>
>> I was always under the assumption that bipedalism was convienient not
>>for helping early australios to see further but provided a way to cover
>>ground at a farily leasury pase. Humans seen ideally adapted for covering
>>a lot of distance in their feet. Our ansestors seemed to migrate a lot,
>>they travelled and explored places. I couldn't imagine a chimp walking
>>across a savanna, covering a lot of distance the way a human would.
>
>How about a baboon troop?
>
>[Sorry, but argument from incredulity is hard to resist]

Baboons are very specialized terrestrial primates. Chimpanzees are
still primarily arboreal.

-- 

Phil Nicholls                     "To ask a question you must first

Department of Anthropology           know most of the answer." 

SUNY Albany                                      -Robert Sheckley

pn8886@cnsunix.albany.edu            SEMPER ALLOUATTA

• Next message: Richard Price: "Re: zoosexual cave art?"
• Previous message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: Is this all there is?"
• Maybe in reply to: Iboothby: "Bipedalism"
• Next in thread: J. Moore: "Re: Bipedalism"