Re: GIGANTOPITHECUS
Angelique Skiman (ang42@apollo.sfsu.edu)
4 Nov 1995 03:37:54 GMT
In article <47bm4d$mgb@studium.student.umu.se>,
Ludvig Mortberg <Agneta.Guillemot@historia.umu.se> wrote:
B>
>Forget Gigantopithecus. It was a dead end. Even though it's teeth show
>similarity to hominid teeth, it cannot be closely related to us. It
>has been well established, by molecular systematics that our
>affinities lie with the chimpanzee. Did I say that molecular
Ouch. I think it would be intersting to study Gigantopithecus for
it' benefit. Why is somehting considrerd not valueable or a "dead end" if
it does not relate to HUMAN evolution? I think ti would be fascinating to
study Gigantopithecus to see why it got to be so large, it's ecological
niche, etc. Of course, I am also one who is interested in non-human
primates for reasons that have more to do with how closely related they
are to humans althought that is interesting, too). They are amazing
reatures!
-Angelique M. Skiman
ang42@sfsu.edu
P.S. I apologize in advance for any typos I might make. I aam working on
a very messed up keyboard!
(
|