Re: Morgan Tears 3.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: Morgan; various"
• Previous message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo....."

Alex Duncan <aduncan@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
As far as later proboscideans go, we have about as much
>evidence for their being aquatic as we do for hominids, i.e., none at all.
>

Well, we do have evidence, but the point iis that it's anatomical and ambiguous.It's the usual
hairlessness, subcutaneous fat etc.. But the tusks are very interesting to me because walruses
have them too. I do object a bit to you claiming that there's no evidence. It would be more
reasonable to say that there is ambiguous inconclusive evidence, which is a different kettle of
aquatic vertebrates.

James Borrett.

• Next message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: Morgan; various"
• Previous message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo....."