Re: An alternative to ST and AAT
John Waters (jdwaters@dircon.co.uk)
16 Nov 1996 02:35:00 GMT
Susan S. Chin <susansf@netcom.com> wrote in article
<susansfE0nzAv.7rp@netcom.com>...
> John Waters (jdwaters@dircon.co.uk) wrote:
> : Rohinton Collins <rohinton@collins.prestel.co.uk> wrote
in
> : article <01bbcdb9$208a50c0$424698c2@dan-pc>...
>
> : JW: This morphology enables bipedalism, but is not as
efficient
> : for long distance walking. In this sense, the
australopithicene
> : bipedalism was less efficient than modern Hss.
>
> I haven't read any of the later research on
Australopithecine locomotion,
> can you cite a source and some specifics for the less
efficient biped claim?
> What part of the Australopithecine anatomy make them less
efficient? Thanks.
JW: I cannot site any source or references in respect of
early Australopithicenes, and I doubt if anyone else can
either. I say this because the really early
Australopithicene fossils only comprise teeth and jawbones.
As far as middle Australopithicenes are concerned (e.g.
Lucy), my references are pretty ancient, but as far as I am
aware they have not yet been seriously contradicted.
Jolly and Plog determined that Lucy's walking resembled
more of _a pigeon toed and lurching gait_. Perhaps this is
where Paul got his idea of a waddling Lucy.
Ref: Jolly, Clifford J and Fred Plog. (1987) Physical
Anthropology and Archaeology. New York. Alfred A. Knopf.
The part of the Australopithicene anatomy which is most
likely to make them less efficient is the heel. Modern
humans gain their bipedal efficiency from the ligaments of
the lower leg which attach to the ankle via the achilles
tendon.
John.
|