|
|
Re: Niche, not "bipedal niche"
Muttiah ((no email))
3 Oct 1995 14:28:51 GMT
j#d#.moore@canrem.com (J. Moore) wrote:
> It just happens that
>a predominately bipedal primate would do well in such an available
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ &&&&&&
>niche, for a number of reasons, such as a primate's (and especially
>an ape's) relatively high intelligence, their heavy reliance on
>eyesight, and their carrying abilities.
Did bipedalism develop before hominids were in the "mosaic savanna ?"
>These last two are also
>enhanced, in open country, by bipedalism. Bipedalism allows one
>to see over more grass and brush even while moving, and allows
>carrying objects, such as food or tools, further with greater ease
>(i.e., while remaining in a naturally comfortable position).
So the early signs of bipedalism were enhanced in the savanna ?
Could someone explain how the "mosaic" in the "mosaic savanna" explains
in bipedalism that simple savanna doesn't. Perhaps grassland instead
of savanna might be more appropriate. In trying to visualize this,
did the hominids already live in the dense forest (with early signs
of bipedalism) and then as the dense forest changed into savanna, early
bipedalism helped in predation/escape and ultimately evolved to its
present stage (?). Hmm, perhaps when looked at the evolving system
as a whole, less energy went into the system (at least all man
had to do was simply stay where he was :) to create bipedalism than
migrating to the sea/coast. Thermodynamist, does that make sense ? :-).
|