Re: Hominid Family Tree

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Alex Duncan: "Re: Guide for anti-AATers"
• Previous message: David L Burkhead : "Re: Aquatic ape theory"
• Maybe in reply to: William Baird: "Hominid Family Tree"
• Next in thread: Alex Duncan: "Re: Hominid Family Tree"

In article <DGE640.IC7@utcc.utoronto.ca> Debra Mckay,
debra.mckay@utoronto.ca writes:

> H. rudolfensis seems to give a bit of breathing room,
>if postcranially it is more derived, and yet older. I'm not saying that
>this justifies attributing anything to anything; it's just a matter of
>interest.

Individual habiline specimens such as H. rudolfensis (er 1470) and H.
habilis (er 1813) are separated by ~20,000 yrs in some sediments.
Arguing that one is "older" than the other is not really supportable at
this point, unless you want to assume that the Omo teeth or the Chemeron
(?) fragment belong to H. rudolfensis rather than H. habilis.

Alex Duncan
Dept. of Anthropology
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1086
512-471-4206
aduncan@mail.utexas.edu

• Next message: Alex Duncan: "Re: Guide for anti-AATers"
• Previous message: David L Burkhead : "Re: Aquatic ape theory"
• Maybe in reply to: William Baird: "Hominid Family Tree"
• Next in thread: Alex Duncan: "Re: Hominid Family Tree"