Re: chimp bipeds

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk: "Re: Plea for restraint... was re:AAT etc."
• Previous message: jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk: "Crocodile Rock"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "chimp bipeds"
• Next in thread: J. Moore: "Re: chimp bipeds"

In article <45lnlv$iuv@news.cc.ucf.edu>, clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) says:
>
>In article <45clde$hv5@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> Alex Duncan
><aduncan@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>
>> It has been demonstrated (w/ those omnipotent numbers) that chimps are no
>> less effecient (use no more energy) moving bipedally than quadrupedally.
>> I'd give you references, but we all know that would be pointless.
>
>Not at all pointless. Some of us are curious to see the original
>source, the assumptions and methodology used etc.
>
I'm sorry -- I meant it would be pointless to cite references for Mr. Hubey's benefit, as he apparently was born with all the knowledge he'll ever need. Check Rodman & McHenry in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology for year 1981. I don't have the exact reference with me, but will provide it shortly. Rodman & McHenry didn't do the original research, but provide references for the original research.

• Next message: jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk: "Re: Plea for restraint... was re:AAT etc."
• Previous message: jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk: "Crocodile Rock"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "chimp bipeds"
• Next in thread: J. Moore: "Re: chimp bipeds"