Re: Lucy's weight

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: EVELYNE STALZER: "Re: need up-to-date book€€€€€"
• Previous message: Justin R. Smith: "Boskop man"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "Lucy's weight"
• Next in thread: Thomas Clarke: "Re: Lucy's weight"

In article <460e03$2d8@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
Thomas Clarke <clarke@acme.ucf.edu> wrote:

>Then since Lucy was half my height, if she were in linear^3 proportion
>to me, she should have weighed 1/8 as much, or perhaps 25-30 pounds.
>Since my wife tells me that I am getting too plump, I guess that
>means that Lucy was even plumper?
>
>(None of the standard weight tables go down to 3 foot height :-)

Lucy's height is usually given at 3'6". Also she was probably more
robust than modern humans with more bone and muscle mass, and (I think)
short legs and hence a longer torso. I have no problem thinking that
she may have been 60 lbs or more.

--


Jim (Chris) Foley,                 jim.foley@symbios.com

Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy      Research interest:

Department of Anthropology         Primitive hominids

University of Ediacara             (Australopithecus creationistii)

• Next message: EVELYNE STALZER: "Re: need up-to-date book€€€€€"
• Previous message: Justin R. Smith: "Boskop man"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "Lucy's weight"
• Next in thread: Thomas Clarke: "Re: Lucy's weight"