Re: Lucy's current status -- in the fossil record or out?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: William Belcher: "Re: Racism and ancient history"
• Previous message: Paul V. Heinrich: "Re: Q: Did the lost continent of Mu really exist?"

In article <32C2FB40.3285@Prodigy.Net>, "Michael J. Gallagher"
<MIKEJOE@Prodigy.Net> says:
>
>Is the hominid fossil known as "Lucy" still considered a part of the
>fossil record of human evolution? If not, when did this change and why?
>
>
>--
>"Everything is under control" -- Wallace
>
>Michael J. Gallagher
>mikejoe@prodigy.net

Lucy was Australopithecus afarensis. Ramidus is the most probable the
previous link but there has been much debate about the next step forward:
did afarensis give rise to Homo via africanus or did Homo directly evolve
from afarensis. The bipedalism of afarensis makes the latter very
possible.

Afarensis seems to be long-aged, wide-spread and variable, so one
possibility still is that afarensis gave rise to both africanus and Homo.

• Next message: William Belcher: "Re: Racism and ancient history"
• Previous message: Paul V. Heinrich: "Re: Q: Did the lost continent of Mu really exist?"