[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
<<Yes, but remember that the ultimate primate bipedalism (represented by
ourselves) originated in trees, as suported by the latest research on
hominids and australopithecines in general. The afarensis had recurved
phalanx and oposable big toes and were facultative erect walkers. I
think all compulsory bipedal animals' evolution has passed through an
I was under the impression that this was a vestige. I'm not sure
whether I can support climbing as a something that caused bipedalism.
Macropodids certainly did not gain their bipedal tendencies through an
arboreal phase, neither did kangaroo rats (I forget the family/genus).
Anyway, even if hominids are a unique case (I still am skeptical about
the correlation) this really has little bearing on other bipeds. You
have to prove an arboreal descent in bipedal dinosaurs to show that they
did come from arboreal animals and that their bipedalism WAS caused by
Another question is: why would an arboreal animal that climbs with its
forelimbs become a bipedal animal? This is a valid question. I think
that the link between bipedalism and climbing is not really a valid one.
Most (non-avian) climbers (except _Opisthocomus_) climb using both their
forelimbs and hindlimbs. The forelimbs are an integral part of
climbing. (Again, I do not know how this would apply to hominid
primates). There is no reason for the animal to become bipedal.
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com