[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: To climb or not to climb
At 08:45 AM 12/16/98 -0500, Norton, Patrick wrote:
>are both viable locomotive options for cursors. My basic point is that I
>can't think of one example of an animal that has evolved an obligatory
>bipedal stance while occupying an arboreal niche (hominids came down from
>the trees before they walked fully upright.)
I think this is, at best, missing the point. I would say that hominids
became bipedal the *moment* they left the trees, not after. Indeed the
smaller living apes (gibbons, young/female chimpanzees, female orangutans)
are *all* normally bipedal when moving on the ground, one might even say
that gibbons are *obligatory* bipeds on the ground. It is really a small
step from this to the human condition - mostly what is required is *loss*
of climbing adaptations, and a subtle modification of the hip joint to make
walking more efficient (which can come much later anyhow).
> There are no obligatory
>bipeds in the trees, except birds.
No, but several arboreal quadrupeds are bipeds when *out* of the trees. (I
suspect that spider monkeys may also fit this description, and I wonder
about the origin of bipedality in kangaroos, given the frequency of
arboreal forms in the larger group of which they are a member).
> And if birds evolved obligatory bipedalism in an arboreal niche, they
> appear to be unique example.
The *arboreal* bipedality probably derives from flight modifications.
But an arboreal quadruped that is a ground biped is not unknown, or even
May the peace of God be with you. firstname.lastname@example.org