[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Jurassic genitals and early humans



All:

    Just another 2 cents from me (gee I've almost contributed a whole dime
to this!):

    Tom, thanks for your correction to my spelling - of course it should be
'ensis' instead of 'us' (meaning 'from' or 'located at', right?).  That's
what I get for not learning Latin and Greek, and trying to write early in
the morning.

    As to _Cro Magnon_ as a species versus a racial/cultural component of
_Homo sapiens_ - I will check one of my sources  - and if there is a valid
ref., I will post it to you (and others as desired).

    (I believe that the average _Cro Magnon_ braincase was about 1% larger
than modern humans - probably statistically worthless.  My recollection is
that the shape of their skulls implied a slightly larger frontal lobe than
most modern humans.  I wouldn' t be surprised if the classical view of _Cro
Magnon_ inspired so-called  'racial purists' to try to return to this "great
ideal" ).

    As to Neanderthal burials:  There is at least one instance of a juvenile
burial, and evidence of flowers placed deliberately around the corpse.  (I'm
not sure, but I think the corpse was lying on its right side, in a modified
fetal position).

DINOSAUR INFO:

    As to dinosaur cloaca, is there any evidence of their existance in the
"dinosaur mummies" - such as the ones at AMNH (in NYC)?


    Allan Edels


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael E Teuton <tons@ccs.logicsouth.com>
To: th81@umail.umd.edu <th81@umail.umd.edu>
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: Jurassic genitals and early humans


>I have learned not to disagree with you often, but I do think there is
>dissension in the ranks of paleoanthropologists about Cro Magnon being
>essentially us or ancestor.  Some new human and/or culture came out of
Africa
>and displaced Cro Magnon and Neanderthal according to some.  So the answers
not
>definitely in, but you may well be holding the right hand.  Maybe there
will be
>more pieces of the puzzles in before we die.
>
>Do we know that dinosaurs had cloaca?
>
>Best,
>
>Michael Teuton
>
>Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Now THAT'S an interesting subject heading...
>> On a totally unrelated subject, Allan Edels wrote:
>> >    Cro Magnon, at one point in the past 15 years was thought to be a
>> >dead-end line of _Homo sapiens_, just like Neanderthals.  They had
larger
>> >braincase sizes than most of the _Homo sapiens sapiens_ do today, and
they
>> >were taller than most humans until this past century.  This theory is
not
>> >currently supported.
>>
>> I cannot think of a reference in the last 100 years, much less the last
15,
>> which implied that Cro Magnon was other than a good old fashioned _Homo
>> sapiens sapiens_.  Yes, they were taller on average than most Europeans
>> (Masai-sized), and consequently had bigger brains than average Europeans
>> (but only the expected brain size for a modern human of that same size).
>> Nevertheless, as far as I have read, they have universally been regarded
as
>> simply a culture of people, just as the Ainu or Inuit or the Tasmanians
or
>> the Caribs or the Hittites are or were a culture of people.  Like some
>> cultures, they had some distinctive physical characteristics.  Like some
>> cultures, they do not seem to have been with us, and may have in fact
been
>> wiped out or assimilated.  However, they have not been regarded as a
>> different species or subspecies of humans.
>>
>> >    Neanderthals (remember NOT to pronounce the 'h') are by most current
>> >standards _Homo sapiens neanderthalus_.
>>
>> Minor correction, it is "_neanderthalensis_".
>>
>> Major correction, most paleoanthropologists working today consider
>> Neanderthalers a distinct species (_H. neanderthalensis_).  There are
some
>> profound morphological differences between Neanderthalers and all living
>> human populations.  And, before someone writes in, this is NOT due to the
>> fact that some of the first material found was arthritic: the differences
in
>> these cases have to do with features found throught Neanderthaler
>> populations.  The genetic study Allan mentioned, if substantiated, helps
to
>> confirm this difference, but it has been well established on
morphological
>> grounds.
>>
>
>
>
>