Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2/22/12 6:08 PM
Query:
Search MadSci
2/22/12 6:08 PM
(designated STW 573, or "Little Foot"). This specimen is usually reconstructed in a way that shows a slightly abducted hallux (more than we would see in modern humans, but less than we would see in modern apes). This reconstruction causes the discoverers to argue that this creature still spent part of its time climbing in trees, and that it was not yet a fully human-like biped. I have had a brief glimpse of this fossil, and I have doubts that its hallux was really as abducted as the discoverers claim. But, until I get to examine the fossil more closely I can only have doubts and cannot make firm conclusions. In any case, I disagree with the conclusion that a partially abducted hallux is a sign of arboreal activity. I would argue just the opposite. There is no benefit to losing the grasping ability of the hallux unless the tree climbing lifestyle had been abandoned. So even a partially abducted hallux is not a fully abducted hallux, which argues for a ground dwelling lifestyle. But, again, I have to say that I have not been able to examine the fossils myself. When I have a chance to do so, I may form a different opinion. There is a fossil foot from Olduvai Gorge (OH8) that has a fully adducted hallux in line with the other toes. Although there are still some minor differences from the modern foot, this foot is essentially the same as ours. So, the human foot, in form and function, is at least 2 million years old. Depending upon your interest in this subject, the most valuable answer I can give you is probably the following list of references. References: Tuttle, RH (1987): Kinesiological inferences and evolutionary implications from Laetoli bipedal trails G-1, G-2/3, and A. In: Laetoli, a Pliocene site in Northern Tanzania. (Eds: Leakey, MD; Harris, JM) Clarendon Press, Oxford, 503-523. Day, MH; Wickens, EH (1980): Laetoli Pliocene Hominid footprints and bipedalism. Nature 286, 385-387. Lewis, OJ (1980): The Joints of the Evolving Foot. Part III. The Fossil Evidence. Journal of Anatomy 131, 275-298. Conroy, Glenn C; Rose, MD (1983): The evolution of the primate foot from the earliest primates to the Miocene hominoids. Foot & Ankle 3, 342-364. Charteris, J; Wall, JC; Nottrodt, JW (1982): Pliocene hominid gait: new interpretations based on available footprint data from Laetoli. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 58, 133-144. Lamy, Paul (1986): The settlement of the longitudinal plantar arch of some African Plio-Pleistocene hominids: a morphological study. J. Hum. Evo. 15, 31-46. Clarke, Ronald J; Tobias, Phillip V (1995): Sterkfontein Member 2 foot bones of the oldest South African hominid. Science 269, 521-524. Szalay, Frederick S; Langdon, John H (1986): The foot of Oreopithecus: an evolutionary assessment. J. Hum. Evo. 15, 585-621.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-04/956600859.Ev.r.html Page 2 of 3
2/22/12 6:08 PM
Szalay, Frederick S; Dagosto, Marian (1988): Evolution of hallucial grasping in the primates. J. Hum. Evo. 17, 1-33.
Current Queue | Current Queue for Evolution | Evolution archives Try the links in the MadSci Library for more information on Evolution.
Search MadSci
MadSci Home | Information | Search | Random Knowledge Generator | MadSci Archives | Mad Library | MAD Labs | MAD FAQs | Ask a ? | Join Us! | Help Support MadSci MadSci Network, webadmin@www.madsci.org 1995-2000. All rights reserved.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-04/956600859.Ev.r.html
Page 3 of 3