http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2012/10/fossilized-shoulder-reveals-early-hominids-climbed-trees/ Meet the members of the tangled human family tree Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:56:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2012/10/fossilized-shoulder-reveals-early-hominids-climbed-trees/#comment-932 EMFinney Mon, 05 Nov 2012 05:35:23 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/?p=2195#comment-932 First off, it wasn't a discovery. It was a description of a recently prepared fossil. The stuff is fragile and takes time to remove from it's matrix without being destroyed. Just ask Morwood. Or White who took seventeen years to describe Ardi. Don't minimize other's work just because you can't get a real job. Peace. First off, it wasn’t a discovery. It was a description of a recently prepared fossil. The stuff is fragile and takes time to remove from it’s matrix without being destroyed. Just ask Morwood. Or White who took seventeen years to describe Ardi. Don’t minimize other’s work just because you can’t get a real job. Peace.

]]> http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2012/10/fossilized-shoulder-reveals-early-hominids-climbed-trees/#comment-906 Rob Gargett Sun, 28 Oct 2012 15:29:19 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/?p=2195#comment-906 Hi, Erin. When Johanson and White discovered OH 62 (<i>Homo habilis</i>) in 1986 I remember their claim that the curved phalanges and upper limb length demonstrated the retention of arboreal habits even though the creature was an obligate biped. There was much to-do at the time, with the detractors for some reason cleaving to the notion that by the time our ape lineage had evolved to be bipeds it was highly unlikely that they'd still retain arboreal behaviors. I suppose it's still possible to argue that line, even given the evidence of the Dikka child. Nonetheless, it's marvellous to see that the picture is now complete. Still, I would have thought the whole question had become moot with the discovery, several years back, of the arboreal biped, <i>Ardipithecus ramidus</i>. I guess that, if nothing else, it illustrates the old adage: Those who discover so much as a fragment of a fossil hominid needn't worry about job security. Hi, Erin.
When Johanson and White discovered OH 62 (Homo habilis) in 1986 I remember their claim that the curved phalanges and upper limb length demonstrated the retention of arboreal habits even though the creature was an obligate biped. There was much to-do at the time, with the detractors for some reason cleaving to the notion that by the time our ape lineage had evolved to be bipeds it was highly unlikely that they’d still retain arboreal behaviors. I suppose it’s still possible to argue that line, even given the evidence of the Dikka child. Nonetheless, it’s marvellous to see that the picture is now complete. Still, I would have thought the whole question had become moot with the discovery, several years back, of the arboreal biped, Ardipithecus ramidus. I guess that, if nothing else, it illustrates the old adage: Those who discover so much as a fragment of a fossil hominid needn’t worry about job security.

]]>