Re: Gliders to Fliers? (Was Re: Ruben Strikes Back)

[Richard W Travsky <rtravsky@uwyo.edu>]

On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, dbensen wrote:
> [...]
> You say that the protohumans were bipedal at their earliest stages?  I thought
> that they hadn't really become good at walking on their hind legs until fairly
> late in their development (?)

Depends on what you mean by "early".

Australopithecus anamensis, with dates of 3.9 - 4.2 mya, is considered a
strong candiate for being the earliest bipedal hominid (based on a partial
tibia). A. afarensis, slightly younger, is firmly believed to be bipedal.

And then there's morotopithecus (20mya) and oreopithecus (10mya).

The "bipedalism began in trees" notion seems to get around, be it
primates or dinosaurs. It appears a certainty in the hominid case.

Some of the "advantages" of bipedalism, in the hominid case, were freeing
of hands for carrying things, tool manipulation, etc. It's interesting to
think of this applied to bipedal dinosaurs. 

> [...]