Bone May Reveal a New Human Group
- Thread starter Flavius
- Start date
I'm wondering if this artifact may be evidence of the remains of a young Sasquatch or Yeti. They term this a "human" artifact" apparently based on the DNA. The remains of Gigantopithecus Blacki--a likely analogue in the fossil record for the modern reported but uncomfirmed "Bigfoot" (and various other names)--have been termed "hominid" but non-human based on it having strong "ape-like" characteristics but so far I as I know, DNA has never been sequenced from Gigantopithecus remains.
Of course, even if the DNA were to be sequenced from Gigantopithecus and proved a match for this finger bone, it still wouldn't demonstrate survival into modern times.
Of course, even if the DNA were to be sequenced from Gigantopithecus and proved a match for this finger bone, it still wouldn't demonstrate survival into modern times.
It's highly unlikely that this is a relative of Gigantopithecus or any other non-human hominid. If Gigantopithecus is indeed a relative of the orangutan it belongs in the Subfamily Ponginae (compared to gorillas, chimps, and us in the Subfamily Homininae). The lineage leading to the orangutan diverged from the lineage that eventually led to us around 14 million years ago, but this new specimen diverged from our lineage only 1 million years ago. Thus, it belongs to the genus Homo as it is bracketed by older divergences between Homo erectus and our lineage.
The nature of the discovery raises an interesting conundrum regarding classification, if they decide it actually represents a new species (alluded to in the article). As far as I know, no extinct species has been named based on genetic differences only and I don't think the code for zoological nomenclature (ICZN) even allows for such a thing. There needs to be a type specimen with a diagnosis, indicating the key characteristics that separate it from all other species. They have a type specimen (the finger bone) but I'm not sure whether they could use a DNA-based diagnosis or not. This is something that I doubt the ICZN has dealt with.
The nature of the discovery raises an interesting conundrum regarding classification, if they decide it actually represents a new species (alluded to in the article). As far as I know, no extinct species has been named based on genetic differences only and I don't think the code for zoological nomenclature (ICZN) even allows for such a thing. There needs to be a type specimen with a diagnosis, indicating the key characteristics that separate it from all other species. They have a type specimen (the finger bone) but I'm not sure whether they could use a DNA-based diagnosis or not. This is something that I doubt the ICZN has dealt with.
Gigantopithecus appears to be associated with the subfamily Ponginae and thought to be related to Orangs PURELY on the fact that the remains have been found in Asia and are more proximal to areas inhabitited by Orangs. Seems pretty spurious reasoning to me. After all, there are BILLIONS of human who migrated out of Africa and into Asia and NONE are related closely to Orangs, thus rendering "proximity" a weak argument in my opinion.
It has been reasonably argued that Gigantopithecus shared a trait with humans--bipedalism--which differs from EVERY other species of Great Ape and allies it potentially with humans. This is considered a possibility due to the shape of the fossil jaw-bones which have been recovered which are U-shaped like humans rather than V-shaped like apes and would have potentially permitted room for the trachea within the jaw rather than behind it, allowing the skull to sit on top of the spine like modern humans, suggesting the possibility (if not likely-hood) of bipedalism. Seems to me that an undeniable physical trait such as this, differing from ALL other apes and found otherwise only in humans (despite whether Giganto being bipedal is open to debate) should be AT LEAST as compelling for linking the primate with a human relationship as the argument that finding the remains in areas normally populated by Orangutans should associate Gignatopithecus as related to Ponginae. That's akin to making the argument of, "Yeah, it has these strongly human characteristics, certain aspects of the teeth and the U-shaped jaw-bone ONLY found otherwise in humans, but there's a lot of Orangutans around here so let's say it's related to THEM!"
If one accepts the plausibility that North America sightings of Bigfoot represent Gigantopithecus, then CLEARLY it is/was a wandering animal which, like humans, would have managed to cover a LOT of ground during the life-time of the species. If they made it across the Bearing land-bridge into North America, certainly Asia would have also been accessible to them. I wonder what science would say if an artifact containing the same DNA characteristics were to be found in the Canadian wilderness or the Pacific Northwest . . .
It has been reasonably argued that Gigantopithecus shared a trait with humans--bipedalism--which differs from EVERY other species of Great Ape and allies it potentially with humans. This is considered a possibility due to the shape of the fossil jaw-bones which have been recovered which are U-shaped like humans rather than V-shaped like apes and would have potentially permitted room for the trachea within the jaw rather than behind it, allowing the skull to sit on top of the spine like modern humans, suggesting the possibility (if not likely-hood) of bipedalism. Seems to me that an undeniable physical trait such as this, differing from ALL other apes and found otherwise only in humans (despite whether Giganto being bipedal is open to debate) should be AT LEAST as compelling for linking the primate with a human relationship as the argument that finding the remains in areas normally populated by Orangutans should associate Gignatopithecus as related to Ponginae. That's akin to making the argument of, "Yeah, it has these strongly human characteristics, certain aspects of the teeth and the U-shaped jaw-bone ONLY found otherwise in humans, but there's a lot of Orangutans around here so let's say it's related to THEM!"
If one accepts the plausibility that North America sightings of Bigfoot represent Gigantopithecus, then CLEARLY it is/was a wandering animal which, like humans, would have managed to cover a LOT of ground during the life-time of the species. If they made it across the Bearing land-bridge into North America, certainly Asia would have also been accessible to them. I wonder what science would say if an artifact containing the same DNA characteristics were to be found in the Canadian wilderness or the Pacific Northwest . . .
The arguments are based on dental and mandible characteristics more than geographic range, but it's a poorly known genus and dental characteristics change easily with diet so you could make the argument that it's in the Homininae, as a stem-group member predating the split between Gorillini and Hominini. Certainly the teeth and jaws of modern chimpanzees are not representative of our common ancestor, and the same is likely with modern orangutans (both became highly specialized as they evolved to become arboreal). Regardless, Gigantopithecus is part of the late Miocene radiation of apes in Eurasia (including other poorly known Sivapithecus and Ankarapithecus) so it this new finger specimen can't belong to the genus.
The bipedalism argument is interesting now, as we now know that our last common ancestor with the chimpanzee was actually fairly bipedal - certainly much closer to us in terms of locomotion than to the modern chimpanzee. I would say the same is highly likely for orangutans - they evolved their specialized arboreal lifestyle from a more generalized common ancestor just like the chimpanzee did. Some late Miocene hominins (such as Sahelanthropus and Orrorin), which may predate the human-chimpanzee split, have some characteristics suggesting some capability for upright walking so some bipedal capabilities seem to be more widespread throughout the stem group of Homininae (perhaps also Hominidae) with the modern apes (orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas at least) actually becoming worse at upright walking and more specialized for living in the trees.
The bipedalism argument is interesting now, as we now know that our last common ancestor with the chimpanzee was actually fairly bipedal - certainly much closer to us in terms of locomotion than to the modern chimpanzee. I would say the same is highly likely for orangutans - they evolved their specialized arboreal lifestyle from a more generalized common ancestor just like the chimpanzee did. Some late Miocene hominins (such as Sahelanthropus and Orrorin), which may predate the human-chimpanzee split, have some characteristics suggesting some capability for upright walking so some bipedal capabilities seem to be more widespread throughout the stem group of Homininae (perhaps also Hominidae) with the modern apes (orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas at least) actually becoming worse at upright walking and more specialized for living in the trees.
^^
Thanks for the info. I do find it remarkable and compelling how many of the characteristics independently considered as likely traits for Gigantopithecus Blacki actually closely match the reported traits of the North American Bigfoot or Sasquatch. The size is virtually identical and the rare reports of sightings of Bigfoots in "family" groups have indicated a considerable sexual dimorphism with females being much smaller than males and infants and adolescents approximately human-sized. Really, all that is required for G. Blacki to be an almost perfect match for descriptions of Bigfoot is the uncertain question of its bipedalism.
Thanks for the info. I do find it remarkable and compelling how many of the characteristics independently considered as likely traits for Gigantopithecus Blacki actually closely match the reported traits of the North American Bigfoot or Sasquatch. The size is virtually identical and the rare reports of sightings of Bigfoots in "family" groups have indicated a considerable sexual dimorphism with females being much smaller than males and infants and adolescents approximately human-sized. Really, all that is required for G. Blacki to be an almost perfect match for descriptions of Bigfoot is the uncertain question of its bipedalism.