Leaderboard

Great points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus Gigantopithecus is considered to have been a herbivore. Carbon-13 isotope analysis suggests consumption of C3 plants, such as fruits, leaves, and other forest plants.[21] The robust mandible of Gigantopithecus indicates it was capable of resisting high strains while chewing through tough or hard foods. However, the same mandibular anatomy is typically seen in modern apes which primarily eat soft leaves (folivores) or seeds (granivores). Gigantopithecus teeth have a markedly lower rate of pitting (caused by eating small, hard objects) than orangutans, more similar to the rate seen in chimpanzees, which could indicate a similarly generalist diet.[2] The molar-like premolars, large molars, and long rooted cheeked teeth could point to chewing, crushing, and grinding of bulky and fibrous materials.[22][23] Thick enamel would suggest a diet of abrasive items, such as dirt particles on food gathered near or on the ground (like bamboo shoots).[19]Similarly, oxygen isotope analysis suggests Gigantopithecus consumed more low-lying plants such as stems, roots, and grasses than orangutans. Dental calculus indicates the consumption of tubers.[24]Gigantopithecus does not appear to have consumed the commonplace savanna grasses (C4 plants).[21] Nonetheless, in 1990, a few opal phytoliths adhering to four teeth from GigantopithecusCave were identified to have originated from grasses; though, the majority of phytoliths resemble the hairs of fig family fruits, which include figs, mulberry, breadfruit and banyan. This suggests that fruit was a significant dietary component for at least this population of Gigantopithecus.[23] The 400–320,000 year old Middle Pleistocene teeth from Hejiang Cave in southeastern China (near the time of extinction) show some differences from Early Pleistocene material from other sites, which could potentially indicate that the Hejiang Gigantopithecus were a specialised form adapting to a changing environment with different food resources. The Hejiang teeth display a less level (more crenulated) outer enamel surface due to the presence of secondary crests emanating from the paracone and protocone on the side of the molar closer to the midline (medially), as well as sharper major crests. That is, the teeth are not as flat.[7][25][26] In 1957, based on hoofed animal remains in a cave located in a seemingly inaccessible mountain, Pei had believed that Gigantopithecus was a cave-dwelling predator and carried these animals in.[27] This hypothesis is no longer considered viable because its dental anatomy is consistent with herbivory.[21] In 1975, American palaeoanthropologist Tim D. White drew similarities between the jaws and dentition of Gigantopithecus and those of the giant panda, and suggested they both occupied the same niche as bamboo specialists.[28] This garnered support from some subsequent researchers, but thicker enamel and hypsodonty in Gigantopithecus could suggest different functionality for these teeth.[19] It would seem tooth morphology and preferred foods was not consistent across the species as a whole. Based on the fossil record in Asia.

Exactly! That Gigantopithicus was a herbivore is merely an assumption and a flawed one at that. I recall that its discoverer thought the jaw structure and teeth suggested it had been a carnivore. Neither hypothesis is of course definitive. But my point is, the model constructed of Gigantopithicus as a vegetarian is far from conclusive.

Bingo. Building a giant Orang from fossilized teeth and a partial mandible is a weak theory, and clinging to it to explain or deny extant bipedal apes or hominids in Old and/or New Worlds goes beyond weak. The bottom line here and today is that there is evidence that there is a rare bipedal ape or hominid in North America. To many, that alone is too much to swallow. That's fine with me. They can run along and study the mating habits of echidnas. I'm curious enough to pay attention to events and wade through the stupid hoaxes, bickering, back biting, and basement theorizing that is expected as the BS in any other human line of thought. As an avid outdoorsman, I hope for an encounter with one of these creatures, but I'm aware that the odds are exponentially against me. A glimpse of one would be enough for me. Even another footprint find would be a gift. I'll leave the anthropological theorizing to the point heads that are still not in the game yet.

There are many potential candidates for Sasquatch in the fossil record. Gigantopithicus is simply one of several possibilities. Paranthropus Robustus is perhaps the most plausible candidate found this far.

Hats off and sincere appreciation for all those who participate on the SAR teams, no matter what kind of terrain: https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-mountain-rescue-rockslide-missing-hiker

Deliberately obtuse, or just simple. It's one or the other.

He is pointing out that any species can migrate and adapt to its new surroundings. Mammoths? Mastadons? Wolly Rhinos? Cave Lions? All African tropical species that have adapted to the cold.

Camels have become a desert-dweller. Altered puzzle piece?

Like I said earlier? It just doesn’t matter. There are a plethora of films out there. Not one of them will prove it exists. Nor will they even inspire science to go look. A tooth, a finger bone, a bloody corpse, something tangible, something physical is where the bar should be if we are worried about proving the existence of this creature to science.

Once discovery happens, we'll take a victory lap for a month or so and then shutdown the BFF for new posts. Maybe leave the Tarpit open.

Very valid point, if it happened tomorrow Matt Moneymaker has to get a real job, and the cash cow's milk has dried up.

It's called "mind speak".

We're talking about an ape, Camels have nothing to do with the Giganto theory, really....?