Squatchy: Giganto Or Not?

[Guest fenris]

Do you guys feel squatchy is Giganto, a proto homonid, or something else? And why?

[Guest]

I think Gigantopithecus is not a good candidate based on current and admittedly slight evidence (teeth and partial mandibles only), though it does show that the potential to grow to enormous size is possible within our hominid genetic potential.

The concept of an early transitional hominin with a bipedal adaptations in line with what directly ancestral hominins exhibit, but not having made the transition to instinctively social patterns that our ancestors clearly did, and so I consider that an array of similarly adapted affiliated populations of primarily solitary hunting omnivores inhabiting (and still lingering in isolated but widely dispersed and remote pocket refugias) the vast ecological niche that the forests and grassland mosaic stretching from Europe to North America offered for most of the last 2 million years (our brief interglacial holocene being the exception to the rule), is a fascinating possibility, from my perspective. That'll be 2 cents please.

[Guest Sallaranda]

Could someone recap the terms Giganto and proto homonid for those of us who are less educated.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Sallaranda

[Guest fenris]

Could someone recap the terms Giganto and proto homonid for those of us who are less educated.

Gigantopethicus Blacki was a rather large primate who coexisted with early man in SE Asia,

Proto Hominid; descendant of early man in some form.

Edited February 18, 2011 by fenris

[WV FOOTER]

First of all, I'm not an expert, but will offer my opinion. I believe that Bigfoot is a species all its own. Based on reports, Bigfoot exhibits human and primate behaviors. This is very unique, although I know humans who exhibit human and primate behaviors. Based on DNA evidence comparing early man to modern humans, which are farther from a match compared to humans and chimps, which are 99% the same. All of this evidence together leads me to believe it is its own species. Hair from alleged Bigfoot have had DNA analysis done, and came back as unknown primate. I would also offer that there may be different subspecies of Bigfoot throughout the world. Giganto may be a distant relative to Bigfoot. The only way to determine this with certainty will be through DNA comparison.

Edited February 18, 2011 by WV FOOTER

[Guest Sallaranda]

First of all, I'm not an expert, but will offer my opinion. I believe that Bigfoot is a species all its own. Based on reports, Bigfoot exhibits human and primate behaviors. This is very unique, although I know humans who exhibit human and primate behaviors. Based on DNA evidence comparing early man to modern humans, which are farther from a match compared to humans and chimps, which are 99% the same. All of this evidence together leads me to believe it is its own species. Hair from alleged Bigfoot have had DNA analysis done, and came back as unknown primate. I would also offer that there may be different subspecies of Bigfoot throughout the world. Giganto may be a distant relative to Bigfoot. The only way to determine this with certainty will be through DNA comparison.

DNA is not nearly enough to construct the complexities of an ancestral tree and try to figure out where bigfoot belongs. A full scientific study on the being's structure needs to be done. All that DNA can tell us is a rough estimation of its relatedness to another known DNA sample.

[southernyahoo]

Humans have genes or versions of a gene that are not found in other great apes and vise versa . A good study of those genes will definately tell you what branch of the tree of life BF belongs. New species are discovered now by the study of DNA. There is an article on the discovery of a new species of porpose which looked like other recognized species, but the DNA says they do not mate and are an isolated breeding population. DNA can tell us something similar about BF even if they are fully human. I also found an article on a new breed of Shrike (bird) which differed from others by only it's blue eyes. DNA confirmed their differences.

[southernyahoo]

Here is the article on the Shrike.

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/boubou-shrike.html#cr

[Guest wudewasa]

I think Gigantopithecus is not a good candidate based on current and admittedly slight evidence (teeth and partial mandibles only), though it does show that the potential to grow to enormous size is possible within our hominid genetic potential.

Modern taxonomy focuses on both morphological and genetic data to describe a species and set its place in a phylogenetic tree. We have scant physical evidence of Gigantopithecus and to my knowlege, no DNA from this species have been extracted, analyzed and compared to other living primates.

No type specimen of bigfoot has been procured, and no DNA hailing from sasquatch has been collected. Therefore, we have no idea how these two species are related, even if bigfoot exists.

A case in point: Distinguishing red wolves from gray wolves and coyotes was problematic before genetic analysis presented itself.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6327/abs/351565a0.html

[southernyahoo]

Here is the article on the new species of Bottlenose Dolphin discovered by DNA analysis.

http://www.newspostonline.com/sci-tech/dna-analysis-reveals-new-dolphin-species-re-issue-2008112315480

There won't be much wiggle room for what BF is when we get and study enough of it's DNA. Some theories will not survive.

[Guest]

Could someone recap the terms Giganto and proto homonid for those of us who are less educated.

Thank you for posting this question. I was too embarrassed to ask!

Edited February 18, 2011 by Susiq2

[Guest wudewasa]

Nice link southernyahoo! Yes, DNA will defintely open up a new can of worms to ponder.

Here lies the debate amongst scientists regarding taxonomy. How much genetic variation exists to truly describe a population of reproducing individuals as a species?

There are taxonomists that have reclassified species based on genetic analysis alone, and not everyone agrees on their assertions.

For example, Burbrink's genetic analysis of the rat snake complex in this paper http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/698.pdf led to the reorganization of North American ratsnakes into three separate species by Dr. Joe Collins. However, not everyone believes that there are three distinct rat snake species, as it is difficult to test the hypothesis of geographic isolating mechanisms over such a large and inconclusive range.

In taxonomy, there are lumpers and splitters. The splitters argue that more populations must be recognized as distinct species, while lumpers tend to reduce the taxonomic complexity of related species, consolidating them together.

Designating or the revoking of an organism as a species can have serious effects on a culture, economy, conservation and legal ramifications. Ultimately,

with the discovery of genetics, more questions arise as the data is interpreted.

[WV FOOTER]

Some great dialogue on this thread. We need a Bigfoot to give a good DNA sample. I'm not sure if Giganto DNA has been obtained. There are bones, so this could be possible. There may be similarities.

[Guest wudewasa]

Here's a cautionary tale that illustrates the danger of relying heavily on DNA evidence in the American legal system:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html

[Guest vilnoori]

My hunch is they are Meganthropus, or large, tool poor Homo erectus. If they exist, that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganthropus