Squatchy: Giganto Or Not?

[Huntster]

What little we have to document Giganto can be accredited to what is believed of sasquatch in these ways:

1) It's size fits

2) It's location on the Pacific Rim can be considered a plus vrs. a location in, say, Africa

[Guest]

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.

Actually, DNA is considered a more precise placement than simple physiological comparisons in modern species classification, particularly when dealing with closely related species or sub-species.

As to the OT, I lean towards Giganto or a Giganto descendant, or a species closer to that line than to the human line.

[Guest]

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.

True. Personally, I find myself more sympathetic to the "lumper" camp. I take as an example of taking specification to absurd lengths the case of the "Northern" vs the "Southern" Spotted owl. Genetically for all intents and purposes identical, but they chose slightly different habitats and nesting trees. Yet that alone was enough for activists to demand ESA protection that effectively destroyed the timber industry in the PNW, an absurd distinction used to foster partisan ends.

[Guest]

The evidence provided by witness accounts and suspected hair samples:

• General body structure - very similar to humans, but short legs and long arms.
  
• Feet - Almost human, but presenting a fallen arch.
  
• Face - Almost human.
  
• Hair - Almost human.
  
• Boobs - Female biggies seem to have them, and many of the ones with bouncies were observed to have infants, indicating permanent boobs at sexual maturity.
  
• Eat meat.
  

Actually, the evidence suggests they are omnivorous, as plant and berry eating are also witnessed sasquatch behaviors. The feet have more than "fallen arches", but display a pronounced mid-tarsal break, according to Dr Meldrum's analysis.

What we know (or suspect) about the Gigantopithecus genus is that they were apes. Very solidly apes descended from Sivapithecus. They are essentially cousins of orangutans. They probably had an ape body plan, ape feet, orang-like hair, and boobs apparent only when lactating. Giganto (all species) were very solid plant eaters.

Not so, esp the contention that they were "solid plant eaters". Wear analysis of G Blacki teeth show wear patters consistent with an omnivorous diet, closer to that of the chimpanzee (LMS, pp101). Also, Dr Kranz has noted that the jaw structure of G is such that it indicates that the creature's head sat upright on it's neck, a position that strongly indicates true bipedalism. (LMS pp99-100)

[Guest]

I understand there are exceptions to this definition, but regardless that is how the definition of spp currently stands. Science has a way of making exceptions for the rules that we try to instill on it. That's just the way things go.

haha i quoted you before you could edit. nothing to be ashamed of here mate, just a good friendly discussion.

I think the distinction you are making is the difference between genus and species, or in the more modern way of putting it, species and sub-species. It depends on how you separate out your critters. Most of the "dog" species (wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs of nearly all "breeds") can interbreed, for example. Lions and tigers can interbreed as well, both being species of big cats.

As a side question, does anyone know if the other big cats (leopards, courgars, etc) have ever been shown to interbreed?

Found this about some of the smaller breeds of "wild" cats.

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

Edited February 19, 2011 by Mulder

[Guest wudewasa]

Mulder,

How we interpret data should be done objectively. Unfortunately, policy makers cherry pick what they want and use it to the advantage of their constituents' fervor.

A sad example of this is the original climate model suitability for invasive Burmese pythons.

http://predatorhaven.blogspot.com/2010/02/burmese-pythons-in-florida.html

Keep in mind that this is a MODEL, not the actuality of pythons migrating north from peninsular Florida into the rest of the nation. Of course, the media and lawmakers jumped on the map and created lots of hype and proposed legislation. Savannah River Ecology Laboratory tested this model with actual pythons, and concluded that cold restricts the movement of this species. http://www.springerlink.com/content/mj838265763h4w17/fulltext.pdf

Furthermore, new climate model analysis shows that the original interpretation was indeed inaccurate. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2696 This data being reevaluated should prompt policy makers to rethink their strategies, but that will most likely not happen, as they now have an issue to grandstand with and collect votes to be reelected.

How policymakers will use bigfoot's phylogeny to fuel their whims (if it is accepted by mainstream science) will be a huge clusterflop for our country, regardless.

[Guest The big grey man of ben ma]

I dont know if i would be right to say we need to find a fossilized skull to look at

the foramen magnum and pelvis to see if it was even bipedal

[Guest Sallaranda]

I think the distinction you are making is the difference between genus and species, or in the more modern way of putting it, species and sub-species. It depends on how you separate out your critters. Most of the "dog" species (wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs of nearly all "breeds") can interbreed, for example. Lions and tigers can interbreed as well, both being species of big cats.

As a side question, does anyone know if the other big cats (leopards, courgars, etc) have ever been shown to interbreed?

Found this about some of the smaller breeds of "wild" cats.

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

Nah, you're wrong. Sure, they can interbreed. But they don't BREED regularly in the wild creating viable offspring. That is the current definition of species as I know it, and as a third year University student majoring in biology I'm not sure how I could possibly be mistaken.

Have you ever seen a lion and tiger mating in the wild? And then have you ever seen the resulting liger going on to breed with other ligers in the wild? If you have, then by definition a lion and a tiger are the same spp.

[Huntster]

Mulder, on 19 February 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

I think the distinction you are making is the difference between genus and species, or in the more modern way of putting it, species and sub-species. It depends on how you separate out your critters. Most of the "dog" species (wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs of nearly all "breeds") can interbreed, for example. Lions and tigers can interbreed as well, both being species of big cats.

As a side question, does anyone know if the other big cats (leopards, courgars, etc) have ever been shown to interbreed?

Found this about some of the smaller breeds of "wild" cats.

Nah, you're wrong. Sure, they can interbreed. But they don't BREED regularly in the wild creating viable offspring.

That is true of Mulder's great cat example (lions & tigers) primarily because they inhabit different ranges. It is certainly true of the great bears of the north.

[Guest gershake]

My 2cents...not only do I think they are a relic hominid, but for my own reasons I'm looking into a west to east circumpolar migration as opposed to the Russia/Alaska route. Also thinly supported by old finds in Greenland.

Hmm?

[Huntster]

Mulder, on 19 February 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

I think the distinction you are making is the difference between genus and species, or in the more modern way of putting it, species and sub-species. It depends on how you separate out your critters. Most of the "dog" species (wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs of nearly all "breeds") can interbreed, for example. Lions and tigers can interbreed as well, both being species of big cats.

As a side question, does anyone know if the other big cats (leopards, courgars, etc) have ever been shown to interbreed?

Found this about some of the smaller breeds of "wild" cats.

Nah, you're wrong. Sure, they can interbreed. But they don't BREED regularly in the wild creating viable offspring.

That may be true of Mulder's great cat example today (lions & tigers) primarily because they inhabit different ranges. It is certainly true of the great bears of the north.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

If bigfoot does exist I would hope that it is closer to being a Gianto-type for the sole reason that it would be really cool. Love those recreation models of Giganto. If it were anything human-like with a thick man-sweater living in the woods, that would just be plain creepy to me.

[Guest fenris]

What little we have to document Giganto can be accredited to what is believed of sasquatch in these ways:

1) It's size fits

2) It's location on the Pacific Rim can be considered a plus vrs. a location in, say, Africa

except for it to get to North America a huge tropical largely herbivorous monkey would have to cross a huge region in an alien ecosystem and survive the journey and evolve rapidly into something more squatch like, proto human is so much more likely.

[Guest fenris]

Actually, DNA is considered a more precise placement than simple physiological comparisons in modern species classification, particularly when dealing with closely related species or sub-species.

As to the OT, I lean towards Giganto or a Giganto descendant, or a species closer to that line than to the human line.

one more thing we disagree on, the logic in it being giganto just aint there

[Incorrigible1]

......evolve rapidly......

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html

But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation, which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind.

According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don't usually occur in the mainstream population of an organism, where changes wouldn't endure because of so much interbreeding among like creatures. Rather, speciation is more likely at the edge of a population, where a small group can easily become separated geographically from the main body and undergo changes that can create a survival advantage and thus produce a new, non-interbreeding species.

This hypothesis predicts that the fossil record at any one site is unlikely to record the process of speciation. If a site records that the ancestral species lived there, the new species would probably be evolving somewhere else. The small size of the isolated population which is evolving into a new species reduces the odds that any of its members will be fossilized. The new species will only leave fossils at the same site as the old one if it becomes successful enough to move back into its ancestral range or different enough to exist alongside its relatives.