Extinct Giant Ape Depended Upon Forest Food

[Cotter]

So the presence of any road kill rules out the idea of an omnivore?

 

If Sasquatch are omnivores, then all road killed animals are guaranteed to be carried away by them?

 

Well, I guess not quite THAT absolute, tho my post surely didn't indicate it.

 

Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be that there would be, at times, noticed roadkill disappearing.  I would only guess that an area with a decent BF population would put a huge dent in the roadkill. 

 

How long would you guess a deer would feed a BF or two?  (of course there's a lot depending on that, but my point is maybe a couple days??) 

 

I would think a couple deer a week for a BF couple would be needed.  Considering how opportunistic they appear to be, it is not out of the question to think that certain areas would have a repeated roadkill disappearance situation going on.

 

In my area, the deer aren't stacked up like cordwood on the side of the road, maybe you'd see a dead one every few miles.  I would think that if BF were around, eventually someone would notice the deer disappearing from the side of the road. Or people driving at night would happenstance upon one dragging one off.

 

Then again, I would also think in agricultural areas with livestock, regular 'visits' to pens would also reveal that there is BF activity as a calf or goat should be easy pickings.

 

I would think in areas where BF are active, these situations would occur.  Now, if they are reported is a whole nother can of worms!

 

 

Edit to add - (new topic), with the limited Giganto evidence that the vegetarianism was determined from, can one eliminate punctuated equilibrium entirely that could have given rise to a more 'modern' BF?

Edited January 25, 2016 by Cotter

[Guest DWA]

As to road-kill opportunism I always liked this report.

 

"Witness further stated that road kills on the small highway that runs through this basin don't last long. On more traveled highways in the area road kills stick around for days or weeks. On this little road he noted that a raccoon would be dead on the road in the morning, and on his way home from work that night it would typically be gone. He said a dead deer doesn't usually stick around longer than one day."

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=30530
 

[Cotter]

^Good find DWA.  It does indeed make sense to me that they would scarf up the roadkill.

 

Least amount of energy spent for energy gained.

[Guest Taylor]

According to the article, the Giganto became extinct because it failed to adapt to a changing environment.  Since we assume Sasquatch is not an extinct creature, then we can assume it adapted to survive, probably by learning to eat meat.  I think a relic population of Giganto coming from Asia to America across the Bering land bridge with modern humans is the simplest explanation for Sasquatch.

[Guest DWA]

You're probably right; some of us, however, think that what crossed the land bridge might not be Giganto (or at least no genus that survived here), but possibly something else for which we don't have fossils yet.  The meat eating is a given, not just because in the temperate zone it would likely be required (and in the tropics, apes and monkeys eat meat too), but because, well, there is so much evidence of it.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It's not a good sign when people (including scientists) are so focused on the idea of relic Gigantopithecus being Sasquatch. It goes to show how little our knowledge of the Sasquatch phenonemon has advanced over the years.

Edited January 27, 2016 by OntarioSquatch

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Moderator's Note: The topic "New Study Shows Gigantopithecus Was Strict Vegetarian" was merged into this existing topic.

[Guest DWA]

It's not a good sign when people (including scientists) are so focused on the idea of relic Gigantopithecus being Sasquatch. It goes to show how little our knowledge of the Sasquatch phenonemon has advanced over the years.

It really is pretty much the same thing as saying "no fossils so no ape."  It's a form of:  what we know is all we will ever know.

 

Gigantopithecus finds are placed in a very convenient locale for standard-issue theorizing.  But what do we have?  Teeth and a jawbone, about a suitcase full all told.  How great a jump is it, really, to "something we don't even have that for, yet"?

[Cotter]

According to the article, the Giganto became extinct because it failed to adapt to a changing environment.  

 

Well, up until just a year or so ago, the same was thought of Neanderthals. (environment including competition from H.S.)

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Hello Crowlogic and All,

 

This propably isn't for this thread but in thinking about the "bridge" itself two things come to mind. It was an ice bridge that was frozen over in which case I doubt Humans or anything would even be an area close enough to cross as an Asian retreat to the south would make more sense. The second would be that the "bridge was actual open land because the oceans were low as a result of northern glaciation but the area along and surrounding the northern Pacific was kept warm because of ocean currents coming from along the Asian continent then going west to east and down the North American continent. That current is what keeps BC and the PacNW temperate. In either case the crossing would appear to be the result of an ice event. I'm going to say the most likely scenario is the second one. It probably also allowed North American camels to migrate to Asia before their demise in the large North American  megefauna/Clovis Culture die-off 11-15,000 years ago.     

There were a number of inter glacial periods over at least the last 200,000 years. Say on a wild average of very 15- 30 thousand years. It is highly likely that earlier humans came in these periods as well but that their remains did not often survive. Some fairly early dates have come up, although outliers. The researcher at the oldest recognized South American site suspects near his dig there are sites of 200,000 years before present. He is waiting for advances in archaeological science and preserving the site as he knows it will be to controversial to be accepted by the current conventional framework. Shucks there is still plenty of Clovis first still around. If earlier humans came over we are now talking of an era with Neanderthals, etc. still walking about.

And didn't they just find a 10,000 year old Australopithecus fossil? I thought that is what I heard Dr. Meldrum say.