Giganto: A True Biped?

[Guest KentuckyApeman]

A skull, a few jaw bones, teeth, etc. That's it?

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

In fact, the giganto skull does not resemble the modern BF descriptions of the past 50 years. Such as an evolved cranium, more prominent frontal lobe development, etc.

And the whole theory that giganto was a biped. Do we know this as a fact?

[Incorrigible1]

Animals evolve. IF gigantopithicus survived until present, it could conceivably have adopted bipedalism. Granted, many summations.

[Guest]

A skull, a few jaw bones, teeth, etc. That's it?

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

In fact, the giganto skull does not resemble the modern BF descriptions of the past 50 years. Such as an evolved cranium, more prominent frontal lobe development, etc.

And the whole theory that giganto was a biped. Do we know this as a fact?

I agree, most everything we know about giganto in through inferring. I believe that primatologist have inferred due to it's proposed weight and size that the gigantos lived both bipedal and quadrupedal.

[Guest]

A skull, a few jaw bones, teeth, etc. That's it?

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

In fact, the giganto skull does not resemble the modern BF descriptions of the past 50 years. Such as an evolved cranium, more prominent frontal lobe development, etc.

And the whole theory that giganto was a biped. Do we know this as a fact?

I have felt that Krantz's (and others) latching onto G. Blacki could be classified along the lines of finding evidence to back a theory, rather than creating a theory to back BF evidence. The fossil jaw fragments and teeth show that Giganto was likely a plant eater (not seemingly omnivorous like our BF) that resembled a giant gorilla more than anything (which, as you have also pointed out, doesn't jive with many reports of the "humanness" of BF). The idea that Giganto was bipedal is a postulate based on a postulate: that the way that the jaw is shaped SUGGESTED how the jaw fit the skull and how the head fit the neck which SUGGESTED that the head sat on top of rather than in front of the spine. Seems like a weak hypothesis at best, without leg, foot, or pelvic fossils to confirm. Yet, because it was a nine foot tall APE, it made BF more palatable to science, as well as to show to mainstream scientists the existence of something in the fossil record which compares with Sasquatches. Without Giganto and the "Ape" theory, perhaps NO modern scientific researchers/professional scholars, like Meldrum and others, might have taken a second look into BF. Who knows, without "Giganto," maybe BF as a phenomenon might have died in the 70's and 80's, or faded completely into the realms of the occult/paranormal.

edited for sp.

Edited August 5, 2011 by notgiganto

[Guest Roland]

I have felt that Krantz's (and others) latching onto G. Blacki could be classified along the lines of finding evidence to back a theory, rather than creating a theory to back BF evidence. The fossil jaw fragments and teeth show that Giganto was likely a plant eater (not seemingly omnivorous like our BF) that resembled a giant gorilla more than anything (which, as you have also pointed out, doesn't jive with many reports of the "humanness" of BF). The idea that Giganto was bipedal is a postulate based on a postulate: that the way that the jaw is shaped SUGGESTED how the jaw fit the skull and how the head fit the neck which SUGGESTED that the head sat on top of rather than in front of the spine. Seems like a weak hypothesis at best, without leg, foot, or pelvic fossils to confirm. Yet, because it was a nine foot tall APE, it made BF more palatable to science, as well as to show to mainstream scientists the existence of something in the fossil record which compares with Sasquatches. Without Giganto and the "Ape" theory, perhaps NO modern scientific researchers/professional scholars, like Meldrum and others, might have taken a second look into BF. Who knows, without "Giganto," maybe BF as a phenomenon might have died in the 70's and 80's, or faded completely into the realms of the occult/paranormal.

edited for sp.

OR like many have said, the Giganto theory has been the biggest mistake ever made in connection with the species Sasquatch...

[Bill]

I'm probably somewhat to blame for the Gigantpithecus as a biped assumptions, because of my 1987 full scale model of it showingit standing (and reaching for something). Even back then, when I was designing that model, my associate, dr. Russell Ciochon, clearly stated his appraisal that Giganto was a quadraped and most likely a knuckle walker. So I actually shaped the design skeleton as a cross between a modern gorilla and the prehistoric giant baboon, Theropithecus Oswaldii.

The reason for the model's upright posture was to suggest it was momentarily standing up to reach for some type of fruit, like a durian or such, and the standing posture showed off the true size of the figure.

I think lot of people mistook that posed figure as a suggestion it was bipedal all the time, when that wasn't the intention.

Anyways, the Giganto connection was encouraged by Krantz, but I think it's losing ground, and BF is more hominid and diverged from our human ancestral line after bipedalism was established. It's a simplier explanation that only requires bipedalism to evolve once, since we can't seem to explain it real well.

Just a thought.

Bill

[Guest]

The reason for the model's upright posture was to suggest it was momentarily standing up to reach for some type of fruit, like a durian or such, and the standing posture showed off the true size of the figure.

lol Bill.. if it was reaching for a Durian, I would have to downgrade any assessment on intelligence, or would at the very least criticize its "taste" in fruit...

BLECCH, smelly disgusting fruit with the consistency and taste of putrified rotten onions...

Just had to comment on that- sorry to derail....

ART

[Bill]

Art:

I got the durian idea from reading orangutans like them.

I even suggested to a few field researchers that they try baiting a game camera with a durian, just to see if a squatch would check it out.

Bill

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

That's a great idea Bill. Durian would be a great scent bait. They're hard to find in KY. I have to drive about 75 miles to an Asian food store to buy one. I think they should be in stock there soon.

My wife loves durian. I tried my first bite last year, I'm with Art, the texture is like rotten onions, but I think the taste is worse IMO.

The smell wasn't what I expected though. It's strong but not "stinky feet" or "dead body odor" as I'd heard it described. It was just a super strong fruity type smell that burns my eyes.

But for the record, if I'm ever stuck on a desert island and durian is the only thing to eat, I'll starve to death.

Chris B.

Edited August 5, 2011 by ChrisBFRPKY
sentence structure

[Bill]

Chris:

That's why I suggested it as a bait device. It's smell is reportedly powerful, so the odor should carry a great distance in open woods, meaning a visitor is more likely to smell it. If the visitor likes the smell, it goes o feed on it. If the visitor just finds the smell real strange, it may go to have a closer look out of curiosity. And powerful odors seem to be a common descriptive feature of encounters, so it suggests to me odor is an important sense for them, and so using a powerful and unusual odor seems like a good thing to test.

If I was doing field research, I'd sure try it.

Bill

[Guest]

The fossil jaw fragments and teeth show that Giganto was likely a plant eater (not seemingly omnivorous like our BF)

Not true. They show that Giganto was omnivorous. The presence of embedded silicates indicates plant matter, but the

wear pattern

indicates that meat was also consumed.

that resembled a giant gorilla more than anything (which, as you have also pointed out, doesn't jive with many reports of the "humanness" of BF).

But jives just fine with the many reports of "a big gorilla".

he idea that Giganto was bipedal is a postulate based on a postulate: that the way that the jaw is shaped SUGGESTED how the jaw fit the skull and how the head fit the neck which SUGGESTED that the head sat on top of rather than in front of the spine.

Comparative anatomy is a well recognized field of endeavor. Form follows function, as a rule in nature.

Seems like a weak hypothesis at best, without leg, foot, or pelvic fossils to confirm.

More data is always good, but bipedal giganto is the best hypothesis that fits the facts to hand.

Yet, because it was a nine foot tall APE, it made BF more palatable to science, as well as to show to mainstream scientists the existence of something in the fossil record which compares with Sasquatches. Without Giganto and the "Ape" theory, perhaps NO modern scientific researchers/professional scholars, like Meldrum and others, might have taken a second look into BF. Who knows, without "Giganto," maybe BF as a phenomenon might have died in the 70's and 80's, or faded completely into the realms of the occult/paranormal.

Arguable point. Not sure I agree, but I can't entirely DISagree either.

[Guest]

Anyways, the Giganto connection was encouraged by Krantz, but I think it's losing ground, and BF is more hominid and diverged from our human ancestral line after bipedalism was established. It's a simplier explanation that only requires bipedalism to evolve once, since we can't seem to explain it real well.

Just a thought.

Bill

So you are not a proponent of the concept of "convergent development" I take it?

I get all mixed up with all the newest sub-sub-sub-sub-divisions in genetic mapping and species identification, but I don't support the idea that the putative sasquatch came out of the human line, and certainly not after the establishment of bipedalism. Observed sasquatch traits suggest (arm structure, reported "bi-modal locomotion", etc) a LESS evolved creature in those terms, one still partially adapted to arboreal pursuits at least during part of it's life cycle.

This would be much more in keeping with a creature descended from a creature of the rain/temperate forest, such as Giganto, rather than a plains-dwelling pure biped such as the human line.

[Guest LAL]

Krantz argued it was a biped because of the wide jaw and reduced canines. Meldrum suggested bipedalism would have shifted the weight off the shoulders.

Weidenreich, in 1940, thought it was a human ancestor because of those teeth. They show a wear pattern most like chimpanzees; Giganto was an eclectic omnivore.

I don't see a need for bipedalism to have evolved independently if Giganto descended from the same upright ancestor that gave rise to the hominids, but why not? Fist and knuckle-walking apparently evolved independently three times in the three Great Ape lines.

Asia is the cradle of primate evolution and may have been the place of origin of the hominoids rather than Africa. I just ordered a copy of a 1987 book by Russell L. Ciochon and John G. Fleagle. Someone throw cold water on me, please.

[Guest para ape]

Also,all giganto fossils have been found in Asia,none in North America.Because of the evidence pointing to the paranormal,giganto couldn't be the origin of the creature.

[Guest]

I'm probably somewhat to blame for the Gigantpithecus as a biped assumptions, because of my 1987 full scale model of it showingit standing (and reaching for something). Even back then, when I was designing that model, my associate, dr. Russell Ciochon, clearly stated his appraisal that Giganto was a quadraped and most likely a knuckle walker. So I actually shaped the design skeleton as a cross between a modern gorilla and the prehistoric giant baboon, Theropithecus Oswaldii.

The reason for the model's upright posture was to suggest it was momentarily standing up to reach for some type of fruit, like a durian or such, and the standing posture showed off the true size of the figure.

I think lot of people mistook that posed figure as a suggestion it was bipedal all the time, when that wasn't the intention.

Anyways, the Giganto connection was encouraged by Krantz, but I think it's losing ground, and BF is more hominid and diverged from our human ancestral line after bipedalism was established. It's a simplier explanation that only requires bipedalism to evolve once, since we can't seem to explain it real well.

Just a thought.

Bill

Thanks for chiming in, Bill. As an insider in the Giganto theory you have a unique perspective to offer. Good info, and news to me!

I stand corrected on herbivory vs. omnivory, my recall was wrong, mea culpa! Seems that most scientists, though, still view Giganto as mostly quadrupedal at this point, and even Meldrum points out in Legend Meets Science: "Without the skeleton of the torso and limbs, the postcranial skeleton, or the base of the skull, which reveals how the skull was poised on the spine, researchers are very limited in what can be inferred about how Gigantopithecus stood or walked...," Krantz's ideas about it's bipedalism notwithstanding.

When (if) the DNA is in, I think we shall see that Giganto is not the likeliest of relatives of the Sasquatch. If I am wrong, then there is plate of crow with my name on it. As far as form following function, large apes like gorillas are still somewhat built for arborial brachiating, but their size prohibits this, thus quadrupedal knuckle walking. If we were to find only small fragments of gorilla fossils, and made the mistake of assuming that their long arms were for brachiating, then we might be led to a completely wrong assumption. I generally agree with "form follows function," but inferencing bipedalism from jaw fragments seems a stretch.