Guest slimwitless Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Jeff Meldrum is editing a new online journal called The Relict Hominoid Inquiry. Perhaps more interesting is the editorial board which includes the likes of John Bindernagel and Todd Disotell. Am I splitting hairs or does the title of the journal suggest Meldrum is shifting away from the North American ape hypothesis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Jeff Meldrum is editing a new online journal called The Relict Hominoid Inquiry. Perhaps more interesting is the editorial board which includes the likes of John Bindernagel and Todd Disotell. Am I splitting hairs or does the title of the journal suggest Meldrum is shifting away from the North American ape hypothesis? The designation "hominoid" refers to human and non-human primates. Dr. Meldrum has been speaking publicly about this journal for years (at least since 2007). It's nice to see that it's finally being released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 It seems the dictionary is my friend. Okay...well, I guess I was hoping Meldrum was privy to some new information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flskunk Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Yes it does sound like Meldrum was privy to info at first glance. Oh well it will still be an interesting read. Dr. Meldrum is the man!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I don't think you were splitting hairs. North American Ape was all we heard before. On most of the BFRO related shows, the term North American Ape was usually used several times like it gave it some sort of credibility. It used to annoy me but I also found it comical and bizarre to be honest. It does seem like a step back from the constant use of the term ape to me but who knows. When I first joined the BFF about 7 years ago it was generally thought of as anthropomorphizing or romantic to think that sasquatch was closely related to humans and being in the genus Homo was radical. How times have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I'm a North American ape, Bob. What are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 It is pretty obvious that is not what they meant. It is part of the reason why it annoyed me. They acted like hominids weren't apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) Since we are talking Dr. Meldrum, he even took it to the level of saying we would need to redefine what it is to be human. Edited September 6, 2011 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Didn't Meldrum state that it was a possibility that BF could be an off-shoot of Homo Heidelbergensis on Definitive Guide, or am I misremembering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I agree we're apes which complicates the meaning of the thread's subheading. By 'ape' I meant more Gigantopithicus than Homo Erectus. When my kids are waiting in line to get into the zoo I often ask if they're enjoying the primate exhibit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 He also was apparently entertaining the possibility of the Snellgrove lake(sp) DNA sample being bigfoot which was apparently a modern human sample. He never said sasquatch wasn't a hominid. He just acted like it was more likely for an apparent relative of orangutans to convergently evolve into something with hominidlike characteristics than a hominid growing larger. What I found bizarre was not that someone could believe that giganto was the most logical candidate but that such a vast majority of people in the field including practically all the scientists held that view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Given the title selected for their Journal, ‘The Relict Hominoid Inquiry’, it is a bit confusing to anticipate where they are going with this: "Hominoids are a kind of primate. There are two groups of hominoids: the lesser hominoids (gibbons and siamangs); and the great hominoids (orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and humans)" - from Wikipedia Given the forthcoming release of the BF genome by Dr. Ketchum’s group, which may include DNA from some form or other of relict Homo, they seem to be hedging their bets in using the all inclusive, wide open, term, 'hominoid', as opposed to hominid. Obviously a deliberate choice was made in not choosing the term, ‘hominid’: “A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"). That includes the extinct and currently existent humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. “This classification has been revised several times in the last few decades. These various revisions have led to a varied use of the word "hominid": the original meaning of Hominidae referred only to the modern meaning of Hominina, that means only humans and their closest relatives. The meaning of this taxon changed. The modern meaning of "hominid" includes all great apes.†– Wikipedia There still seems to be a great deal of confusion between the terms Hominid, Hominoid and Hominin. How about Hominin? From (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Hominin): “The term Hominin refers to primates in the Tribe Hominini which is a relatively recent classification under which it is proposed would fall all of the fossil and living bipedal apes including the Australopithecines, fossil members of the genus Homo and living humans. It is generally replacing the term hominid in the scientific literature. Confusing or what? Perhaps the truth is that the Journal may include discussion concerning Sasquatch/Bigfoot/Yeti/Yowie/Yeren/Almas/Almasty, etc., but will not be limited to such. I am therefore curious, given their deliberate selection of the old fashioned term, Hominoid, to learn what other subject matter may be included in their scope of publication. - Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Given the forthcoming release of the BF genome by Dr. Ketchum’s group, which may include DNA from some form or other of relict Homo, they seem to be hedging their bets in using the all inclusive, wide open, term, 'hominoid', as opposed to hominid. I was going to say that they are carving out wiggle room given the pending Ketchum release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Dr. Meldrum coined the title with Dimitri Bayanov several years ago. It's unrelated to Ketchum's study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest para ape Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I want to say that the neanderthal,caveman,missing link view is just a myth.They never existed.Not trying to get into religion but the first man and woman were completely human.Scientist used their imagination to come up with what a neanderthal or caveman was supposed to look like.So since a relict homonoid never even existed,bigfoot definitely couldn't have originated from such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts