Lucy’s pelvis and gender
Lawrence asks the important question of how Lucy’s discoverers knew she was female, and informs us that her (Lawrence’s) qualifications in obstetrics and gynaecology have helped her ”to appreciate birth mechanisms’. From the diminutive size of the pelvis, Donald Johanson and others interpreted Lucy (fossil designation AL 288-1) as being a female.4 But as Hausler and Schmid discovered: ”The sacrum and the auricular region of the ilium are shattered into numerous small fragments, such that the original form is difficult to elucidate. Hence, it is not surprising that the reconstructions by Lovejoy and Schmid show marked differences.’5
In regard to Lucy’s pelvis, Johanson affirmed: ”Lucy’s wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern females. She didn’t need a large one because her newborn infant’s brain wouldn’t have been any larger than a chimpanzee infant’s brain.’6 That admission begs the question as to why this fossil was not categorized within the chimp family. But this gender declaration poses additional problems for Lucy. As Hausler and Schmid noted: ”If AL 288-1 was female, then one can exclude this species from the ancestors of Homo because its pelvis is certainly less primitive than the pelvis of Sts 14 [designation for a specific Australopithecus africanus fossil that is supposedly a descendant from Lucy, emphasis added].’7 Both of the pelvises mentioned displayed some degree of damage, and both were missing critical parts. However, it should be noted that, in regard to the Lucy fossil, more than one attempt was made at reconstruction.
The reconstructions of the inlet and midplane of Lucy’s pelvis, and comparisons to other fossils and modern humans, reveals that the shape of Lucy’s pelvis was not structured correctly to give birth. The pelvis was just too narrow to accommodate an australopithecine fetus. Hausler and Schmid noted that Lucy’s pelvis was ridgeless and heart-shaped, which means that ”she’ was more likely a ”he’. They noted:
”Contrary to Sts 14, delivery in AL 288-1 would have been more complicated than in modern humans, if not impossible, due to the protruding promontorium . . Consequently, there is more evidence to suggest that AL 288-1 was male rather than female. A female of the same species as AL 288-1 would have had a pelvis with a larger sagittal diameter and a less protruding sacral promontorium . . Overall, the broader pelvis and the more laterally oriented iliac blades of AL 288-1 would produce more favourable insertion sites for the climbing muscles in more heavily built males . with such a pelvis, ”Lucy’ would apparently have been the last of her species [emphasis added].’8
This declaration has received an enormous reaction from the evolutionist community, as many scientists work diligently to defend Lucy. If Hausler and Schmid’s conclusion is correct, then the equivalent female of this species would have been even smaller”something unheard of in trying to compare this creature to modern humans! Lucy’s pelvis is not what it should be for an upright-walking hominid”but the dimensions do fall within primates found among the ape family. Why was this scientific truth ignored
™ Version 4.2
