Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 34 (451307)
01-27-2008 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jason777
01-27-2008 12:57 AM


quote:
Your source says KP-271 is a good match for A.anamensis,yet they dont have a complete A.anamensis(correct me if im wrong)fossil to compare it to
You've not got it quite right. The site states that KP-271 is attributable to A.anamesis.
The evidence is that the bone is probably from a robust australopithicine (as the analysis shows) and the A.anamesis name was coined to refer to the Australopithicine remains from that site and of the same age. There's no mention of any direct comparison between KP-271 and a humerus from A.anamesis.
Obviously it makes sense to conclude that KP-271 is of the same species as the other remains, rather than assume that it is from a different australopithecine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jason777, posted 01-27-2008 12:57 AM Jason777 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024