ran@ho95b.UUCP (ran) (11/08/84)
>there was an article in a magazine (perhaps Science or Discover, I don't >remember) that postulated an aquatic/amphibious ape in Man's ancestry. It >based this on the pattern of hair on the body, which is arranged in a sort >of flow pattern along the arms and other areas. The author(s) suggested that >a pre-homonid ape developed a semi-aquatic lifestyle, possibly in a way >similar to that of the Japanese macques. >-- > Pete Hardie, Univ. of Florida, CIS Gould > username: hardie Check out the book "The Descent of Woman", by Elaine Morgan (circa early 1970s?). She gives a nice summary (and a few new ideas) of somebody else's (sure can't remember who) presentation of this thesis. Some of the high points (i.e., those I can remember without looking for my copy of the book): * Aquatic animals are the ones that lose their hair, like the whale, walrus, seal, manatee, hippo, elephant (not really aquatic, but damn good swimmers). By the way, she claims the thesis that man (and woman---one of the points of her book is that anthropologists are too male-oriented) lost the hair because of the drying out and heating up of the African plains is just hogwash. Lions and zebras and et ceteras managed just fine without going naked. * Humans cry salt tears. This helps clear out the stinging of being in the salty ocean. Once again, the above animals are the only ones doing so. * Face-to-face copulation makes a lot more sense in the water than the rear approach favored by most land animals. * The shape of the nose is more conducive to standing around in the water, doing some minor dunkings and swimming, and not inhaling as much water as would happen with a typical ape nose. * Standing up. The thesis has our ancestors inhabiting the shallow shores of the ocean. Humans stood up in order to keep their heads above water. * Breasts. What good is a breast (aside from the obvious aesthetic value :-))? Other mammals manage without such a globular protrusion. Morgan claims that the globular shape makes for an easier grab (for baby) in water. Another mammal with similar breasts is the manatee (the ones sailors probably thought were mermaids). * Long head hair. This is supposed to give a swimming baby something to hold on to (when not holding the breast). It also protects from sunburn the one part that would normally still be above water in a wading environment. This gives you the general idea. I don't know what the current anthropological view of all this is. -- ". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch." Bob Neinast (inhp4!ho95b!ran) AT&T-Bell Labs
ran@ho95b.UUCP (ran) (11/13/84)
Our machine became terminally ill just after I sent this out, so I don't think it made it anywhere. If it did, sorry about the reposting. >there was an article in a magazine (perhaps Science or Discover, I don't >remember) that postulated an aquatic/amphibious ape in Man's ancestry. It >based this on the pattern of hair on the body, which is arranged in a sort >of flow pattern along the arms and other areas. The author(s) suggested that >a pre-homonid ape developed a semi-aquatic lifestyle, possibly in a way >similar to that of the Japanese macques. >-- > Pete Hardie, Univ. of Florida, CIS Gould > username: hardie Check out the book "The Descent of Woman", by Elaine Morgan (circa early 1970s?). She gives a nice summary (and a few new ideas) of somebody else's (sure can't remember who) presentation of this thesis. Some of the high points (i.e., those I can remember without looking for my copy of the book): * Aquatic animals are the ones that lose their hair, like the whale, walrus, seal, manatee, hippo, elephant (not really aquatic, but damn good swimmers). By the way, she claims the thesis that man (and woman---one of the points of her book is that anthropologists are too male-oriented) lost the hair because of the drying out and heating up of the African plains is just hogwash. Lions and zebras and et ceteras managed just fine without going naked. * Humans cry salt tears. This helps clear out the stinging of being in the salty ocean. Once again, the above animals are the only ones doing so. * Face-to-face copulation makes a lot more sense in the water than the rear approach favored by most land animals. * The shape of the nose is more conducive to standing around in the water, doing some minor dunkings and swimming, and not inhaling as much water as would happen with a typical ape nose. * Standing up. The thesis has our ancestors inhabiting the shallow shores of the ocean. Humans stood up in order to keep their heads above water while wading. * Breasts. What good is a breast (aside from the obvious aesthetic value :-))? Other mammals manage without such a globular protrusion. Morgan claims that the globular shape makes for an easier grab (for baby) in water. Another mammal with similar breasts is the manatee (the ones sailors probably thought were mermaids). * Long head hair. This is supposed to give a swimming baby something to hold on to (when not holding the breast). It also protects from sunburn the one part that would normally still be above water in a wading environment. This gives you the general idea. I don't know what the current anthropological view of all this is. -- ". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch." Bob Neinast (ihnp4!ho95b!ran) AT&T-Bell Labs
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (11/22/84)
> * Aquatic animals are the ones that lose their hair, like the > whale, walrus, seal, manatee, hippo, elephant (not really > aquatic, but damn good swimmers). Note that humans, on the other hand, are NOT particularly good swimmers. In fact a human is one of the few large land animals that can easly drown in calm water. Most large animals swim instinctively. Some humans do too BUT NOT ALL! The only other example I can think of is the girafe. Does this mean that humans stand up to reach brances of trees? > * Face-to-face copulation makes a lot more sense in the water > than the rear approach favored by most land animals. And most marine animals as well. Do you mean to say that an animal that lives in shallow water can't go to shore for 10 minutes? If not, where did they sleep? Marine mammals don't realy sleep at all. Humans do. > * Breasts. What good is a breast (aside from the obvious > aesthetic value :-))? Other mammals manage without such > a globular protrusion. Morgan claims that the globular > shape makes for an easier grab (for baby) in water. Or on land also. Morgan has already discovered that humans have no fur! Use some common sense, PLEASE! Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl seismo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/26/84)
In article <1516@cvl.UUCP> rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) writes: > * Aquatic animals are the ones that lose their hair, like the > whale, walrus, seal, manatee, hippo, elephant (not really > aquatic, but damn good swimmers). Not completely true, in addition to aquatic animals, large animals also lose their hair(the elephant belongs in this category *not* aquatic). Humanity also belongs in this category - we are larger than about 90% of all animals now living, and the size effect is more pronounced in the tropics where mankind came from.
ran@ho95b.UUCP (ran) (11/27/84)
!>Check out the book "The Descent of Woman", by Elaine Morgan (circa early
!>1970s?). She gives a nice summary (and a few new ideas) of somebody
!>else's (sure can't remember who) presentation of this thesis. Some of
!>the high points (i.e., those I can remember without looking for my copy
!>of the book):
!>
!> * Aquatic animals are the ones that lose their hair, like the
!> whale, walrus, seal, manatee, hippo, elephant (not really
!> aquatic, but damn good swimmers).
!
!Note that humans, on the other hand, are NOT particularly good
!swimmers. In fact a human is one of the few large land animals that
!can easly drown in calm water. Most large animals swim instinctively.
!Some humans do too BUT NOT ALL! The only other example I can think of
!is the girafe. Does this mean that humans stand up to reach brances of
!trees?
!
!> * Face-to-face copulation makes a lot more sense in the water
!> than the rear approach favored by most land animals.
!
!And most marine animals as well. Do you mean to say that an animal that
!lives in shallow water can't go to shore for 10 minutes? If not, where
!did they sleep? Marine mammals don't realy sleep at all. Humans do.
!
!> * Breasts. What good is a breast (aside from the obvious
!> aesthetic value :-))? Other mammals manage without such
!> a globular protrusion. Morgan claims that the globular
!> shape makes for an easier grab (for baby) in water.
!!
!Or on land also. Morgan has already discovered that humans have no fur!
!
!Use some common sense, PLEASE!
!
! Ralph Hartley
! rlh@cvl
! seismo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh
I must admit to being a bit distressed that commentary on this net
seems to generate so many insults. I was summarizing some of the points
in Elaine Morgan's book. How would common sense help that? If you
wish to take issue with some of her arguments, by all means do so,
but there is no need to imply some mental failing in an attempt
to present some of the ideas in Morgan's thesis. I agree that some
of her points are not particularly rigorous.
Most of what I've seen about babies swimming is that they do it
pretty much instinctively, and pretty well, if you start them
young enough. They then grow up to be pretty good swimmers.
I also can't think of too many other non-aquatic mammals that
make a point of playing as much in water as man does (though I
concede that this could be purely cultural--in humans it's
notoriously difficult to separate the cultural from the instinctive).
Regarding copulation, the animals that do copulate face-to-face
(humans excluded) are aquatic (manatee, otter?). However, I agree
that going to shore sure does seem like a more reasonable way of
doing it, yet that gives no explanation of how copulation moved
from back to front (mostly) in a land environnment.
Regarding breasts, ask any female you know how she'd like to have
a baby hanging from a breast without the buoyancy of water to help.
I realize that nowadays the female just holds the infant, but it's
hard to see how a large breast got started if the female always
just held the infant. With fur, the baby just hangs on to the fur.
If the fur just disappeared in a non-aquatic environment, I would
expect the mother to do more carrying without necessarily developing
the large breast. I'm not really comfortable with this explanation,
but don't see a better one for either environment. Morgan brought
this one up to counter the explanation in Desmond Morris' "The
Naked Ape", that breasts were "created" to simulate rounded
buttocks in front to increase sexual attraction. This ignores
the natural shape of breasts in a bra-less world.
Do I believe in aquatic origins? I'd really like to see more evidence
of a less coincidental nature. I certainly found Morgan's book
to be food for thought, and maybe a starting point for more detailed
research. I would consider the thesis at about the point that
continental drift was when first presented by Wegener: intriguing,
but without more evidence, not ready for scientific acceptance.
I also don't think that Morgan's presentation is flawless. In
particular, she has the apes evolving in an almost Lamarkian way,
"Gee, this fur is uncomfortable in the water. I think I'll shed it."
However, the many similarities between humans and aquatic mammals
pointed out by her do seem worthy of at least some attention.
--
". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."
Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95b!ran)
AT&T-Bell Labs