Re: Fw: AAT onelist
I don't think there is much difference between an eGroup and a Onelist. The
main reason for either of these systems is to get feedback from as many
people as possible on subjects of common interest. So I am sending this
reply to the list rather than directly to you so that others can comment.
As far as I am concerned I wanted to discuss AAT and see how I can connnect
it to my interests in ethnobotany. So I might join an ethnobotany egroup or
onelist in addition to, but not instead of, AAT.
At 12:01 AM 27/09/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Hugh: Marcel Williams (pro-AAT) just started an eGroup on human evolution.
>He thinks eGroups are superior to onelist - I don't know why. What do you
>>I�ll probably join the AAT onelist tonight, but the format (the way the
>>messages are catogorized) seems a bit confusing to me. I think egroups
>>is the superior program both in style and simplicity. Plus, I didn�t
>>want to limit the discussion on my board to AAT matters only; I was
>>almost tempted to start a general paleontology and evolution board. I
>>may still do that if I decide to create another board.
>>Please feel free to add human evolution links to my egroups links page
>>I agree with you about the lack of interesting topics at palanth-I. It
>>just goes to show you how conservative (and boring) the
>>paleoanthropological community has become lately.
>>Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>> Marcel, thanks for the invitation. The palanth-I group invited me too (I
>>> don't know who did that) & I'm member of it (I recently saw your question
>>> the number of lumbar vertebrae in a'piths - AFAIK Sts-14 is the only
>>> with a known number of lumbar vertebrae). For the rest there's not much
>>> interesting in that group & I'm thinking of unsubscribing. Marcel,
>>> we join your new eGroup & our AAT onelist? is that possible? or
>>> messages or so?
>>> Best wishes - Marc
>Marc: I don't think there is much difference between an eGroup and aOnelist. The main reason for either of these systems is to get feedback from
as many people as possible on subjects of common interest. So I am sending
this reply to the list rather than directly to you so that others can
comment. As far as I am concerned I wanted to discuss AAT and see how
I can connnect it to my interests in ethnobotany. So I might join an
ethnobotany egroup or onelist in addition to, but not instead of, AAT.
Hugh, do you think it's time to announce the AAT-onelist at other discussion
Onelists have a place for files. IMO it would be very interesting if our
members would place interesting papers concerning AAT (published or not) in
the AAT-onelist files.
Is it possible to cross-send messages to both an eGroup and an Onelist?
Marcel's eGroup "paleoanthropology" has a few interesting discussions on
non-AAT matters (IMO his list is more interesting than "Palanth-I"). See
below part of a discussion with Michael Crawford. Any opinions?
Michael Crawford said:
>Well the likely hood is that Neanderthals were more similar to the bigcats. They hunted animals, big ones, and ate meat, lots of it. So they would
have slit eyes like the cats. ...
Michael, you're kidding, aren't you? I don't know anything on slit eyes,
except that slits can be opened further than circular pupils, that's why
they're more frequent in nocturnal animals. Vertical slits are seen in
nocturnal animals that move a lot vertically, like cats. Horizontal slits
are seen in nocturnals that live in more open environments. (Slits have the
disadvantage of losing a large part of the visual field.)
Probably Neandertals ate meat, but probably not as much as CroMagnons. We
don't know whether Neandertals really hunted (they might have used traps,
but IMO they were much too heavy to be active hunters). But we do know they
cut cattails (probably for food - cattails grow in shallow water). We know
they sometimes (esp. the males) had extensive ear exostoses - and ear
exostoses in humans are +-only seen in frequent divers in cold water (less
than ca.18�C). We know some of them ate turtles & molluscs & fish (among
other food). Probably they ate plant food (which fossilises less easily).
Some researchers think that the CroMagnons replaced the Neandertals at a
moment when the climate became cooler. In any case, the CroMagnons with
their more slender build were more active & faster than their predecessors.
(It's unlikely - tough not impossible - Neandertals & CroMagnons mixed
genes. In the recent Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.USA issue with the paper on the
Portuguese so-called half-Neandertal-half-sapiens hybrid fossil 25,000ya,
there was also an introductory paper that said the fossil was probably
purely sapiens. I agree with what Anne G is saying on these matters.)
>Marc, Thanks but No Cro-Magnons were fish eaters!!Very probably CroMagnons ate fish (& other things). They probably followed
the salmon trek along the rivers. Illustrations of flatfish (sea fish) &
salmon have been found on the walls of caves high in the Pyrenees.
Neandertals also ate a lot of aquatic food. They might have eaten meat, but
probably not as much as CroMagnons (whose remains have been found further
away from the rivers - Neandertal remains lay generally closer to the coast
or river). We don't know whether Neandertals really hunted (they might have
used traps, but IMO they were much too heavy to be active hunters). But we
do know they cut cattails (probably for food - cattails grow in shallow
water - traces of cattails have been found on Mousterian tools - probably
they waded). We know they sometimes (esp. the males) had extensive ear
exostoses (ear exostoses in humans are +-only seen in frequent divers in
cold water (less than ca.18C), mostly in shellfish-diving populations). We
know some Neandertals ate turtles & molluscs (M.Stiner) & fish (eel, carp,
trout & other fish have been found in Neandertal remains).
Michael, Marcel tells us that you just published a paper Crawford MA, Bloom
M, Broadhurst CL, Schmidt WF, Cunnane SC, Galli C, Gehbremeskel K, Linseisen
F, Lloyd-Smith J, Parkington Lipids 1999;34 Suppl:S39-47- could you please
send us here the abstract or so? what are the implications for human