Comments on: Gigantic Apes Coexisted with Early Humans

By: Craig Woolheater

Craig Woolheater — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:31:25 +0000

The story pops up today on ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1334307
with the following:

A Possible Source of the Bigfoot Legend

Since the discovery of Gigantopithecus fossils, some observers have noticed that the primate resembles the giant ape-like humans of worldwide legend — Bigfoot, the “abominable snowman,” Sasquatch, or the yeti.

Is Gigantopithecus the source of these legends?

“I can’t disagree with that statement,” said Rink, who cautioned that the stories come from various regions and climate zones from around the world.

The primate’s territory would have been limited by his food source, Rink noted, and the species might not have ventured far from bamboo forests.

“It’s unlikely that Gigantopithecus would have adapted to a cold, snowy climate,” Rink said.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:49:48 +0000

Wow - thanks Craig and Sasquatchery Anyone notice the recent news getting out about this animal? Yesterday was a big newsday for Mr. Giganto -

By: Sasquatchery

Sasquatchery — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:23:04 +0000

I think Jeff Meldrum once said that the reason so very few fossil apes or monkeys of any kind are found is due to the habitat in which they lived: the conditions were very poor for fossil preservation. It’s notable that the few Giganto remains we do have were all found in caves, since caves represent unusual circumstances environmentally. The giant “cave” bears would probably be unknown were it not for the cave environments. Heck, if it weren’t for the Rancho La Brea site we wouldn’t have much in the way of sabre-tooth cats or American lions - an unusual circumstance in an otherwise poor environment for preservation.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:26:28 +0000

Cool stuff.

Giganto, of course, is one of the all-time intriguing fossil candidates of hominology, especially for me, for the Yeti. So thanks for the update Craig.

It is amazing that Giganto existed for so long, and yet only these few surviving teeth and mandibles remain. Says something about the relatively rare nature of preserving the bones of these big ones, hummm?

By: Craig Woolheater

Craig Woolheater — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:56:56 +0000

Actually, I will correct myself here.

Jeff Glickman wrote in the NASI report of 1998, “Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon”, available at http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/nasi1.html
comes the following quote:

“Of the existing fossil record, Gigantopithecus is the only candidate fossil that approximates the size of the reported anecdotal observations. Gigantopithecus is known only by four mandibles and approximately one-thousand teeth — no post-cranial material has been found. Three of the four mandibles, known as Gigantopithecus blacki, are approximately 300,000 to 400,000 years and are from the Kwangsi Province of southern China. The fourth mandible, known as Gigantopithecus giganteus, is from the Siwalik Hills of Bilaspur, north of Delhi in India and is approximately 6.3 million years old. It is smaller than the three Chinese mandibles and is believed to be an older species of the same genus. The Gigantopithecus teeth were discovered in Liucheng, Kwangsi, Wuming, Bama, Daxin, and Jianshi of southern China. Because of the lack of post-cranial material, the posture and locomotion of Gigantopithecus is unknown.”

This was written in 1998, so there have possibly been additional discoveries since then.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:04:23 +0000

Thats what I thought, any idea why those parts have survived while other parts of the skeleton has not? I find that fact alone, very interesting.

Thanks for the site, I will check it out.

By: Craig Woolheater

Craig Woolheater — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:29:56 +0000

Actually less than that, some teeth and a jawbone. Grover Krantz reconstructed a skull using these teeth and jawbone. You can purchase a copy from Bone Clones at: http://www.boneclones.com/BC-140.htm

By: Melissa

Melissa — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:22:20 +0000

I hope scientists keep looking into this possibility.. How much of this animal has actually been found? Partial skeletal remains, or less? Just curious.