Comments on: Bigfoot Family Tree

By: OKCurious

OKCurious — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 05:42:13 +0000

I have really enjoyed this chain. The various debates are highly cogent; however, before we begin to go beyond our current situation , wouldn’t it make more sense to wait until we have something with which to work? We can’t begin to make assumptions from a few unidentifiable hairs, scat and difficult to fake dermal ridges. Science requires evidence before categorization. You can’t categorize something you’ve never seen or observed closely. There have been many ‘answers’ to what these creatures are in the decades past, but unanchored conjectured theory is a pursuit better left to the media. After all, Biggie could just be sipping latte’s with Lindsay Lohan. Where would you put that on the chart?

By: corax

corax — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:26:22 +0000

Very interesting, but with so little evidence.... The comments about Neandertals are worth a response. First the comments about genetic similarity. A range of studies have looked specifically at the mtDNA (note not the nuclear DNA) of neanderthals. They all (as far as I am aware) agree that Neandertal mtDNA lies outside the range of variation for modern humans. How significant this is, is a moot point. After all some fossil 'modern' human DNA lies outside the range of variation of modern humans (eg Mungo Man). It does appear that Neandertals have not contributed mtDNA to modern human populations. Does this mean they are not related, or at least partially ancestral? Not necessarily. After all, your father didn't contibute to your mtDNA, but he was ancestral to you. Its a good idea to compare the actual research papers, and not to the hype. The following links go to papers that are relevant: Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 The following is very interesting in coming to rather different conclusions, and in my mind is well argued. On Mungo Man check. Curiously according to an article from Current Biology in June this year, the stratigraphically oldest Neandertals were more different from modern humans than were more recent neanderthals (though overall neanderthal were more similar to each other than to moderns). That takes some explaining, since traditional theory would predict diverging mtDNA sequences not converging ones. As for the comment about modern European populations containing 5% Neandertal DNA (note this refers to nuclear DNA not mtDVA)- this is based on this paper. And this is quite a good summary. It is quite feasible that neanderthals contributed to the nuclear DNA of modern humans, while the mtDNA lineages that derived from them all died out. A good model for how this works is the inheritance of surnames in small relatively closed communities. Interestingly there are some morphological features which suggest the possibility of neanderthal characteristics in modern Europeans. Apart from gross morphological features, there some quite specific ones. One that is quite interesting is apparently the position of the nerves entering the jaw bone, which is similar in Neandertals, Cro-magnons and some modern Europeans, but rather different in other humans. I have no idea if it’s convergence or common ancestry, but I find it more indicative than mtDNA. Regarding the inner ear structure, check. The idea that the difference in inner ear structure translated into a difference in locomotion or balance, as the paper indicates, this is very speculative and is based on a supposed, not proven, correlation. Whether or not Neandertals were conspecific with us is still an open question. I don’t think any of the information available is definitive. A lot depends on the species concept you adopt. I like the following definition: ‘a population, or group of populations, where there are no significant biological barriers to the relatively free exchange of genetic information’. It is interesting that modern humans, cultural prejudices aside, tend to be quite liberal in exchange of genetic material (I could have put that differently, but I thought that was more tactful ?) between populations of quite different appearance. I doubt that the appearance of Neandertals would have been so different as to counteract that.

By: jayman

jayman — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:18:33 +0000

Concerning sschaper and others about the research indicating Europeans could be up to 5% Neanderthal genetically, see this article.

By: tpeter

tpeter — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:06:55 +0000

Dear Loren,
**I just wonder how many of your other readers or correspondents have asked you about the Bigfoot odor question? As I just wrote a little earlier this morning, references to an overpowering foul odor come up so often in Bigfoot–as well as Skunk Ape–reports, while gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans on the other hand are not particularly noted for an overpowering odor. This, as I said before, is one of the things that really puzzles and bothers me about Bigfoot. It’s also one of those things, I suspect, that helps lend a certain seeming plausibility to paranormal, occult, “psychic,” “demonic,” and “high strangeness” theories of Bigfoot. Any thoughts yourself on this foul odor question? Any other readers have any thoughts?
Cheers,
T. Peter

By: tpeter

tpeter — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:22:02 +0000

Dear Loren,
**The “classic” Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti, the “Neo-Giant” of your and Patrick Huyghe’s The Field Guide to Sasquatch and Mystery Primates,is often assumed to be a pongid, largely because of the seeming total lack of cultural behavior (language, clothing, tool use) in the great majority of reports. A few reports, however, do indicate some sort of language–e.g., the 1924 Ostman case, the Carter family case. This, plus the erect stance and the footprints with a non-opposable (human-like) rather than opposable or thumb-like (ape-like) big toe, would seem to suggest a hominid rather than pongid affiliation. Thus, _Paranthropus_ rather than _Gigantopithecus_ might be a more likely Neo-Giant zoological origin. On the other hand, there seem to be no reports of Neo-Giants having even a simple tool kit such as that of _Homo erectus_. But then, the Australopithecines seem to have had no tool kit, either. So, there seems to ne nothing unreasonable in deriving the Neo-Giants from an Australopithecines line, perhaps from _Paranthropus_, that grew to very large size.

**The “Skunk Apes” or “Napes” on the other hand are far more likely pongids.

**One detail that has always bothered me is the STENCH so often associated with both Bigfoot and Skunk Apes, seemingly going far beyond any odors normally associated with chimpanzees, gorillas, or orang-utans. It’s this stench that helps give a certain popularity to paranormal and occult theories of Bigfoot and other mystery primates.

Cheers,
T. Peter

By: skunkape_hunter

skunkape_hunter — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:29:22 +0000

Someone correct me if I am wrong, or let me know if I am right as well. I am under the impression that there are two, maybe three, sub-species of Skunkape ? To be honest I am not sure where I found this info. I do know for sure that if it was something Dave Shealy came up with I would have disregarded it.

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:43:25 +0000

I agree with most of the posters here- this is just too speculative, and it also pays no real attention to the relative feasibility of cryptid hominid species (to give the Yowie the same existential status as the bigfoot seems highly uncritical)- The one point I would like to make is that it is highly unlikely that the new world bigfoot is in any way a remnant hominid or hominid descendent. Morphologically it is too distinct and there is, of course, a complete lack of fossils that suggest either such a species in the americas or the evolution of such a species anywhere. Perhaps, more significantly, behaviourally the bigfoot/sasquatch seems far to ‘primitive’ to be descended from such hominids. Even homo erectus was producing sophisticated stone tool kits, and using them to, at least, scavenge (if not hunt) animal prey, as well as either work or process plant material (such as wood). It probably also at least managed and maintained fire. As I have noted before on this site, there is almost no report of bigfoot/sasquatch using tools (at best improvised clubs or digging sticks). In general their behaviour is much more in line with that of the great apes. As such, probably the best candidate for the origin of bigfoot is gigantipithecus- although even here we face huge problems relating to the lack of fossils either in america or north-east asia, and to the ecological and geographic feasibility of such a species reaching north america (presumably across the bering landbridge).

Having said all this, there is no harm in the kind of speculative reconstruction that this family-tree represents if we see it as such…

By: sschaper

sschaper — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:33:47 +0000

You are thinking of nearly 10 year old mitochondrial DNA studies. Mitochondrial DNA is only passed on by the mother – not the father.

Those studies indicated that Neandertal were only slightly closer to moderns than Mungo Man – an Austrailian aborigine, and very much homo sapiens, not erectus or heidelbergensis. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v1i12n.htm

It was also taken from a hyper-variable region of the mitochondrial DNA and not very helpful in determining relatedness.

This is new research reported within the last few days, in the journal PloS Genetics, and widely reported in the science-oriented web news sources. http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1722109.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20060829-21370800-bc-us-neanderthal.xml

I should also point out that recent research shows that not only did the Neandertal have flutes using Pythagorean tuning, but that their material culture was quite sophisticated, no less so that the early moderns who moved into Europe, contrary to the popular brutish image.

By: twblack

twblack — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:54:46 +0000

Yes they do exist someday I will share my story no my fact as well.

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:25:33 +0000

Well, 19 comments in, much of what I intended to say has already been said in one form or another. Sanderson’s tree is both hopelessly outdated and very 19th century. Everything I’ve read suggests that H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens evolved from isolated groups of H. heidelbergensis. H. heidelbergensis is also suspected on being capable of speech, indicating that that feature predates them both. Neanderthals have recently been proven to have been capable of speech, although perhaps not quite as refined as ours.

As for hypothetical cladistics, I’ve always favoured the idea that the Yowie and perhaps some of the more human-like Southeast Asian hominids descend from H. erectus, known to have occupied the region. This is most likely for the Yowie, if for no other reason than it is the only other hominid besides man known to have reached Australia.

I am suspicious of claims that the Almas, Yeren, and other Russian and Asian hominids are Neanderthals or their descendants. Although some instances of tool-use have been reported, for the most part they seem far too primitive. As I’ve already said, Neanderthals likely had complex speech and a brainpower equal to that of H. sapiens (Actually, their brains were larger, as was their brain-to-body size ratio, the best method we have of determining inherent intelligence). Some have even speculated that early Europeans may have adopted their cultural habits as well, until the Indo-European horsemen wiped most elements of it out.

I would also hazard a guess that the Orang Pendek and similar hominids are very close relatives of the Orangutan.