29 Responses to “Bigfoot: Gigantopithecus or Paranthropus?”

1. H_Wrabbit responds: December 25th, 2005 at 9:56 pm

   Well from personal experience, and Myra Shackley’s book, “Still Living?”, I’d have to say I think there are multiple different types of unknown primates that are being classified as “sasquatch”, “bigfoot” or whatever.

   In the Pacific northwest, I know it is less common that we hear about sightings of smaller primates, but being partially linked to a mountain community about 20 miles north of Portland, the only reports I’ve personally heard have been of small primates (about 4 feet tall). These span over at least 6 years, I can’t remember how long ago the last one was. My neighbor’s father was the first person I’d heard of with any sightings like this.

   The first one was right around the flood of 96 around 10am if I remember correctly. It ran across a 2-lane, mountain road right in front of his truck, without showing any sign of noticing him. He hit the brakes and watched it disappear down the hill before speeding off. He described it as a “ET” looking, small ape, dark haired. No crest. That’s all I can remember about his description. When I first heard this a couple years ago (the first time he had told anyone was to his son, my friend, who immediately told me) I just assumed it must be a young, normal sasquatch.

   Then about a year after he had told his story, his friend (the one he was actually coming back from visiting when he saw the animal) showed up unexpected at his house, while my friend was there, scared shitless it sounded like. He apparently had been driving down the same road, a couple corners down the hill, and had seen the same exact thing. I’m pretty sure this was in 2002 or later. I have heard that there are other people that live in the mountains up there that have had sightings of similar things, but I can’t think of where I heard this, so it might not be true. I know that on the BFRO, on the same road a few miles away, that there was at least one report of sightings, but I can’t remember any details.

   About a year after these sightings, my old neighbor, Mike Downey, part of MUFON, lended me some books on a few different random alternative subjects. One of them was Myra Shackley’s book “Sill Living?”. I had never really heard many reports of unknown primates from different parts of the world. I had also never really thought about the theory that some of the wildmen being reported in different parts of the world might be neaderthals or something similar. Anyway, there was only one picture in the book that I can remember, and as soon as I saw it something went off inside my head. It was a drawing of what the average neaderthal was estimated to look like. ET. This is the first time I even considered that there might be the same types of animals that were described in this book from other parts of the world, living in the Pacific northwest.

   I actually got permission from my neighbor to submit his report as best I could to the BFRO, so I did. I eventually (I think it was about 6-12 months later) got an email back asking if they could get some contact information. I’m pretty sure I took a long time to get it, but I eventually sent them his phone number and other contact information. I never got a response, so I’m not sure if they made any effort to follow up on it or not.

   Because of the years of space between the first sighting of the small primate and the second sighting of the same sized animal in the same area, I now think that instead of a small sasquatch (like the more commonly sighted ones, maybe gigantopithecus or paranthropus) that the animal/s seen were actually full-grown.

   The recent sightings from Malaysia made me think of Myra Shackley’s book also, as some of the people were describing two different types of wildmen. In the Himilayas I think it’s similar, two different types, the yeti, large, the yeren, small.

   I feel like I’m rambling now. Just wanted to throw that out there, hopefully someone has something to add to that.

   ANYWAY, I don’t know enough about gigantopithecus or paranthropus to make a good descision on what species the Pacific northwest’s common sasquatch are. Since it’s been so long since we’ve found any fossils of these animals, and if they were once one of these species, I’d imagine they could have changed a bit over the years.

2. Doug responds: December 25th, 2005 at 10:55 pm

   That’s very interesting. Given the fact that gigantopithecus has long been the leading candidate for the modern day sasquatch, folks may have a hard time accepting paranthropus as a viable candidate. As far as my vote…I have no earthly idea. Gigantopithicus was closer to North America, given the land bridge that once existed, than paranthropus, but that’s not ruling out that paranthropus’ descendents migrated over a long period of years fro Africa to NE Asia. There could even be a third candidate. Only future sasquatch or fossil finds will tell.

3. ToddPartain responds: December 25th, 2005 at 11:29 pm

   Well, certainly we have to keep an open mind and not dismiss any possibility out of hand. I don’t see how anyone can lock into one species and deny all others since we still don’t have the coveted “specimen”.
   For example, while researching info for a video documentary, I’ve recently run across quite a bit of info on giant skeletal remains in the US. Since the earliest days of white pioneers tilling farmland there have been discoveries of giant humanoid skeletons here in North America that can’t be explained through conventional means.
   Skeletons ranging from 7 to 12 feet tall were regularly found with remnants of red hair and many had double rows of teeth and some had six fingers.
   They appeared to predate or co exist with many “Native American” cultures but had superior technology.
   Is it possible this race of giants regressed to a more primitive lifestyle from the effects of war with the people that later european invaders would call “indians”?
   What if they retreated into the forests and became more primal? forsaking arrows and spears and clothing for more natural enhancements. I recently listened to many recordings of vocalizations that, if they are indeed sasquatch, sound like som form of Asiatic or Native American languauge type.
   Indeed , we know that as we pushed the native people off their land and constantly warred with and molested them, they too gave up their longhouse communities and reverted to more nomadic ways of life as their culture dissolved and they eventually gave way to our aggression.
   What if previous to our arrival, they had done the same to the technologically superior but less populous giants?
   Is it possible these giants regressed from

4. ToddPartain responds: December 25th, 2005 at 11:44 pm

   Please forgive my typos, and yes Loren, Paranthropus does seem to be gaining in popularity for many good reasons. not being a scientist, I can’t pretend to really hash it all out, but the more complete fossil record defintely puts Paranthropus out front. Always fun and stimulating to visit this forum.

5. Lee Murphy responds: December 26th, 2005 at 12:07 am

   Another reality we have to accept without a Sasquatch specimen is candidate #3: A complete unknown. Especially since fossilization is the exception and NOT the rule where our knowledge of prehistoric life forms comes from.

   Another thing to remember is the largest physical evidence we have for Giganto is the mandible of a specimen that most likely topped out at nine or so feet, making it a perfectly viable candidate.

6. Lee Murphy responds: December 26th, 2005 at 12:10 am

   Sorry– another brief consideration is the creature in the Patterson film which, as M.K. Davis stated, has the arm proportions of an ape, and not a human being. It might be a good idea to take the arm proportions from that film (provided you believe it to be authentic) and compare it to the arm proportions of a Paranthropus skeleton.

7. Chymo responds: December 26th, 2005 at 10:01 am

   Looking for a likely suspect for the identity of Bigfoot at the recent-end of the prehistoric record is probably premature, to be honest. We have to actually gain solid evidence that the animal exists before going on that tack. However, of course it is an interesting line of speculation.

   Most people I speak to on the subject, who aren’t very well-read in the literature, still regard the existance of Bigfoot to be pure bunk, and anyone who considers it even a remote possibility to be not quite right in the head, so we still have a long way to go to establish credibility even with the ‘average joe’, let alone the scientific establishment - which would benefit the species itself in the long run.

   I strongly believe this credibility means securing bones. This can only come about after long-term missions by small teams into the most likely habitats. And by long term, I mean months of trained people going bush, and not just weekend forays by guys in mountain gear driving 4wds toting coolers and stinking up the place with artificial chemical scents for miles around. We have to identify the core habitats, and that will take long, hard work by the equivalent of survival-trained bushmen.

   Bones - and teeth especially, which are more resistant to degrading in acid rich soils - *must* exist if the animal is real, and can have their age determined conclusively. A near-recent age would prove unquestionably the existance of the animal.

   I would argue we only see Bigfoot near human civilization during wandering or expansion of habitat by young males moving out from their originating group, if known ape behavioural patterns can be used as a guide. I am dubious of sightings too close to built-up areas.

   From what can be determined from the evidence, it seems to me that for the most part the Bigfoot core habitat is very isolated from any human habitation. This would be the species’ evolutionary tactic for survival in prehistory, competing with man for the same food resources (along with nocturnalism), so if they do exist today, this is the pattern they will follow.

   As far as the subject of identification of a species goes, I was surprised by BFRO’s recent apparently definitive statement that Sasquatch is a ‘a survivor of the gigantopithecus line of apes’. I had until a couple of their postings recently thought them a dilligent and objective group, but this kind of thing gives me pause to wonder.

   But anyway, a basic rule of thumb would be that Paranthropus was more humanoid, being among the direct precursors to humans and bipedal, and Giganto (more than likely) was probably not fully erect. So if we’re talking about a large bipedal ape, it’s got to fall closer to Paranthropus, imho.

   Although we have no remains of Giganto other than teeth or jaw, Occam’s razor suggests it was probably not totally bipedal. I imagine it similar in posture to the Orangutan, to which it was probably most closely related.

8. tpeter responds: December 26th, 2005 at 10:02 am

   Dear Loren,
   As you know, and as I’ve been continually telling everyone these past several years, I vastly admire your and Patrick Huyghe’s book THE FIELD GUIDE TO BIGFOOT, YETI, AND OTHER MYSTERY PRIMATES WORLDWIDE, for its loud and clear distinction of the several quite distinct types of hominid cryptids all too commonly lumped together as Bigfoot or Yeti in the popular media. In particular, I’ve long felt that you’re 100% on the right track in distinguishing between cryptid hominids of roughly ordinmary himan (or even dwarfish) size (e.g, Almas, Kaptar, Nguoi Rung, Orang Pendek, Nittaewo, Agogwe, Batutut) which might well be surviving HOMO ERECTUS or Neandertal relicts, versus the Bigfoot~Sasquatch~Yeti types proper versus perhaps also the Marked Hominid types.
   The small or juvenile Bigfoot discussed in H_Wrabbit’s comment above strike me as probable Erectus Hominids or Neandertals, in any case distinct from the “classical” Bigfoot type, closer to Almas, Kaptar, and Orang Pendek than to the “classical” Bigfoot.
   Now, as for the “classical” or “typical” Bigfoot, Sasquatch, and Yeti, the 6-8 foot tall erect biped with a sagittal crest, after reading your own latest comments I’d vote for Paranthropus.
   Cheers,
   T. Peter

9. Cameron responds: December 26th, 2005 at 4:02 pm

   A few comments:

   Paranthropus was thought to be a “giant” in the initial days of its discovery, but I have never heard it estimated at 5.5 to 7.5 feet tall. I have occasionally seen P. boisei reconstructed at around 5.5 feet tall in publications from the 80’s, but modern reconstructions are much smaller. Paranthropus is estimated at around 4 to 4.5 feet tall (due to sexual dimorphism) in modern publications. The “robust” and “hyper-robust” Australopithecines are only called that because of their tooth and jaw size.

   Saggital crests are a rather mundane feature found on a wide variety of mammals. I am unconvinced that it can be used as a diagnostic trait.

   The notion that Meganthropus paleojavanicus is Paranthropus is an extreme minority viewpoint, in fact I don’t recall anyone supporting it after Krantz’s death. Perhaps you are confusing it with “Meganthropus” africanus, the briefly named african fossil that turned out to be Paranthropus? The Asian Meganthropus is agreed upon by the vast majority of Paleoanthropologists to be related to Homo erectus, but opinion varies as to how. I am under the impression that it is a subspecies, it is slightly larger than erectus, older, and has different features. See my wikipedia article for much more information.

   I don’t think Giganto is a viable candidate either, so my vote goes to a currently unknown branch of the hominid family tree.

10. Kristine in Seattle responds: December 26th, 2005 at 8:08 pm

    I have not read the other posts so don’t know if others have commented on this, but from my understanding of North American sasquatches, it appears that about 1/2 have a sagittal crest and 1/2 do not.

    I was lucky enough to see what I believe was a 7 foot male. It had a very pronounced sagittal crest, but everything else about the animal looked very human-like.

11. mysticrhythms responds: December 26th, 2005 at 8:17 pm

    Hi Loren , While both of those are good possible candidates, I personally believe from my own studies that what we are looking at here are possibly several large, unknown primates, or possibly one unknown primate, with regional sub-species, because there are variations in size and builds. Most Forest Giant sighting descriptions don’t exactly match Giganto or Paranthropus, which is why I came to this conclusion. I have although, entertained the thought they could possibly be a relic species that came down from Giganto or Paranthropus but still undocumented.
    Bob

12. rkeyo responds: December 26th, 2005 at 10:32 pm

    Ultimately, it is necessary to find a skeleton, either fossil or more recent, to determine the ancestry of modern bigfoot. I find the lack of osteological remains a real stumbling block in accepting bigfoot as something real. With all the “sightings” reported over the years, these creatures should be common enough - and one would think, even more common in the past - that bones would turn up now and then. The Asian remains suggest that if these creatures exist(ed) in North America, we should be able to come up with fossil evidence. It certainly exists for hundreds of Pleistocene varieties of creatures that exist today. Why not bigfoot? Theoretically, the size differential between prehistoric gigantopithicus and a modern, more evolved species, if it follows most species that survived into the Holocene, should be substantially smaller, and probably physically different in other respects, too. However, ALL this is mere specualation without physical evidence. Also, given the lack of nests or other habitations sites, tools, foraging sites, etc. it - again - is difficult to accept that bigfoot exists. Surely a creature this large, even in small numbers, is going to leave behind visible evidence of its presence in an area, no matter how large, that sooner or later is going to be recognized, reported, and analysed by someone. I, personally, would like very much to believe that bigfoot exists - and probably is a new species. However, without physical evidence - bones, hair, scat - it’s REAL tough…

13. Kainan responds: December 27th, 2005 at 5:24 am

    On an evolutionary time scale, size is a feature that can change very rapidly within a species.
    Environmental factors such as climate and food availability can have an almost immediate effect on the average size of individuals within a species, or of individuals within isolated populations of a given species. Consider the variations in size of our own species for example.
    If one were to compare the bones of a pygmy from the Congo to those of someone from the plains of East Africa, and try to determine their relationship based only on size, it would likely be decided that they are in fact separate species. Differences between the environments in which these two populations of humans reside have created a significant difference in their comparative size and stature. There are numerous examples in the animal kingdom, that these changes in size can take place in a very short span of time. As the Earth began to warm at the end of the last ice age, ten thousand years ago, and the melting glaciers caused sea levels to rise, deer that had been living south of what is now Florida, became trapped in higher areas of ground that became islands in the sea. These isolated groups came under harsh selective pressures to become smaller because of the limited resources now available for survival. In only a few thousand years, the difference in size between these deer and their mainland relatives has become dramatic, although in all other aspects they are the same species.

    In Australia, sightings of large black cats have been reported for decades, and these unconfirmed sightings were recently validated by the shooting of a black cat more than twice the size of the largest recorded domestic cat. The assumption was, that if these cats actually existed, that they were melanistic cougars or leopards. Shockingly, genetic analysis of the animal determined that it was in fact a feral domestic cat. This could be a dramatic example of a population that has rapidly been selected for large size in order to survive in a new environment. If this is indeed the case, then it suggests that significant changes in size within a species can occur in the time frame of only a couple centuries, or perhaps even several decades of natural selection.

    With this in mind, I would suggest that using comparisons of size alone, between modern Bigfoot, Gigantopithecus, and Paranthropus is of little use when trying to determine any taxonomic relationships. Particularly when considering that the specimens available for this comparison are of significant antiquity, I think the comparative size of these creatures is potentially irrelevant.

    For a long time I embraced Grover Krantz’s hypothesis that Bigfoot is a surviving Gigantopithecus that migrated to North America along with the multitude of other Asian mammals via the Bering Strait. Although the specimens we have of this ape species are frustratingly rare and incomplete, they do provide evidence that this giant ape existed over a large geographic area, including fairly northerly latitudes, and for an extensive period of time. Given the long overlap in time that Gigantopithecus and humans of one form or another inhabited the Asian continent, it seemed reasonable that this large animal could possibly continue to survive today avoiding modern humans with great skill.

    However, I later learned that the structure of the teeth in the genus Gigantopithecus put it in a group of exclusively Asian great apes, which includes orangutans. If this is in fact the case, then Gigantopithecus’ origins lie completely removed from that of humans. This is where for me, the hypothesis begins to crumble.

    I’m very familiar with the concept of convergent evolution and have always been fascinated and amused by natures numerous examples. Old World and New World vultures, for example, are so beautifully similar in their ecological roles, and anatomy; from their naked heads, and large soaring wings, to the specialized cup-like structure of their tongues for scooping blood from inside carcases. They are so similar in their evolutionary paths, that one is challenged to accept that one group originated from the same lineage as hawks and eagles, while the other diverged from that of storks and ibises.

    Having said this, however, I am completely unable to resolve in my mind that the similarities between humans, and Bigfoot, as described in the multitudes of reported sightings, are the result of convergence rather than from their common origins.

    I have read that bipedalism has evolved independantly among apes. One group of bipedal apes is said to be among the group that includes the Orangutans and Gigantopithicus. (To my frustration, I have been unable to find any more information on this subject.) This would certainly support the possibility that Gigantopithecus may have been bipedal since no remains currently exist beyond jaws and teeth to suggest otherwise. Who can say for sure?

    The second common feature of humans and Bigfoot that factors into my thinking, is the placement of the toes. As in humans, the “thumb” of the hind foot, for lack of a better word, has become relocated to the end of the foot, oriented forward, and parallel to the other toes, with no significant gap remaining between it and the other toes to hint at its ancestral location. Also as in humans, this toe is noticeably larger than the others. Considering that, as in the vast majority of other primates, this toe is located much farther back on the foot, and often smaller than the other digits, it could just as likely, (or perhaps even more likely) have become further separated and reduced in size, along the path to bipedalism.

    The third and final feature I take into consideration, that is common to humans and Bigfoot is the nose. Virtually without exception, those who have been so fortunate as to observe Bigfoot closely enough to discern facial features in detail, have described the nose to be very much like that of humans. The nose of bigfoot is described as having a ridge that extends outward from the plane of the face. The nose is described as being flat and broad. The nostrils are said to be flaring, with the opening of the nostrils pointing downward, or slightly forward. The nose is often described as having a strong resemblance to that of African, or other non-European humans. To me this is very significant. Of all the extant apes known to science, the nose of humans is unique, and with the exception of the superficial resemblance of the nose of the Proboscis Monkey to that of humans, the human nose is unique among all primates.

    Any one of these features alone, to have evolved independently in both humans and Bigfoot, although unlikely, is not outside the realm of possibility. However, to suggest that the combination of these features that are shared by the two species in question, could have or would have evolved convergently in unrelated great apes, is far beyond reason.

    If required to choose between a species of Gigantopithecus or a species of Paranthropus as the most likely identity of Bigfoot and their kin on the Asian continent, I would unquestionably have to chose the hominid, Paranthropus.

14. shovethenos responds: December 27th, 2005 at 6:24 am

    From what I can tell any kind of guess is a shot in the dark. Over the time frames involved either species could have undergone significant adaptations. And with the incomplete nature of the fossil record there could be a number of undocumented or misidentified relatives.

    Also, haven’t there been documented cryptid ape tracks that have opposable, or at least projecting, toes on the feet? What are the speculations about what species those might be? I notice Loren has a picture of “Jacko” (the cryptid, not the entertainer) in the collage that makes up the background of the site, what are the speculations about what species he might be? That would make a good post on a slow cryptozoology day, like the “mystery fish” series. Especially if some magnifications and the like could be done on the picture.

15. Eric Penz responds: December 27th, 2005 at 5:03 pm

    Happy Holiday to you, Loren. Based on the topic at hand, thought I’d chime in. Obviously this issue is of great interest. It didn’t take long to get the replies to stack up. Having recently released a novel on this very subject, Cryptid: The Lost Legacy of Lewis & Clark (see Loren’s post on the 21st), I’m rather partial to the Gigantopithecus camp. Certainly Krantz and others have made the Giganto hypothesis somewhat well known (among those interested in the field at least, certainly not in the mainstream), whereas the Meganthropus/Paranthropus hypothesis is still calling for support. Keep in mind, in either case, supporters are limited to those who first believe Sasquatch, et al to be real/possible.

    In contrast, I’d say Russell Ciochon represents mainstream science in respect to both hypothesies. He has personally expressed to me his stand of there being no connection what so ever with Giganto and Sasquatch. Whatever connection Giganto or Paranthropus may have with Neo-Giants, it is a connection looked for only within the field of cryptozoology. Outside of that, it is a question that is not even considered. An unfortunate circumstance I believe. Imagine if a day were to come and a specimen finally makes it into the hands of such experts as Ciochon and it comes to be that Sasquatch is indeed a new species of Giganto or Paranthropus. All these years they have been digging for scraps in the dank, dark earth of southern Asia or Africa when they could have been feasting a seven course meal with the the real deal in North America. Maybe, maybe not, but if I were them I’d find out for sure before I dismissed the possibility.

    As for the most likely candidate, an expert could succesfully argue for or against either. And in that fact there is hope. For they provide a rational platform for which to found a belief that such a beast is alive today. Primates of simlar description did indeed live at one time. And that fact alone supports the claim they could still live today.

    For Loren’s sake, though, I will take a stand. I put my money on Gigantopithecus. In fact, I did years ago when I chose to base my story on such a hypothesis. But if you want to know why I chose Giganto, you’ll have to read Cryptid–for I certainly can’t give away the plot that easily
    Happy New Year.

    Eric Penz
    mail@ericpenz.com
    http://www.cryptid.com

16. shovethenos responds: December 29th, 2005 at 2:05 pm

    Correction, in my post above I should have referenced the picture of De Loys or Loys ape, not “Jacko”. I mixed up my famous cryptid stories.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LoysApe.jpg

17. shovethenos responds: December 29th, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    Note the opposable or at least projecting toes on the feet.

18. Cameron responds: December 30th, 2005 at 1:55 am

    Even more noticable is the giant clitoris and the lack of thumbs on De Loy’s “ape”, the telltale sign of a spider monkey. I’m still debating if it can be reconciled with a known species, I do recall hearing something about a large spider monkey fossil species…

19. shovethenos responds: December 30th, 2005 at 6:41 pm

    I thought what you’re calling a “giant clitoris” was really the pointy male member of an ape. Are you sure about that? If its female, where are the breasts? I realize most female primates are pretty flat-chested, but there doesn’t seem to be anything there.

    Are you sure about there not being any thumbs present? It looks like they might be there but held against the hands. And what about the tail? Don’t most, if not all, monkeys have tails?

    I don’t mean to bombard you with questions here, but you seem to know what you’re talking about. Anthropologist?

20. Cameron responds: December 30th, 2005 at 9:42 pm

    Nope, I’m not an anthropologist, I’ve just discussed this and seen this discussed many times before.

    In De Loy’s account he actually did identify it as a female (it was with a male), and others have confirmed this. I’d recommend Heuvelmans’ On the Track of Unknown animals for more on that. Most coverages of the case on the internet cover it as well:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_monkey

    Breasts are only present constantly in human females, in non-human primates they are only noticable when they are lactating.

    Thumbs still should be noticable even if the are held flat against the hand, all I can make out are a few bumps that are the last vestiges of the thumbs, just like a spider monkey.

    The picture was unfortunately not taken at an angle where a tail could be visible, and if there was one or wasn’t would depend on how honest De Loy’s was. He claimed there wasn’t a tail, but it would be very unusual for an animal with so many spider monkey-like characteristics to suddenly lose such an important organ. This is an interesting case, and it’s unfortunate that he threw away the carcass.

21. Loren Coleman responds: December 30th, 2005 at 10:10 pm

    I’ve written extensively on de Loys’ “ape” and why it is a hoax.

    Should I share my insights on that via a separate blog posting?

    Loren

22. shovethenos responds: December 31st, 2005 at 3:07 am

    Sure - I’d be interested in reading about it and I’m sure a number of other readers would too.

23. Bob Michaels responds: November 10th, 2006 at 8:01 pm

    I would vote for a form of Gigantopithecus, an Ape two to three times the size of a Gorilla with size variations in between.

    The record shows it lived 300 thousand years ago in China and South East Asia.

    All the Ape species are in danger today from habitat loss. Land should be set aside for Sasquatch now. I propose the Big Foot National Park.

24. wolftrax responds: December 2nd, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    There were two kinds of Meganthropus found:

    Meganthropus africanus in the 1950s was later assigned as Praeanthropus Africanus, and later recognized as Australopithecus Afarensis.

    Meganthropus palaeojavanicus is known to have more similarities to Homo erectus, therefore thought to be a subspecies of erectus, and does not have a sagittal crest. This is the giant meganthropus used as an example by proponents of the “Sasquatch’s ancestor is other than Giganto” hypothesis, and though it grew large in size it also was found with large tools as well.

    But neither of these Meganthropus are a species of Paranthropus.

    Krantz’s reconstruction of Gigantopithecus showing the sagittal crest takes into account the relative size of the jaw compared to the hyper megadont teeth of Giganto.

25. Loren Coleman responds: December 2nd, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    What reference material is “wolftrax” using? Where is he getting this misinformation? Let me try to set the record straight:

    Meganthropus africanus was later assigned to Paranthropus robustus. Meganthropus africanus is NOT Australopithecus afarensis.

    Meganthropus fossils have exhibited a sagittal crest. Indeed, one example in southeastern Asia was found with a double sagittal crest.

    The only person who has written about and come forth saying that Meganthropus reached Australia and has been found with large tools is Rex Gilroy. His claims are unverified by paleoanthropologists and are not taken to be supportable. Most hominologists interested in the Meganthropus question do not consider Gilroy’s evidence for Meganthropus tool use as valid.

    Meganthropus are assigned to Paranthropus by several mainstream anthropologists, although others assign Meganthropus to Homo erectus.

26. wolftrax responds: December 2nd, 2006 at 8:01 pm

    The reference material that “wolftrax” is using:

    Meganthropus Africanus:

    Bones of Contention
    Roger Lewin, 1987
    pg. 297

    “The Leakey/Day/Olson argument had to do with the fact that a German scientist, Ludwig Kohl-Larsen, had found a piece of hominid lower jaw at Laetoli in 1939, which was later given the name Meganthropus Africanus by Hans Weinert. When Johanson and White pooled the Hadar and Laetoli fossils in naming them Australopithecus afarensis, they included this little jaw. According to the code, therefore, the Laetoli/Hadar fossil hominid should be called Meganthropus africanus, not Australopithecus afarensis, or anything else for that matter. Had Johanson and White blundered after all?”

    Pg. 298

    “On afarensis Campbell has this to say: “It would of course be valid to call it Meganthropus africanus, but this doesn’t seem logical. The fossills are so like existing Australopithecus that they should be placed in this genus. Now, because you are supposed to keep the species name constant, this would make them Australopithecus africanus. But you can’t do that, because this species name is already ‘occupied’, and it’s known. So you are now free to create a new name. I think the new name, Australopithecus afarensis, is valid.”

    “Encyclopedia of Human Evolution an Prehistory” 2nd Edition
    Eric Delson, Ian Tattersall, John A. Van Couvering, Alison S. Brooks, 2000

    Pg. 118
    “The first specimens of Australopithecus afarensis were recovered in Tanzania during the 1930s. Because more abundant fossils of Australopithecus africanus were being recovered during the 1920s through 1940s in Southern Africa, most authorities attributed the scanty material, consisting of a maxilla and a molar collected by F. Kohl-Larsen in the headwaters of the Garusi River above Lake Eyasi (near Laetoli, Tanzania) to this taxon. A canine and an incisor recoverted in 1932 by L.B.S. Leakey from nearby exposures of the same strata at Laetoli in the uppermost drainage of the Olduvai Sie Gorge (Tanzania) went unrecognized until the 1970s. In the 1950s, the recognition by H. Weinert and S. Senyurek of primitive characters in the maxillary fragment led them to attribute the Garusi material to Meganthropus africanus and Praeanthropus africanus, respectively. Few agreed with these workers, and the Garusi maxilla, as it was called, continued to be considered a northern representative of Australopithecus africanus.”

    “Johanson and White considered that the Hadar and Laetoli hominin should still be placed in the genus Australopithecus, rahter than Homo, because the fossils indicated bipedality but lacked the cranial expansion and facial reduction seen in Homo. This meant that the trivial name africanus, which ha been applied by Weinert and Senyurek to the original Laetoli fossils, was unavailable, beacuse this name had been in use for the South African Austrolpithecus for decades before it was applied to the Garusi maxilla. For this reason, Johanson, White, and Coppens in 1978 named the material from Ethiopia and Tanzania Australopithecus afarensis, after the Afar region of Etiopia where most of the remains had been found.”

    As for Meganthropus palaeojavanicus, if this site had an option to post pictures I’d show a few examples of Meganthropus craniums that show they just a sagittal keel, which is a lot different than a sagittal crest, but you can go to such sites as here.

    and note here:
    “Meganthropus I/Sangiran 27
    Tyler described this specimen as being a nearly complete but crushed cranium within the size limit of Meganthropus and outside the (assumed) limit of H. erectus. The specimen was unusual for having a double sagittal crest and a heavily thickened nuchal crest [4]. A.C. Durband challenged the interpretation of the fossil, and showed it to be well within the known range for H. erectus [5].

    Meganthropus II/Sangiran 31
    This skull fragment was first described by Sartono in 1982. Tyler’s analysis came to the conclusion that it was out of the normal range of H. erectus. The cranium was thicker, lower vaulted, and wider than any specimen previously recovered, had the same double sagittal crest as Meganthropus I, and had a cranial capacity of around 800-1000cc [6]. However, Andrew Kramer analyzed the same fossil and came to the conclusion that the “sagittal crest” was due to damage, and that the specimen showed remarkable similarities with Sangiran 4, a certain H. erectus [7]. Durband’s analysis showed that while Meganthropus II had differences with H. erectus, it was within the range of variation [8]. This fossil was also used in Krantz’s reconstruction.”

    Or here.

    And see where the skulls were crushed or fragmentary and the sagittal crests were refuted.

    Now see Krantz’s reconstruction, the plaster that fills up where the crest is said to be.

    What are your sources? Any pictures showing the sagittal crests in Meganthropus I & II?

27. wolftrax responds: December 3rd, 2006 at 4:31 am

    Aw, here we go. No wonder Grimaud-Herve said what was interpreted as a sagittal crest on Sangiran 31 was due to deformation.

    It almost looks like you can see the temporal line, where the chewing muscles attach to the skull, and it’s not at the sagittal region but in the same location as in erectus. Here’s a good page that explains the difference between the Sagittal crest and sagittal keel.

28. bccryptid responds: December 6th, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    I think that far more evidence is needed for either camp to declare a winner, but my own amateur opinion, is giganto.

    Why,

    1. Location! Location! Location! Paranthropus fossils have so far been limited to Africa. Giganto fossils are found in an area that contains eyewitness reports of such an animal to this day, and an area that was joined to N. America by a land bridge recently.

    2. Behavior/Intelligence. Vast majority of behavioral characteristics of sasquatch appear to describe an animal, not much further developed (and extremely similar to) the mountain gorilla. This is closer to giganto. One would expect more extensive tool use and other traits indicating high intelligence if it was Paranthropus.

    3. Height. The height of Paranthropus appears to be under much debate, but common estimates are 4-5 feet.
    Sasquatch heights vary from 6-8 feet in general, but always bigger than humans unless juvenile.

    With giganto appearing to be the bigger of the two, though, and some sightings, such as Canadian Albertan mountain sightings for example, reporting 8-10 feet, then giganto must win that debate.

29. bill green responds: December 31st, 2006 at 3:31 pm

    hey loren wonderful update article about giganto or paranthropus very understandable as well. bill

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|