0
Were afarenis and atheiopiuc purely bipedal or are they only party bipedal. If they are fully bipedal, how come they're not called 'homo'?

Also, they say that apes don't have tails. We humans have tail bones though! I know we're not 'apes' as such, but don't tail bones count as 'tails' in an evolutionary sense?

Notice: Undefined index: title in /home3/wmroi/public_html/merspi.com.au/qa-theme/NewMerspi/qa-theme.php on line 1251

1 Answer

0
Tail bones in humans and other apes are vestigial organs, they are remains of something which once performed a function, but no longer does.  Another example is or appendix, which in other animals (koalas have an amazing one) is a sac for digestion a bit like a second stomach where bacteria extractadditional nutrients out of food rich in difficult to digest compounds like cellulose.

While afarensis and aethiopicus are bipedal, they differ from later species by the size of their brainpan which is still only marginally above that of apes.  The differences in cranial shape also indicate afarensis and aethiopicus were diverging from the common acestor of Homo as they have a more, not less pronounced cranial ridge and a very protruding browline.  There is a common ancestor between us and the Australopithecines, as that group is sometimes called, which hasn't been found, but was probably bipedal.  The two groups diverged over skull shape and brain size not being bipedal, that divergence came earlier again.

Notice: Undefined index: title in /home3/wmroi/public_html/merspi.com.au/qa-theme/NewMerspi/qa-theme.php on line 1251