More Gigantopithecus teeth found

Adam Khor

We still know as little as before, seemingly. The only thing I read that I hadn´t read before was that they suffered from caries, but now that I think about it, modern apes must suffer a lot from caries too...

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-fossil-teeth-gigantopithecus-yunnan-guizhou-plateau.html

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

We still know as little as before, seemingly. The only thing I read that I hadn´t read before was that they suffered from caries, but now that I think about it, modern apes must suffer a lot from caries too...

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-fossil-teeth-gigantopithecus-yunnan-guizhou-plateau.html

My favourite prehistorc creature! Interesingly the new teeth paint giganto as an omnivore which is a far cry from the orignal and imo unstable bamboo hypothesis.

According to the paper it is also the highest altitude in which G.blacki is found. For my money I would bet it migrated to one altitude when one food source was available and then to a different altitude when a different food source was available. Though thats just a hunch. If it was an omnivore though it likely had a larger range than the gorilla.

The other thing is it seems to have been found in the south of china near the vietnam border. Maybe thats where we should be looking next for fossils of G.blacki.

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

My favourite prehistorc creature! Interesingly the new teeth paint giganto as an omnivore which is a far cry from the orignal and imo unstable bamboo hypothesis.

According to the paper it is also the highest altitude in which G.blacki is found. For my money I would bet it migrated to one altitude when one food source was available and then to a different altitude when a different food source was available. Though thats just a hunch. If it was an omnivore though it likely had a larger range than the gorilla.

The other thing is it seems to have been found in the south of china near the vietnam border. Maybe thats where we should be looking next for fossils of G.blacki.

I'm pretty sure G. blacki fossils had already been found in Vietnam caves...

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

I'm pretty sure G. blacki fossils had already been found in Vietnam caves...

Shows how much I know about it! I really have to look it up. I wonder how big G.blackis range was though.

Galvasean

China, Vietnam and India according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

China, Vietnam and India according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

For the record they aren't all G. blacki. there are three separate species of Gigantopithecus apparently.

steddyeddy

Galvasean wrote: »

For the record they aren't all G. blacki. there are three separate species of Gigantopithecus apparently.

Yes indeed G.blacki was the biggest it seems. The other related species often were half as big. As an interesting aside Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis lived in northern India near where a legendary giant ape called the Mande barung is reported. Now dont get me wrong im not saying it exists but a great explanation for these legends are that they are a folk memory of human interaction with an extinct creature. Just as homo floresiensis was remembered as the ebu gogo on Flores.

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes indeed G.blacki was the biggest it seems. The other related species often were half as big. As an interesting aside Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis lived in northern India near where a legendary giant ape called the Mande barung is reported. Now dont get me wrong im not saying it exists but a great explanation for these legends are that they are a folk memory of human interaction with an extinct creature. Just as homo floresiensis was remembered as the ebu gogo on Flores.

That is VERY interesting. Seems that all the places where Gigantopithecus existed (and those where it may very well have existed but we still have no fossils to confirm it) have their legends about large apes. The fact that the Mande barung is precisely three meters tall seemed particularly interesting to me...

Galvasean

For no reason at all here is Giganto giving a man a back rub...

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

For no reason at all here is Giganto giving a man a back rub...

A very ugly Giganto, too XD The guy is probably thinking "hey, you promised me a voluptuous blonde not THIS!!"

Galvasean

I like this reconstruction. Is it considered valid?

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

I like this reconstruction. Is it considered valid?

If I'm not mistaken, that model belongs to the American Museum of Natural History, meaning it must be as "valid" as a Gigantopithecus model can be, considering how little we know about the actual ape's appearance...

May I mention that this particular model is creepy as hell, at least to me?:eek: Imagine meeting one of these (a live one of course) during a trek in the mountains... or in a dark alley... or anywhere XD

steddyeddy

Another reconstruction by reconstruction artist Bill Munns. Here giganto is depicted as bipedal however.

Adam Khor

Let's not forget the robotic one in San Diego's Museum of Man, easily the most orangutan-ish of the bunch and also depicted as a biped:

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

Let's not forget the robotic one in San Diego's Museum of Man, easily the most orangutan-ish of the bunch and also depicted as a biped:

Im waiting for the day that Ginatopithecus is determined once and for all to be bipedal or quadrupedal. Both sides of the debate makes an interesting case and I myself havent made my mind up.

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im waiting for the day that Ginatopithecus is determined once and for all to be bipedal or quadrupedal. Both sides of the debate makes an interesting case and I myself havent made my mind up.

Or a facultative biped. It doesn´t have to be one or the other Since we don´t know its proportions, for all we know it may have been as easy for a Giganto to walk bipedally as on all fours...

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

Or a facultative biped. It doesn´t have to be one or the other Since we don´t know its proportions, for all we know it may have been as easy for a Giganto to walk bipedally as on all fours...

Well I have no doubt it was least a faculative biped. I was thinking more obligate biped! Who knows though were a long way of knowing.

Galvasean

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im waiting for the day that Ginatopithecus is determined once and for all to be bipedal or quadrupedal. Both sides of the debate makes an interesting case and I myself havent made my mind up.

I know the feeling. I keep hearing it was ten foot tall, but that is in relation to biped and quadruped!

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

I know the feeling. I keep hearing it was ten foot tall, but that is in relation to biped and quadruped!

Well, modern day apes don´t really add much to their height when they rear up, mostly because of their proportions, so I guess the three meter tall figure is assuming they had similar proportions to their modern relatives? If it had been an obligate biped I would expect it to have longer legs and thus be even taller than currently believed!