Unique foot posture in Neanderthals reflects their body mass and high mechanical stress
Rita Sorrentino cs 2021 JHE 161:1030

Hn foot-bone proportions & morphology are mostly indistinguishable from Hs, except several distinct Hn features in the talus.
The bio-mechanical implications of these distinct talar features remain contentious, fueling debate around the adaptive meaning of this distinctiveness.

We test phylogenetic & behavioral factors as possible contributors:
we compare 10 Hn & 81 Hs tali (UP & Holocene hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists & post-industrial group) + the Clark Howell talus (Omo, Ethiopia).
Variation in external talar structures was assessed through geometric morphometric methods,
bone volume fraction & degree of anisotropy were quantified in a subsample (n=45).
Co-variation between point clouds of site-specific trabecular variables & surface landmark coordinates was assessed.

Results:
Hn talar external & internal morphologies were distinct from Hs groups,
but shape did not significantly co-vary with either bone volume fraction, or degree of anisotropy,
this suggests limited covariation between external & internal talar structures.

Hn external talar morphology reflects ancestral retentions + various adaptations to high levels of mobility correlated to their presumably unshod hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
This pairs with their high site-specific trabecular bone volume fraction & anisotropy, suggesting intense & consistently oriented locomotor loading resp.
Hn (vs Hs) exhibit differences in the talo-crural joint, potentially attributable to
- cultural & locomotor behavior dissimilarity,
- a talo-navicular joint that mixes ancestral & functional traits,
- a derived subtalar joint that suggests a predisposition for a pronated foot during stance phase.
Overall,
- Hn talar variation is attributable to mobility strategy & phylogenesis,
- Hs talar variation results from the same factors + footwear.
Our results suggest that greater Hn body mass and/or higher mechanical stress uniquely led to their habitually pronated foot posture.

Op vrijdag 12 november 2021 om 23:32:11 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

> Unique foot posture in Neanderthals reflects their body mass and high mechanical stress
> Rita Sorrentino cs 2021 JHE 161:1030
> Hn foot-bone proportions & morphology are mostly indistinguishable from Hs, except several distinct Hn features in the talus.
> The bio-mechanical implications of these distinct talar features remain contentious, fueling debate around the adaptive meaning of this distinctiveness.
> We test phylogenetic & behavioral factors as possible contributors:
> we compare 10 Hn & 81 Hs tali (UP & Holocene hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists & post-industrial group) + the Clark Howell talus (Omo, Ethiopia).
> Variation in external talar structures was assessed through geometric morphometric methods,
> bone volume fraction & degree of anisotropy were quantified in a subsample (n=45).
> Co-variation between point clouds of site-specific trabecular variables & surface landmark coordinates was assessed.
> Results: Hn talar external & internal morphologies were distinct from Hs groups,
> but shape did not significantly co-vary with either bone volume fraction, or degree of anisotropy,
> this suggests limited covariation between external & internal talar structures.
> Hn external talar morphology reflects ancestral retentions + various adaptations to high levels of mobility correlated to their presumably unshod hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
> This pairs with their high site-specific trabecular bone volume fraction & anisotropy, suggesting intense & consistently oriented locomotor loading resp.
> Hn (vs Hs) exhibit differences in the talo-crural joint, potentially attributable to
> - cultural & locomotor behavior dissimilarity,
> - a talo-navicular joint that mixes ancestral & functional traits,
> - a derived subtalar joint that suggests a predisposition for a pronated foot during stance phase.
> Overall, Hn talar variation is attributable to mobility strategy & phylogenesis,
> Hs talar variation results from the same factors + footwear.
> Our results suggest that greater Hn body mass and/or higher mechanical stress uniquely led to their habitually pronated foot posture.

Pronated foot posture is maladaptive to running: probably for swimming.

The word "unshod" also shows how absurd & impossible the antelope running ideas are.

I don't see the word "chin" (obviously an adaptation from archaic->sapiens = diving->wading = loss of prognathism & platycephaly).

Some idiots at this forum seem to believe that because we have long legs & are bipedal, we can't have had semi-aquatic ancestors.
Why don't these fools inform before talking?? esp. read the relevant literature?
How can one be so stupid?
All primates have a tendency to be more upright (arboreal),
and australopiths were aquarboreal = bipedally wading + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests,
google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".

H.erectus was anatomically perfectly adapted to shallow-diving for shellfish:
https://imgshare.io/image/verhaegen1985.NnU1uX
Whether erectus was an evolutionary nephew of ours, or we derive from comparable ancestors, is uncertain,
in any case, there was a late-Pleistocene phase of H.sapiens frequent wading, were we evolved longer legs for wading than seen in H.erectus.
Google "coastal dispersal Pleitocene Homo PPT".

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> Unique foot posture in Neanderthals reflects their body mass and high mechanical stress
> Rita Sorrentino cs 2021 JHE 161:1030
>
> Hn foot-bone proportions & morphology are mostly indistinguishable from Hs, except several distinct Hn features in the talus.
> The bio-mechanical implications of these distinct talar features remain contentious, fueling debate around the adaptive meaning of this distinctiveness.
>
> We test phylogenetic & behavioral factors as possible contributors:
> we compare 10 Hn & 81 Hs tali (UP & Holocene hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists & post-industrial group) + the Clark Howell talus (Omo, Ethiopia).
> Variation in external talar structures was assessed through geometric morphometric methods,
> bone volume fraction & degree of anisotropy were quantified in a subsample (n=45).
> Co-variation between point clouds of site-specific trabecular variables & surface landmark coordinates was assessed.
>
> Results:
> Hn talar external & internal morphologies were distinct from Hs groups,
> but shape did not significantly co-vary with either bone volume fraction, or degree of anisotropy,
> this suggests limited covariation between external & internal talar structures.
>
> Hn external talar morphology reflects ancestral retentions + various adaptations to high levels of mobility correlated to their presumably unshod hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
> This pairs with their high site-specific trabecular bone volume fraction & anisotropy, suggesting intense & consistently oriented locomotor loading resp.
> Hn (vs Hs) exhibit differences in the talo-crural joint, potentially attributable to
> - cultural & locomotor behavior dissimilarity,
> - a talo-navicular joint that mixes ancestral & functional traits,
> - a derived subtalar joint that suggests a predisposition for a pronated foot during stance phase.
> Overall,
> - Hn talar variation is attributable to mobility strategy & phylogenesis,
> - Hs talar variation results from the same factors + footwear.
> Our results suggest that greater Hn body mass and/or higher mechanical stress uniquely led to their habitually pronated foot posture.
>

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34749003/

Abstract
Neanderthal foot bone proportions and morphology are mostly
indistinguishable from those of Homo sapiens, with the exception of
several distinct Neanderthal features in the talus. The biomechanical
implications of these distinct talar features remain contentious, fueling
debate around the adaptive meaning of this distinctiveness. With the
aim of clarifying this controversy, we test phylogenetic and behavioral
factors as possible contributors, comparing tali of 10 Neanderthals and
81 H. sapiens (Upper Paleolithic and Holocene hunter-gatherers,
agriculturalists, and postindustrial group) along with the Clark Howell
talus (Omo, Ethiopia). Variation in external talar structures was assessed
through geometric morphometric methods, while bone volume fraction
and degree of anisotropy were quantified in a subsample (n = 45). Finally,
covariation between point clouds of site-specific trabecular variables and
surface landmark coordinates was assessed. Our results show that
although Neanderthal talar external and internal morphologies were
distinct from those of H. sapiens groups, shape did not significantly covary
with either bone volume fraction or degree of anisotropy, suggesting
limited covariation between external and internal talar structures.
Neanderthal external talar morphology reflects ancestral retentions, along
with various adaptations to high levels of mobility correlated to their
presumably unshod hunter-gatherer lifestyle. This pairs with their high
site-specific trabecular bone volume fraction and anisotropy, suggesting
intense and consistently oriented locomotor loading, respectively. Relative
to H.sapiens, Neanderthals exhibit differences in the talocrural joint that
are potentially attributable to cultural and locomotor behavior
dissimilarity,
a talonavicular joint that mixes ancestral and functional traits, and a
derived
subtalar joint that suggests a predisposition for a pronated foot during
stance
phase. Overall, Neanderthal talar variation is attributable to mobility
strategy
and phylogenesis, while H. sapiens talar variation results from the same
factors
plus footwear. Our results suggest that greater Neanderthal body mass and/or
higher mechanical stress uniquely led to their habitually pronated foot
posture.

Will look at this more fully in the near future.

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:08:34 PM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op vrijdag 12 november 2021 om 23:32:11 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > Unique foot posture in Neanderthals reflects their body mass and high mechanical stress
> > Rita Sorrentino cs 2021 JHE 161:1030
> > Hn foot-bone proportions & morphology are mostly indistinguishable from Hs, except several distinct Hn features in the talus.
> > The bio-mechanical implications of these distinct talar features remain contentious, fueling debate around the adaptive meaning of this distinctiveness.
> > We test phylogenetic & behavioral factors as possible contributors:
> > we compare 10 Hn & 81 Hs tali (UP & Holocene hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists & post-industrial group) + the Clark Howell talus (Omo, Ethiopia).
> > Variation in external talar structures was assessed through geometric morphometric methods,
> > bone volume fraction & degree of anisotropy were quantified in a subsample (n=45).
> > Co-variation between point clouds of site-specific trabecular variables & surface landmark coordinates was assessed.
> > Results: Hn talar external & internal morphologies were distinct from Hs groups,
> > but shape did not significantly co-vary with either bone volume fraction, or degree of anisotropy,
> > this suggests limited covariation between external & internal talar structures.
> > Hn external talar morphology reflects ancestral retentions + various adaptations to high levels of mobility correlated to their presumably unshod hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
> > This pairs with their high site-specific trabecular bone volume fraction & anisotropy, suggesting intense & consistently oriented locomotor loading resp.
> > Hn (vs Hs) exhibit differences in the talo-crural joint, potentially attributable to
> > - cultural & locomotor behavior dissimilarity,
> > - a talo-navicular joint that mixes ancestral & functional traits,
> > - a derived subtalar joint that suggests a predisposition for a pronated foot during stance phase.
> > Overall, Hn talar variation is attributable to mobility strategy & phylogenesis,
> > Hs talar variation results from the same factors + footwear.
> > Our results suggest that greater Hn body mass and/or higher mechanical stress uniquely led to their habitually pronated foot posture.
> Pronated foot posture is maladaptive to running: probably for swimming.
>
> The word "unshod" also shows how absurd & impossible the antelope running ideas are.
>
> I don't see the word "chin" (obviously an adaptation from archaic->sapiens = diving->wading = loss of prognathism & platycephaly).
>
> Some idiots at this forum seem to believe that because we have long legs & are bipedal, we can't have had semi-aquatic ancestors.
> Why don't these fools inform before talking?? esp. read the relevant literature?
> How can one be so stupid?
> All primates have a tendency to be more upright (arboreal),
> and australopiths were aquarboreal = bipedally wading + climbing arms overhead in swamp forests,
> google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".
>
> H.erectus was anatomically perfectly adapted to shallow-diving for shellfish:
> https://imgshare.io/image/verhaegen1985.NnU1uX
> Whether erectus was an evolutionary nephew of ours, or we derive from comparable ancestors, is uncertain,
> in any case, there was a late-Pleistocene phase of H.sapiens frequent wading, were we evolved longer legs for wading than seen in H.erectus.
> Google "coastal dispersal Pleitocene Homo PPT".
- Pronate foot (eg. in neanderthal) means walking on the inside of the foot: the hallux, the ball of the foot and not the distal portion of the sole. Presumably Hs walks more often on supine feet, the outside. AMHs wearing modern footwear on constructed surfaces undoubtedly affects the gait.
Terrestrial fauna often wade, arboreal fauna occasionally wade, aquatic fauna rarely wade.

Op maandag 15 november 2021 om 17:10:30 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

> > > Unique foot posture in Neanderthals reflects their body mass and high mechanical stress
> > > Rita Sorrentino cs 2021 JHE 161:1030 doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2021.103093

> Pronate foot (e.g. in neanderthal) means walking on the inside of the foot: the hallux, the ball of the foot and not the distal portion of the sole. ...

See illustrations of pronation: no doubt for swimming.

Only incredible imbeciles believe Hn did not dive regularly for aquatic foods:
Hn ear exostoses & pachyosteosclerosis lieave no doubt.

Are there still imbeciles who think their ancestors ran after antelopes??