Could Wading in Shallow Water Account for the Unique Shape of the Australopithecus afarensis Pelvis?
Algis Vincent Kuliukas
doi 10.4236/aa.2018.81003

A 3D Geometric Morphometric (GM) analysis of pelvis & femur shape of various extinct hominids & extant humans & apes is described.
Observed differences in shape are then discussed in the context of the Wading Hypothesis (a model of the evolution of hominin BPism that has rarely been seriously considered, despite some compelling arguments).
The general shape of afarensis' pelvis is confirmed to be fundamentally different from both Homo & extant great apes, and not intermediate between them.
It includes some human-like traits indicating a strong propensity to BPism, but there are also sufficient differences to indicate:
australopiths probably exhibited a different type of BPity to the rel.efficient striding gait ass.x modern humans.

An analysis of putative muscle lever arm ratios is described, which generated over 135,000 ratios in all.
This data was then explored (Pivot Table feature of Microsoft Excel).
Succinct species summaries of broad lever arm groups, such as those pertaining to abduction vs those pertaining to extension, were generated.

The results indicate:
the australopith hip was more adapted, than modern humans or extant great apes, to adduction, abduction & rotation of the thigh during locomotion.

It is argued:
this apparent lateral bio-mechanical advantage complements the broad platypelloid shape as a putative adaptation to side-to-side wading.
This adds further evidential weight to the wading hypothesis of BP origins in addition to the already compelling arguments from extant ape behaviour in shallow water & the favourable evidence of the paleo-habitats of the earliest bipeds.

______

H.erectus & neandertals also had platypelloidy + flaring ilia,
I argued this was an adaptation for more lateral movements of the legs.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 06:35:10 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Could Wading in Shallow Water Account for the Unique Shape of the Australopithecus afarensis Pelvis?
>Algis Vincent Kuliukas
>doi 10.4236/aa.2018.81003

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=82751

>The results indicate:
>the australopith hip was more adapted, than modern humans or extant great apes,
>to adduction, abduction & rotation of the thigh during locomotion.
>
>It is argued:
>this apparent lateral bio-mechanical advantage complements the broad platypelloid
>shape as a putative adaptation to side-to-side wading. This adds further evidential
>weight to the wading hypothesis of BP origins in addition to the already compelling
>arguments from extant ape behaviour in shallow water & the favourable evidence
>of the paleo-habitats of the earliest bipeds.

Notice that this paper does not even refer to an alternative
hypothesis:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004724849190011J

Recently tested:
https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.23550

> > Could Wading in Shallow Water Account for the Unique Shape of the Australopithecus afarensis Pelvis?
> >Algis Vincent Kuliukas doi 10.4236/aa.2018.81003
> >The results indicate:
> >the australopith hip was more adapted, than modern humans or extant great apes,
> >to adduction, abduction & rotation of the thigh during locomotion.
> >It is argued:
> >this apparent lateral bio-mechanical advantage complements the broad platypelloid
> >shape as a putative adaptation to side-to-side wading. This adds further evidential
> >weight to the wading hypothesis of BP origins in addition to the already compelling
> >arguments from extant ape behaviour in shallow water & the favourable evidence
> >of the paleo-habitats of the earliest bipeds.

> Notice that this paper does not even refer to an alternative hypothesis:
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004724849190011J

Lucy's pelvic anatomy: its role in bipedal gait
Yoel Rak 1991 JHE 20:283-290 doi org/10.1016/0047-2484(91)90011-J
Lucy's pelvic inlet is extremely wide, particularly in relation to body size.
This width, + the horizontal rotation of the pelvis, minimizes the vertical displacement of the CoM during BP walking.
A different manner of reducing this vertical displacement & of diminishing its undesirable effects is the elongation of the lower limbs:
adoption of this strategy by later hominids presumably permitted the relative narrowing of the inlet & thus of the distance between the hip joints.
Lucy's pelvis, therefore, does not represent simply an intermediate stage between a chimp-like hominoid & H.sapiens, nor is it essentially a modern human pelvis.
Although clearly BP & highly terrestrial(unporen nonsense, see paleo-environment --mv), Lucy evidently achieved this mode of locomotion through a solution all her own.

IOW, 30 yrs old irrelevant just-so blabla:
Kuliukas not only shows that Lucy waded a lot, but also that her & other australopith fossils came from swamp forests.

Only incredible imbeciles believe their Pleistocene ancestor ran after antelopes.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 09:02:53 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > Could Wading in Shallow Water Account for the Unique Shape of the Australopithecus afarensis Pelvis?
>> >Algis Vincent Kuliukas doi 10.4236/aa.2018.81003
>> >The results indicate:
>> >the australopith hip was more adapted, than modern humans or extant great apes,
>> >to adduction, abduction & rotation of the thigh during locomotion.
>> >It is argued:
>> >this apparent lateral bio-mechanical advantage complements the broad platypelloid
>> >shape as a putative adaptation to side-to-side wading. This adds further evidential
>> >weight to the wading hypothesis of BP origins in addition to the already compelling
>> >arguments from extant ape behaviour in shallow water & the favourable evidence
>> >of the paleo-habitats of the earliest bipeds.
>
>> Notice that this paper does not even refer to an alternative hypothesis:
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004724849190011J
>
>Lucy's pelvic anatomy: its role in bipedal gait
>Yoel Rak 1991 JHE 20:283-290 doi org/10.1016/0047-2484(91)90011-J
>Lucy's pelvic inlet is extremely wide, particularly in relation to body size.
>This width, + the horizontal rotation of the pelvis, minimizes the vertical displacement of the CoM during BP walking.
>A different manner of reducing this vertical displacement & of diminishing its undesirable effects is the elongation of the lower limbs:
>adoption of this strategy by later hominids presumably permitted the relative narrowing of the inlet & thus of the distance between the hip joints.
>Lucy's pelvis, therefore, does not represent simply an intermediate stage between a chimp-like hominoid & H.sapiens, nor is it essentially a modern human pelvis.
>Although clearly BP & highly terrestrial(unporen nonsense, see paleo-environment --mv), Lucy evidently achieved this mode of locomotion through a solution all her own.
>
>
>IOW, 30 yrs old irrelevant just-so blabla:

30 years old, but recently tested:
https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.23550

"Our results support Rak's hypothesis"

>Kuliukas not only shows that Lucy waded a lot,

He doesn't show it, it's a hypothesis.

>but also that her & other australopith fossils came from swamp forests.

He doesn't even refer to the work of Behrensmeyer & Reed, 2013:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5919-0_4

They list four types of documented depositional contexts for
Australopithecus:

*Volcaniclastic plains and paleosols (Laetoli)

*Fluvial channels and floodplains (Lothagam, Kanapoi,
East and West Turkana, Omo Shungura Formation, Hadar,
Dikika, Middle Awash)

*Lake margins (East and West Turkana, Hadar, Middle
Awash, Chad)

*Karst terrain and cave deposits (Makapansgat, Sterkfontein,
Taung, Gladysvale, Malapa).

>Only incredible imbeciles believe their Pleistocene ancestor ran after antelopes.

Really an obsession to you, isn't it?

> He doesn't show it, it's a hypothesis.

Like the hypothesis that your ancestors ran after antelopes??
:-D

Pandora wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 09:02:53 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
> <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Could Wading in Shallow Water Account for the Unique Shape of the Australopithecus afarensis Pelvis?
>>>> Algis Vincent Kuliukas doi 10.4236/aa.2018.81003
>>>> The results indicate:
>>>> the australopith hip was more adapted, than modern humans or extant great apes,
>>>> to adduction, abduction & rotation of the thigh during locomotion.
>>>> It is argued:
>>>> this apparent lateral bio-mechanical advantage complements the broad platypelloid
>>>> shape as a putative adaptation to side-to-side wading. This adds further evidential
>>>> weight to the wading hypothesis of BP origins in addition to the already compelling
>>>> arguments from extant ape behaviour in shallow water & the favourable evidence
>>>> of the paleo-habitats of the earliest bipeds.
>>
>>> Notice that this paper does not even refer to an alternative hypothesis:
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004724849190011J
>>
>> Lucy's pelvic anatomy: its role in bipedal gait
>> Yoel Rak 1991 JHE 20:283-290 doi org/10.1016/0047-2484(91)90011-J
>> Lucy's pelvic inlet is extremely wide, particularly in relation to body size.
>> This width, + the horizontal rotation of the pelvis, minimizes the vertical displacement of the CoM during BP walking.
>> A different manner of reducing this vertical displacement & of diminishing its undesirable effects is the elongation of the lower limbs:
>> adoption of this strategy by later hominids presumably permitted the relative narrowing of the inlet & thus of the distance between the hip joints.
>> Lucy's pelvis, therefore, does not represent simply an intermediate stage between a chimp-like hominoid & H.sapiens, nor is it essentially a modern human pelvis.
>> Although clearly BP & highly terrestrial(unporen nonsense, see paleo-environment --mv), Lucy evidently achieved this mode of locomotion through a solution all her own.
>>
>> IOW, 30 yrs old irrelevant just-so blabla:
>
> 30 years old, but recently tested:
> https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.23550
>
> "Our results support Rak's hypothesis"
>
>> Kuliukas not only shows that Lucy waded a lot,
>
> He doesn't show it, it's a hypothesis.
>
>> but also that her & other australopith fossils came from swamp forests.
>
> He doesn't even refer to the work of Behrensmeyer & Reed, 2013:
> https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5919-0_4
>
> They list four types of documented depositional contexts for
> Australopithecus:
>
> *Volcaniclastic plains and paleosols (Laetoli)
>
> *Fluvial channels and floodplains (Lothagam, Kanapoi,
> East and West Turkana, Omo Shungura Formation, Hadar,
> Dikika, Middle Awash)
>
> *Lake margins (East and West Turkana, Hadar, Middle
> Awash, Chad)
>
> *Karst terrain and cave deposits (Makapansgat, Sterkfontein,
> Taung, Gladysvale, Malapa).
>
>> Only incredible imbeciles believe their Pleistocene ancestor ran after antelopes.
>
> Really an obsession to you, isn't it?
>

This Kuliukas character also does not address the very important question
of how much time wading is needed to evolve what he claims.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 12:02:53 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> He doesn't show it, it's a hypothesis.
>
>Like the hypothesis that your ancestors ran after antelopes??
>:-D

Exactly, as proposed by David Carrier in 1984:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273047446_The_Energetic_Paradox_of_Human_Running_and_Hominid_Evolution

> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273047446_The_Energetic_Paradox_of_Human_Running_and_Hominid_Evolution

"The Energetic Paradox of Human Running and Hominid Evolution"
David Carrier 1984 Curr.Anthrop.25 doi: 10.1086/203165

The energetic cost of running is rel.high in man.(the only sensible sentence in this unscientific piece)
In spite of this, humans are adept endurance runners,:-DDD capable of running down, for example, zebra and kangaroo.(1 in a mill.people can this smetimes)
Distance running is made possible for man in part by an exceptional ability to dissipate exercise heat loads.(salt glands! ex-marine)
Most mammals lose heat by panting, which is coupled to breathing & locomotor cycles during running.
This interdependence may(just-so belief) limit the effectiveness of panting as a means of heat dissipation.(it's far more effective than sweating)
Because sweating is not dependent on respiration, it may(once more unproven just-so belief) be more compatible with running as a thermoregulatory mechanism.
Furthermore, man's lack of body hair improves thermal conductance while running,:-DDD as it facilitates convection at the skin surface.(overheating!)
While horses have been shown to possess energetically optimal speeds in each gait,(at *all* speeds more optimal than in H.sapiens) the energetic cost for a man to run a given distance does not change with speed.(but is always lower than in horses)
It is hypothesized(:-DDD) that this is because bipedality allows breathing frequency to vary relative to stride frequency.(unscientifc just-so belief)
Man's constant cost of transport may(wishful thinking) enable human hunters to pursue the prey animal at speeds that force it to run inefficiently, thereby expediting its eventual fatigue.(1 in a mill.people tries to hunt that way)
Given what is known of heat dissipation in Old World Anthropoidea, the BPity of early hominids & human exercise physiology, one factor important in the origin of the Hominidae may(wishful blabla) have been the occupation of a new niche as a diurnal endurance predator.
IOW, O evidence - only wishful thinking -

In a more serious journal:

1987 Nature 325:305-6 "Origin of hominid bipedalism"
Sinclair cs believe that human BPism arose in scavenging hominid ancestors that had to carry their children while following migrating savanna ungulates, but this seems highly improbable.
There was no empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by hominid ancestors.
Not only vultures, but also canid, felid & hyaenid carnivores were much better preadapted for such a niche.
They possessed sharp beaks or long canine teeth, and did not need to carry stones for cutting carcasses.
Moreover, the BP way of locomotion – whether fast or slow – is inefficient & costly.
Another argument against the migrating hypothesis in particular & the savanna theory of human evolution in general is that it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas.
Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant.
Humans lack sun-reflecting fur, but have thermo-insulative SC fat layers, which are never seen in savanna mammals.
We have a water- & sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, unfit for a dry environment.
Our maximal urine concentration is too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal.
We need more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time.
The fossils of our hominid ancestors or relatives are always found in water-rich environments.
It is difficult to understand why most anthropologists keep believing in the savanna theory, or why so many anthropologists keep trying to seek the most improbable reasons for BPsm, while they should know there are much better explanations.

IOW, this once more proves that only incredible imbeciles believe their ancestors ran after antelopes.

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 15:16:42 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273047446_The_Energetic_Paradox_of_Human_Running_and_Hominid_Evolution
>
>"The Energetic Paradox of Human Running and Hominid Evolution"
>David Carrier 1984 Curr.Anthrop.25 doi: 10.1086/203165
>
>The energetic cost of running is rel.high in man.(the only sensible sentence in this unscientific piece)
>In spite of this, humans are adept endurance runners,:-DDD capable of running down, for example, zebra and kangaroo.(1 in a mill.people can this smetimes)
>Distance running is made possible for man in part by an exceptional ability to dissipate exercise heat loads.(salt glands! ex-marine)
>Most mammals lose heat by panting, which is coupled to breathing & locomotor cycles during running.
>This interdependence may(just-so belief) limit the effectiveness of panting as a means of heat dissipation.(it's far more effective than sweating)
>Because sweating is not dependent on respiration, it may(once more unproven just-so belief) be more compatible with running as a thermoregulatory mechanism.
>Furthermore, man's lack of body hair improves thermal conductance while running,:-DDD as it facilitates convection at the skin surface.(overheating!)
>While horses have been shown to possess energetically optimal speeds in each gait,(at *all* speeds more optimal than in H.sapiens) the energetic cost for a man to run a given distance does not change with speed.(but is always lower than in horses)
>It is hypothesized(:-DDD) that this is because bipedality allows breathing frequency to vary relative to stride frequency.(unscientifc just-so belief)
>Man's constant cost of transport may(wishful thinking) enable human hunters to pursue the prey animal at speeds that force it to run inefficiently, thereby expediting its eventual fatigue.(1 in a mill.people tries to hunt that way)
>Given what is known of heat dissipation in Old World Anthropoidea, the BPity of early hominids & human exercise physiology, one factor important in the origin of the Hominidae may(wishful blabla) have been the occupation of a new niche as a diurnal endurance predator.
>IOW, O evidence - only wishful thinking -
>
>IOW, this once more proves that only incredible imbeciles believe their ancestors ran after antelopes.

I doubt David Carrier is an imbecile. At the time he wrote that paper
he was a doctoral candidate in zoology at the University of Michigan,
Division of Biological Sciences. His 1988 PhD dissertation was about
"Locomotor-Ventilatory Coupling in Lizards and Early Tetrapods".
Currently he is professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the
University of Utah, where his research and teaching are focused on the
evolutionary morphology of tetrapods and musculo-skeletal
biomechanics:
https://faculty.utah.edu/u0034308-DAVID_R_CARRIER/hm/index.hml

So, I guess you'll have to look for stupidity, lack of expertise and
academic achievement closer at home.
What exactly did you study and what was the subject of your PhD
dissertation again?

Somebody wrote:

> I doubt David Carrier is an imbecile.

Believing that your ancestors ran after antelopes is *incredibly* imbecilic.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:49:52 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Somebody wrote:
>
>> I doubt David Carrier is an imbecile.
>
>Believing that your ancestors ran after antelopes is *incredibly* imbecilic.

Tell that to the Kalahari hunters:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260135266_Persistence_Hunting_by_Modern_Hunter-Gatherers

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:50:28 AM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:49:52 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Somebody wrote:
> >
> >> I doubt David Carrier is an imbecile.
> >
> >Believing that your ancestors ran after antelopes is *incredibly* imbecilic.
> Tell that to the Kalahari hunters:
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260135266_Persistence_Hunting_by_Modern_Hunter-Gatherers

"Before the domestication of dogs, persistence hunting may have been one of the most efficient forms of hunting and may therefore have been crucial in the evolution of humans."

As nonsensical as Homo sleeping in water. but both ideas are not entirely impossible.

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:04:07 -0800 (PST), "DD'eDeN aka
note/nickname/alas_my_loves" <daud.deden@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:50:28 AM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:49:52 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
>> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Somebody wrote:
>> >
>> >> I doubt David Carrier is an imbecile.
>> >
>> >Believing that your ancestors ran after antelopes is *incredibly* imbecilic.
>> Tell that to the Kalahari hunters:
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260135266_Persistence_Hunting_by_Modern_Hunter-Gatherers
>
>"Before the domestication of dogs, persistence hunting may have been one of the most efficient forms of hunting and may therefore have been crucial in the evolution of humans."
>
>As nonsensical as Homo sleeping in water. but both ideas are not entirely impossible.

Persistence hunting is a field observation, sleeping in water only
happens in the bathtub.

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:13:58 AM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:04:07 -0800 (PST), "DD'eDeN aka
> note/nickname/alas_my_loves" <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:50:28 AM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:49:52 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
> >> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Somebody wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I doubt David Carrier is an imbecile.
> >> >
> >> >Believing that your ancestors ran after antelopes is *incredibly* imbecilic.
> >> Tell that to the Kalahari hunters:
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260135266_Persistence_Hunting_by_Modern_Hunter-Gatherers
> >
> >"Before the domestication of dogs, persistence hunting may have been one of the most efficient forms of hunting and may therefore have been crucial in the evolution of humans."
> >
> >As nonsensical as Homo sleeping in water. but both ideas are not entirely impossible.
> Persistence hunting is a field observation, sleeping in water only
> happens in the bathtub.

Observations of Hs, not H.er.
The ones that don't drown wake up in shallow baths.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>> I doubt David Carrier is an imbecile.
>
> Believing that your ancestors ran after antelopes is *incredibly* imbecilic.
>

Found those snorkel noses yet?

Pandora wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:04:07 -0800 (PST), "DD'eDeN aka
> note/nickname/alas_my_loves" <daud.deden@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:50:28 AM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:49:52 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
>>> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Somebody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I doubt David Carrier is an imbecile.
>>>>
>>>> Believing that your ancestors ran after antelopes is *incredibly* imbecilic.
>>> Tell that to the Kalahari hunters:
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260135266_Persistence_Hunting_by_Modern_Hunter-Gatherers
>>
>> "Before the domestication of dogs, persistence hunting may have been one of the most efficient forms of hunting and may therefore have been crucial in the evolution of humans."
>>
>> As nonsensical as Homo sleeping in water. but both ideas are not entirely impossible.
>
> Persistence hunting is a field observation, sleeping in water only
> happens in the bathtub.
>

What cultures sleep in open water?

> Found those snorkel noses yet?

Google "OI, BIG NOSE!"
NS 2782:69 Lastword 16.10.10

Why do humans evolve external noses that don’t seem to serve any useful purpose – our smelling sensors are inside the head.
Our nose is vulnerable to damage, and the majority of primates and other mammals manage with relatively flat faces.
Traditional explanations are that the nose protects against dry air, hot air, cold air, dusty air, whatever air,
but most savannah mammals have no external noses, and polar animals such as arctic foxes or hares tend to evolve shorter extremities including flatter noses (Allen’s Rule), not larger as the Neanderthal protruding nose.

The answer isn’t so difficult if we simply consider humans like other mammals.

An external nose is seen in elephant seals, hooded seals, tapirs, elephants, swine and, among primates, in the mangrove-dwelling proboscis monkeys.
Various, often mutually compatible functions, have been proposed, such as
- sexual display (in male hooded and elephant seals or proboscis monkeys),
- manipulation of food (in elephants, tapirs and swine),
- a snorkel (elephants, proboscis monkeys) and
- as a nose-closing aid during diving (in most of these animals).
These mammals spend a lot of time at the margins of land and water.
Possible functions of an external nose in creatures evolving into aquatic ones are obvious, and match those listed above in many cases.
They can initially act as a nose closure, a snorkel, to keep water out, to dig in wet soil for food, and so on.
Afterwards, these external noses can also become co-opted for other functions, such as sexual display (visual as well as auditory) in hooded and elephant seals and proboscis monkeys.

But what does this have to do with human evolution?

The earliest known Homo fossils outside Africa – such as those at Mojokerto in Java and Dmanisi in Georgia – are about 1.8 million years old.
The easiest way for them to have spread to other continents, and to islands such as Java, is along the coasts, and from there inland along rivers.
During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene – the ice age cycles that ran from about 1.8 million to 12,000 years ago – most coasts were about 100 metres below the present-day sea level,
so we don’t know whether or when Homo populations lived there.
But coasts and riversides are full of shellfish and other foods that are easily collected and digested by smart, handy and tool-using “apes”, and are rich in potential brain-boosting nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

If Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts, beachcombing, wading and diving for seafoods as Polynesian islanders still do, this could explain why Homo erectus evolved larger brains (aided by DHA) and larger noses (because of their part-time diving).
This littoral intermezzo could help to explain not only why we like to have our holidays at tropical beaches, eating shrimps and coconuts, but also why we became fat and furless bipeds with long legs, large brains and big noses.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Found those snorkel noses yet?
>
Google "OI, BIG PENIS!"

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaaq0250.full
Nasalization by Nasalis larvatus: Larger noses audiovisually advertise
conspecifics in proboscis monkeys
Science Advances 21 Feb 2018:

Abstract
Male proboscis monkeys have uniquely enlarged noses that are prominent
adornments, which may have evolved through their sexually competitive
harem group social system. Nevertheless, the ecological roles of the
signals encoded by enlarged noses remain unclear. We found significant
correlations among nose, body, and testis sizes and a clear link between
nose size and number of harem females. Therefore, there is evidence
supporting both male-male competition and female choice as causal factors
in the evolution of enlarged male noses. We also observed that nasal
enlargement systematically modifies the resonance properties of male
vocalizations, which probably encode male quality. Our results indicate
that the audiovisual contributions of enlarged male noses serve as
advertisements to females in their mate selection. This is the first
primate research to evaluate the evolutionary processes involved in
linking morphology, acoustics, and socioecology with unique masculine
characteristics.

https://www.menshealth.com/uk/sex/a36339905/bigger-penis-large-noses/
Men With Larger Noses Have Bigger Penises, According to New Study
Your beak may be giving away more than you think

BY MEN'S HEALTH 05/05/2021
Published in the medical journal Basic and Clinical Andrology, the
researchers of
the study found that men with larger noses had a ‘stretched penile length’
of at
least 5.3 inches, while men with smaller noses had a penis length of 4.1
inches
erect.

The team of researchers drew this conclusion by looking at the dead corpses of
126 men within three days of death and measured different parts of their body.
After taking into account varying factors such height, weight and measurements
of the penis (there were no links between feet size and appendage size, before
you ask), the authors of the study then worked out the "stretched penile
length"
(SPL) of each cadaver. This was measured by, and sorry to be so graphic,
by pulling
the penis up as far as it would go. Hopefully they used gloves.

https://bacandrology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12610-021-00121-z
Nose size indicates maximum penile length

Abstract
Background
In a previous report, we investigated whether the size of male genitalia
similarly
exposed to serum testosterone during aging could change with age and found
that penile length almost stopped increasing during adolescence and decreased
in older males. In this report, to determine what factors other than age
are related
to penile length, we performed a multivariate analysis of the
relationships between stretched penile length (SPL) and other measurements
of genital organs, nose size,
height and body weight in 126 adults in their 30s–50s.

Op maandag 29 november 2021 om 07:31:09 UTC+1 schreef Primum Sapienti:

> >> Found those snorkel noses yet?

"OI, BIG NOSE!"
NS 2782:69 Lastword 16.10.10

Why do humans evolve external noses that don’t seem to serve any useful purpose – our smelling sensors are inside the head.
Our nose is vulnerable to damage, and the majority of primates and other mammals manage with relatively flat faces.
Traditional explanations are that the nose protects against dry air, hot air, cold air, dusty air, whatever air,
but most savannah mammals have no external noses, and polar animals such as arctic foxes or hares tend to evolve shorter extremities including flatter noses (Allen’s Rule), not larger as the Neanderthal protruding nose.

The answer isn’t so difficult if we simply consider humans like other mammals.

An external nose is seen in elephant seals, hooded seals, tapirs, elephants, swine and, among primates, in the mangrove-dwelling proboscis monkeys.
Various, often mutually compatible functions, have been proposed, such as
- sexual display (in male hooded and elephant seals or proboscis monkeys),
- manipulation of food (in elephants, tapirs and swine),
- a snorkel (elephants, proboscis monkeys) and
- as a nose-closing aid during diving (in most of these animals).
These mammals spend a lot of time at the margins of land and water.
Possible functions of an external nose in creatures evolving into aquatic ones are obvious, and match those listed above in many cases.
They can initially act as a nose closure, a snorkel, to keep water out, to dig in wet soil for food, and so on.
Afterwards, these external noses can also become co-opted for other functions, such as sexual display (visual as well as auditory) in hooded and elephant seals and proboscis monkeys.

But what does this have to do with human evolution?

The earliest known Homo fossils outside Africa – such as those at Mojokerto in Java and Dmanisi in Georgia – are about 1.8 million years old.
The easiest way for them to have spread to other continents, and to islands such as Java, is along the coasts, and from there inland along rivers.
During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene – the ice age cycles that ran from about 1.8 million to 12,000 years ago – most coasts were about 100 metres below the present-day sea level,
so we don’t know whether or when Homo populations lived there.
But coasts and riversides are full of shellfish and other foods that are easily collected and digested by smart, handy and tool-using “apes”, and are rich in potential brain-boosting nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

If Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts, beachcombing, wading and diving for seafoods as Polynesian islanders still do, this could explain why Homo erectus evolved larger brains (aided by DHA) and larger noses (because of their part-time diving).
This littoral intermezzo could help to explain not only why we like to have our holidays at tropical beaches, eating shrimps and coconuts, but also why we became fat and furless bipeds with long legs, large brains and big noses.

> Google "OI, BIG PENIS!"

:-DDD
big penises to run after antelopes... :-DDD

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op maandag 29 november 2021 om 07:31:09 UTC+1 schreef Primum Sapienti:
>
>>>> Found those snorkel noses yet?
>
> "OI, BIG NOSE!"

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaaq0250.full
Nasalization by Nasalis larvatus: Larger noses audiovisually advertise
conspecifics in proboscis monkeys
Science Advances 21 Feb 2018:

Abstract
Male proboscis monkeys have uniquely enlarged noses that are prominent
adornments, which may have evolved through their sexually competitive
harem group social system. Nevertheless, the ecological roles of the
signals encoded by enlarged noses remain unclear. We found significant
correlations among nose, body, and testis sizes and a clear link between
nose size and number of harem females. Therefore, there is evidence
supporting both male-male competition and female choice as causal factors
in the evolution of enlarged male noses. We also observed that nasal
enlargement systematically modifies the resonance properties of male
vocalizations, which probably encode male quality. Our results indicate
that the audiovisual contributions of enlarged male noses serve as
advertisements to females in their mate selection. This is the first
primate research to evaluate the evolutionary processes involved in
linking morphology, acoustics, and socioecology with unique masculine
characteristics.

https://www.menshealth.com/uk/sex/a36339905/bigger-penis-large-noses/
Men With Larger Noses Have Bigger Penises, According to New Study
Your beak may be giving away more than you think

BY MEN'S HEALTH 05/05/2021
Published in the medical journal Basic and Clinical Andrology, the
researchers of
the study found that men with larger noses had a ‘stretched penile length’
of at
least 5.3 inches, while men with smaller noses had a penis length of 4.1
inches
erect.

The team of researchers drew this conclusion by looking at the dead corpses of
126 men within three days of death and measured different parts of their body.
After taking into account varying factors such height, weight and measurements
of the penis (there were no links between feet size and appendage size, before
you ask), the authors of the study then worked out the "stretched penile
length"
(SPL) of each cadaver. This was measured by, and sorry to be so graphic,
by pulling
the penis up as far as it would go. Hopefully they used gloves.

https://bacandrology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12610-021-00121-z
Nose size indicates maximum penile length

Abstract
Background
In a previous report, we investigated whether the size of male genitalia
similarly
exposed to serum testosterone during aging could change with age and found
that penile length almost stopped increasing during adolescence and decreased
in older males. In this report, to determine what factors other than age
are related
to penile length, we performed a multivariate analysis of the
relationships between
stretched penile length (SPL) and other measurements of genital organs,
nose size,
height and body weight in 126 adults in their 30s–50s.

> > "OI, BIG NOSE!"

New Scientist 2782 p 69 Lastword 16 October 2010

Why do humans evolve external noses that don’t seem to serve any useful purpose – our smelling sensors are inside the head. Our nose is vulnerable to damage, and the majority of primates and other mammals manage with relatively flat faces. Traditional explanations are that the nose protects against dry air, hot air, cold air, dusty air, whatever air, but most savannah mammals have no external noses, and polar animals such as arctic foxes or hares tend to evolve shorter extremities including flatter noses (Allen’s Rule), not larger as the Neanderthal protruding nose.

The answer isn’t so difficult if we simply consider humans like other mammals.

An external nose is seen in elephant seals, hooded seals, tapirs, elephants, swine and, among primates, in the mangrove-dwelling proboscis monkeys. Various, often mutually compatible functions, have been proposed, such as sexual display (in male hooded and elephant seals or proboscis monkeys), manipulation of food (in elephants, tapirs and swine), a snorkel (elephants, proboscis monkeys) and as a nose-closing aid during diving (in most of these animals). These mammals spend a lot of time at the margins of land and water.. Possible functions of an external nose in creatures evolving into aquatic ones are obvious and match those listed above in many cases. They can initially act as a nose closure, a snorkel, to keep water out, to dig in wet soil for food, and so on. Afterwards, these external noses can also become co-opted for other functions, such as sexual display (visual as well as auditory) in hooded and elephant seals and proboscis monkeys.

But what does this have to do with human evolution?

The earliest known Homo fossils outside Africa – such as those at Mojokerto in Java and Dmanisi in Georgia – are about 1.8 million years old. The easiest way for them to have spread to other continents, and to islands such as Java, is along the coasts, and from there inland along rivers. During the glacial periods of the Pleistocene – the ice age cycles that ran from about 1.8 million to 12,000 years ago – most coasts were about 100 metres below the present-day sea level, so we don’t know whether or when Homo populations lived there. But coasts and riversides are full of shellfish and other foods that are easily collected and digested by smart, handy and tool-using “apes”, and are rich in potential brain-boosting nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

If Pleistocene Homo spread along the coasts, beachcombing, wading and diving for seafoods as Polynesian islanders still do, this could explain why Homo erectus evolved larger brains (aided by DHA) and larger noses (because of their part-time diving). This littoral intermezzo could help to explain not only why we like to have our holidays at tropical beaches, eating shrimps and coconuts, but also why we became fat and furless bipeds with long legs, flat feet, large brains and big noses.