Nearly all reptiles and mammals can swim. They've
been able to do so since their ancestral taxa first
evolved. Individuals have to migrate; species need to
be able to expand their range. Selection will ensure
that only those that can swim rivers will leave
offspring. So our monkey ancestors certainly could
swim -- as well as any monkeys today. But apes can't.
So when and why did that happen? What were the
selective advantages in losing that ability?

There were obviously none, as such. The first ape-
monkeys that lost that ability must have suffered the
occasional drowning. In normal circumstances, the
selective effect would be enough to halt the process.
But, at this time, while this process was going on, there
were other powerful selective forces in operation
which swamped it, and made those losses irrelevant.

I suggest that there is only one likely answer: the
evolution of brachiation, which necessitated great
changes in body form. While some proto-gibbons
would have fallen into water and drowned, what
mattered to the bulk of the population were much
longer arms, a different body shape, and a changed
weight distribution, all of which made swimming
difficult.

Once the changes had been made, the gibbons settled
into a niche where survival did not depend on being
able to swim to cross bodies of water, and where
populations found it easier to tolerate the occasional
loss from drowning rather than implement any
physical changes that might make swimming possible.
The species found it easier to build in a fear of water,
so that individuals minimised any risk they felt obliged
to take. The larger apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimps)
that descended from gibbons, inherited these
characteristics.

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 6:09:57 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> Nearly all reptiles and mammals can swim. They've
> been able to do so since their ancestral taxa first
> evolved. Individuals have to migrate; species need to
> be able to expand their range. Selection will ensure
> that only those that can swim rivers will leave
> offspring. So our monkey ancestors certainly could
> swim -- as well as any monkeys today. But apes can't.
> So when and why did that happen? What were the
> selective advantages in losing that ability?

See vertical climber: https://youtu.be/Gregory
Lateral swinging habitually selected against pronograde swimming, and supplanted it over wooded streams.
Laryngeal air sacs may have enlarged as upright floats to keep head above surface and grasping branches became an alternative to swimming in larger apes.

> There were obviously none, as such. The first ape-
> monkeys that lost that ability must have suffered the
> occasional drowning. In normal circumstances, the
> selective effect would be enough to halt the process.
> But, at this time, while this process was going on, there
> were other powerful selective forces in operation
> which swamped it, and made those losses irrelevant.
>
> I suggest that there is only one likely answer: the
> evolution of brachiation, which necessitated great
> changes in body form. While some proto-gibbons
> would have fallen into water and drowned, what
> mattered to the bulk of the population were much
> longer arms, a different body shape, and a changed
> weight distribution, all of which made swimming
> difficult.
>
> Once the changes had been made, the gibbons settled
> into a niche where survival did not depend on being
> able to swim to cross bodies of water, and where
> populations found it easier to tolerate the occasional
> loss from drowning rather than implement any
> physical changes that might make swimming possible.
> The species found it easier to build in a fear of water,
> so that individuals minimised any risk they felt obliged
> to take. The larger apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimps)
> that descended from gibbons, inherited these
> characteristics.

Crocs. The European miocene apes (quasi-hylobatids) could probably still swim while evolving slow brachiation, but those in tropical Africa/Asia became non-swimmers.

Paul Crowley wrote:

> Nearly all reptiles and mammals can swim. They've
> been able to do so since their ancestral taxa first
> evolved. Individuals have to migrate; species need to
> be able to expand their range. Selection will ensure
> that only those that can swim rivers will leave
> offspring. So our monkey ancestors certainly could
> swim -- as well as any monkeys today. But apes can't.
> So when and why did that happen? What were the
> selective advantages in losing that ability?

So much for "Humans are apes," huh?

Chimps doo swim. They don't like it, they're not good at floating
and they're poorly balanced for the water but they can and do
swim. Not a lot. Not habitually...

Chimps were just as well adapted to swimming as we were, as
we are, and then they peeled off from us -- not the other way
around -- and adapted to the forest. Swimming was not important
to them. Larger brains were not important to them. Walking upright
was not important to them, not in terms of survival. So they evolved
away from all that in adapting to the trees...

I propose human predation. That, they were a diverse population
exploiting multi environments, the other environments moderating
(or perhaps even overwhelming) any selective pressures that the
forest population was experiencing. But as the Homo line that they
split from competed with them more & more -- probably eating them
as just another meat source -- their evolution was less & less
influenced by populations outside the forest, until they were the
last Chimps standing!

-- --

https://rumble.com/vr5fsv-confessions-of-an-ex-hippie.html

On Sunday 26 December 2021 at 14:20:31 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 6:09:57 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:

>> I suggest that there is only one likely answer: the
>> evolution of brachiation, which necessitated great
>> changes in body form. While some proto-gibbons
>> would have fallen into water and drowned, what
>> mattered to the bulk of the population were much
>> longer arms, a different body shape, and a changed
>> weight distribution, all of which made swimming
> > difficult.
> [..]
>> The larger apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimps)
>> that descended from gibbons, inherited these
>> characteristics.
>
> Crocs. The European miocene apes (quasi-hylobatids) could probably
> still swim while evolving slow brachiation, but those in tropical
> Africa/Asia became non-swimmers.

So you're saying
A) That European miocene apes evolved from
monkeys and were the first apes, and that
they were first primates to develop
brachiation . . . ?

B) That this was SLOW brachiation . . .?

C) That they did this BEFORE some migrated
to SE Asia, where some descendants evolved
FAST brachiation and became gibbons . . . ?

D) That those remaining in Europe were the
ancestors of gorillas and chimps, while those
moving to SE Asia were the ancestors of
orangutans . . . ?

On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 7:16:44 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Sunday 26 December 2021 at 14:20:31 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 6:09:57 PM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> >> I suggest that there is only one likely answer: the
> >> evolution of brachiation, which necessitated great
> >> changes in body form. While some proto-gibbons
> >> would have fallen into water and drowned, what
> >> mattered to the bulk of the population were much
> >> longer arms, a different body shape, and a changed
> >> weight distribution, all of which made swimming
> > > difficult.
> > [..]
> >> The larger apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimps)
> >> that descended from gibbons, inherited these
> >> characteristics.
> >
> > Crocs. The European miocene apes (quasi-hylobatids) could probably
> > still swim while evolving slow brachiation, but those in tropical
> > Africa/Asia became non-swimmers.
> So you're saying
> A) That European miocene apes evolved from
> monkeys and were the first apes, and that
> they were first primates to develop
> brachiation . . . ?
>
> B) That this was SLOW brachiation . . .?
>
> C) That they did this BEFORE some migrated
> to SE Asia, where some descendants evolved
> FAST brachiation and became gibbons . . . ?
>
> D) That those remaining in Europe were the
> ancestors of gorillas and chimps, while those
> moving to SE Asia were the ancestors of
> orangutans . . . ?

That is one logical possibility, but put the miocene ape expansion center around the southern Black Sea rather than "in" Europe where just a few fossils have been found. The southern Black Sea was probably semi-tropical, warm year-round but not extremely hot & humid and croc-filled; the Caucasus and Lebanon mountain ranges not as tall as now, there may have been a migratory route to Levant on-again off-again, and forests around the Iranian plateau to India. There could have been numerous bands going in all directions with various morphologies.

....
> B) That this was SLOW brachiation . . .?

slow brachiation doesn't exist,
vertical climbing does

On Sunday, December 26, 2021 at 10:24:37 PM UTC, I Envy JTEM wrote:

> Chimps doo swim. They don't like it, they're not good at floating
> and they're poorly balanced for the water but they can and do
> swim. Not a lot. Not habitually...

Not in the wild -- ever.

> Chimps were just as well adapted to swimming as we were, as
> we are, and then they peeled off from us -- not the other way
> around -- and adapted to the forest.

Primates are adapted to the forest. It's where
they evolved over ~50 Myr. But according to
you, chimps/humans left the forest, adapting
to somewhere else. Then chimps returned.

Ever heard of parsimony?

Where do gorillas fit in?

Where do gibbons fit in?

> Swimming was not important to them.

Swimming is important to all terrestrial species.
Populations expand by crossing rivers.
Populations and Individuals need to find new
territories. They need to be able to survive
floods. The loss of an inherited ability needs
to be explained (not 'explained away').

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 1:07:18 AM UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>> So you're saying
>> A) That European miocene apes evolved from
>> monkeys and were the first apes, and that
>> they were first primates to develop
>> brachiation . . . ?
>>
>> B) That this was SLOW brachiation . . .?
>>
>> C) That they did this BEFORE some migrated
>> to SE Asia, where some descendants evolved
>> FAST brachiation and became gibbons . . . ?
>>
>> D) That those remaining in Europe were the
>> ancestors of gorillas and chimps, while those
>> moving to SE Asia were the ancestors of
>> orangutans . . . ?
>
> That is one logical possibility, but put the miocene ape expansion center around the southern Black Sea

The exact geographical location of this supposed
event is entirely beside the point. Which is that
species do not evolve -- for no particular reason --
at great cost and over much time, new body
plans.

Giraffes didn't get long necks so that they could
survey the country better, and then discover
that they could eat the leaves of high trees.
Scorpions didn't evolve stinging tails to impress
potential mates, and then discover that they
were handy for killing prey and scaring off
potential predators . . etc., etc.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 2:33:55 PM UTC, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

>> B) That this was SLOW brachiation . . .?
>
> slow brachiation doesn't exist,
> vertical climbing does

I agree. But I'm pretty sure that Daud used the
phrase "slow brachiation".

However, all primates do 'vertical climbing'
(even humans). So why and when did some
of them adopt a new morphology -- a broad
flat chest (in place of a narrow, deep one)
a more central spine, loss of a tail, a shift of
the shoulder scapulae from the side to the
back & longer arms?

Please don't say it was something to do
with wading.

Op maandag 27 december 2021 om 17:11:06 UTC+1 schreef Paul Crowley:

....

> However, all primates do 'vertical climbing'
> (even humans). So why and when did some
> of them adopt a new morphology -- a broad
> flat chest (in place of a narrow, deep one)
> a more central spine, loss of a tail, a shift of
> the shoulder scapulae from the side to the
> back & longer arms?
> Please don't say it was something to do
> with wading.

:-) What else, Pauli?
Only incredible imbeciles believe it has something to do with running after antelopes.

Simply google our Trends paper:
"Aquarboreal Ancestors?".

Tail loss + broad body + vertical body + large body + ...

And google "bonobo wading" & "gorilla bai".

But it might have been more complicated than simply wading ofr sedges or os.

Paul Crowley wrote:

> Where do gorillas fit in?

Saying "Apes can't swim" is debunked. Any ape swimming disproves your
claim, and humans are apes. Right?

Gorillas like Chimps evolved into the knuckle walking forest dwellers. If our
aquatic ancestors began before gorillas, which I believe they did, all their
selective pressure has been away from the water and towards the forest.

But, again, your premise is wrong.

-- --

https://rumble.com/vr5fsv-confessions-of-an-ex-hippie.html

On Monday 27 December 2021 at 17:11:35 UTC, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

>> However, all primates do 'vertical climbing'
>> (even humans). So why and when did some
>> of them adopt a new morphology -- a broad
>> flat chest (in place of a narrow, deep one)
>> a more central spine, loss of a tail, a shift of
>> the shoulder scapulae from the side to the
>> back & longer arms?
>> Please don't say it was something to do
>> with wading.
>
> :-) What else, Pauli?

I've told you '. . what else . . ' and you
referred to it.

When a small monkey evolved into a gibbon,
around 25 ma, it had bring in all these drastic
morphological changes. In the process, it lost
its ability to swim. This didn't matter much
at the time, since it was in the high canopy,
and could brachiate across most rivers.
The larger rivers were a problem but, over
geological time, they changed their courses,
and species of gibbon occupied nearly all
the forests of SE Asia.

Their larger descendants -- orangutans, and
later gorillas and chimps -- were too heavy
to brachiate, but they still had certain
advantages over other primates -- in
particular large size, while being able to
sleep in trees. Their broad flat backs,
'spider-like' limbs, and a nesting capacity
enabled comfortable nights, out of reach
of predators.

> Only incredible imbeciles believe it has something to do with running after antelopes.

Sure, sure. But there's no need to repeat
that endlessly around here. It's not a prayer.

On Monday 27 December 2021 at 22:46:22 UTC, I Envy JTEM wrote:

>> Where do gorillas fit in?
>
> Saying "Apes can't swim" is debunked.

I never said it. I said gibbons can't swim.

> Any ape swimming disproves your claim, and humans are apes. Right?

No. We're talking about wild apes. The
occasional chimp, trained over years in
a swimming pool, wouldn't disprove a
claim about chimps not swimming.

> Gorillas like Chimps evolved into the knuckle walking forest dwellers. If our
> aquatic ancestors began before gorillas, which I believe they did, all their
> selective pressure has been away from the water and towards the forest.

Aquatic bullshit. How come there are no
populations of aquatic gorillas or aquatic
chimps today?

Op dinsdag 28 december 2021 om 00:32:36 UTC+1 schreef Paul Crowley:

> >> However, all primates do 'vertical climbing'
> >> (even humans). So why and when did some
> >> of them adopt a new morphology -- a broad
> >> flat chest (in place of a narrow, deep one)
> >> a more central spine, loss of a tail, a shift of
> >> the shoulder scapulae from the side to the
> >> back & longer arms?

> >> Please don't say it was something to do
> >> with wading.

> > :-) What else, Pauli?

> I've told you '. . what else . . ' and you referred to it.

??
> When a small monkey evolved into a gibbon,
> around 25 ma,

small??
Hylobatids have rel.long gestation: this suggests larger ancestors.

> it had bring in all these drastic
> morphological changes. In the process, it lost
> its ability to swim.

??

> This didn't matter much
> at the time, since it was in the high canopy,

No, no, Pauli, it was in the very low canopy.

> and could brachiate across most rivers.

:-DDD
Hylobatid brachiation evolved probably much later, after contact with pongids

(some nonsense snipped)

> > Only incredible imbeciles believe it has something to do with running after antelopes.

> Sure, sure. But there's no need to repeat
> that endlessly around here. It's not a prayer.

It is: still many PAs believe their ancestors hunted over savannas.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 9:33:55 AM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> > B) That this was SLOW brachiation . . .?
> slow brachiation doesn't exist,
> vertical climbing does

All today's fast lateral brachiators evolved from slow lateral brachiators which also climbed vertically.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 11:09:56 AM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 1:07:18 AM UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> >> So you're saying
> >> A) That European miocene apes evolved from
> >> monkeys and were the first apes, and that
> >> they were first primates to develop
> >> brachiation . . . ?
> >>
> >> B) That this was SLOW brachiation . . .?
> >>
> >> C) That they did this BEFORE some migrated
> >> to SE Asia, where some descendants evolved
> >> FAST brachiation and became gibbons . . . ?
> >>
> >> D) That those remaining in Europe were the
> >> ancestors of gorillas and chimps, while those
> >> moving to SE Asia were the ancestors of
> >> orangutans . . . ?
> >
> > That is one logical possibility, but put the miocene ape expansion center around the southern Black Sea
> The exact geographical location of this supposed
> event is entirely beside the point.

No, not in Swiss Alps nor Norway, but Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Spain had fossils but the expansion probably spread out from the Black Sea region.

Which is that
> species do not evolve -- for no particular reason --
> at great cost and over much time, new body
> plans.

They do when it is advantageous.

>
> Giraffes didn't get long necks so that they could
> survey the country better, and then discover
> that they could eat the leaves of high trees.
> Scorpions didn't evolve stinging tails to impress
> potential mates, and then discover that they
> were handy for killing prey and scaring off
> potential predators . . etc., etc.

Checkmate...

Paul Crowley wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
> >> Where do gorillas fit in?
> >
> > Saying "Apes can't swim" is debunked.

> I never said it. I said gibbons can't swim.

: So our monkey ancestors certainly could
: swim -- as well as any monkeys today. But apes can't.

Although it doesn't come down to a sentence here or there.
It is what you entire post is about -- this stupid claim -- and
you're not even aware of what you said.

Damn.

Sure you lack reading comprehension but, DAMN! THESE ARE
YOUR OWN WORDS, YOUR OWN POST that you can't
comprehend!

Are you a bot r genuinely retarded?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/671765524639825920/

On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 2:50:22 AM UTC-5, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Checkmate...
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > I Envy JTEM wrote:
> >
> > >> Where do gorillas fit in?
> > >
> > > Saying "Apes can't swim" is debunked.
>
> > I never said it. I said gibbons can't swim.
> : So our monkey ancestors certainly could
> : swim -- as well as any monkeys today. But apes can't.
> Although it doesn't come down to a sentence here or there.
> It is what you entire post is about -- this stupid claim -- and
> you're not even aware of what you said.
>
> Damn.
>
> Sure you lack reading comprehension but, DAMN! THESE ARE
> YOUR OWN WORDS, YOUR OWN POST that you can't
> comprehend!
>
> Are you a bot r genuinely retarded?
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/671765524639825920/
r.

On Tuesday 28 December 2021 at 07:08:21 UTC, littor...@gmail.com wrote:

>> When a small monkey evolved into a gibbon,
>> around 25 ma,
>
> small??
> Hylobatids have rel.long gestation: this suggests larger ancestors.

A very thin branch on which to hang such a
weighty conclusion.

Hylobatids live at least twice as long as most
monkeys. Maturation times are also roughly
double. The slow maturation and slow
gestation suggest that the necessary levels
of skill (and knowledge?) are much harder
to acquire.

1. From studies of both wild and captive animals, gibbons are thought
to reach sexual maturity at about 6 to 8 years of age, and the siamang
(Hylobates syndactylus) at about 8 to 9 years.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31952414/

2. Age at puberty is given, and some variation discussed. The talapoin,
a very small monkey, becomes adult at 4½ years for females, 1 or 2
years later for males. The patas, a rather large monkey, becomes adult
at 2½ years, for females, and 1 or 2 years later for males.
https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/155792

>> This didn't matter much
>> at the time, since it was in the high canopy,
>
> No, no, Pauli, it was in the very low canopy.

If they'd lived in the low canopy, they'd have
encountered bodies of water much more
often and retained their ability to swim.

> Hylobatid brachiation evolved probably much later, after contact with
> pongids

Since this is what you've always assumed,
why then, it must be true.

On Tuesday 28 December 2021 at 07:39:39 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> All today's fast lateral brachiators evolved from slow lateral
> brachiators which also climbed vertically.

What is the basis for this claim?

(Other than it being the lazy assumption
of a lot of PA professors, who got it from
their professors, who got it from their
professors, who got it from their
professors . . . .)

On Tuesday 28 December 2021 at 07:44:47 UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>> Which is that
>> species do not evolve -- for no particular reason --
>> at great cost and over much time, new body
>> plans.
>
> They do when it is advantageous.

Simply not true. Maybe it would be
advantageous for pigs to fly. But they
are never going to evolve the necessary
wings.

The costs are always relevant. It's easy
to see the costs to a monkey of evolving
an ape body shape. You don't posit any
significant advantages -- while ignoring
the one in front of your eyes.

On Tuesday 28 December 2021 at 07:50:22 UTC, I Envy JTEM wrote:

> Checkmate...

This is what happens when you ignore the
cardinal rule: "Never wrestle with a pig".

>>> Saying "Apes can't swim" is debunked.
>
>> I never said it. I said gibbons can't swim.
>
> : So our monkey ancestors certainly could
> : swim -- as well as any monkeys today. But apes can't.

To say that it's disproved because humans can swim
(your line) is to take it out of context -- in numerous
ways. First, I was talking about the first apes
(including gibbons) and asking why none of them
can swim -- not about modern ones. Second --
and I admit I went wrong in my response --
unlike almost all other terrestrial animals (incl.
primates) apes (including humans) CAN'T SWIM
-- without special training. All other animals are
born with swimming ability, and need no training.

This lack of an ability, instinctual in almost all
terrestrial animals, needs an explanation.

> Although it doesn't come down to a sentence here or there.
> It is what you entire post is about -- this stupid claim -- and
> you're not even aware of what you said.

The thread is called "Apes and Swimming".
Your 'contribution' to it is as pointless as ever.

On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 2:44:47 AM UTC-5, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 11:09:56 AM UTC-5, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 1:07:18 AM UTC, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> >
> > >> So you're saying
> > >> A) That European miocene apes evolved from
> > >> monkeys and were the first apes, and that
> > >> they were first primates to develop
> > >> brachiation . . . ?
> > >>
> > >> B) That this was SLOW brachiation . . .?
> > >>
> > >> C) That they did this BEFORE some migrated
> > >> to SE Asia, where some descendants evolved
> > >> FAST brachiation and became gibbons . . . ?
> > >>
> > >> D) That those remaining in Europe were the
> > >> ancestors of gorillas and chimps, while those
> > >> moving to SE Asia were the ancestors of
> > >> orangutans . . . ?
> > >
> > > That is one logical possibility, but put the miocene ape expansion center around the southern Black Sea
> > The exact geographical location of this supposed
> > event is entirely beside the point.
> No, not in Swiss Alps nor Norway, but Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Spain had fossils but the expansion probably spread out from the Black Sea region.
> Which is that
> > species do not evolve -- for no particular reason --
> > at great cost and over much time, new body
> > plans.
> They do when it is advantageous.
> >
> > Giraffes didn't get long necks so that they could
> > survey the country better, and then discover
> > that they could eat the leaves of high trees.
> > Scorpions didn't evolve stinging tails to impress
> > potential mates, and then discover that they
> > were handy for killing prey and scaring off
> > potential predators . . etc., etc.

I realized I wasn't really answering your deeper question about brachiation and swimming. I've got a new Motorola cell phone coming, I'll respond when its activated. My current phone is corrupted, constantly need to fix keyboard errors.

Paul Crowley wrote:

> This is what happens when you ignore the
> cardinal rule: "Never wrestle with a pig".

You're not a pig you're a bot, posting gibberish.

> To say that it's disproved because humans can swim

Apes can swim. Humans, yes, but even Chimps are known to
swim.

https://www.newscientist.com/gallery/orang-utan-water/

Oops.

But even a single example of an ape swimming falsifies the
ridiculous claim that apes can't swim.

-- --

https://rumble.com/vqwxtc-the-worst-of-watch-this-volume-ii.html

Op dinsdag 28 december 2021 om 23:48:38 UTC+1 schreef Paul Crowley:

> >> When a small monkey evolved into a gibbon,
> >> around 25 ma,

No monkey ever evolved into a gibbon.
Cercopithecoid/hominoid ? c 30 Ma.
> > small??
> > Hylobatids have rel.long gestation: this suggests larger ancestors.

> A very thin branch on which to hang such a
> weighty conclusion.
> Hylobatids live at least twice as long as most
> monkeys. Maturation times are also roughly
> double.

Yes, early hominoids were much larger.

> The slow maturation and slow
> gestation suggest that the necessary levels
> of skill (and knowledge?) are much harder
> to acquire.

Wishful thinking.

> 1. From studies of both wild and captive animals, gibbons are thought
> to reach sexual maturity at about 6 to 8 years of age, and the siamang
> (Hylobates syndactylus) at about 8 to 9 years.
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31952414/ >
> 2. Age at puberty is given, and some variation discussed. The talapoin,
> a very small monkey, becomes adult at 4½ years for females, 1 or 2
> years later for males. The patas, a rather large monkey, becomes adult
> at 2½ years, for females, and 1 or 2 years later for males.
> https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/155792

Fine, confirms my view.

> >> This didn't matter much
> >> at the time, since it was in the high canopy,

> > No, no, Pauli, it was in the very low canopy.

> If they'd lived in the low canopy, they'd have
> encountered bodies of water much more
> often and retained their ability to swim.

Homonid/pongid c 15 Ma (= Mesopotamian Seaway closure??):
hylobatids had >10 My to lose swimming abilities.

> > Hylobatid brachiation evolved probably much later, after contact with
> > pongids

> Since this is what you've always assumed,
> why then, it must be true.

Of course, obvious to anybody with a little bit of biological insight:
hominoids (vs monkeys):
-tail loss (coccyx in pelvic bottom)
-central (not dorsal) spine
-very wide sternum (Latisternalia)
-very wide thorax = upright
-very wide pelvis
-arms & legs laterally-directed (not ventrally)
-found on islands
-etc.
IOW, they were not pronograde,
the trunk didn't hang from the spine as in cercopiths,
but a centrally-placed spine held the body upright:
early hominoids were often vertical & not exclusively arboreal (e.g. no tail):
already 30 yrs ago, I proposed they were aquarboreal = confirmed in the 1990s:
-lowland gorillas wading sedges,
-bonobos wading for waterlilies,
-later also orangs wading,
google "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

One problem:
how aquatic were early hominoids?
very, or only a bit more aquarboreal than extant bonobos?