"An updated analysis of hominin phylogeny with an emphasis on re-evaluating the phylogenetic relationships of Australopithecus sediba"
Carrie S Mongle cs 2023 JHE 175,103311 doi org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103311
.... we conclude: sediba is plausibly the terminal end of a lineage that shared a common ancestor with the earliest representatives of Homo.

Yes, this beautifully confirms our view:
Au.naledi was an aquarboreal relative of Pan (cf. Homo-Pan split 5.33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield):
My 2022 book p.206:
Au.sediba (MH ~2 Ma, ~30–36 kg) werd in 2008 ontdekt door prof.Berger’s 9-jarige zoon, in de Malapa-grot, NW van Jo'burg:
enkele heel complete skeletten, gestorven in drasland, stilaan door erosie in de kalkgrot eronder gezakt, en daar ingegipst – de beenderen botje bij beetje uitbeitelen was uiterst tijdrovend.
Au.sediba leefde inderdaad in een beschut dal, waar rivieren samenvloeiden (Holt 2016), had
- mensaap-hersenen ~420 cc,
- nogal smalle kaken en kleine hoektanden,
- mensachtige lenden-kromming,(google "aquarboreal")
- opvallend kleine wervels,(id.)
- wat langere benen dan andere australopiths,(id.)
- kleine hiel zoals mensapen,(id.)
- binnenwaarts gericht enkelgewricht ("een bijzondere tweebenige gang"),
- mensaap-achtig schouderblad,
- opwaarts gerichte schouder,
- chimp-achtig opperarmbot,
- nogal lange onderarm voor hang-klimmen,(id.)
- nogal gebogen, verdikte, maar korte vinger-kootjes met forse buigpezen voor verticaal klimmen,
- erg lange maar dunne duim.
In hun tandsteen (Amanda Henry cs) waren restjes (fytolyten) van fruit, palm en vooral schors, bladeren, zegge(sedges) en watergrassen,(e.g. rice) een ramidus-achtig dieet volgens de isotopen, anders dan bij boisei.
De glazuurslijtage wees op een gevarieerd menu met ook hard voedsel, tussenin dat van erectus, africanus en robustus.
Volgens Jeffrey Schwartz waren de sediba-fossielen geen africanus-achtigen, maar robustus-vrouwtjes.

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 12:46:19 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Volgens Jeffrey Schwartz waren de sediba-fossielen geen africanus-achtigen, maar robustus-vrouwtjes.

Not likely, because we already know what robustus females look like in
the form of DNH 7 from Drimolen:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279710806_Drimolen_A_New_Hominid-Bearing_Site_in_Gauteng_South_Africa

The extreme posterior:anterior dental proportions, the molarized P4,
the concave frontal squama, the highly orthognathic face, and the
tremendously robust mandibular corpus (according to the shape index)
are all characteristic features of robustus and nothing like sediba,
and even less like Pan:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102913

> >Volgens Jeffrey Schwartz waren de sediba-fossielen geen africanus-achtigen, maar robustus-vrouwtjes.

Kudu runner:
> Not likely, because we already know what robustus females look like in
> the form of DNH 7 from Drimolen

OK, tell that J.Schwarz.
In any case, it confirms our view that Au.naledi was an aquarboreal relative of Pan (cf. Homo-Pan split 5.33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield):
mostly wading-walking bipedally in swampland + sometimes already KWing + climbing arms overhead in branches above the swamp:
my 2022 book p.206:

Au.sediba (MH ~2 Ma, ~30–36 kg) werd in 2008 ontdekt door prof.Berger’s 9-jarige zoon, in de Malapa-grot, NW van Jo'burg:
enkele heel complete skeletten, gestorven in drasland, stilaan door erosie in de kalkgrot eronder gezakt, en daar ingegipst – de beenderen botje bij beetje uitbeitelen was uiterst tijdrovend.
Au.sediba leefde inderdaad in een beschut dal, waar rivieren samenvloeiden (Holt 2016), had
- mensaap-hersenen ~420 cc,
- nogal smalle kaken en kleine hoektanden,
- mensachtige lenden-kromming,(google "aquarboreal")
- opvallend kleine wervels,(id.)
- wat langere benen dan andere australopiths,(id.)
- kleine hiel zoals mensapen,(id.)
- binnenwaarts gericht enkelgewricht ("een bijzondere tweebenige gang"),
- mensaap-achtig schouderblad,
- opwaarts gerichte schouder,
- chimp-achtig opperarmbot,
- nogal lange onderarm voor hang-klimmen,(id.)
- nogal gebogen, verdikte, maar korte vinger-kootjes met forse buigpezen voor verticaal klimmen,
- erg lange maar dunne duim.
In hun tandsteen (Amanda Henry cs) waren restjes (fytolyten) van fruit, palm en vooral schors, bladeren, zegge(sedges) en watergrassen,(e.g. rice) een ramidus-achtig dieet volgens de isotopen, anders dan bij boisei.
De glazuurslijtage wees op een gevarieerd menu met ook hard voedsel, tussenin dat van erectus, africanus en robustus.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 12:26:16 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Volgens Jeffrey Schwartz waren de sediba-fossielen geen africanus-achtigen, maar robustus-vrouwtjes.
>
>Kudu runner:
>> Not likely, because we already know what robustus females look like in
>> the form of DNH 7 from Drimolen
>
>OK, tell that J.Schwarz.
>In any case, it confirms our view that Au.naledi was an aquarboreal relative of Pan (cf. Homo-Pan split 5.33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield):
>mostly wading-walking bipedally in swampland + sometimes already KWing + climbing arms overhead in branches above the swamp:

With an adducted hallux you're not much of a climber:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9432

And the rest of the lower limb also suggests obligate bipedalism:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23877

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.09.005

Without the aqua and the arboreal there is no aquarboreal.

> >> >Volgens Jeffrey Schwartz waren de sediba-fossielen geen africanus-achtigen, maar robustus-vrouwtjes.

Kudu runner:
> >> Not likely, because we already know what robustus females look like in
> >> the form of DNH 7 from Drimolen

> >OK, tell that J.Schwarz.
> >In any case, it confirms our view that Au.naledi was an aquarboreal relative of Pan (cf. Homo-Pan split 5.33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield):
> >mostly wading-walking bipedally in swampland + sometimes already KWing + climbing arms overhead in branches above the swamp:

Kudu runner:
> With an adducted hallux you're not much of a climber:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9432

and has our little boy read my comment there? :-)

Thanks for this beautiful description of the Homo or Australopithecus naledi foot skeleton. However, the interpretation of its morphological details is anthropocentrically biased in my opinion.
The article assumes that naledi's foot ("broadly similar to that of modern humans") was "well adapted for striding bipedalism", following the traditional palaeoanthropological assumption that human locomotor differences with apes have evolved for bipealism, without considering the possibilitiy than human bipedalism might be a secondary adaptation of a plantigrade foot to running. In fact, cursorial bipedal animals such as ostriches have digitigrade feet with very robust and long central digital rays, whereas wading bipedal animals such as flamingoes have flatter plantigrade feet with relatively longer first and last digital rays. This raises the question whether the flat human foot originally evolved for wading in very shallow waters, and only secondarily evolved for walking or running on terra firma.
The combination of flat and fully plantigrade feet with curved manual phalanges might suggest a locomotion not unlike that of bonobos or lowland gorillas who occasionally or regularly wade in shallow forest swamps or wetlands for waterlilies or sedges, but more frequently. The strongly curved manual phalanges in combination with the gorilla-like pedal curvatures suggest they also frequently climbed in the branches above or near the swamp.
If Homo or Australopithecus naledi spent a lot of time in wetlands or forest swamps in considerable densities as seen in lowland gorillas collecting aquatic herbaceous vegetation in forest bais, this might possibly also explain their accumulation and fossilisation in mudstone, without having to assume deliberate burials in caves.

Kudu runner on Au.naledi:
> And the rest of the lower limb also suggests obligate bipedalism:
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23877

Sigh... "taxonomically uninformative, or Homo-like":
IOW, the authors are as biased as all kudu runners are, confusing "Homo-like" & "kudu-running".

Grow up, little boy: stop wasting our time with your ridiculous prejudices:
on hominid BPism, google:
- aquarboreal,
- GondwanaTalks verhaegen.

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 08:14:44 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> >> >Volgens Jeffrey Schwartz waren de sediba-fossielen geen africanus-achtigen, maar robustus-vrouwtjes.
>
>Kudu runner:
>> >> Not likely, because we already know what robustus females look like in
>> >> the form of DNH 7 from Drimolen
>
>> >OK, tell that J.Schwarz.
>> >In any case, it confirms our view that Au.naledi was an aquarboreal relative of Pan (cf. Homo-Pan split 5.33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield):
>> >mostly wading-walking bipedally in swampland + sometimes already KWing + climbing arms overhead in branches above the swamp:
>
>Kudu runner:
>> With an adducted hallux you're not much of a climber:
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9432
>
>and has our little boy read my comment there? :-)
>
>Thanks for this beautiful description of the Homo or Australopithecus naledi foot skeleton.
>However, the interpretation of its morphological details is anthropocentrically biased in my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own
facts.
Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).

Kudu runner, without reading my comment in Nature:

> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9432

> >and has our little boy read my comment there? :-)

No, of course:
kudu runners
- have their own uninformed opinion,
- make their your own facts:
e.g. an example of kudu-runners' "logica":

> Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
> naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
> cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
> the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).

My little little boy, just compare
- running foot (ostrich),
- swimming foot (flamingo),
- grasping foot (parrot).

Okidoki??
Grow up, and stop wasting our time!

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:51:40 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kudu runner, without reading my comment in Nature:
>
>> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9432
>
>> >and has our little boy read my comment there? :-)
>
>No, of course:
>kudu runners
>- have their own uninformed opinion,
>- make their your own facts:
>e.g. an example of kudu-runners' "logica":
>
>> Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
>> naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
>> cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
>> the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
>
>My little little boy, just compare
>- running foot (ostrich),
>- swimming foot (flamingo),
>- grasping foot (parrot).

Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
Now take a look at the feet of primates:
https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg

Notice anything?
They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.

"The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like in morphology
and inferred function, with an adducted hallux, an elongated tarsus,
and derived ankle and calcaneocuboid joints. In combination, these
features indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism", but
not arborealism. Exit aquarboreal naledi.

Kudu runner, without reading my comment in Nature:

> >> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9432

> >> >and has our little boy read my comment there? :-)

> >No, of course: kudu runners
> >- have their own uninformed opinion,
> >- make their your own facts:
> >e.g. an example of kudu-runners' "logica":

> >> Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
> >> naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
> >> cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
> >> the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).

> >My little little boy, just compare
> >- running foot (ostrich),
> >- swimming foot (flamingo),
> >- grasping foot (parrot).

> Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
> Now take a look at the feet of primates:
> https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg

Thanks, my boy, this is the first sensible thing you do... :-)

> Notice anything?
> They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.

Yes, my boy, of course: google "sealion foot skeleton".

> "The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like in morphology
> and inferred function, with an adducted hallux,

= wading+swimming

> an elongated tarsus,
> and derived ankle and calcaneocuboid joints. In combination, these
> features indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism",

:-DDD
Google ostrich etc.:
aquarboreal naledi: swamp forest = BP + climbing arms overhead.
Thanks for your confirmation... :-)

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:18:28 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
>> >> naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
>> >> cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
>> >> the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
>
>> >My little little boy, just compare
>> >- running foot (ostrich),
>> >- swimming foot (flamingo),
>> >- grasping foot (parrot).
>
>> Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
>> Now take a look at the feet of primates:
>> https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg
>
>Thanks, my boy, this is the first sensible thing you do... :-)
>
>> Notice anything?
>> They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.
>
>Yes, my boy, of course: google "sealion foot skeleton".

Sure,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/

and then compare it to a human foot skeleton:
https://live.staticflickr.com/2571/3976581615_e7d73ab387_b.jpg

And then look at the entire skeleton of the sea lion:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381397320/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381394539/in/photostream/

And compare with human:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_skeleton_-Booth_Museum,_Brighton_and_Hove,_East_Sussex,_England-20Oct2011.jpg

Pinnipeds did not descend from arboreal ancestors with a abductable
hallux. Only complete idiots would suggest convergent evolution in
this case.

>> "The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like in morphology
>> and inferred function, with an adducted hallux,
>
>= wading+swimming
>
>> an elongated tarsus,
>> and derived ankle and calcaneocuboid joints. In combination, these
>> features indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism",
>
>:-DDD
>Google ostrich etc.:
>aquarboreal naledi: swamp forest = BP + climbing arms overhead.

What swamp forest?
Neither Dinaledi nor Lesedi give any indication of such a
paleoenvironment.

Op vrijdag 17 maart 2023 om 12:56:08 UTC+1 schreef kudu runner:
> >> >> Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
> >> >> naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
> >> >> cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
> >> >> the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).

> >> >My little little boy, just compare
> >> >- running foot (ostrich),
> >> >- swimming foot (flamingo),
> >> >- grasping foot (parrot).

> >> Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
> >> Now take a look at the feet of primates:
> >> https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg

> >Thanks, my boy, this is the first sensible thing you do... :-)

> >> Notice anything? They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.

> >Yes, my boy, of course: google "sealion foot skeleton".

> Sure, https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/

:-) Thanks my boy, the 2nd sensible thing you do:
is this the foot of a runner or of a swimmer?

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 05:12:12 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op vrijdag 17 maart 2023 om 12:56:08 UTC+1 schreef kudu runner:
>> >> >> Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
>> >> >> naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
>> >> >> cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
>> >> >> the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
>
>> >> >My little little boy, just compare
>> >> >- running foot (ostrich),
>> >> >- swimming foot (flamingo),
>> >> >- grasping foot (parrot).
>
>> >> Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
>> >> Now take a look at the feet of primates:
>> >> https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg
>
>> >Thanks, my boy, this is the first sensible thing you do... :-)
>
>> >> Notice anything? They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.
>
>> >Yes, my boy, of course: google "sealion foot skeleton".
>
>> Sure, https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/
>
>:-) Thanks my boy, the 2nd sensible thing you do:
>is this the foot of a runner or of a swimmer?

That depends on the circumstances:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gAyvbe7fII

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op vrijdag 17 maart 2023 om 12:56:08 UTC+1 schreef kudu runner:
>>>>>> Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
>>>>>> naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
>>>>>> cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
>>>>>> the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).
>
>>>>> My little little boy, just compare
>>>>> - running foot (ostrich),
>>>>> - swimming foot (flamingo),
>>>>> - grasping foot (parrot).
>
>>>> Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
>>>> Now take a look at the feet of primates:
>>>> https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg
>
>>> Thanks, my boy, this is the first sensible thing you do... :-)
>
>>>> Notice anything? They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.
>
>>> Yes, my boy, of course: google "sealion foot skeleton".
>
>> Sure, https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/
>
> :-) Thanks my boy, the 2nd sensible thing you do:
> is this the foot of a runner or of a swimmer?
>

Walker, runner, dancer, jumper, etc

https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/

and then compare it to a human foot skeleton:
https://live.staticflickr.com/2571/3976581615_e7d73ab387_b.jpg

And then look at the entire skeleton of the sea lion:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381397320/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381394539/in/photostream/

And compare with human:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_skeleton_-Booth_Museum,_Brighton_and_Hove,_East_Sussex,_England-20Oct2011.jpg

Now mv, how about comparing LEGS of seals and humans?

kudu runner:
> >>>>>> Without an abductable hallux you don't have a prehensile foot. H.
> >>>>>> naledi has an adducted hallux incapable of opposability (the medial
> >>>>>> cuneiform preserves a hallucial facet that is flat and in line with
> >>>>>> the tarsometatarsal row as in modern humans).

> >>>>> My little little boy, just compare
> >>>>> - running foot (ostrich),
> >>>>> - swimming foot (flamingo),
> >>>>> - grasping foot (parrot).

> >>>> Exactly my point! Only the parrot is arboreal.
> >>>> Now take a look at the feet of primates:
> >>>> https://i.redd.it/6rlmi0bzex4a1.jpg

> >>> Thanks, my boy, this is the first sensible thing you do... :-)

> >>>> Notice anything? They all have an abductable hallux, except Homo.

> >>> Yes, my boy, of course: google "sealion foot skeleton".

> >> Sure, https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/

> > :-) Thanks my boy, the 2nd sensible thing you do:
> > is this the foot of a runner or of a swimmer?

> Walker, runner, dancer, jumper, etc
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381395223/in/photostream/
> and then compare it to a human foot skeleton:
> https://live.staticflickr.com/2571/3976581615_e7d73ab387_b.jpg
> And then look at the entire skeleton of the sea lion:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381397320/in/photostream/
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/381394539/in/photostream/
> And compare with human:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_skeleton_-Booth_Museum,_Brighton_and_Hove,_East_Sussex,_England-20Oct2011.jpg
> Now mv, how about comparing LEGS of seals and humans?

:-) Thanks my boy for the beautiful illustrations which 100 % confirm our view:
-Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea: upright, long legs, arms above head, google "aquarboreal",
-Pleistocene Homo: slow+shallow diving, google "coastal dipersal Pleistocene Homo",
-late-Pleist.H.sapiens: wading->walking.

Okidoki?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> and then compare it to a human foot skeleton:

> And then look at the entire skeleton of the sea lion:

That's only half your argument. The other half is where you compare
the human foot & entire skeleton to that of an antelope, proving that
we were evolved to run on a savanna.

Can you guess why nobody is impressed? Can you? Huh?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713001423881797632

Op woensdag 29 maart 2023 om 14:14:25 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:

> > and then compare it to a human foot skeleton:
> > And then look at the entire skeleton of the sea lion:

> That's only half your argument. The other half is where you compare
> the human foot & entire skeleton to that of an antelope, proving that
> we were evolved to run on a savanna.
> Can you guess why nobody is impressed? Can you? Huh?

Isn't this already too difficult for the kudu runners, JTEM?

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Isn't this already too difficult for the kudu runners, JTEM?

Unlearning is *Way* more difficult than learning, for most people.

They learned savanna idiocy. They were graded on how well they
learned savanna idiocy.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713001423881797632

Op woensdag 29 maart 2023 om 14:48:02 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

> > Isn't this already too difficult for the kudu runners, JTEM?

> Unlearning is *Way* more difficult than learning, for most people.
> They learned savanna idiocy. They were graded on how well they
> learned savanna idiocy.

Yes, indeed, JTEM...
unfortunately... :-(

I also once (>40 yrs ago!) was convinced that we were savanna-wellers etc.