Proof?CFZ said:There's no convincing reason why Gigantopithecus should be extinct.[...] It's highly likely that Gigantopithecus, or something very like it, still survives today in the remoter areas of Asia.
- This account is certainly more nuanced and credible.Ciochon (et al. 1990) propose three factors as being potentially related to the extinction of Gigantopithecus blacki and all are interrelated: dependence on bamboo, the giant panda, and Homo erectus. Bamboo is prone to periodic die offs, the exact reason for which is unknown. The giant panda was contemprous with Gigantopithecus blacki and may have been in competition with it for the same food source. The final straw, however, may have been the introduction of Homo erectus into the region. All three creatures, panda, Giganto, and Homo, may have been fond of the sprouts of the bamboo as a food source (as are living pandas), which means that plants would have been consumed before they had a chance to reach maturity and reproduce. Further, Homo erectus may have been using bamboo for tools. In archaeology it was traditionally assumed that Asia was a cultural backwater during the stone age due to its lack of sophisticated stone tool kits like those found in Europe, but this attitude is changing as consideration is given to the wide variety of uses of bamboo, not only in theory, but as witnessed in practice in Asia through historical times into the present. Likewise, there is much debate around Homo erectus' proclivity for hunting, but another possible factor in the extinction of Gigantopithecus blacki is that it may have been hunted. Ciochon (et al., 1990) believes that it was likely a combination of factors, with the entry of Homo erectus into Gigantopithecus' range upsetting an already delicate balance. No one factor was likely absolute. For example, if Homo erectus had monopolized the fruit supply it would have left Gigantopithecus blacki with no back up when a periodic bamboo die off occurred. This coupled with competition from the giant panda and sporadic hunting could have been enough to reduce breeding populations of Gigantopithecus below viable levels. (Ciochon et al., 1990)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GigantopithecusBeing so large, it is possible that Gigantopithecus had few or no enemies when fully grown. However, younger, weak or injured individuals may have been vulnerable to predation by tigers, pythons, crocodiles, Dinofelis, hyenas, bears, and Homo erectus.
Is anyone looking for Spiny Norman while they're at it?oldrover said:..It wasn't homo erectus that did it, it was pythons.
There certainly were, but you are aware that this has been used as an argument for Gigantopithecus being a quadruped.There were bipeds much bigger than Gigantopithecus, just look at some of the meat eating dinosaurs.
That's definitely not the tone I picked up from what I read, but as I said I think going by the reference list the articles were about 40 years old. How regularly are articles on subjects like this published?I just think most scientists, being conservative by nature are thinking inside of the box. Just because modern apes are knuckle walkers it dosn't nessicarily follow that all prehistoric (or moder unknown apes) are.
To which I would add : and we know of their existence. Cryptozoology always comes up against this obstacle : how could a big animal remain hidden to this day. Especially in an area that is so well known, and quite populated.theyithian said:Proof?
1) A number of species which existed contemporaneously with Gigantopithecus survive to this day. - Yes, but these creatures (Rhinos, Elephants, Tigers, Tapirs, Panda), are very different and may have survived for hugely different reasons.
That's the bone of contention though - why is there no chance of such an animal being there? They're all environments that can easily support diverse, large fauna, and all are either sparsely or to all intents and purposes uninhabited: and the sheer volume of reports, often as not by people who know what they're looking at, surely indicate that there is something there?oldrover said:..Also your stuck with instances like New Zealand, Guadalcanal and Australia, where there's no chance of there being an animal there that fits the description.
Because there’s no way they could ever have reached Australia let alone New Zealand. There are terrestrial placentals in Australia not introduced by humans but none are bigger than a rat. It was possible for them to reach there because they are small enough to raft across on vegetation, and numerous enough in their original territory for this to lead to them having a chance to establish themselves in Australia by this method. Australia has never been connected to mainland Asia if it had been there would be far more evidence of interchange than that. There is evidence of more interchange further North West around the Wallace line, but in mainland Australia and New Guinea the fauna is distinct.That's the bone of contention though - why is there no chance of such an animal being there?
When you know it can’t be what they’re reporting in one instance, then I think that by extension you have to question the reports even from areas where it is feasible they could exist, especially because of the huge amount of negative evidence. After all what’s being proposed is that what would be the world’s most widely distributed large mammal ever, and one which is still alive across every continent today, despite the huge impact we've had, has never been captured ever. How could that be?the sheer volume of reports, often as not by people who know what they're looking at, surely indicate that there is something there?
oldrover -- not wanting to "derail" / complicate things; but IIRC you've mentioned elsewhere too, in recent months (I looked for the reference, but couldn't find it) "mysterious big hairies" reported from Guadalcanal. Would you be willing to furnish more detail about this? I've seen a couple of very brief, unspecific mentions of supposed "giants" in the Solomon Islands -- would be most interested to hear anything more "chapter-and-verse".oldrover said:Also your stuck with instances like New Zealand, Guadalcanal and Australia, where there's no chance of there being an animal there that fits the description.
Please let us know about these.I'd actually like to go to the Solomans in search of giant Indo-Pacific crocodiles.
But they are nor unknown nor unpopulated. We're not anymore in Edgar Rice Burroughs' times, when it might have looked plausible.lordmongrove said:The Garo Hills are amoungst the less populated and most poorly explored part of India.
I had the same feeling with yeti and yeren...oldrover said:For me the Sasquatch has almost always felt as wrong as it’s possible to be, the Yeti, Yeren etc on the other hand I was always convinced of until recently. I wasn’t happy letting go of them either.
A convergence is very unlikely, because hominid shape is a very unusual one. And there is another argument against this possibility : the complete lack of fossils for such an animal. Hominids did not come out of nowhere, their apparition needed millions of years of evolution, and is quite well documented despite lacunae in the fossil record. For an Australian marsupial with a very unusual locomotive system, there is nothing. Darren Naish is right : a group of large animals always leaves fossil evidence. The lack of anything looking remotely like a Yowie is a clear indication that no such animals evolved in Australia.oldrover said:It’s been said that the Yowie could be a marsupial the thing is though the descriptions are the same as everywhere else. Even if there was a marsupial to fit the bill, there’s another problem, that’s the coincidence that two animals isolated for so long have evolved not only to be physically identical but share the same uncanny ability to be huge, be reported around human settlements, maintain adequate numbers to be both viable and be widespread enough to generate sightings in all parts of Australia, including Tasmania, except for the Capitol Territory and still never be either, shot, captured or photographed.