A Rebuilt Neanderthal

The New York Times ^ | 12-31-02 | JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

[aruanan]

Standing 5 feet 4 1/2 inches, thought to be a typical height of a Neanderthal man, the skeleton will be on display at the museum, in New York City, in an exhibit opening on Jan. 11.

One major error was to show it compared to modern (and by historic standards) gigantic man. The average French male from the 17th century was 5 feet 2 inches and weighed scarcely over 100 pounds. Cro magnon folks living under hunting/gathering conditions back in the days when Neanderthals still lived were not likely to have been much larger than their 17th century descendents. Also, the Neaderthal had a much larger brain than modern man. So, so much for the size argument.

[PatrickHenry]

You or anyone on your ping list venture a guess as to what function that bell-shaped thoracic cage served?

Off hand, I'd say that ol' Neandy could have had one whopping big colon in there. Yet another link to Hillary.

[Pharmboy]

Perfect...glad you're not really extinct, ST!

[Ku Commando]

Uh, maybe protection of the internal organs in their quest for food.....y'know, they weren't exactly raisin' cattle in those times !!

[aruanan]

Neaderthal

Here's an "n".

[null and void]

With the wider hips, provided support/protection for a larger gut for digesting coarser food? Compare the gut from a grass eater to a carnivore...

[Pharmboy]

The size issue is a good point, but there have been some Homo erectus fossils found that were six feet tall.

As far as the brain goes, the Neanders had more cerebellum to control the muscle mass--not frontal lobage. That gave them a large braincase. They were likely pretty dumb.

[MHGinTN]

Sizeable lung function also comes to mind? ... A Monica precursor?

[aruanan]

As far as the brain goes, the Neanders had more cerebellum to control the muscle mass--not frontal lobage. That gave them a large braincase. They were likely pretty dumb.

Come on, you should know from comparative anatomy that your argument for greater room for the cerebellum is invalid since much much larger and more active animals than man had extremely tiny brains compared to body size. Besides, degree of innervation in muscle mass is a function of muscle use, not of cerebellum size.

[PatrickHenry]

As far as the brain goes, the Neanders had more cerebellum to control the muscle mass--not frontal lobage. That gave them a large braincase.

I think it was related to their gigantic colons. It takes a lot of control to handle something like that.

[Little Bill]

Is that a female pelvis to the right?

[lizma]

ROFL! You can bet the cave on it.

[Doug Fiedor]

This is interesting, but not hardly surprising. Because, today's humans come in all shapes and sizes. What we call today as a physiological "normal" is no more then an "average" found in a community of "healthy" people aged 20 to 40 years old.

There is nothing really inconsistent in this reconstructed Neanderthal that has not been seen often on x-rays at any major medical institution. So, either we still have these Neanderthals walking the streets today, or some of us have a lot of Neanderthal in our blood.

[PatrickHenry]

You may be right:

[Centurion2000]

bump

[APBaer]

"I appreciate the recognition"

Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

[lizma]

Off hand, I'd say that ol' Neandy could have had one whopping big colon in there.

But the rib cage isn't protecting the intenstines, but mainly the lungs, heart, spleen, stomach and most of the liver.

I have read that their bone mass was denser. Maybe their lung mass was larger to compensate for all the extra weight. All in all a less efficient model. Didn't work as well as the competition and evolution is a tough task master.

[aculeus]

Thanks and Happy New Year to you.

[Pharmboy]

Cranial Vault
Large brains - cranial capacities up to 1700 cc
Sloping forehead
Skull is long and narrow with a pronounced occipital bun

From UCSB...it's all in the occiput...look at the data...they were stoopid(sic)

[Doug Fiedor]

I'm just a retired research physiologist. What do I know?

But, be careful where you point fingers now. This stuff can get really, really touchy real quick. And, much of what some of us would think on first glance ain't exactly true. That is part of why there are no published papers on the issue.

In truth, some physiologists cannot help but see physical differences in races and sub-races of people. In one instance, I can almost always tell the "race" (country of origin) of three different types of people simply by their heart catherization (of which I have seen hundreds) film. The point is, different people are different.

Yet, in the scheme of things, they are still "Us." Some of "us," however, have greatly different aggravation levels than others of us. The above article hints to some of that. We see other problems domestically.