Gigantopithecus Jaws And Phytolith Microphotographs Options

[Ken Y.]

Here are some photos of Gigantopithecus Jaws and phytolith microphotographs.

Castings from bait remains could be compaired to these dental formations. Dont throw away the cantoloupe rinds or apple cores .... cast them.

Ken Ken Yielding


Phytolith Microphotographs from the Teeth of Gigantopithecus.

Conical phytoliths are from Jackfruit (fruits with pits) and the others are from bamboo.

This post has been edited by Ken Yielding: Jan 28 2006, 04:55 AM

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

Attached image(s)

 

[Melissa]

WOW !! Thank you

[Sleeper]

It should be mentioned, just to clarify things for others, that the phytoliths are microscopic remnants of the plants themselves. Phytoliths are already present in the plant material, and when found on fossil teeth like this, they can illustrate what types of plants had contact with those teeth and thus imply what the creature was eating. But to connect phytoliths to the animal you need the tooth. If you've got a sasquatch tooth, it could have phytoliths on it, but by then that would be kind of beside the point. If you've got a tooth, you've got the jackpot right there.
The idea of tooth impressions left on food items is interesting, though. It might just look like a munched up apple core to me, but I know there must be people who are skilled at deciphering things like that, as archaeologists sometimes are able to determine what animal may have been feeding on various bones, etc, just by tooth impressions.
You'd think that a hominid-type bite mark that was beyond the upper size limits for humans would be of interest to science. Though it could probably be hoaxed, it would at least be valuable in a strong context, and as an addition to the general weight of collected evidence.
Good idea, if the opportunity presents itself.

[BobZenor]

Ken, the 2nd jaw doesn't seem to be very squared off like the other two. Do you have the species, ages and sizes of these jaws?

[Ken Y.]

Picture Gallery of Fossil Hominoids and Hominids from China

http://www.chineseprehistory.org/pics1.htm

The three jaws above where found in the same cave.

The Jaws are from Gigantopithecus blacki. The first jaw is a male and I think the second jaw is a female. It would have been a better photo if they would have had some sort of measurement reference. Males are much larger than the females.

A fourth Jaw was found in India by a farmer plowing a field, but I cannot find a photo of it. it was from 6 MYA and was of Gigantopithecus giganticus

The four jaws are the only ones ever found.

Paper on the opal phytoliths.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...cgi?artid=54904

This technique of identification of dietary foods using phytoliths was groundbreaking in paleoanthropology.


I hope this helps,

Ken Ken Yielding

This post has been edited by Ken Yielding: Feb 3 2006, 07:02 PM

[BobZenor]

I hope this helps,

Ken Ken Yielding

Thanks, I thought they might be different species but I guess sexual dimorphism could explain the differences.

[Sleeper]

Sexual dimorphism, maybe a million years here and there, no orthodontist...

Also, if I'm counting correctly, the two jaws on the left side are broken off just behind the #2 molar, whereas the jaw on the right includes the #3 molar and beyond, which changes the overall impression of the jaw's shape as it broadens toward the ramus.

[magikern]

What´s the difference between Gigantopithecus giganticus and Blacki?

[Ken Y.]

Here is a link about the Ape that Was.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html

Gigantopithecus Giganticus was found in India the fossil remains dated to 6 Million years it was even smaller that blacki.

Also know as Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis

Gigantopithecus Blacki was Identified in Hong Kong by German-Dutch paleontologist G.H.R. von Koenigswald in 1935.

The first giant jawbone discovered by an old farmer in 1956 at a cave site called Liucheng,china.

In 1956 the paloanthrologists Jia & Pei that found the Peking man (Homo erectus)discovered the jaws of Gigantopithecus.

In 1968, a farmer came forward in india with three pieces of a jawbone he had found twenty-four years before, when he was a boy of twelve working in his father's field. The specimen was identified by primatologist Elwyn Simons as belonging to a distinct species, Gigantopithecus giganteus, about half the size of Gigantopithecus blacki. The new species was not only smaller but also more ancient, coming from sediments that have been dated (by paleomagnetic reversals) to about 6.3 million years ago.

Read the web page above it will explain everything.

That article is included in most anthropology textbooks.

Ken Ken Yielding

[ShadowPrime]

A bit off topic - apologies! - but why does there seem to be (at least among some) an assumption that Giganto was, or might have been, mostly or solely bipedal? From my (VERY!!!!!) limited knowledge on the subject, I was of the impression that there are no Giganto skeletons, or even skulls... just jaws and teeth. I realize the size is "seductive", when trying to find a possible fossil tie-in to BF and company, but other than sheer size, is there some other reason Giganto is so often mentioned in a BF context?

THANKS!

Shadow

[BobZenor]

A bit off topic - apologies! - but why does there seem to be (at least among some) an assumption that Giganto was, or might have been, mostly or solely bipedal? From my (VERY!!!!!) limited knowledge on the subject, I was of the impression that there are no Giganto skeletons, or even skulls... just jaws and teeth.

The jaw is relatively wide at the rear which makes some think that it is to allow the neck to be placed farther forward like in an upright animal. It could also be shortened for eating bamboo. It seems that the only ones to think it was a biped are people who think it is Bigfoot.

I realize the size is "seductive", when trying to find a possible fossil tie-in to BF and company, but other than sheer size, is there some other reason Giganto is so often mentioned in a BF context?

Krantz has a great deal of influence on the BF community. Also it is known to have lived until very recent times. People have an unfounded, in my opinion, belief that they can determine the technological sophistication and other characteristics of ancient hominids and therefore dismiss them based on their opinions of what is actually known.

The BFRO seems to prefer the term "North American Ape". They talk about gigantopithecus like it is already determined. I am sure others probably have different opinions but it has clearly been the "party line". It may be because giganto is incomplete and so it is difficult to argue against. Saying that it might be descended from Homo erectus or other hominid would make the skeptics even more condescending. Better to use evidence that is ambiguous and sound scientific using the more politically acceptable and scientific sounding word "ape". After all, most people are aware of many scientific studies of apes. Saying you are looking for "ape men" or some descendent of a "cave man" would make most "enlightened modern" people very skeptical.

[PteroOphia]

"The jaw is relatively wide at the rear which makes some think that it is to allow the neck to be placed farther forward like in an upright animal"

I agree Bob Zenor, and it's a compelling thought that BF is Giganto, i have seen drawings, albeit probably drawn by BF enthusiasts, of humans hunting Giganto and it makes me sad we may have made them nearly extingt, I'd like to hope there are still some out there hiding!