I was wondering as i read the description of the Manitoba video report, as to how a big foot stays warm in the north? The video report states that it was walking in 3 feet of water. There is still ice in the lake so the water would be near freezing, yet it is able to walk barefoot in the water? A bigfoot is also described as having hair covering its body and not fur. Hair isn't going to keep you warm in extreme temperatures. It can get down to -40 celsius that far north.
I was thinking that maybe it is the muscularity of it's body that helps keep it warm. At least bears have a layer of fat to keep them warm in the winter. Big foot is not described as having any fat layer.
Anybody else think that "hair" keeps it warm? maybe it has an under layer of wool like a musk ox. I just don't think the descriptions of the hair would keep a big foot from freezing. Maybe they have a high body core temperature.
I guess until they have a study subject it can be difficult to discern.
Full Version: How does it stay warm?
Well this subject can be talked about any place they are seen. It can get just as cold up in the rockies and other places as it does up there.
I have done a little thinking on this in the past as I also was thinking like yourself. Personally I think they might build up a nice layer of fat like a lot of mammals do in the winter. Plus they might also grow some sort of finer hair under their main hair in the winter like some mammals do so it helps them stay warm. Out of the 2 ideas the layer of fat I would say would do the most for therm and the easiest for them to do most times. From what I have seen over the years, Most deer kills and other reports of them wanting some sort of meat happens mainly in the fall and winter. That could very well be them trying to build up that layer of fat I am talking about for the winter. Also if they hide some of the kills then they can always get to it during the winter when no other stuff is around like fruits and nuts and such.
I have done a little thinking on this in the past as I also was thinking like yourself. Personally I think they might build up a nice layer of fat like a lot of mammals do in the winter. Plus they might also grow some sort of finer hair under their main hair in the winter like some mammals do so it helps them stay warm. Out of the 2 ideas the layer of fat I would say would do the most for therm and the easiest for them to do most times. From what I have seen over the years, Most deer kills and other reports of them wanting some sort of meat happens mainly in the fall and winter. That could very well be them trying to build up that layer of fat I am talking about for the winter. Also if they hide some of the kills then they can always get to it during the winter when no other stuff is around like fruits and nuts and such.
Marx's video of that fat squatch.. well the leaves were green there so nevermind.
I think there is somewhere a biologist who can tell you how a larger bodymass keeps you warmer. I do know that the Neandertal's were squat for that reason. Their shorter, thicker body was easier to keep warm than our longer, lanker body is.
Now BF is not short, but it is mongo thick. It could be that it is thick enough to withstand the cold for longer periods than we would believe possible.
I also remember the tale of the Russian Alma (or whatever they are called.. I forget now) that couldn't be kept indoors after it was captured by the army folk. It sweated profusely and looked sick. They kept it in a cooler/warehouse.
Probably BF would not like it inside our cozy homes. But it also lives where the weather gets quite hot. I don't know how you jibe these two facts..
I think there is somewhere a biologist who can tell you how a larger bodymass keeps you warmer. I do know that the Neandertal's were squat for that reason. Their shorter, thicker body was easier to keep warm than our longer, lanker body is.
Now BF is not short, but it is mongo thick. It could be that it is thick enough to withstand the cold for longer periods than we would believe possible.
I also remember the tale of the Russian Alma (or whatever they are called.. I forget now) that couldn't be kept indoors after it was captured by the army folk. It sweated profusely and looked sick. They kept it in a cooler/warehouse.
Probably BF would not like it inside our cozy homes. But it also lives where the weather gets quite hot. I don't know how you jibe these two facts..
Perhaps like any other species, it can evolve and adapt to climatic variations.
Maybe that would explain why the extreme Southern BF are thought to be smaller than the ones further North? Any bigger and they can't take the heat..
Two words -
Mrs. Sasquatch...
Mrs. Sasquatch...
I thought about the fat layer as well but I havn't read of any reports where the bigfoot was described as fat. They are either very muscular or in some cases, skinny. They must have some thick calouses on their bare feet to withstand cold and rocky terrain.
The hair from the southern animals is described as being the same as the northern. Although, i have read descriptions of short hair and others of longer hair. Maybe they hibernate in the winter?
I suppose cuddling up with Patty would keep you warm!!
The hair from the southern animals is described as being the same as the northern. Although, i have read descriptions of short hair and others of longer hair. Maybe they hibernate in the winter?
I suppose cuddling up with Patty would keep you warm!!
Lean & muscular is not normally good for staying warm (in Humans). However, the more 'pumped' you are, means more blood in the muscles, and more blood means more heat....This would require more physical activity & the consumption of greater amounts of calories, carbs & proteins.....they would almost have to be constantly moving & EATING to stay warm in Winter....Again, this is based on the 'Human Condition'......BF Physiology is probably gonna turn out to be quite unique in this regard.
Is anyone familiar with the physiology of polar bears. Maybe a good comparison can be made. Id guess a polar bear is about the same size as a large sasquatch.
ohio_squatcher
ohio_squatcher
Daegling argued that "apes" are tropical creatures. I found this particularly weak. Elephants are tropical, too, but they've had relatives that lived in the tundra.
Don't acclimated humans in sweaters go out in Anchorage?
Don't acclimated humans in sweaters go out in Anchorage?
reference website
Bergmann's Rule
In 1847, Carl Bergmann observed that within the same species of warm-blooded animals, populations having less massive individuals are more often found in warm climates near the equator, while those with greater bulk, or mass, are found further from the equator in colder regions. This is due to the fact that big animals generally have larger body masses which result in more heat being produced. The greater amount of heat results from there being more cells. A normal byproduct of metabolism in cells is heat production. Subsequently, the more cells an animal has, the more internal heat it will produce.
In addition, larger animals usually have a smaller surface area relative to their body mass and, therefore, are comparatively inefficient at radiating their body heat off into the surrounding environment. The relationship between surface area and volume of objects was described in the 1630's by Galileo.
Polar bears are a good example of this phenomenon. They have large, compact bodies with relatively small surface areas from which they can lose their internally produced heat. This is an important asset in cold climates. In addition, they have heavy fur and fat insulation that help retain body heat.
Allen's Rule
In 1877, Joel Allen went further than Bergmann in observing that the length of arms, legs, and other appendages also has an effect on the amount of heat lost to the surrounding environment. He noted that among warm-blooded animals, individuals in populations of the same species living in warm climates near the equator tend to have longer limbs than do populations living further away from the equator in colder environments. This is due to the fact that a thin body with relatively long appendages is less compact and subsequently has more surface area. The greater the surface area, the faster body heat will be lost to the environment.
Bergmann's Rule
In 1847, Carl Bergmann observed that within the same species of warm-blooded animals, populations having less massive individuals are more often found in warm climates near the equator, while those with greater bulk, or mass, are found further from the equator in colder regions. This is due to the fact that big animals generally have larger body masses which result in more heat being produced. The greater amount of heat results from there being more cells. A normal byproduct of metabolism in cells is heat production. Subsequently, the more cells an animal has, the more internal heat it will produce.
In addition, larger animals usually have a smaller surface area relative to their body mass and, therefore, are comparatively inefficient at radiating their body heat off into the surrounding environment. The relationship between surface area and volume of objects was described in the 1630's by Galileo.
Polar bears are a good example of this phenomenon. They have large, compact bodies with relatively small surface areas from which they can lose their internally produced heat. This is an important asset in cold climates. In addition, they have heavy fur and fat insulation that help retain body heat.
Allen's Rule
In 1877, Joel Allen went further than Bergmann in observing that the length of arms, legs, and other appendages also has an effect on the amount of heat lost to the surrounding environment. He noted that among warm-blooded animals, individuals in populations of the same species living in warm climates near the equator tend to have longer limbs than do populations living further away from the equator in colder environments. This is due to the fact that a thin body with relatively long appendages is less compact and subsequently has more surface area. The greater the surface area, the faster body heat will be lost to the environment.
Let's look at what we KNOW......
Picture in your mind the images of the retreating Patterson Creature.......
That 'animal' looks quite capable of withstanding the harshest of elements.....
Picture in your mind the images of the retreating Patterson Creature.......
That 'animal' looks quite capable of withstanding the harshest of elements.....
QUOTE(ohio_squatcher @ Apr 24 2005, 01:52 PM)
Is anyone familiar with the physiology of polar bears. Maybe a good comparison can be made. Id guess a polar bear is about the same size as a large sasquatch.
ohio_squatcher
ohio_squatcher
QUOTE
Adaptation to Cold
Polar bears are well-adapted to severe cold. Winter temperatures in the far north often plunge to -40° F or -50° F and can stay that way for days or even weeks.
In January and February, the average temperature in the high Arctic is -29° F.
The Arctic stays black and fiercely cold for months on end. In the High Arctic, the sun sets in October and does not rise again until late February.
The word "Arctic" comes from the ancient Greek Arktikos, or "country of the great bear." Though the Greeks had no knowledge of the polar bear, they named the region after the constellation Ursus Major, the Great Bear, found in the Northern Sky.
A thick layer of blubber (up to 4.5 inches thick) provides polar bears with such excellent insulation that their body temperature and metabolic rate remain the same even at -34°F.
A polar bear's body temperature is 98.6°, which is average for mammals.
On bitterly cold days with fierce winds, polar bears dig out a shelter in a snow bank and curl up in a tight ball to wait out the storm.
When curled up in a ball, polar bears sometimes cover their muzzles -- which radiate heat -- with one of their thickly furred paws.
Polar bears know how to pack on the fat: A single bear can consume 100 pounds of blubber at one sitting.
The polar bear's compact ears and small tail also help prevent heat loss.
Polar bears have two layers of fur for further protection from the cold.
Polar bears have more problems with overheating than they do with cold. Even in very cold weather, they quickly overheat when they try to run.
Polar bears generally walk at a leisurely pace to keep from overheating. When a Norwegian scientist, Nils Oritsland, studied a polar bear on a treadmill, he found that his subject would move off for short periods of time at higher speeds and would sometimes lie down and refuse to walk at all!
Sources: Arctic Animals by Fred Bruemmer (McClelland and Stewart Limited, Toronto, 1986); Polar Bears by Ian Stirling (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1988); Biochemistry by Reginald H. Garrett and Charles M. Grisham (Saunders College Publishing).
Polar bears are well-adapted to severe cold. Winter temperatures in the far north often plunge to -40° F or -50° F and can stay that way for days or even weeks.
In January and February, the average temperature in the high Arctic is -29° F.
The Arctic stays black and fiercely cold for months on end. In the High Arctic, the sun sets in October and does not rise again until late February.
The word "Arctic" comes from the ancient Greek Arktikos, or "country of the great bear." Though the Greeks had no knowledge of the polar bear, they named the region after the constellation Ursus Major, the Great Bear, found in the Northern Sky.
A thick layer of blubber (up to 4.5 inches thick) provides polar bears with such excellent insulation that their body temperature and metabolic rate remain the same even at -34°F.
A polar bear's body temperature is 98.6°, which is average for mammals.
On bitterly cold days with fierce winds, polar bears dig out a shelter in a snow bank and curl up in a tight ball to wait out the storm.
When curled up in a ball, polar bears sometimes cover their muzzles -- which radiate heat -- with one of their thickly furred paws.
Polar bears know how to pack on the fat: A single bear can consume 100 pounds of blubber at one sitting.
The polar bear's compact ears and small tail also help prevent heat loss.
Polar bears have two layers of fur for further protection from the cold.
Polar bears have more problems with overheating than they do with cold. Even in very cold weather, they quickly overheat when they try to run.
Polar bears generally walk at a leisurely pace to keep from overheating. When a Norwegian scientist, Nils Oritsland, studied a polar bear on a treadmill, he found that his subject would move off for short periods of time at higher speeds and would sometimes lie down and refuse to walk at all!
Sources: Arctic Animals by Fred Bruemmer (McClelland and Stewart Limited, Toronto, 1986); Polar Bears by Ian Stirling (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1988); Biochemistry by Reginald H. Garrett and Charles M. Grisham (Saunders College Publishing).
From Polar Bears International
Males can get up to 1500 lbs.
Hope That Helps,
The BearWatcher
The topic of heat loss from certain parts of the body gets me thinking. Its often said that Sasquatch looks like is has no neck. Well, it just so happens that the neck is a place where alot of heat loss occurs, at least in humans. Its just a thought.
ohio_squatcher
ohio_squatcher
QUOTE(ohio_squatcher @ Apr 24 2005, 02:56 PM)
The topic of heat loss from certain parts of the body gets me thinking. Its often said that Sasquatch looks like is has no neck. Well, it just so happens that the neck is a place where alot of heat loss occurs, at least in humans. Its just a thought.
ohio_squatcher
ohio_squatcher
No tail either.
QUOTE(ohio_squatcher @ Apr 24 2005, 02:56 PM)
The topic of heat loss from certain parts of the body gets me thinking.
ohio_squatcher
ohio_squatcher
I did some poking around in regards to adaptations in the foot/feet that aid in heat dispersion/containment...
In birds:
QUOTE
Birds have a number of adaptations to cold and one of the most important is called “reté mirable” meaning miracle network. Birds have a special circulation system in their feet and legs. The artery bringing warm blood into the foot is surrounded by what looks like a mesh stocking of veins that brings the blood back from the foot. This network of veins surrounding the artery acts as a heat exchanger. The warmth in the arterial blood going to the foot is absorbed by the cold blood returning from the foot so that by the time the blood leaves the leg and heads back into the body it is almost body temperature. The warm blood in the arteries is around 4 degrees Celsius by the time it gets into the foot.
By maintaining a foot temperature of about 4 degrees the birds lose little heat through their feet. They have another trick that allows this to work. You may have noticed that when your fingers get real cold they get stiff. This is because the type of fat we have in our fingers and joints requires warm temperatures to remain liquid and slippery. As our fingers get cold the fat starts to congeal and thus stiff fingers. There is not a lot of fat in bird's feet and joints but the little that is there is what lubricates the joints and allows the limbs to move. The bird's fat in the legs does not begin to stiffen or congeal until below 4 degrees. This allows the birds to have cold feet that can move as well as our fingers do when they are warm.
The fat in warmer parts of the bird's body is similar to the type of fats we have throughout our bodies. Body fats are a little like engine oils, some are good for cold temperatures and some are good for warm temperatures.
In the summer the birds can turn the system around and end up using their feet as a way to get rid of excess body heat. Warm blood is pumped into their feet but the network of miracle veins is rerouted and heat is not transferred to the veins bringing blood back into the body. Instead the feet are giving off heat and cooler blood is returned to the body. Should you ever have an opportunity of handling a bird like a duck in the summer time you may find its feet feel very warm as it is giving off heat through its feet.
By maintaining a foot temperature of about 4 degrees the birds lose little heat through their feet. They have another trick that allows this to work. You may have noticed that when your fingers get real cold they get stiff. This is because the type of fat we have in our fingers and joints requires warm temperatures to remain liquid and slippery. As our fingers get cold the fat starts to congeal and thus stiff fingers. There is not a lot of fat in bird's feet and joints but the little that is there is what lubricates the joints and allows the limbs to move. The bird's fat in the legs does not begin to stiffen or congeal until below 4 degrees. This allows the birds to have cold feet that can move as well as our fingers do when they are warm.
The fat in warmer parts of the bird's body is similar to the type of fats we have throughout our bodies. Body fats are a little like engine oils, some are good for cold temperatures and some are good for warm temperatures.
In the summer the birds can turn the system around and end up using their feet as a way to get rid of excess body heat. Warm blood is pumped into their feet but the network of miracle veins is rerouted and heat is not transferred to the veins bringing blood back into the body. Instead the feet are giving off heat and cooler blood is returned to the body. Should you ever have an opportunity of handling a bird like a duck in the summer time you may find its feet feel very warm as it is giving off heat through its feet.
From THIS WEBPAGE
I found it interesting and provocative...
-TQW
I remember calculating the surface area to volume ratio and I got a similar finding to the one mentioned that surface area to volume decrease with greater size. But I was mistaken. This is a common misconception, in my opinion. To use a simple example, the suface area of a cube is 6 X (width squared) whereas the volume is width cubed. The ratio of surface area to volume is always 6Wsquared/Wcubed which is equal to 6/W if my math skills are still intact. My brother pointed this out to me using a slightly different example. Basically the problem is that you cannot compare one width to another when you are asking to compare the surface area to volume which is a constant for a particular shape. I realize it is a very difficult concept to visualize, at least it was for me, and I know that it is misinterpreted in some biology texts.
That being said, a large animal does indeed have an easier time staying warm but it is because the transfer of internally produced heat has to cross a larger distance for larger animals. For example, the heat produced by a hummingbird will only need to transfer through less than an inch of flesh whereas the heat produced internally by an ostrich might have to pass through 24 inches (for example) of flesh to reach the outside. Also, a layer of insulation is more efficient in the thicker layer which a proportionately larger animal will have.
I too found Daeglings arguments to be weak but I think I would add the adjective "pathetic." He really irritated me with his lack of scientific reasoning, under the guise of science, when he was on the National Geographic recently.
That being said, a large animal does indeed have an easier time staying warm but it is because the transfer of internally produced heat has to cross a larger distance for larger animals. For example, the heat produced by a hummingbird will only need to transfer through less than an inch of flesh whereas the heat produced internally by an ostrich might have to pass through 24 inches (for example) of flesh to reach the outside. Also, a layer of insulation is more efficient in the thicker layer which a proportionately larger animal will have.
QUOTE
Daegling argued that "apes" are tropical creatures. I found this particularly weak. Elephants are tropical, too, but they've had relatives that lived in the tundra.
I too found Daeglings arguments to be weak but I think I would add the adjective "pathetic." He really irritated me with his lack of scientific reasoning, under the guise of science, when he was on the National Geographic recently.
QUOTE(Sachmo @ Apr 24 2005, 01:20 PM)
Perhaps like any other species, it can evolve and adapt to climatic variations.
Just like people from the southern states freeze in the northern states when the indigenous population go about in shorts ahd T-Shirts. Any biological entity has the ability to adapt and long term adaptation can produce physiological changes that can manifest as biological manifestations - thicker hair - more tolerance to tempurature extreams.
QUOTE(wildernessguy @ Apr 25 2005, 01:20 AM)
QUOTE(Sachmo @ Apr 24 2005, 01:20 PM)
Perhaps like any other species, it can evolve and adapt to climatic variations.
Just like people from the southern states freeze in the northern states when the indigenous population go about in shorts ahd T-Shirts. Any biological entity has the ability to adapt and long term adaptation can produce physiological changes that can manifest as biological manifestations - thicker hair - more tolerance to tempurature extreams.
QUOTE(Jim Zenor @ Apr 25 2005, 01:15 AM)
I remember calculating the surface area to volume ratio and I got a similar finding to the one mentioned that surface area to volume decrease with greater size. But I was mistaken. This is a common misconception, in my opinion. To use a simple example, the suface area of a cube is 6 X (width squared) whereas the volume is width cubed. The ratio of surface area to volume is always 6Wsquared/Wcubed which is equal to 6/W if my math skills are still intact. My brother pointed this out to me using a slightly different example. Basically the problem is that you cannot compare one width to another when you are asking to compare the surface area to volume which is a constant for a particular shape. I realize it is a very difficult concept to visualize, at least it was for me, and I know that it is misinterpreted in some biology texts.
Example:
Say you have two spheres, one with a 1-foot radius and the other a 3-foot radius. Why is it not valid to measure the large one in yards to derive the ratio since you are not comparing the size of two objects, just the ratio of the volume to the surface area in each object. Both times you get 1:3 when comparing the surface area to the volume.
It is true that larger objects loose heat more slowly. The reason larger animals cool more slowly is because of the insulating properties of matter. There are more molecules between the warm interior and the cold exterior and it takes time for the heat to travel through the extra mass.
The ratio only changes when you use the units of the smaller body in the comparison. This is not valid because any units can be used to get any ratio you wish when comparing volume to surface area in a given object. The only way to avoid that confusion is to use a side or diameter or some other unit like that.
QUOTE(LAL @ Apr 24 2005, 03:56 PM)
Daegling argued that "apes" are tropical creatures. I found this particularly weak. Elephants are tropical, too, but they've had relatives that lived in the tundra.
Don't acclimated humans in sweaters go out in Anchorage?
Don't acclimated humans in sweaters go out in Anchorage?
That's a good point. When I was a kid in Anchorage we'd go outside in t-shirts when the temp got above 30 deg. When I was in Bolivia, the temperature would get down in the 40s in April/May in the lowlands. We darned near froze. Cold weather, to a certain extent, is relative.
Tom
QUOTE(Tom.Merrill @ Apr 25 2005, 03:32 AM)
QUOTE(LAL @ Apr 24 2005, 03:56 PM)
Daegling argued that "apes" are tropical creatures. I found this particularly weak. Elephants are tropical, too, but they've had relatives that lived in the tundra.
Don't acclimated humans in sweaters go out in Anchorage?
Don't acclimated humans in sweaters go out in Anchorage?
That's a good point. When I was a kid in Anchorage we'd go outside in t-shirts when the temp got above 30 deg. When I was in Bolivia, the temperature would get down in the 40s in April/May in the lowlands. We darned near froze. Cold weather, to a certain extent, is relative.
Tom
I lived in a summer camping tent during a Washington winter, in 2 1/2 feet of snow and frozen rain. I couldn't stand it in my friends' overheated homes. Neither could my Afghan Hound.
I went to Vermont from Sacramento, Ca. (Sac was about 105 in the shade) one summer and was huddled in jeans and a sweatshirt while the natives wore tank tops and cutoffs. It had taken me years to get used to California heat.
I've read the Indians of Terra del Fuego slept naked on the frozen ground.
I'm not at all sure Sasquatches are an "ape" descendant anyway. I'm leaning toward overgrown Australopith or something of that nature after reading Meldrum's abstract on alleged tracks and the Laetoli trackway. Seems they exhibit the same sort of midtarsal bend. Hominids are extremely adaptable. And we know they migrated out of Africa. A close relative of Homo habilis made it as far as Georgia in the Caucasus without a sophisticated toolkit.
To heck with a video. How about some DNA?
Speaking about adaptability and body size. I saw a show where they conducted test between a white guy and an inuit man. The inuit guy withstood all cold tests better than the white guy. This was a white guy who had grown up in the north. Inuit are also physiologically slightly differtent with shorter limbs and a longer torso. Living in an arctic environment for many thousands of years has anabled this adaptation.
I wonder if there are sub-species of sasquatches in the north and south? They could be similar to dogs, where there are different breeds but are still able to breed throughout the populations that exist around the world. Just my thoughts.
I wonder if there are sub-species of sasquatches in the north and south? They could be similar to dogs, where there are different breeds but are still able to breed throughout the populations that exist around the world. Just my thoughts.
QUOTE(LAL @ Apr 24 2005, 03:56 PM)
...Don't acclimated humans in sweaters go out in Anchorage?
QUOTE
...Just like people from the southern states freeze in the northern states when the indigenous population go about in shorts ahd T-Shirts...
I've seen teens in sub-0 temps outside in shorts and sneakers, but wearing a parka.
Go figure.
QUOTE(LAL @ Apr 25 2005, 07:04 AM)
I've read the Indians of Terra del Fuego slept naked on the frozen ground.
I have heard it theorized that the natives of Tierra del Fuego are the remnant (mixed with later native Americans) population that first colonized America some 40 thousand years ago. They are reported to be the same population as the Australian Aborigines who also have been reported to be able to sleep outside in near freezing temperatures. The Australian aborigines even have had their core temperature drop. Sorry, I haven't validated these reports and they are just based on something I read or heard on TV and I know they are controversial.
QUOTE(BobZenor @ Apr 25 2005, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE(LAL @ Apr 25 2005, 07:04 AM)
I've read the Indians of Terra del Fuego slept naked on the frozen ground.
I have heard it theorized that the natives of Tierra del Fuego are the remnant (mixed with later native Americans) population that first colonized America some 40 thousand years ago. They are reported to be the same population as the Australian Aborigines who also have been reported to be able to sleep outside in near freezing temperatures. The Australian aborigines even have had their core temperature drop. Sorry, I haven't validated these reports and they are just based on something I read or heard on TV and I know they are controversial.
Found this (has polar bears too):
"1. increased basal metabolic rate
2. fat insulation of vital organs
3. change in blood flow patterns
Different populations usually develop at least one of these important adaptive responses to consistently cold conditions. People living in harsh subarctic regions, such as the Inuit (Eskimo) of the far northern regions of the Western Hemisphere and the Indians of Tierra del Fuego at the southern end, traditionally consumed large quantities of high calorie fatty foods. This significantly increases the basal metabolic rate, which, in turn, results in the production of extra body heat. These peoples also wore heavy clothing, often slept in a huddle with their bodies next to each other, and remained active when outdoors.
The !Kung of Southwestern Africa and the Aborigines of Australia usually respond physiologically to the cold in a different way. Thick fat insulation develops around the vital organs of the chest and abdomen. In addition, their skin cools due to vasoconstriction at night. As a result, heat loss is reduced and the core body temperature remains at normal levels. However, the skin feels very cold.
This response would not be adaptive if the Kung and the Aborigines lived in consistently freezing environments because the concentration of body heat in their torsos would allow the loss of fingers, toes, and other appendages from frostbite. Their physiological adaptation is to environments that rarely stay below freezing long and that do not have abundant high calorie fatty foods."
http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_2.htm
There's some controversial evidence for habitation of the New World some 30,000 years ago, but I think the accepted figure is closer to 13,000.
I like an earlier date myself, just to give the Terra del Fuegans time to get there.
QUOTE(LAL @ Apr 25 2005, 06:47 PM)
...These peoples also wore heavy clothing, often slept in a huddle with their bodies next to each other, and remained active when outdoors....
Ever hear of the rock band "Three Dog Night"? One or two of the members have Alaskan roots.
The term "Three Dog Night" means a real cold one, when one needs to sleep with 3 of the sled dogs to keep warm.
I apologize for not posting in a while. I was caught up in some other matters.
If we assume ( key word there) that the subject in the P/G film is in fact an unknown primate, we can infer the following:
1. The animal is well-adapted to its climate, again assuming that its climate is consistent with where it was purportedly filmed, namely Northern CA. - see the previous post concerning Bergmann/Allen.
2. This animal is adapted to survive in mostly temperate/cold climates. - if we follow the above mentioned rules.
I put a lot of "if's" and "but's" in there because I do not have a sasquatch living in my backyard. If I did, and said sasquatch had a high ratio of mass to height, then I would dispute the Bergmann/Allen rule. Here in Georgia, however, I would expect to see a slim sasquatch (this actually follows the trend of sightings) which would validate the rules.
Patty, to me, looks like a robust specimen. I expect that she would be well-adapted to cold. The creature in the film is fairly massive. Limbs are short, with the exception of the arms, in proportion to the body. Exaggerated musculature, but fair evidence of body fat. Overall, well-suited to Temperate/Cold climates.
--edited for some additional comments concerning cold--
In terms of "feeling" cold as a subjective thing, I lived in Montana for 6 years, so I have some experience. I regularly worked outdoors in sub-zero temperatures. The coldest I ever worked outside was -72 F with windchill. Currently, I live in Georgia, and I can honestly say that the winters here feel much harsher. + 30 feels worse than -20 ever did. Possibly humidity? I'm no meterologist. Then again, I could just be gettin' old.
If we assume ( key word there) that the subject in the P/G film is in fact an unknown primate, we can infer the following:
1. The animal is well-adapted to its climate, again assuming that its climate is consistent with where it was purportedly filmed, namely Northern CA. - see the previous post concerning Bergmann/Allen.
2. This animal is adapted to survive in mostly temperate/cold climates. - if we follow the above mentioned rules.
I put a lot of "if's" and "but's" in there because I do not have a sasquatch living in my backyard. If I did, and said sasquatch had a high ratio of mass to height, then I would dispute the Bergmann/Allen rule. Here in Georgia, however, I would expect to see a slim sasquatch (this actually follows the trend of sightings) which would validate the rules.
Patty, to me, looks like a robust specimen. I expect that she would be well-adapted to cold. The creature in the film is fairly massive. Limbs are short, with the exception of the arms, in proportion to the body. Exaggerated musculature, but fair evidence of body fat. Overall, well-suited to Temperate/Cold climates.
--edited for some additional comments concerning cold--
In terms of "feeling" cold as a subjective thing, I lived in Montana for 6 years, so I have some experience. I regularly worked outdoors in sub-zero temperatures. The coldest I ever worked outside was -72 F with windchill. Currently, I live in Georgia, and I can honestly say that the winters here feel much harsher. + 30 feels worse than -20 ever did. Possibly humidity? I'm no meterologist. Then again, I could just be gettin' old.
QUOTE(unixguy @ Apr 25 2005, 11:35 PM)
In terms of "feeling" cold as a subjective thing, I lived in Montana for 6 years, so I have some experience. I regularly worked outdoors in sub-zero temperatures. The coldest I ever worked outside was -72 F with windchill. Currently, I live in Georgia, and I can honestly say that the winters here feel much harsher. + 30 feels worse than -20 ever did. Possibly humidity? I'm no meterologist. Then again, I could just be gettin' old.
I've noticed that in Western N.C., too.
I think in part it's because the cold isn't consistant. In the north it tends to get cold and stay cold. Here it's in spells. Roses don't harden off, the ground freezes (my winter plant losses have been horrendous) with no insulating snow and I suffer.
My last winter in Washington (Skamania County) saw me quite comfortably hiking to town because the snowplows couldn't get up the road. My first winter in North Carolina had me cursing the "south" because I couldn't get up the icy driveway in four-wheel drive.
Seems to me Washington Sasquatches tend to be tall and slim (8' in at least a couple of reports). It gets cold along the river in the Columbia Gorge, but I lived in a sheltered spot protected from the wind about a mile and a half away at about 350'. It could be zero and howling on the river and quiet and barely twenty degrees below Greenleaf Peak.
Winters are more wet than bitter, and much of the understory stays green. Club moss is rich in nutrients, I hear.
QUOTE(LAL @ Apr 26 2005, 08:40 AM)
QUOTE(unixguy @ Apr 25 2005, 11:35 PM)
In terms of "feeling" cold as a subjective thing, I lived in Montana for 6 years, so I have some experience. I regularly worked outdoors in sub-zero temperatures. The coldest I ever worked outside was -72 F with windchill. Currently, I live in Georgia, and I can honestly say that the winters here feel much harsher. + 30 feels worse than -20 ever did. Possibly humidity? I'm no meterologist. Then again, I could just be gettin' old.
I've noticed that in Western N.C., too....
It does seem different in different places. I can't attempt to explain it.
QUOTE(wildernessguy @ Apr 25 2005, 01:20 AM)
QUOTE(Sachmo @ Apr 24 2005, 01:20 PM)
Perhaps like any other species, it can evolve and adapt to climatic variations.
Just like people from the southern states freeze in the northern states when the indigenous population go about in shorts ahd T-Shirts. Any biological entity has the ability to adapt and long term adaptation can produce physiological changes that can manifest as biological manifestations - thicker hair - more tolerance to tempurature extreams.
That is a truism. I've seen kids in Idaho playing on silly-slides when it was 45-50* outside.
Jon
QUOTE(tiki16 @ Apr 25 2005, 08:45 AM)
They could be similar to dogs, where there are different breeds but are still able to breed throughout the populations that exist around the world.
Just like us.
QUOTE
There's some controversial evidence for habitation of the New World some 30,000 years ago, but I think the accepted figure is closer to 13,000.
I like an earlier date myself, just to give the Terra del Fuegans time to get there.
I like an earlier date myself, just to give the Terra del Fuegans time to get there.
I tend the think an earlier date is far more likely also. It is interesting how the date keeps getting pushed back as additional evidence is found. It is almost as if the anthropologist believe they found the campsite of the very first migrant to the Americas over and over again. Instead of acknowledging that they don't know, they pretend that the earliest known site must be when the first men arived here. The same sort of thing is done with fossils. If 5 fossils of a species are found and the youngest one of them is 20,000 years old, it will often be argued that the animal went extinct 20,000 years ago. Too often in the pursuit of glory to find the first, the biggest, the latest, the greatest, etc, true science suffers IMHO.
QUOTE(Jim Zenor @ Apr 27 2005, 12:09 AM)
QUOTE
There's some controversial evidence for habitation of the New World some 30,000 years ago, but I think the accepted figure is closer to 13,000.
I like an earlier date myself, just to give the Terra del Fuegans time to get there.
I like an earlier date myself, just to give the Terra del Fuegans time to get there.
I tend the think an earlier date is far more likely also. It is interesting how the date keeps getting pushed back as additional evidence is found. It is almost as if the anthropologist believe they found the campsite of the very first migrant to the Americas over and over again. Instead of acknowledging that they don't know, they pretend that the earliest known site must be when the first men arived here. The same sort of thing is done with fossils. If 5 fossils of a species are found and the youngest one of them is 20,000 years old, it will often be argued that the animal went extinct 20,000 years ago. Too often in the pursuit of glory to find the first, the biggest, the latest, the greatest, etc, true science suffers IMHO.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.