said to be a primate ten feet tall, it's uncertain when he lived, if in fact it existed. evidence based on a few teeth is hardly sufficient to make a judgement - or am I wrong?
2006-07-28 13:08:36 · 2 answers · asked by joebleau312 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Well, I'm not a primatologist but I'm a zoologist, and a fairly respectable one (I hope).
The existence of Gigantopithecus blacki is not doubted. The reconstructions made on the basis of its fossil remains may be subject to debate and modification, but that's a different matter.
You'd be surprised at how many fossil species are described on the basis of teeth or small jaw fragments only; but the enamel of mammalian teeth is the hardest tissue in our bodies, and thus dental remains are much more common and easy to find than whole skeletons.
Hopefully, more complete remains will be found someday to give us a better picture of what Gigantopithecus looked like.
2006-07-28 14:49:41 · answer #1 · answered by Calimecita 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't think there is much doubt about this species' genuineness...
Papers published in highly respected journals include in Nature and PNAS over recent years have quoted it when discussing evolution of extant apes.
Many extinct species are known only from a tooth specimens. It really is amazing what you can extrapolate from a tooth :)
2006-07-28 21:44:11 · answer #2 · answered by the last ninja 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋