A Summary About Pandas In This Artical – Article Example

Anthropology: Summary (Pandas) The article “Early Hominid Feeding Mechanisms” (Du Brul, 1976) considers the taxonomy of differen skulls from the Cenozoic era. There is a particular focus on hominid and Ursidae fossils, and especially Australopithecine skulls which appear to fall into two distinct lineages, one gracile (Australopithecus africanus) and the other robust (Australopithecus boisei). The main hypothesis is that the difference between the two is due to derived trait relating to differences in feeding habits rather than to bipedal locomotion, with its more upright stance, or increased brain size, which affects the form of cranium.
The authors identify carnivorous behavior as being connected with the gracile form and herbivorous behaviour as connected with the robust form in these two different Australopithecine fossils. They note that modern man retains certain features of both Australopithecene types, and that this relates to modern man’s omnivorous habits. Further evidence for this hypothesis is drawn from the Ursidae family. Most bears are omnivorous, but the giant panda (Ailuropoda) is highly specialized and represents an extreme of herbivorous adaptation because it only eats bamboo. The grizzly bear (Ursus horribilis), on the other hand, represents the other extreme, of a bear which has more carnivorous tendencies. There is a broadening of the skull and change in teeth and musculature in to allow grinding rather than tearing in the panda skull, and this parallels the developments in robust Australopithecine skulls and provides support for the hypothesis relating skull form and feeding behavior.
Reference
Du Brul, E. L. “Early Hominid Feeding Mechanisms.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 47 (1976), pp. 305-320.