http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070312091455.htm

Scientists have known for years that the energy cost of walking and running is
related primarily to the work done by muscles to lift and move the limbs.

But how much energy does it actually take to get around? Does having longer legs
really make a difference?

Herman Pontzer, Ph.D., assistant professor of physical anthropology in Arts &
Sciences, has developed a mathematical model for calculating energy costs for two
and four-legged animals. His research was published in a recent issue of The
Journal of Experimental Biology.

"All things being equal, leg length is one of the major determinants of cost," says
Pontzer, "If two animals are identical except for leg length, the animal with longer
legs is more efficient."

The fossil record shows that two million years ago, there was a big increase in leg
length in early humans. Pontzer suggests that one reason for this increase could have
been the energy saved by having longer legs. "If you greatly increase the distance
that you travel each day, then you'd expect evolution to act on walking efficiency,"
he says. "That way, the energy you save on travel can be spent instead on survival
and reproduction."
...

Day Brown wrote:
On Mar 19, 11:20 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070312091455.htm

Scientists have known for years that the energy cost of walking and running is
related primarily to the work done by muscles to lift and move the limbs.

But how much energy does it actually take to get around? Does having longer legs
really make a difference?

Herman Pontzer, Ph.D., assistant professor of physical anthropology in Arts &
Sciences, has developed a mathematical model for calculating energy costs for two
and four-legged animals. His research was published in a recent issue of The
Journal of Experimental Biology.

"All things being equal, leg length is one of the major determinants of cost," says
Pontzer, "If two animals are identical except for leg length, the animal with longer
legs is more efficient."

The fossil record shows that two million years ago, there was a big increase in leg
length in early humans. Pontzer suggests that one reason for this increase could have
been the energy saved by having longer legs. "If you greatly increase the distance
that you travel each day, then you'd expect evolution to act on walking efficiency,"
he says. "That way, the energy you save on travel can be spent instead on survival
and reproduction."
...

Given the way all the holes in the hominid skulls match leopard teeth,
I'd say the big cats ate all the short ones who could not see over the
tall grass to notice an attack coming.

Or, the attack happened at night when the leopard could grab a
sleeping hominid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Or, the attack happened at night when the leopard could grab a
sleeping hominid.
That actually is what the "alpha males" are for. They tend to wake up

On Mar 21, 6:26 am, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Day Brown wrote:

Given the way all the holes in the hominid skulls match leopard

Or, the attack happened at night when the leopard could grab a
sleeping hominid.

That comment suggests you're under the misapprehension that DB is
amenable to logic...

On Mar 19, 11:20 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070312091455.htm

Scientists have known for years that the energy cost of walking and
running is
related primarily to the work done by muscles to lift and move the limbs.

But how much energy does it actually take to get around? Does having
longer legs
really make a difference?

Herman Pontzer, Ph.D., assistant professor of physical anthropology in
Arts &
Sciences, has developed a mathematical model for calculating energy costs
for two
and four-legged animals. His research was published in a recent issue of
The
Journal of Experimental Biology.

"All things being equal, leg length is one of the major determinants of
cost," says
Pontzer, "If two animals are identical except for leg length, the animal
with longer
legs is more efficient."

The fossil record shows that two million years ago, there was a big
increase in leg
length in early humans. Pontzer suggests that one reason for this
increase could have
been the energy saved by having longer legs. "If you greatly increase the
distance
that you travel each day, then you'd expect evolution to act on walking
efficiency,"
he says. "That way, the energy you save on travel can be spent instead on
survival
and reproduction."
...

Given the way all the holes in the hominid skulls match leopard teeth,
I'd say the big cats ate all the short ones who could not see over the
tall grass to notice an attack coming.

rmacfarl wrote:

On Mar 21, 6:26 am, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Day Brown wrote:

Given the way all the holes in the hominid skulls match leopard

Or, the attack happened at night when the leopard could grab a
sleeping hominid.

That comment suggests you're under the misapprehension that DB is
amenable to logic...

You don't have to outrun the leopard,
you just have to outrun the guy next to you.

--
pete

"pete" <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:4600916E.2536@mindspring.com...



rmacfarl wrote:

On Mar 21, 6:26 am, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Day Brown wrote:

Given the way all the holes in the hominid skulls match leopard

Or, the attack happened at night when the leopard could grab a
sleeping hominid.

That comment suggests you're under the misapprehension that DB is
amenable to logic...

You don't have to outrun the leopard,
you just have to outrun the guy next to you.

--
pete

It is my understanding that in the day light adult male chimps especially in
groups don't run away. I seen some ugly film of such chaps killing leopard
cubs in the day time when mom was present. I strongly suspect Apiths could
and did play as rough.

That cats go for the back, young, or females. Adult males, even human males
with stout sticks who are not mush headed cowards who break and run don't
seem to have much of a problem with these modest sized cats. People who try
to run away from such cats often have one land on their back.