Fuck politics for a change.

Although I realize that the ruling class (and the ignorant fucktards who grant them legitimacy) tend to have a disproportionate influence upon the lives of the peasantry (myself included), there are some things that I, personally, find to be much more interesting. With that in mind, I bring you the latest news from the world of paleontology:


Beaked, bird-like dinosaur tells story of finger evolution
ScienceDaily (June 18, 2009) — Scientists have discovered a unique beaked, plant-eating dinosaur in China. The finding, they say, demonstrates that theropod, or bird-footed, dinosaurs were more ecologically diverse in the Jurassic period than previously thought, and offers important evidence about how the three-fingered hand of birds evolved from the hand of dinosaurs.

Humans may be related to orangutans, rather than chimps...
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, professor of anthropology in Pitt's School of Arts and Sciences and president of the World Academy of Art and Science, and John Grehan, director of science at the Buffalo Museum, conducted a detailed analysis of the physical features of living and fossil apes that suggested humans, orangutans, and early apes belong to a group separate from chimpanzees and gorillas.

Whorfed
(via the John Hawks Weblog)
I found an interesting essay by Lera Boroditsky on Edge, titled, "How does our language shape the way we think?" She describes cross-cultural psychology experiments that test the ways that perception is affected by language differences.

Sands of Gobi Desert yield new species of nut-cracking dinosaur
ScienceDaily (June 17, 2009) — Plants or meat: That's about all that fossils ever tell paleontologists about a dinosaur's diet. But the skull characteristics of a new species of parrot-beaked dinosaur and its associated gizzard stones indicate that the animal fed on nuts and/or seeds. These characteristics present the first solid evidence of nut-eating in any dinosaur.

Bone parts don't add up to conclusion of Palauan dwarfs

Scott M. Fitzpatrick^1*, Greg C. Nelson², Geoffrey Clark³
1 Department of Sociology & Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America, 2 Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, United States of America, 3 Archaeology and Natural History, Division of Society and Environment, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Acton, Australia

Abstract

Current archaeological evidence from Palau in western Micronesia indicates that the archipelago was settled around 3000–3300 BP by normal sized populations; contrary to recent claims, they did not succumb to insular dwarfism.

Background

Previous and ongoing archaeological research of both human burial and occupation sites throughout the Palauan archipelago during the last 50 years has produced a robust data set to test hypotheses regarding initial colonization and subsequent adaptations over the past three millennia.

Principal Findings

Close examination of human burials at the early (ca. 3000 BP) and stratified site of Chelechol ra Orrak indicates that these were normal sized individuals. This is contrary to the recent claim of contemporaneous “small-bodied” individuals found at two cave sites by Berger et al. (2008). As we argue, their analyses are flawed on a number of different analytical levels. First, their sample size is too small and fragmentary to adequately address the variation inherent in modern humans within and outside of Palau. Second, the size and stature of all other prehistoric (both older and contemporaneous) skeletal assemblages found in Palau fall within the normal parameters of modern human variation in the region, indicating this was not a case of insular dwarfism or a separate migratory group. Third, measurements taken on several skeletal elements by Berger et al. may appear to be from smaller-bodied individuals, but the sizes of these people compares well with samples from Chelechol ra Orrak. Last, archaeological, linguistic, and historical evidence demonstrates a great deal of cultural continuity in Palau through time as expected if the same population was inhabiting the archipelago.

Conclusions

Prehistoric Palauan populations were normal sized and exhibit traits that fall within the normal variation for Homo sapiens—they do not support the claims by Berger et al. (2008) that there were smaller-bodied populations living in Palau or that insular dwarfism took place such as may be the case for Homo floresiensis.

Download full text here: (PDF, 698KB) (HTML)