-- Tabarin KNM-TH-13150 “pre-australopithecine”: ‘The fauna includes aquatic animals such as molluscs, fish, turtles, crocodiles, and hippotami, along with others that might be found in the vicinity of a lake of river’ Ward & Hill 1987
-- Ardipithecus ramidus:
‘Sedimentological, botanical and faunal evidence suggests a wooded habitat for the Aramis hominids … Aquatic elements (turtle, fish, crocodile) are rare. Large mammals (hippopotamus, proboscideans, rhinos, equids, giraffids, bovines) are rare. Primates are very abundant’ WoldeGabriel cs 1994
‘… interpreted to have been a closed woodland. At Aramis, aquatic species and large mammals are rare, and colobines make up over 30% of all vertebrate specimens collected’ Leakey cs 1995
-- Kanapoi KNM-KP 29281 Au.anamensis: Fish, aquatic reptiles, kudus & monkeys are prevalent. ‘A wide gallery forest would have almost certainly been present on the large river that brought in the sediments’ Leakey cs 1995
-- Chad KT 12 A.cf.afarensis: ‘The non-hominid fauna contains aquatic taxa (such as Siluridae, Trionyx, cf.Tomistoma), taxa adapted to wooded habitats (such as Loxodonta, Kobus, Kolpochoerus) and to more open areas (such as Ceratotherium, Hipparion) … compatible with a lake-side environment’ Brunet cs 1995
-- Hadar, Afar Locality: ‘Generally, the sediments represent lacustrine, lake margin, and associated fluvial deposits related to an extensive lake that periodically filled the entire basin’ Johanson cs 1982
-- Hadar AL.333 A.afarensis: ‘The bones were found in swale-like features … it is very likely that they died and partially rotted at or very near this site … this group of hominids was buried in streamside gallery woodland’ Radosevich cs 1992
-- Hadar AL.288 gracile A.afarensis: Lucy lay in a small, slow moving stream. ‘Fossil preservation at this locality is excellent, remains of delicate items such as crocodile and turtle eggs and crab claws being found’ Johanson & Taieb 1976
-- Makapan A.africanus: ‘… very different conditions from those prevailing today. Higher rainfall, fertile, alkaline soils and moderate relief supported significant patches of sub-tropical forest and thick bush, rather than savannah. Taphonomic considerations … suggest that sub-tropical forest was the hominins’ preferred habitat rather than grassland or bushveld, and the adaptations of these animals was therefore fitted to a forest habitat’ Rayner cs 1993
-- Taung australopithecine: ‘the clayey matrix from which the Taung cranium was extracted, and the frequent occurrence of calcite veins and void fillings within it (Butzer, 1974, 1980) do suggest a more humid environment during its accumulation’ Partridge 1985
-- Lake Turkana: ‘The lake margins were generally swampy, with extensive areas of mudflats … Au.boisei was more abundant in fluvial environments, whereas Homo habilis was rare in such environments … Australopithecus fossils are more common than Homo both in channel and floodplain deposits. The gracile hominids … seem to be more restricted ecologically to the lake margin than are the robust forms’ Conroy 1990
-- Ileret A.boisei: ‘the fossil sample reflects climatic and ecological environmental conditions differing significantly from those of the present day. At Ilerat, 1.5 Myr ago, climatic conditions must have been cooler and more humid than today, and more favourable to extensive forests … The prominence of montane forest is particularly striking … dominated by Gramineae and Chenopodiaceae appropriate to the margins of a slightly saline or alkaline lake’ Bonnefille 1976
-- Konso A.boisei: ‘The highly fossiliferous sands at the mid-section of KGA10 are interpreted to be the middle to distal portions of an alluvial fan, deposited adjacent to, and extending into, a lake. Fossils and artefacts deriving from horizons of sands and silts are not abraded and show evidence of minimal transport. A large mammalian assemblage has been collected from the deposits, showing a striking dominance of Alcelaphini … to indicate the presence of extensive dry grasslands at KGA10’ Suwa cs 1997
-- Chesowanja A.boisei: ‘The fossiliferous sediments were deposited in a lagoon … Abundant root casts … suggest that the embayment was flanked by reeds and the presence of calcareous algae indicates that the lagoon was warm and shallow. Bellamya and catfish are animals tolerant of relatively stagnant water, and such situation would also be suitable for turtles and crocodiles’ Carney cs 1971
-- Olduvai middle Bed I: A.boisei O.H.5 & habilis O.H.7 & O.H.62 were found in the most densely vegetated, wettest condition, with the highest lake levels (Walter cs 1991), near ostracods, freshwater snails, fish & aquatic birds (Conroy 1990), ‘… the middle Bed-I faunas indicate a very rich closed woodland environment, richer than any part of the present-day savanna biome in Africa …’ (Fernández-Jalvo cs 1998). ‘Fossilized leaves and pollen are rare in the sediments of Beds I and II, but swamp vegetation is indicated by abundant vertical roots channels and casts possibly made by some kind of reed. Fossil rhizomes of papyrus also suggest the presence of marshland and/or shallow water’ (Conroy 1990) ‘… Cyperaceae fruits were common in H.habilis habitat (Bonnefille 1984). Ancient Egyptians ate Cyperus papyrus root which was also present at Olduvai in swamp-margins and river banks’ (Puech 1992)

Homo?:
-- Olduvai O.H.24 habilis (Australopithecus?? --mv 2023): ‘Crocodile remains predominate among the faunal material from this site and more than 2000 teeth were found. Tortoise plates, shells of Urocyclid slugs, fish vertebrae and scales, bird bones and pieces of ostrich eggshell were also relatively common' Leakey cs 1971
-- Malawi UR 501 early Homo (I doubt this now: Gorilla or Pan? --mv 2023): ‘The Plio-Pleistocene Chiwondo Beds of Northern Malawi have yielded molluscs and fragmented remains of fish, turtles, crocodiles and large mammals … Microvertebrates and carnivores are virtually unrepresented in the assemblage … The general ecological setting of the Malawi Rift during the Late Pliocene was a mosaic environment including open and closed, dry and wet habitats, and which harbored a small and ecologically unstable paleo-lake Malawi’ Schrenk cs 1995
-- Chemeron KNM-BC1 early Homo: ‘The Fish Beds (sic --mv:-)) … seem to be almost entirely lacustrine and fluviatile; fish remains are abundant … Molluscs also lived in the lake, and locally their remains accumulate to form shelly limestones’ Martyn & Tobias 1967
-- Turkana Boy KNM-WT 15000 H.erectus (erectus? close relative? --mv 2023): ‘Mammalian fossils are rare at this locality, the most abundant vertebrate fossils being parts of small and large fish. The depositional environment was evidently an alluvial plain of low relief … Typical lacustrine forms (ostracods, molluscs) could invade the area … The only other fauna found so far in the fossiliferous bed are many opercula of the swamp snail Pila, a few bones of the catfish Synodontis and two fragments of indeterminate large mammal bone …’ Brown cs 1985

H.erectus:
-- Mojokerto Java H.erectus: ‘The basal part of the Putjangan Beds is composed of volcanic breccias containing marine and freshwater molluscs. The rest of the Putjangan Beds is composed of black clays of lacustrine origin’ Ninkovich & Burckle 1987
-- Peking H.erectus:
‘A big river and possibly a lake were located to the east and contained various water species; along the shorelines grew reeds and plants, which were home for buffalo, deer, otters, beavers and other animals’ Poirier 1978
‘… accumulation in quiet water. The cave at this time was probably the locus of ponded water and was probably more open to the atmosphere’ Weiner cs 1998
-- Hopefield, Rabat & Terra Amata: H.erectus (or close relative? --mv 2023) fossils came from sandstone made up from dune sand resting upon a former sea beach (De Lumley 1990). In Terra Amata, ‘there are also indications that the inhabitants ate oysters, mussels and limpets – shells of which are present. The presence of fish bones and fish vertebrae indicate that the population also fished’ Poirier 1987

= from our 2000 paper (with Pierre-François Puech :-)) Hum.Evol.15:175-186
"Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered: paleo-environmental and comparative data"

IOW, even fossil Gorilla such as Lucy fossilized next to crocodiles... :-DDD
IOW, only *complete* imbeciles believe their ancestors ran after antelopes over African savannas.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 05:57:29 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>IOW, even fossil Gorilla such as Lucy fossilized next to crocodiles... :-DDD

"Nile crocodiles are among the few living tetrapods that regard adult
humans as prey. Plio-Pleistocene crocodiles from the Turkana basin
were larger than Nile crocodiles, and the hominins living alongside
them (robust australopithecines and early Homo) were smaller than we
are (McHenry, 1992; Ruff, 2010). We can presume that C.
thorbjarnarsoni would have included the Plio-Pleistocene hominids from
the Turkana Basin within its prey base.
We are unaware of direct evidence for crocodile attacks on hominids
from the Turkana Basin, such as the crocodile bite marks on hominin
remains found at Olduvai Gorge (Njau and Blumenschine, in press;
Brochu et al., 2010). This could mean several things—that Turkana
Basin hominins evaded crocodiles; that a 2-ton crocodile did not leave
bite marks on the skeleton of a 50-kg hominin (not much biting would
be involved); or that we simply have not yet found hominin bones with
crocodile bite marks on them. These are, of course, not mutually
exclusive.
In any case, the largest predators of land vertebrates in the
Great African Rift Valley—then and now—have been crocodiles.
Other land vertebrates (including hominins) are required to drink
water from time to time, and rivers and lake margins are rich sources
of food. This conflict—eat and drink, but maybe die—was presumably
foremost amongst the concerns our predecessors felt when approaching
ancient waterways inhabited by Crocodylus thorbjarnarsoni. That our
ancestors persisted in its shadow is a testament to something—though
whether it reflects their ingenuity or fecundity remains unknown."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235961083

Ingenuity in Homo sapiens:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_crocodile#/media/File:Crocodile_Barrier,_Uganda_(15057506379).jpg>

Pandora wrote:

> "Nile crocodiles are

What is your argument? It's by no means clear. You do
have it in your skull that crocodiles exclude SOMETHING,
but you don't seem to have any idea what that may be.

I've never claimed that crocs were an issue. You droids
regurgitating the status quo have. Incessantly.

Why are salt water crocs a problem but the much larger
crocs you cite not a problem?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722677680584179712

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 22:32:35 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pandora wrote:
>
>> "Nile crocodiles are
>
>What is your argument? It's by no means clear. You do
>have it in your skull that crocodiles exclude SOMETHING,
>but you don't seem to have any idea what that may be.
>
>I've never claimed that crocs were an issue. You droids
>regurgitating the status quo have. Incessantly.
>
>Why are salt water crocs a problem but the much larger
>crocs you cite not a problem?

It's a question of risk.
In the 'savanna scenario' hominins would have minimized the time spent
in or at the edge of the water, while in the aquatic scenario they
would not. Therefore the risk of crocodile predation would be much
higher in the latter.

Pandora wrote:

> It's a question of risk.
> In the 'savanna scenario' hominins would have minimized the time spent
> in or at the edge of the water

Not at all. But it would minimized their intake of DHA, when our evolution
required easy access to plentiful DHA.

Secondly, "Coastal Dispersal" and movement between the continents is
well established by both direct and indirect evidence.

It doesn't matter how much harder you need to imagine it to have been,
they did it.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com

On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 21:02:27 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pandora wrote:
>
>> It's a question of risk.
>> In the 'savanna scenario' hominins would have minimized the time spent
>> in or at the edge of the water
>
>Not at all. But it would minimized their intake of DHA, when our evolution
>required easy access to plentiful DHA.

Your intake of DHA is not much use if shortly thereafter it ends up in
the stomach of a crocodile.

Pandora wrote:

> Your intake of DHA is not much use if shortly thereafter it ends up in
> the stomach of a crocodile.

And the crocs were primarily NOT on the beaches but in the water
sources Lucy & kin would have depended on.

Secondly, it doesn't matter. They got the DHA. Even if that means 90%
had to die, they still got the DHA. They still evolved under circumstances
where their diet was rich in DHA, where their evolution could be based
on the abundance of DHA they were consuming.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723026966788423680

Pandora wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 22:32:35 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is so reasonable
> <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pandora wrote:
>>
>>> "Nile crocodiles are
>>
>> What is your argument? It's by no means clear. You do
>> have it in your skull that crocodiles exclude SOMETHING,
>> but you don't seem to have any idea what that may be.
>>
>> I've never claimed that crocs were an issue. You droids
>> regurgitating the status quo have. Incessantly.
>>
>> Why are salt water crocs a problem but the much larger
>> crocs you cite not a problem?
>
> It's a question of risk.
> In the 'savanna scenario' hominins would have minimized the time spent
> in or at the edge of the water, while in the aquatic scenario they
> would not. Therefore the risk of crocodile predation would be much
> higher in the latter.

Water locations, like rivers, ponds, lakes, whatever, are
prime places for predators to hunt. Animals have to drink
and take risks to do so.

This is rather interesting, from 2009:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225111019_Does_The_Risk_Of_Encountering_Lions_Influence_African_Herbivore_Behaviour_At_Waterholes

Does the risk of encountering lions influence African
herbivore behaviour at waterholes?

Abstract
A central question in the study of predator–prey
relationships is to what extent prey behaviour is
determined by avoidance of predators. Here, we test
whether the long-term risk of encountering lions and
the presence of lions in the vicinity influence the
behaviour of large African herbivores at waterholes
through avoidance of high-risk areas, increases in
group size, changes in temporal niche or changes in
the time spent in waterhole areas. In Hwange National
Park, Zimbabwe, we monitored waterholes to study the
behaviour of nine herbivore species under different
risks of encountering lions. We radio-collared 26 lions
in the study area which provided the opportunity to
monitor whether lions were present during observation
sessions and to map longer-term seasonal landscapes of
risk of encountering lions. Our results show that the
preferred prey species for lions (buffalo, kudu and
giraffe) avoided risky waterholes. Group size increased
as encounter risk increased for only two species
(wildebeest and zebra), but this effect was not strong.
Interestingly, buffalo avoided the hours of the day
which are dangerous when the long-term and short-term
risks of encountering lions were high, and all species
showed avoidance of waterhole use at night times when
lions were in the vicinity. This illustrates well how
prey can make temporal adjustments to avoid dangerous
periods coinciding with predator hunting. Additionally,
many herbivores spent more time accessing water to drink
when the long- and short-term risks of encountering
lions were high, and they showed longer potential
drinking time when the long-term risk of encountering
lions was high, suggesting higher levels of vigilance.
This study illustrates the diversity of behavioural
adjustments to the risk of encountering a predator and
how prey respond differently to temporal variations in
this risk.

Very very very interesting for lions & kudus:
savanna fool:
> This is rather interesting, from 2009:
Does the risk of encountering lions influence African herbivore behaviour at waterholes?
....to what extent is prey behaviour is determined by avoidance of predators?
Does the long-term risk of encountering lions & the presence of lions in the vicinity influence the behaviour of large African herbivores at waterholes:
avoidance of high-risk areas, increases in group-size, changes in temporal niche, or changes in the time spent in waterhole areas?
In Hwange Nat.Park Zimbabwe, we monitored waterholes to study the behaviour of 9 herbivore spp under different risks of encountering lions.
We radio-collared 26 lions in the study area, to monitor: were lions present during observation sessions? and to map longer-term seasonal landscapes of risk of encountering lions.
Results: the preferred prey spp for lions (buffalo, kudu, giraffe) avoided risky waterholes.
Group size increased as encounter risk increased for only 2 spp (wildebeest, zebra), but this effect was not strong.
Buffalo avoided the hours of the day which are dangerous when the long- & short-term risks of encountering lions were high,
all spp showed avoidance of waterhole use at night times when lions were in the vicinity.
This illustrates well how prey can make temporal adjustments to avoid dangerous periods coinciding with predator hunting,
many herbivores spent more time accessing water to drink when the long- & short-term risks of encountering lions were high,
they showed longer potential drinking-time when the long-term risk of encountering lions was high, suggesting higher levels of vigilance.
This study illustrates the diversity of behavioural adjustments to the risk of encountering a predator, and how prey respond differently to temporal variations in this risk.

Very very very interesting for idiots who believe their ancestors ran after antelopes...
:-DDD

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Water locations, like rivers, ponds, lakes, whatever, are
> prime places for predators to hunt. Animals have to drink
> and take risks to do so.

Which is what I've been saying. The imaginary "Crocs" arguments,
if I may pay it undue respect by even calling it an argument, is that
there are saltwater crocs warming over all the bridges, but none
what so ever in any freshwater source inland.

> Does the risk of encountering lions influence African
> herbivore behaviour at waterholes?

So you agree with me: The crocs <ahem> "argument" against
Aquatic Ape s utter bullshit. Morons puked it up because they
couldn't come up with any real argument, but their training
forced them to say something...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723823836258254848

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> Water locations, like rivers, ponds, lakes, whatever, are
>> prime places for predators to hunt. Animals have to drink
>> and take risks to do so.
>
> Which is what I've been saying. The imaginary "Crocs" arguments,

Crocs are predators.

> if I may pay it undue respect by even calling it an argument, is that
> there are saltwater crocs warming over all the bridges, but none
> what so ever in any freshwater source inland.

Wrong. Crocs have ranges in Asia, Africa, and Australia.

Nice map

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/crocodilian-ranges/

And

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1716317114
Hominid butchers and biting crocodiles in the African
Plio–Pleistocene
Oct 2017

"Paleontologists working on Plio–Pleistocene African bone
assemblages have long recognized crocodile presence ..."

>> Does the risk of encountering lions influence African
>> herbivore behaviour at waterholes?
>
> So you agree with me: The crocs <ahem> "argument" against
> Aquatic Ape s utter bullshit. Morons puked it up because they
> couldn't come up with any real argument, but their training
> forced them to say something...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2827537/
A New Horned Crocodile from the Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Sites at
Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
Feb 2010

"The new crocodile species was the largest predator encountered
by our ancestors at Olduvai Gorge, as indicated by hominid
specimens preserving crocodile bite marks from these sites."

"Fossil bones of at least two hominid individuals from Olduvai
Gorge bear tooth marks characteristic of crocodile feeding."

Watch. This is funny...

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Wrong. Crocs have ranges in Asia, Africa, and Australia.

And so don't people!

So Crocs never stopped THAT from happening.

"Coastal Dispersal" is a thing. It's even accepted by your fellow
savanna nutters. Again, Crocs are irrelevant. And Crocs were
all over Africa, the savanna and even where rivers passed
through forests... anywhere a croc could live, a croc lived.

All irrelevant.

So, again, WHAT THE HELL is your stupid "argument?"

Our ancestors got their DHA, in abundance, so even if 90% of
them fell to crocs, that left plenty more to get the DHA.

Our ancestors trekked from lands mass to land mass, following
the coast. Doesn't matter how dangerous you want to pretend
that was, they did it.

Can't you grasp this? THESE ARE FACTS! Homo got it's DHA,
and plenty of it. Homo followed the coast. Homo spread
everywhere. And it was no more dangerous than trying to drink
water anywhere in Africa, and probably a lot less so in most
places.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/724349278678614016

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
>

[OCPD]

Yeah, the FBI has been informed about you... can't take any risks.

So, anyway, you are a blithering idiot, quoting things you never read,
much less understood, and that's why you can't answer even basis
questions.