Geology n Paleontology

Giganthopithecus

#Gigantopithecus blacki adl nama genus & species yg diusulkan oleh von Koenigswald (dlm 1473:63) atas dasar temuan 3bh gigi yaitu LM3 (ka&ki), right UM. Tetapi yg dijadikan holotipex adl right LM3 (fig 14, plate 10c&f) (1473:63)

#Lokasi temuan gigi2 tsb tdk diketahui tetapi temuan tsb ditemukan di Chinese dispensary [apotek] in Hongkong bersama-sama dg teeth of deer, pig, carnivores, rodents, Stegodon, Elephas & others primates. Walaupun dmk vK percaya bhw semuan temuan tsb berasal dr somewhere in China (1473:63).
#Karakter gigi Gigan adl: their enormous size (Pl 10: a1, b1, c, e1, f, h1; Pl 11a,b; Pl 12a,n). As Tab 10 shows, they exceed all the known anthropid & hominid teeth in lenght, breadth & height. The max values of male gorilla recorded by Remane & listed in Tab 10 come very close to Gigan, so far as the UM & their MD & BL dimensions are concerned (1473:63)
—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo
[8feb13J sarimadu]
Nm.782
#Di gua Tham Khuyen (Lang Son province, north Vietnam) banyak ditemukan fosil2 gigi hominoid yg berumur MID PLEIS kira2 475 kya (782:3016)
#Dg ELECTRON SPIN RESONANCE (ESR) dipakai unt mengukur keantikan enamel (782:3016)
#Ekskavasi di S1-S3 ditemukan fosil H.erec & Giganto blacki yg artix keduanya PERNAH HIDUP SEJAMAN di Tham Khuyen yaitu pd jaman EARLY & MID PLEIS (782:3016)
#Jumlah spesimen verte yg diketemukan dari gua ini sekitar 2000bh & 5% dpx adl hominoid (782:3018)
#Fragmentary condition complicates taxonomic assignment as, in considering each tooth a biological individual, the number of individuals multiplies immensely, thereby seeming to increase assemblage diversity (782:3018)
#For example, all teeth are assigned to the extant species Pongo pygmaeus. For Tham Khuyen, taxonomic problems lie rather in misidentification at the genus level, especially between Pongo and other hominoid genera. For example, large Pongo teeth have been termed Gigantopithecus while small worn Pongo teeth have been called Homo (782:3018)
#Fossil teeth of Gigantopithecus blacki are known from central and southern China, as far south as Daxin Cave, Guangxi Province (25 Pei & Woo 1956). The identification of this taxon at Tham Khuyen Cave, first made by Khai and Long (26), extends the range 140 km SW. Lower left canine TK 65/122 (Fig. 2) can be attributed without doubt to Gigantopithecus blacki, based on comparisons with seven lower canines of Gigantopithecus from China(782:3019-20)
==>fosil gigi Gigan berasal dr central & southern China (Pei & Woo 1956). TK65/122 (left LC) adl gigi Gigan dr Tham Khuyen cave
#One other specimen from Tham Khuyen, left lower incisor TK 65/146, may be attributed to Gigantopithecus blacki
based on its buccal-lingual compression, peg-like morphology, and large size. However, joint reanalysis of three other teeth originally identified as Gigantopithecus [TK 65/61 (right upper central incisor), TK 65/124 (left lower incisor), and one other left incisor (un-numbered)], are now assigned to Pongo pygmaeus (782:3020)
#Second, radiometric analyses of sediments and fossils suggest that Homo and Gigantopithecus co-occur at Tham Khuyen about a half million years ago. It is through this dated co-occurrence that we tie Tham Khuyen with larger issues of human evolution. Homo and Gigantopithecus do co-occur at two other sites: Jianshi Cave, Hubei, China (29), and Longgupo Cave, Sichuan, China (30). Like Tham Khuyen, these localities may have accumulated the remains of open-dwelling fauna, not necessarily cave inhabitants (782:3020)
—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo—ooOoo—
[30mar14M vbm] 720
@PENDAPAT WEIDEN TTG GI2 GIGANTO & SANGIRAN 1939-1941 [p.874]
On the basis of morphology & size together, Von Koenigswald decided that the Hong Kong & Sangiran teeth and jaw fragments came from “giantapes.” However, Weidenreich later concluded that both the 1935-1939 Hong Kong teeth & the 1939-1941 Sangiran tooth-jaw fossils were the remains of true men, though extraordinarily large men, from the early Sino-Malaysian fauna (Weidenreich 1945:123-24).Finally,in his recent article, W.C. Pei reverted to the idea of a giant anthropoid & estimated that the “giant” ape of Luntsai stood “some twelve feet” high (Pei 1957:836).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s