Slashdot Mirror


Extinct Species of Early Human Survived On Grass Bulbs, Not Meat

Philip Ross writes "Fresh analysis of an extinct relative of humans suggests our ancient ancestors dined primarily on tiger nuts, which are edible grass bulbs, settling a discrepancy over what made up prehistoric diets. According to a new study published in the journal PLOS One, the strong-jawed ancient hominin known as Paranthropus boisei, nicknamed 'Nutcracker Man,' which roamed East Africa between 2.4 million and 1.4 million years ago, survived on a diet scientists previously thought implausible."

10 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. Re:And that's why they're extinct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they're extinct, then they didn't survive on anything, did they?

  2. Re:Tiger nuts? Not meat? by elfprince13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Indeed. Humans are the best long distance runners on the planet, and we evolved that way so that we could chase our prey until they died of exhaustion.

  3. Re:They foraged for 2-3 hours per day by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They survived 1,000,000 years. We've been going at it for 200,000 years or so, and we're constantly at risk of killing ourselves off en masse. I'd say they did a lot better than we are doing on the species survival front.

  4. When we are extinct by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We will be said to have dined primarily on high fructose corn syrup.

    Somehow I think there's going to be some big holes in what they actually do "know" about what those folks ate.

  5. Re:Not an ancestor by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A somewhat minor nitpick, but...

    It is generally thought that Paranthropus bosei is an /offshoot/ of the line that ultimately led to modern man, not a direct ancestor. We share ancestors, but do not descend from his line. The two lines diverged about 3 million years ago to follow their own evolutionary paths - homo towards an omnivorous diet and world domination, panthropus to munching on nuts and extinction.

    He was a relative, not an ancestor.

    Plus it is pretty iffy to base too many conclusions on a handful of skeletons (or in the case of such old homonids it's usually skeletal fragments). If archaeologists of the future only had five 20th century human skeletons available that were all found in the general area that used to be New York they might conclude that most humans of the 20th century were over weight and lived off a meat rich diet. If those five skeletons came from the horn of Africa they would conclude that during the 20th century the human race suffered from frequent famines. If the five skeletons came from the graveyard of a vegan colony they'd conclude humans of the 20th century were predominantly vegan. If the discoveries in Dmanisi, Georgia have taught us anything it is that one should not base too many sweeping conclusions on a handful of samples.
    http://rt.com/news/skull-homo-georgia-species-373/

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  6. Re:A blow to vegetarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean vegans, more precisely. Vegetarians usually (not always) eat animal products which do not involve slaughter of the animal, such as eggs & cheese -- both of which supply B12. The body only needs an extremely small ammount of B12, the smallest amount of any vitamin.

    Anyhow, until vegans evolve away from the requirement for B12, or go extinct, it's really not hard for them to get enough from commonly B12 fortified products. Much tofu, nutritional yeast, and other common vegan ingredients are fortified with non-animal sources of B12.

  7. Re:A blow to vegetarians by guises · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You seem to be implying that meat consumption means that you don't have to pay attention to what you eat. Really, it just seems like your girlfriend was more conscientious about her diet than you were. Which maybe isn't that surprising - being vegan implies that you're paying attention to what you eat.

  8. Re:Not an ancestor by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You only need to go back 200 years before we had anything like modern refrigeration and the food had to be very fresh and very local. Most people were subsistance farmers, meaning they primarily ate what they produced. If you had game, you ate game and if you didn't, you didn't. If you had a river or lake nearby with fish you ate fish, if not you didn't. If barley grew better than wheat, you ate barley. Your diet was defined by your surroundings.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  9. Re:Tiger nuts? Not meat? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    However, humans do seem to be adapted for something like persistence hunting. Our ability to run long distances in the hot African midday sun would soon cause an antelope to drop dead of heat exhaustion probably way before they got to be 20 miles away. Our lack of thick hair and sweating ability do point towards a remarkable ability to withstand heat. Also, animals running tend to loop in a large circle rather than travelling a long distance.

    And, I'm not a runner (although I do a load of cycling which is also endurance based).

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  10. Re:Tiger nuts? Not meat? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Persistence hunting is impossible in anything but big open fields

    Like, say, the open savanna where homo sapiens evolved?

    (nobody's dragging an antelope back 20 miles)

    If your hunting party has any strategy, you won't chase it those 20 miles in a straight line.

    Humans get foot injuries easily.

    Humans who have worn shoes all their lives get foot injuries easily.