There's a cave in Brazil where remains of much larger than normal species of monkey were found. How did they grow so big? Were the trees twice as big, with twice size fruit? That's the only possible scenario isn't it?? Discoveries Under Brazil (http://209.209.34.25/webdocs/anatomy/Brazil.htm)

The skull of Caipora bambuiorum, one of the two complete primate skeletons recovered from Toca da Boa Vista. It closely resembles the living spider monkey, but is more than twice the size, suggesting that South American monkeys participated fully in the mega-faunal phenomenon of the last Ice Age.

Frontal view of the crania of Protopithecus (left) and Caipora (right), both from Toca da Boa Vista. They resemble living South American monkeys that inhabit the top levels of the tropical forest canopy, but they were significantly larger than any living species. Further exploration of Toca da Boa Vista hopefully will yield more primate species that also were quite large compared to modern monkeys.

I've realised that ice age aridity must be the cause of rainforest stability, with trees able to grow bigger and taller, and therefore grow bigger fruit.

cant quite remember what show it was but they did it with paranas.. they increased the atmospheric pressure to 2x the normal and the fish grew MUCH MUCH bigger than they normally do.. i think they were trying to link the reason why animals back then got soo much bigger

cant quite remember what show it was but they did it with paranas.. they increased the atmospheric pressure to 2x the normal and the fish grew MUCH MUCH bigger than they normally do.. i think they were trying to link the reason why animals back then got soo much biggerInteresting stuff. I think much drier conditions creating a more stable bed for rainforest trees to grow in is reasonable. Also reduced ocean temperatures would mean less evaporation, less cloudcover and less wind with more sunshine.

aww this is irritating me i cant seem to find the video of them but they grew over 2times the normal size and all they did was raise them in a pressurized tank that was set to 2x our atmospheric pressure

aww this is irritating me i cant seem to find the video of them but they grew over 2times the normal size and all they did was raise them in a pressurized tank that was set to 2x our atmospheric pressureHow do you account for the twice size monkeys with this idea though? The fish experiment is interesting as well..

atmospheric pressure would change the pressure in water as on land in they show they linked how it all worked. they just used fish for the experiment because they grow to full size much faster

I'd need a link to think it through further, I'm affraid.

I measured the greatest length of the skull (front-teeth to back of skull) that is displayed on the website you linked to:

http://www.enmos.eu/tempdir/tempmonkey.jpg

252 pixels in the image is equal to 252/20 = 12.6 cm in reality, which doesn't strike me as excessively large.

Adult Spider Monkeys average 50.8 cm in length (head+body) excluding the tail (http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/view.php?did=24120&tid=3), with some growing up to 66 cm in length (http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/spider-monkey.html).

See this image of a modern Spider Monkey:

http://www.enmos.eu/tempdir/tempmonkey2.jpg

Using the average head+body length of a Spider Monkey this monkeys skull is (57/225)*50.8 = 12.87 cm long.

:shrug:

yeah sorry common i cant seem to find it i think it was on discovery or history a few months back

Frontal view of the crania of Protopithecus (left) and Caipora (right), both from Toca da Boa Vista. They resemble living South American monkeys that inhabit the top levels of the tropical forest canopy, but they were significantly larger than any living species.

They have not specified how large the skulls were. Naturally, I'm a skeptic.
Do you have any other sources?

There are various reasons why a species would grow larger. Some geographically isolated species, for instance on islands, grow larger (while others grow smaller). It could be the result of sexual selection (competition between males), or the need to digest larger amounts of less nutritious plant matter (gorillas).

There are various reasons why a species would grow larger. Some geographically isolated species, for instance on islands, grow larger (while others grow smaller). It could be the result of sexual selection (competition between males), or the need to digest larger amounts of less nutritious plant matter (gorillas).Maybe but what about "much bigger than usual" tree-top monkeys in the Amazon rainforst then?

yeah sorry common i cant seem to find it i think it was on discovery or history a few months backno probs..

CSS, any comment on post 9?

I think that the research science teams word is better than yours unfortunately. They state quite clearly that skeletons of tree-top dwelling monkeys are found to be significantly bigger in the pleistocene. The twice as big skeleton could belong to a nearer ground variety of monkey. There is a conection with the de loys ape imo.

I think that the research science teams word is better than yours unfortunately. They state quite clearly that skeletons of tree-top dwelling monkeys are found to be significantly bigger in the pleistocene. The twice as big skeleton could belong to a nearer ground variety of monkey. There is a conection with the de loys ape imo.

Did you see the pictures and the calculations? You cannot seriously tell me that the skull they found is significantly bigger than I calculated.
And they didn't say that the skeleton was twice the size of that of a living Spider Monkey. They said the skull itself was twice the size of that of a living Spider Monkey.

Also, you didn't answer my question about whether or not you have an additional source.

It's an open and shut case imo. I've just been self-diagnosed aspergers. Aridity is the key. Wetlands benefited, scrubland turned to grassland. It was more productive during the ice age imo.

No I don't have any further links.

It's an open and shut case imo. I've just been self-diagnosed aspergers. Aridity is the key. Wetlands benefited, scrubland turned to grassland. It was more productive during the ice age imo.

No I don't have any further links.

:rolleyes:

It's an open and shut case imo.I should have preferred an open and shut coffin.

Aridity is the key

Whats the largest animal in the world?

hint: its not in an arid region

Whats the largest animal in the world?

hint: its not in an arid regionAridity in the arctic means that less precipitation means that less snow falls during the winter. This means that high summer temperatures quickly melt the snow away to provide less pasture. It's the way that grasses grow from their tips which allows them to be grazed by meag-fauna such as mammoths. This is how they managed to survive the ice ages.

Aridity in the arctic means that less precipitation means that less snow falls during the winter. This means that high summer temperatures quickly melt the snow away to provide less pasture. It's the way that grasses grow from their tips which allows them to be grazed by meag-fauna such as mammoths. This is how they managed to survive the ice ages.This is proof that the 1,470 year Bond events which are cooling and arid periods were global and not just the north atlantic weather system. The whole world gets suddenly much colder with less rainfall and more sunshine! More evidence to support my theory of increasing solar gravity tides..

The ocean currents get stronger with the warm Gulf Stream swirling around the Arctic basin, sometimes joining the warm Pacific current to continue to the glaciers of Greenland, producing a vast armada of icebergs. What wonders.

Delusional.

It's the way that grasses grow from their tips which allows them to be grazed by meag-fauna such as mammoths.

do grasses grow from their tips? don't believe so. as far as i know they grow from the base.

do grasses grow from their tips? don't believe so. as far as i know they grow from the base.Of course, I made a mistake; the point is that this growing technique allows for constant grazing.

Here's the latest http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science+environment-10633640

It's an open and shut case imo. I've just been self-diagnosed aspergers. Aridity is the key. Wetlands benefited, scrubland turned to grassland. It was more productive during the ice age imo.

No I don't have any further links.

Welcome to the club! It's not so clear, as I said, there are numerous reasons why a species would increase in size. A double sized spider monkey is still the size of many other successful monkeys.

Welcome to the club! It's not so clear, as I said, there are numerous reasons why a species would increase in size. A double sized spider monkey is still the size of many other successful monkeys.The findings are clearly astounding and inexplicable with current understanding. The bottom line is that in an ice age one would intuitively think that less sunshine=less plant growth=smaller animals. The opposite is in fact the case. My conclusion, which I've stated in another thread somewhere incidentally, is that in an ice age the sun is hotter=more plant growth=bigger animals. This topsy-turvy thinking is valid believe it or not. The decrease in temperature can be caused by increased tidal mixing of the oceans. This mechanism would require a re-hash of Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity models, but who cares? The really cold bottom waters get more mixed with the warmer surface temperatures. Et voila.

The findings are clearly astounding and inexplicable with current understanding. The bottom line is that in an ice age one would intuitively think that less sunshine=less plant growth=smaller animals. The opposite is in fact the case. My conclusion, which I've stated in another thread somewhere incidentally, is that in an ice age the sun is hotter=more plant growth=bigger animals. This topsy-turvy thinking is valid believe it or not. The decrease in temperature can be caused by increased tidal mixing of the oceans. This mechanism would require a re-hash of Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity models, but who cares? The really cold bottom waters get more mixed with the warmer surface temperatures. Et voila.

Actually it more likely suggests the moving from a Herbivore status to more Omnivore. Larger Monkey's might have occurred at the expense of many small animals and other Monkey's alike.

Actually it more likely suggests the moving from a Herbivore status to more Omnivore. Larger Monkey's might have occurred at the expense of many small animals and other Monkey's alike.That's a reasonable idea at first thought but there's a snag. The skull found would show this proposed change in diet. A more carnivorous diet would require stronger jaw muscles. These are attached to the bones comprising the skull and would require a thickening of the bone mass. The experts would easily have spotted this anomaly should it have existed. Nice try though Stryder.

Delusional.

LOL

Nuttier than a squirrels poop.