Human Origins

Are we hybrids?

Retirado de
http://www.macroevolution.net/humanorigins.html#.UhOiDby5fMx
(acesso em 20/08/2013)

Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)

BY EUGENE M. MCCARTHY, PHD GENETICS

This article is a little different from

"The scientist has a lot of experience with
others on this site, because it's about
ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and
this experience is of very great importance, I
the findings of my own research. I'm a
think. When a scientist doesnt know the
geneticist whose work focuses on
answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he
hybrids and, particularly, the role of
has a hunch as to what the result is, he is
hybridization in the evolutionary
uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of
what the result is going to be, he is in some
process. Here, I report certain facts,
doubt. We have found it of paramount
which seem to indicate that human
importance that in order to progress we must
origins can be traced to hybridization,
recognize the ignorance and leave room for
specifically to hybridization involving the
doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of
statements of varying degrees of certainty
chimpanzee (but not the kind of
some most unsure, some nearly sure, none
hybridization you might suppose!). You
absolutely certain."
can access detailed and documented
discussions supporting this claim from
Richard Feynman
links on this page. But I'll summarize
the basic reasoning here, without a lot of citations and footnotes. (If you would like
to read an even briefer summary, click here; read about some objections to the
theory here; also, a recent news story)
Rationale
So why do I think humans are hybrids? Well, first of all,
I've had a different experience from most people. I've
spent most of my life (the last thirty years) studying
hybrids, particularly avian and mammalian hybrids. I've
read thousands, really tens of thousands, of reports
describing them. And this experience has dispelled
some mistaken ideas I once had about hybrids, notions
that I think many other people continue to take for
granted.
For example, one widespread, but erroneous, belief is
that all hybrids are sterile. This idea keeps a lot of
By the same author: Handbook
of Avian Hybrids (Oxford Univ.
Press, 2006) attempts to list all
known bird hybrid crosses.
More information

people from even considering the possibility that humans might be of hybrid origin.
This assertion is absolutely false though I have in fact heard lots of people make
it. For instance, in reviewing the reports I collected for my book on hybridization in
birds (Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World, Oxford University Press, 2006),
which documents some 4,000 different kinds of hybrid crosses among birds, I found
that those crosses producing partially fertile hybrids are about eight times as
common as crosses known to produce sterile ones. The usual result is a reduction
in fertility, not absolute sterility. My current work documenting hybridization among
mammals shows that partially fertile natural hybrids are common, too, in Class
Mammalia. And yet, it seems most people base their ideas of hybrids on the
common mule (horse x ass), which is an exceptionally sterile hybrid, and not at all
representative of hybrids as a whole.
I should, perhaps, also mention that
differences in parental chromosome
counts, even rather large ones, do not
preclude the production of fertile hybrids.

From a discussion of mules

elsewhere on this website:

Zirkle (1935, p. 7) says that the sterility of

the mule made it the first animal whose
hybrid origin was generally recognized
because the origin of fertile hybrids could
easily be forgotten, particularly the origin of
those which appeared before the dawn of
history. The mule, however, was so sterile
that it was necessary to produce it with the
original cross (Zirkle provides extensive
information on the early history of mule).
The fact that the hybrid origin of the mule
has so long been known, together with its
marked sterility, has no doubt greatly
contributed to the widespread, but
erroneous belief that all hybrids are sterile.
Read more about mules >>

While differences of this sort do bode ill

for the fertility of the resulting progeny,
it is only a rule of thumb. For example,
female geeps, the products of
hybridization between sheep (2n=54)
and goats (2n=60), can produce
offspring in backcrosses. Likewise,
female zeedonks (Burchell's Zebra,
2n=44 x Ass, 2n=62) have also been
fertile in backcrosses. There are many
other examples of this sort among
mammalian hybrids. Therefore, such differences between the parents in a cross do
not in any way guarantee an absolute sterility in the hybrid offspring. (For those
readers who do not know, backcross hybrids are produced when hybrids from a first
cross mate with either of the two types of parents that produced them. When the
resulting progeny mate again with the same parental type, the result is the second
backcross generation, and so forth.)
A second so-called fact, which might make it seem impossible for humans to have
had a hybrid origin, is the equally erroneous notion that hybrids, especially
successful hybrids, do not occur in a state of nature. A third is the mistaken idea
that only plants hybridize, and never animals. In fact, however, natural, viable,
fertile animal hybrids are abundant. A wide variety of such hybrids occur on an
ongoing basis (read a detailed discussion documenting these facts). For example, of
the 5,000 different types of hybrid crosses listed in my book on hybridization in
birds, approximately half are known to occur in a natural setting (download a
PowerPoint presentation summarizing data on hybridization in birds). My current
research indicates a comparable rate for mammals.

Sequence data. And I must now emphasize a fact that I, as a geneticist, find
somewhat disappointing: With nucleotide sequence data, it can be very difficult to
identify later-generation backcross hybrids derived from several repeated
generations of backcrossing (for a full explanation of this fact, see the green
sidebar at far right). Instead, as is the case with other later-generation backcross
hybrids, the most revealing data is of an anatomical and/or physiological nature.
And this is exactly the kind of hybrid that it looks like we are -- that is, it appears
that humans are the result of multiple generations of backcrossing to the
chimpanzee.
Human infertility. Another observation that appears significant in connection with
the hypothesis under consideration is that it has been well known for decades that
human sperm is abnormal in comparison with that of the typical mammal. Human
spermatozoa are not of one uniform type as in the vast majority of all other types
of animals. Moreover, human sperm is not merely abnormal in appearance a high
percentage of human spermatozoa are actually dysfunctional. These and other facts
demonstrate that human fertility is low in comparison with that of other mammals
(for detailed documentation of this fact see the article Evidence of Human
Infertility). Infertility and sperm abnormalities are characteristic of hybrids. So this
finding suggests that it's reasonable to suppose, at least for the sake of argument,
that humans might be of hybrid origin. It is also consistent with the idea that the
hybridization in question was between two rather distinct and genetically
incompatible types of animals, that is, it
A personal endorsement:
was a distant cross.
"As a clinician and scientist with medical

Methodology. The chimpanzee is

training it is a joy to find a theory so
carefully and elegantly presented. My
plausible in the role of one of the parents
interest in the hybrid nature of modern
that crossed to produce the human race
man led me to Eugene McCarthy's website
because they are generally recognized as
and lifework. What a revelation! Surprising
being closest to humans in terms of their
and shocking. Such is the nature of truth
sometimes. Life will never be seen in the
genetics (here, I use the term
same way after reading this work."
chimpanzee loosely to refer to either the
common chimpanzee or to the bonobo,
Dr Chris Millar
also known as the pygmy chimpanzee;
Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
the specific roles of these two rather
similar apes within the context of the present hypothesis will be explained in a
subsequent section). But then the question arises: If an ancient cross between the
chimpanzee and some parental form "X" produced the first humans, then what was
that parent? Does it still exist? What was it like?
As the reader might imagine, if the assumption is correct that one of our parents is
the chimpanzee, then it should be possible actually to identify the other parent as
well. A hybrid combines traits otherwise seen only separately in the two parental
forms from which it is derived, and it is typically intermediate to those parents with
respect to a wide range of characters. Naturalists routinely use these facts to
identify the parents of hybrids of unknown origin, even backcross hybrids.

First they posit a particular type of organism as similar to the putative hybrid (in
the present case, this organism is the chimpanzee). They then list traits
distinguishing the hybrid from the
A reader's comment:
hypothesized parent, and this list of
distinguishing traits will describe the
"Hi, I'm stunned, amazed, and converted."
second parent. A detailed analysis of
such a triad will often establish the parentage of the hybrid. The traits in question in
such studies are generally anatomical, not genetic. DNA evidence is used in only a
very small percentage of such identifications (and even then, rarely in efforts to
identify backcross hybrids), and yet firm conclusions can generally be reached.
So in the specific case of humans, if the two assumptions made thus far are correct
(i.e., (1) that humans actually are hybrids, and (2) that the chimpanzee actually is
one of our two parents), then a list of traits distinguishing human beings from
chimpanzees should describe the other parent involved in the cross. And by
applying this sort of methodology, I have in fact succeeded in narrowing things
down to a particular candidate. That is, I looked up every human distinction that I
could find and, so long as it was cited by an expert (physical anthropologist,
anatomist, etc), I put it on a list. And that list, which includes many, many traits
(see the lengthy table on the right-hand side of the next page), consistently
describes a particular animal. Keep reading and I'll explain.
And why might one suppose that humans are backcross hybrids of the sort just
described? Well, the most obvious reason is that humans are highly similar to
chimpanzees at the genetic level, closer than they are to any other animal. If we
were descended from F hybrids without any backcrossing we would be about
halfway, genetically speaking, between chimpanzees and whatever organism was
the other parent. But we're not. Genetically, we're close to chimpanzees, and yet
we have many physical traits that distinguish us from chimpanzees. This exactly fits
the backcross hypothesis.
Moreover, in mammalian hybrid crosses, the male hybrids are usually more sterile
than are the females. In a commercial context, this fact means that livestock
breeders typically backcross F hybrids of the fertile sex back to one parent or the
other. They do not, as a rule, produce new breeds by breeding the first cross
hybrids among themselves. Often, even after a backcross, only the females are
fertile among the resulting hybrids. So repeated backcrossing is typical. Commonly
there are two or more generations of backcrossing before fertile hybrids of both
sexes are obtained and the new breed can be maintained via matings among the
hybrids themselves. More backcrossing tends to be necessary in cases where the
parents participating in the original cross are more distantly related.
Traits distinguishing humans from other primates

A reader's comment: "Your

conjecture is not unlike trying to
reverse engineer a human being.
Logically it all makes a good argument,
down to the detailed level you've taken
it to. I imagine that working with
hybrids you HAVE to do that - even in
cases where you may not think so.
Logically your arguments make a lot of
sense. And the corollaries and
ramifications all seem to come true. I
am impressed, frankly."

Many characteristics that clearly distinguish

humans from chimps have been noted by
various authorities over the years. The task
of preliminarily identifying a likely pair of
parents, then, is straightforward: Make a list
of all such characteristics and then see if it
describes a particular animal. One fact,
however, suggests the need for an open
mind: as it turns out, many features that
Stephen Garcia
distinguish humans from chimpanzees also
Mechanical Design Engineer
distinguish them from all other primates.
Guanajuato, Mexico
Features found in human beings, but not in
other primates, cannot be accounted for by hybridization of a primate with some
other primate. If hybridization is to explain such features, the cross will have to be
between a chimpanzee and a nonprimate an unusual, distant cross to create an
unusual creature.
The fact that even modern-day humans are relatively infertile may be significant in
this connection. If a hybrid population does not die out altogether, it will tend to
improve in fertility with each passing generation under the pressure of natural
selection. Fossils indicate that we have had at least 200,000 years to recover our
fertility since the time that the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) appeared. The
earliest creatures generally recognized as human ancestors (Ardipithecus, Orrorin)
date to about six million years ago. So our fertility has had a very long time to
improve. If we have been recovering for thousands of generations and still show
obvious symptoms of sterility (see previous section), then our earliest human
ancestors, if they were hybrids, must have suffered from an infertility that was
quite severe. This line of reasoning, too, suggests that the chimpanzee might have
produced Homo sapiens by crossing with a genetically incompatible mate, possibly
even one outside the primate order.
For the present, I ask the reader to reserve judgment concerning the plausibility of
such a cross. I'm an expert on hybrids and I can assure you that our understanding
of hybridization at the molecular level is still far too vague to rule out the idea of a
chimpanzee crossing with a nonprimate. Anyone who speaks with certainty on this
point speaks from prejudice, not knowledge. No systematic attempts to cross
distantly related mammals have been reported. However, in the only animal class
(Pisces) where distant crosses have been investigated scientifically, the results have
been surprisingly successful (399.6, 399.7, 399.8). In fact, there seems to be
absolutely nothing to support the idea that interordinal crosses (such as a cross
between a primate and a nonprimate) are impossible, except what Thomas Huxley
termed "the general and natural belief that deliberate and reiterated assertions
must have some foundation." Besides, to deny that interordinal mammalian crosses
are possible would be to draw, at the outset of our investigation, a definite
conclusion concerning the very hypothesis that we have chosen to investigate.
Obviously, if humans were the product of such a cross, then such crosses would, in

fact, be possible. We cannot tell, simply by supposing, whether such a thing is

possible we have to look at data.
The Other Parent
Let's begin, then, by considering the list in the sidebar at right, which is a
condensed list of traits distinguishing humans from chimpanzees and all other
nonhuman primates. Take the time to read this list and to consider what creature
of any kind it might describe. Most of the items listed are of such an obscure
nature that the reader might be hard pressed to say what animal might have them
(only a specialist would be familiar with many of the terms listed, but all the
necessary jargon will be defined and explained). For example, consider
multipyramidal kidneys. It's a fact that humans have this trait, and that
chimpanzees and other primates do not, but the average person on the street
would probably have no idea what animals do have this feature.
Looking at a subset of the listed traits, however, it's clear that the other parent in
this hypothetical cross that produced the first human would be an intelligent animal
with a protrusive, cartilaginous nose, a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, short digits,
and a naked skin. It would be terrestrial, not arboreal, and adaptable to a wide
range of foods and environments. These traits may bring a particular creature to
mind. In fact, a particular nonprimate does have, not only each of the few traits
just mentioned, but every one of the many traits listed in th sidebar. Ask yourself:
Is it likely that an animal unrelated to humans would possess so many of the
"human" characteristics that distinguish us from primates? That is, could it be a
mere coincidence? It's only my opinion, but I don't think so.
Of course, it must be admitted that two human traits do, at first, seem to pose a
contradiction. The animal in question lacks a large brain and it is not bipedal. An
analysis of the relevant anatomy, however, reveals that these two human features
can be understood as synergistic (or heterotic) effects, resulting from the
combination (in humans) of certain traits previously found only separately, in the
two posited parent forms. (The origins of human bipedality is explained in terms of
the the hybrid hypothesis in a subsequent section. Another section offers an
explanation of the factors underlying human brain expansion and, therefore,
accounts not only for the large size of the human brain itself, but also for certain
distinctive features of the human skull that are, themselves, obvious consequences
of brain expansion).
Nevertheless, even initially, these two flies in the theoretical ointment fail to
obscure the remarkable fact that a single nonprimate has all of the simple, nonsynergistic traits distinguishing humans from their primate kin. Such a finding is
strongly consistent with the hypothesis that this particular animal once hybridized
with the chimpanzee to produce the first humans. In a very simple manner, this
assumption immediately accounts for a large number of facts that otherwise appear
to be entirely unrelated.

From a recent Twitter conversation with a

What is this other animal

biologist who says he's convinced by the
that has all these traits?
argument presented in the Hybrid
The answer is Sus scrofa,
Hypothesis:
the ordinary pig. What are
we to think of this fact? If
we conclude that pigs did in
fact cross with apes to
produce the human race,
then an avalanche of old
ideas must crash to the
earth. But, of course, the
usual response to any new
perspective is "That can't be
right, because I don't
already believe it." This is
the very response that
many people had when

Darwin first proposed that

humans might be
descended from apes, an
idea that was perceived as
ridiculous, or even as subversive and dangerous. And yet, today this exact
viewpoint is widely entertained. Its wide acceptance can be attributed primarily to
the established fact that humans hold many traits in common with primates. That's
what made it convincing. But perhaps Darwin told only half the story. We believe
that humans are related to chimpanzees because humans share so many traits with
chimpanzees. Is it not rational then also, if pigs have all the traits that distinguish
humans from other primates, to suppose that humans are also related to pigs? Let
us take it as our hypothesis, then, that humans are the product of ancient
hybridization between pig and chimpanzee. Given the facts presented in the
discussion of stabilization theory on this website, it seems highly likely that humans
are hybrids of some kind. This particular hypothesis concerning the nature of our
parentage is, as we shall see, a fruitful one. For the present there's no need to
make a definite decision on the matter, but certain lines of reasoning do suggest
the idea should be taken seriously:

First of all, the notion is set forward

strictly as a hypothesis. No claim whatever
is made that it is actually a fact that
humans somehow arose through
hybridization of pigs with chimpanzees. In
contrast, proponents of the idea that
humans are closely related to apes (and
not to pigs) often speak as if their case
has been proved beyond doubt. But, of
course, it has not. The wide acceptance of
this idea may actually be due to the lack
of any competitive theory. I merely
propose an evaluation of two distinct
hypotheses by the usual scientific
criterion: The hypothesis less consistent
with available data should be rejected.

Even if we could identify some

objective unit of measure for "distance" or
"similarity" (which is not at all a
straightforward problem), we would still
expect some crosses to be more distant
than others that is, the various types of
possible crosses would constitute a
continuum. Many would be "close" and
some would be "distant." But we would
expect at least a rare few to be very
distant. While these few might be rare,
they might be among the most
interesting, because they would offer an
opportunity to obtain something radically
different. Perhaps, it is only a subjective
bias, but I believe that a human being,
when taken as a whole, is radically
different from a chimpanzee.

On the other hand, if we first

compare humans with nonmammals or
invertebrates (e.g, crocodile, bullfrog,
octopus, dragonfly, starfish), then pigs
and chimpanzees suddenly seem quite
similar to humans. Relative impressions of
"close" and "far" are subjective and
depend on context.

Pigs and chimpanzees differ in

chromosome counts. The opinion is often
expressed that when two animals differ in

A reader's comment: "Wow! I

learned of this site and your pigchimpanzee-hybrid paper only a few
hours ago, and have been stuck here
ever since. Fantastic work...Anyway, I
look forward to reading more. I know
you call this only a hypothesis and not
yet a theory, but it sure calls for some
'splainin'. Thanks!"
Edward Falkowski
Boulder, Colorado, USA
My response to a reader who
recently wrote in to say that the
only convincing evidence for this
theory would be sequence data: I'm
not saying pig DNA in the human
genome "would not" be detectable.
That's putting words in my mouth. I'm
saying "might not." Or, better, "could
easily have been missed without this
guiding hypothesis." You seem to
somehow be assuming that it isn't
there. As far as I'm concerned, maybe
it is, maybe it isn't. But if it is,
obviously, it's not obvious. As to
sequence data, in my opinion, your
view of what constitutes evidence
needs to be widened. It seems a bit
much to insist that the only thing that
can convince anyone of anything is
sequence evidence. If that's true, then
law courts will have to throw out all the
murder weapons, eyewitness
testimony, alibis and everything else,
and focus instead on DNA evidence
alone, because DNA, if what you're
saying is true, is the only evidence that
has any meaning. But you know that's
not right. And I think you therefore
have to admit that you're showing a
certain bias here. Besides, I'm not
making a strong statement. I'm only
saying that, given the likely
circumstances (an initial cross between
chimpanzee and pig, followed by
several generations of backcrossing to
chimpanzee), analyzing the genetic
data and reaching any strong
conclusions is likely to be a pain.
Maybe there is something there that
can be found, but whatever it is, I
think it will require lots of money and a
team of well-equipped scientists to
locate. And think about this: if
sequence data is so great, what exactly
has it told us about the basis of the
many differences between a human
and a chimpanzee? I'll tell you: zero!
Nothing whatsoever. Whereas the
theory that I propose clearly explains
virtually every one of those differences.
So forgive me if I don't race to
embrace the sequence approach to
understanding the origin of the
distinctive features that make us
human. So far as I can tell, sequence
analysis has been absolutely

this way, they cannot produce fertile hybrids. This rule is, however, only a
generalization. While such differences do tend to have an adverse effect on the
fertility of hybrid offspring, it is also true that many different types of crosses in
which the parents differ in chromosome counts produce hybrids that capable
themselves of producing offspring.

There have been no systematic, scientific surveys of the crossability of

mammals belonging to different taxonomic orders (a cross between pig and
chimpanzee would be interordinal). Any firm opinion on such a point must
therefore, necessarily, be prejudiced. In fact, certain fishes belonging to different
orders have been successfully crossed, and available information on mammalian
hybrids indicates that very distant crosses among mammals, too, have occurred.
For example, evidence published in the journal Nature demonstrates that the
platypus genome contains both bird and mammal chromosomes (223.2). As
Franz Grtzner, the lead author of the study, stated in a related news story, "The
platypus actually links the bird sex chromosome system with the mammalian sex
chromosome systems." How could this be the case if a bird and a mammal did
not at some time in the past hybridize to produce a fertile hybrid? Such a cross
would, of course, be even more distant than one between a chimpanzee and a
pig. And seemingly, a cross between a primate and a pig did occur only a few
years ago, in 2008.

Ultimately, the interaction of gametes at the time of fertilization, and the

subsequent interplay of genes (derived from two different types of parents)
during the course of a hybrids development cannot be predicted by any known
laws because the interaction is between a multitude of extremely complex
chemical entities that each have an effect on others. It is for this reason that the
degree of similarity perceived between two organisms is no sure indicator of their
crossability.

Another suggestive fact, probably known to the reader, is the frequent use
of pigs in the surgical treatment of human beings. Pig heart valves are used to
replace those of human coronary patients. Pig skin is used in the treatment of
human burn victims. Serious efforts are now underway to transplant kidneys and
other organs from pigs into human beings. Why are pigs suited for such
purposes? Why not goats, dogs, or bears animals that, in terms of taxonomic
classification, are no more distantly related to human beings than pigs? (In
subsequent sections, these issues are considered in detail.)

God did not place pigs and humans in different taxonomic orders.
Taxonomists did. A great deal of evidence (read a discussion of this topic) exists
to suggest that taxonomists are, in no way, infallible. Our ideas concerning the
proper categorization of animals are shaped by bias and tradition to such an
extent that it would be rash to reject, solely on taxonomic grounds, the feasibility
of such a cross.

The general examination of the process of evolution as a whole (as

presented elsewhere on this site) strongly suggests that most forms of life are of
hybrid origin. Why should humans be any different?

It might seem unlikely that a pig and a chimpanzee would chose to mate,
but their behavior patterns and reproductive anatomy do, in fact, make them
compatible (this topic is considered in detail in a subsequent section). It is, of
course, a well-established fact that animals sometimes attempt to mate with
individuals that are unlike themselves, even in a natural setting, and that many
of these crosses successfully produce hybrid offspring.

Accepted theory, which assumes that humans have been gradually shaped
by natural selection for traits favorable to reproduction, does not begin to account
for the relative infertility of human beings in comparison with nonhuman primates
and other types of animals (see previous section). How would natural selection
ever produce abnormal, dysfunctional spermatozoa? On the other hand, the idea
that humans are descended from a hybrid cross especially a relatively distant
cross provides a clear explanation for Homo's puzzling and persistent fertility
problems.

If we supposed standard theory to be correct, it would seem most peculiar

that pigs and humans share features that distinguish human beings from
chimpanzees, but that pigs and chimpanzees should not. Conventional theory
(which assumes that pigs are equally as far removed from humans as from
chimpanzees) says that pigs and chimpanzees would share about as many such
traits as would pigs and humans. And yet, I have never been able to identify any
such traitdespite assiduous investigation. The actual finding is that traits
distinguishing chimpanzees from humans consistently link pigs with humans
alone. It will be difficult to account in terms of natural selection for this fact. For
each such feature, we will have to come up with a separate ad hoc argument,
explaining how the feature has helped both pigs and humans to survive and
reproduce. On the other hand, a single, simple assumption (that modern
humans, or earlier hominids that gave rise to modern humans, arose from a
cross between pig and chimpanzee) will account for all of these features at a
single stroke.
For my own part, curiosity has carried me away from my old idea of reality. I no
longer know what to believe. Is it possible
A reader's comment: "The theory
that so many biologists might be wrong
overcomes the creationist's objection
to gradualism and the evidence for pig
about the nature of human origins? Is it
ape hybridity has no stronger scientific
possible for a pig to hybridize with a
competition. Open your mind and look
chimpanzee? I have no way of knowing at
at the facts. Consider how it might be
present, but I have no logical or evidential
true. Let go of your prejudices and
misinformations. Not all hybrids are
basis for rejecting the idea. Before
sterile. Examples of hybrid crosses are
dismissing such a notion, I would want to be
common in nature, including fertile
sure on some logical, evidentiary basis that I
ones. Admittedly transordinal crosses
actually should dismiss it. The ramifications
are unusual, but then we are
extraordinary."
of any misconception on this point seem
immense. As Huxley put it long ago, "The
question of questions for mankind the problem which underlies all others, and is
more deeply interesting than any other is the ascertainment of the place which

Man occupies in nature."

Are we simply another type of primate, like the chimpanzee or the baboon? Or are
we a complex melange, an alloy of two very distinct forms of life? These are
questions that can only be resolved by examining the evidence. I invite the reader
to consider these two possibilities as simple hypotheses, to consider the data coldly,
and then to determine which of the two is more consistent with available evidence.
Some of the most easily accessible evidence that can be used to evaluate the
hybrid hypothesis is visible in the mirror. In this section, we will consider certain
external features that link humans with pigs. Much of my research on pigs has
centered on the ordinary pig (Sus scrofa). Of course, ordinary pig is really a catchall
term for a variety of breeds. "There are currently some 87 breeds of domestic pigs
in the world, most of them in Europe and North America," according to Pond and
Houpt, and "another 225 or more groups of pigs not recognized as breeds but each
having unique characteristics, appearance, or geographical location."1 However, the
focus here will be on traits that are generally characteristic of Sus scrofa.
And now, let's look a little more closely at some human distinctions that, as it turns
out, are characteristics of pigs as well. Traits that distinguish us from chimpanzees
and other primates are the only ones that will be discussed, because traits that
humans share with primates have no bearing on the question of whether humans
are of hybrid origin. Under the hypothesis being considered, it would make no
difference if humans are more similar to chimpanzees in most respects than to pigs.
The interesting finding is that those features that do distinguish humans from
chimpanzees and other primates can be consistently accounted for by reference to
the pig.
This physical affinity of humans and pigs is easily observable in certain external
features. This fact did not escape Thomas Mann, who once wrote "The pig with its
little blue eyes, its eyelashes and its skin has more human qualities than any
chimpanzee think how often naked human beings remind us of swine." Although
I do not concur in Mann's assertion that pigs share more traits with humans than do
chimpanzees, I do think pigs and humans share more than enough traits to suggest
a relationship. For example, lightly pigmented eyes, in shades of blue, green, and
tan, are never found in chimpanzees or orangutans.3 There is, apparently, only one
known case of a gorilla with blue eyes.4 Light-colored eyes are also rare in other
primates.5 Why, then, are they common in certain human populations? Where did
this trait come from? One conceivable explanation is that it was inherited from blueeyed pigs. Blue is a common eye coloration in swine (as are green, yellow, and
tan). The dark pigment (melanin), found so consistently in the irises of nonhuman
primates, is beneficial. It absorbs ultraviolet light. To protect their eyes from these
damaging rays, pigs depend on their narrowly slit, heavily lashed eyelids. Humans
shield their eyes in a similar way, unlike the typical wide-eyed, sparsely lashed ape.
[A reader, by the name of Chase Dumont, wrote in with the following comment,
which is of interest in the present context: "The outer appearance of the eye itself

looks quite different from a chimpanzee's

and more like a pig's the pupil/iris in a
chimpanzee eye covers the entire eye, while
the pupil/iris in a pig eye occupy a much
smaller footprint, displaying much of the
'white' of the eye as in humans)."]
Neither is it clear how a protrusive
cartilaginous nose might have aided early
humans in their "savannah hunter lifestyle."
As Morris remarks, "It is interesting to note
that the protuberant, fleshy nose of our
species is another unique feature that the
anatomists cannot explain."6 This feature is
neither characteristic of apes, nor even of
other catarrhines.7 Obviously, pigs have a
nose even more protuberant than our own.

In the gorilla, Schultz remarks that he

"found a roof cartilage of less than 1
cm and paper-thin alar cartilages,
limited to the nasal center and not
extending into the huge wings, which
were mere pads of fat. In contrast to
this, the prominent nose of man is far
more extensively supported by
cartilage, which closely determines its
shape. While the nearly immobile nasal
wings of apes consist of little more
than skin and fat, the thin and mobile
wings of human noses are extensively
stiffened by cartilage to keep them
from being sucked shut with every
inhalation (495.9,52).

While Schwartz's statement concerning

the uniqueness of the human nose is
generally correct, it must be said that
certain Asian monkeys (Nasalis,
Rhinopithecus) do have protrusive
noses (235.4,29).

In a pig's snout, the nasal wings and septum

are cartilaginous as ours are.8 In contrast, a
Walker (588.4,1175) states that "this
chimpanzee's nose "is small, flat, and has no
cartilaginous snout [of pigs], used for
lateral cartilages" (Sonntag9). A cartilaginous
turning up surface soil, is strengthened
by an unusual bone, the prenasal,
nose is apparently a rare trait in mammals.
situated below the tip of the nasal
Primatologist Jeffrey Schwartz goes so far as
bones of the skull." Composed
to say that "it is the enlarged nasal wing
primarily of cartilage, this flexible
cartilage that makes the human nose what it
prenasal "bone" finds its equivalent in
the cartilaginous tip of the human
is, and which distinguishes humans from all
septum.
10
other animals." The cartilaginous structure
of the pig's snout is generally considered to be an "adaptation" for digging with the
nose (rooting). Rooting is, apparently, a behavior pattern peculiar to pigs. Other
animals dig with their feet.
A protruding nose is perhaps the most prominent difference between a human face
and that of a chimpanzee, but discussions of human evolution rarely mention the
nose, perhaps because its lack of utility precludes explanation in terms of
adaptation. Instead, most analyses deal with the fleshless skull, where the
protrusiveness of the human nose is a bit less obvious (but visible nonetheless). It
is a peculiar omission, because useless (nonadaptive) traits are widely considered
to be the best indicators of relationship.
What is the evolutionary utility of our unique Specifically, Sonntag notes the lack of a
philtrum in chimpanzees (533.6,371).
nasal structure? Is it functional? Or is it the
genetic residue of an ancient hybrid cross?
Another feature to consider is the philtrum,
the dent seen on the center of the human
upper lip. Apes lack this typical human
feature.11 It seems a useless structure from

a survival standpoint. Why is it seen, then, the world over in Homo? In both human
beings and pigs, during the early stages of development, the upper lip is cleft,
though I have not been able to find any evidence of such a cleft in the embryos of
any nonhuman primate. As development continues, this cleft usually closes in
humans, but persists in pigs.12 The human philtrum is a visible residue of this
primordial split lip. In those human beings where this split never closes, the
condition is known as cleft lip, a common birth defect. The frequent occurrence of
cleft lip in humans is hard to explain if it is assumed that we are closely related only
to primates. If the assumption, however, is that human beings are derived from a
pig-chimpanzee cross, this finding becomes far more understandable.
Similar thinking explains the shortness of the human upper lip (distance between
mouth opening and nostrils). Why has our upper lip become shorter and thicker in
the course of evolution? All apes have upper lips much longer than those of
humans,13but a pig's upper lip is so short that it is scarcely more than an
appendage of the snout.14 Morris15 makes much of the fact that human lips are
covered on their exterior surface by glabrous (i.e., absolutely hairless) mucous
membrane:
Like the earlobes and the protruding nose, the lips of our species are a unique feature, not found
elsewhere in the primates. Of course, all primates have lips, but not turned inside-out like ours. A
chimpanzee can protrude and turn back its lips in an exaggerated pout, exposing as it does so the
mucous membrane that normally lies concealed inside the mouth. But the lips are only briefly held
in this posture before the animal reverts to its normal 'thin-lipped' face. We on the other hand, have
permanently everted, rolled-back lips.

He goes on to suggest that our peculiar lips are the product of "sexual selection."
But other explanations are conceivable: In describing the skin of pigs, Getty16 states
that "there are no true glabrous surfaces other than the labial borders," which are
composed of red mucous membrane.
In reference to human earlobes, Morris
Some disagreement exists in the
observes that "anatomists have often
literature over the question whether
referred to them as meaningless
earlobes are present in apes. Sonntag
appendages, or `useless fatty excrescences.'
says they are not seen in the
chimpanzee (533.8,86), but Schultz
By some they are explained away as
(495.65,146) claims they are
`remnants' of the time when we had big
sometimes found in the African apes
ears. But if we look to other primate species
and even in certain monkeys.
we find that they do not possess fleshy
earlobes. It seems that, far from being a remnant, they are something new." 17
Perhaps, however, they are really something old on a new face. Sisson describes
the lower portion of a pig's ear as "strongly convex below, forming a prominence
somewhat analogous to the lobule of the human ear."18

A reader's comment: "My soon-to-

An additional feature of the human ear

be-eight year old is in fact telling
everyone he meets now, matter of
should be mentioned here, the Darwinian
factly as if it was today's weather,
tubercle (see Darwin's illustration below). In
'People are chimp pigs!' Doesn't phase
his Descent of Man, Darwin comments on
him in the least. He's quite proud of it."
this feature sometimes found on the rim of
human ears which he describes as "a little
Gary Lawrence Murphy
blunt point, projecting from the inwardlyOwen Sound, Ontario, Canada
folded margin, or helix These points not
only project inward, but often a little outward, so that they are visible when the
head is viewed from directly in front or behind. They are variable in size and
somewhat in position,
standing either a little higher or lower; and they sometimes occur in one ear and not on the other.
Now the meaning of these projections is not, I think, doubtful, but it may be thought that they offer
too trifling a character to be worth notice. This thought, however, is as false as it is natural. Every
character, however slight, must be the result of some definite cause; and if it occurs in many
individuals deserves consideration. The helix obviously consists of the extreme margin of the ear
folded inward; and this folding appears to be in some manner connected with the whole external
ear, being permanently pressed backward. In many monkeys, which do not stand high in the order,
as baboons and some species of macacus, the upper portion of the ear is slightly pointed, and the
margin is not at all folded inward, a slight point would necessarily project inward and probably a
little outward. This could actually be observed in a specimen of the Ateles beelzebuth in the
Zoological Gardens; and we may safely conclude that it is a similar structure a vestige of
formerly-pointed ears which occasionally reappears in man. 19

Darwinian tubercle
(Darwin, 1871)

Primatologist Adolph Schultz (1973), however, flatly contradicts Darwin, saying that
"clearly pointed ears, commonly called `satyr ears,' are among monkeys typical for
only macaques and baboons and do not occur in any hominoids [great apes], not
even in the early stages of development. There is no justification, therefore, to
interpret the occasional `Darwinian tubercles' on human ears as an atavistic

manifestation of ancestral pointed ears."20 But Schultz has not, perhaps, taken into
consideration the pointed ears of swine.
Swine have prominent eyebrow hair. On the brows of the chimpanzee fetus it is
possible to discern a region of light-colored bumps following a pattern similar to
that of the human eyebrow. Adult apes,
According to Schummer et al.
however, have no eyebrow hair.21 On their
(503.3,497), "The eyebrows [of the
eyelids, pigs have luxuriant eyelashes,
domestic pig] are formed by 2 to 3
thicker even than those of human beings. In
rows of prominent tactile hairs formed
at the base of the upper eyelid; there
many pigs these cilia, as anatomists term
are more than 40 in all and they are up
them, are so thick that the animal seems to
to 8 cm long. They form into bundles,
be wearing false eyelashes. But apes
especially at the medial angle of the
scarcely have eyelashes at all, despite the
eye."
apparent survival value of this feature. Also,
pongids have prominent brow ridges while pigs and most humans do not. If we
choose to explain the development of human eyelashes and eyebrows in terms of
natural selection, we must wonder why apes, which have existed at least as long as
any hominid, have failed to acquire them. Perhaps their heavy brow ridges
sufficiently protected their eyes, but if such is the case, why did not brow ridges
also suffice for Homo? What was the pressing need that caused Homo to substitute
tufts of hair for ridges of bone?
Dermal Characteristics
That humans lack the hair cover of nonhuman primates is an accepted fact. "It is
this single factor that constitutes the chief difference between human skin and the
skin of other mammals" (Montagna22). Some writers say that the hair coat of a
chimpanzee is "sparse." But if "sparse" describes chimpanzee pelage, then "naked"
accurately describes the skin of human beings. Any human who even approached
the hairiness of other primates would be considered abnormal. Pigs, however, are a
different case. Many domestic pig breeds have skin just as naked as human skin. As
Cena et al. (101.9,521) observe, "Hair densities [of animal coats] range from the
sparse residual covering on man and the pig with 10-100 hairs per cm, to [the]
dense coats of species such as the fox and rabbit with about 4,000 per cm." In
wild Sus scrofa, according to Haltenorth, the density of hair coverage varies from
"sparse to thick," depending on the specimen or variety in question.23 For example,
the hair of the modern day wild variety of Sus scrofa present in Sudan (S. s.
senaarensis) is quite sparse.24
Other primates do not have the long mane
of hair that tops the head of an unshorn
human, nor do they have beards. Haltenorth
notes that in some varieties of Sus scrofa,
manes are found on the neck and back
("Ncken-/Rckenmhne"), beards on the
cheeks ("Wangenbart"), and shocks of hair

Schultz (495.07,Plate 1) pictures a

185-day-old chimpanzee fetus that is
virtually hairless except for a thick
patch atop its head (in the same region
it is seen in human beings). It also has
eyebrow hair arranged in the same
pattern as do humans.

on the forehead and atop the head ("Stirn-/scheitelschopf"). He also says that the
last of these three traits is found, among pigs, in Sus alone.25 A prehistoric painting
of a pig found in Altamira Cave in northern Spain depicts an animal with a beard
and thick hair atop its head (pictures). Sus barbatus, an extant pig native to
southeast Asia (which forms fertile hybrids of both sexes in crosses with S. scrofa)
has little hair on its body, but does have a very thick and bushy beard.26
Panniculus adiposus. In an article on the evolution of human skin, renowned
cutaneous comparative anatomist William Montagna notes that, "Together with the
loss of a furry cover, human skin acquired a hypodermal fatty layer (panniculus
adiposus) which is considerably thicker than that found in other primates, or
mammals for that matter. This is not to say that only man has a fat skin, but a thick
fatty layer is as characteristic an attribute of human skin as it is of pig skin."27
Similarly, Dyce et al. (160.1,742) note that there is a "well developed fat deposit
present almost everywhere in the subcutis." Primatologist F. W. Jones also noted
this fat layer:
"The peculiar relation of the skin to the underlying superficial fascia is a very real distinction [of
human beings], familiar to everyone who has repeatedly skinned both human subjects and any
other members of the primates. The bed of subcutaneous fat adherent to the skin, so conspicuous in
man, is possibly related to his apparent hair reduction; though it is difficult to see why, if no other
factor is invoked, there should be such a basal difference between man and the chimpanzee." 28

Panniculus carnosus. "Another particularity of human skin is its general lack, or

loss, of the cutaneous skeletal muscle layer (panniculus carnosus) found throughout
the skin of most other mammals. Remnants of a panniculus carnosus in human skin
are found at the front of the neck in the apron-like, thin platysma muscle All
other primates, even the great apes, have a panniculus carnosus over much of the
body" (Montagna29). As in humans, the cutaneous musculature of pigs is well
developed in the neck (platysma muscle) and face, but sparse or nonexistent
elsewhere.30
In animals having a panniculus carnosus, the skin receives its blood supply from
direct cutaneous arteries (large superficial vessels running parallel to the skin
surface in the cutaneous muscle sheath). But when no panniculus carnosus is
present, arteries feeding the skin rise up like little trees from deep within the body.
Arteries of this latter type are called musculocutaneous. These two forms of dermal
circulation are depicted in the illustration below. Both pig skin and human skin are
supplied by musculocutaneous arteries.31 As Daniels and Williams observed in a
1973 article on skin flap transfer, "Most experimental animals do not have a
vascular supply to the skin similar to that of man. The pig's cutaneous vascular
supply has been demonstrated anatomically and surgically to be more comparable
than most to that of man As in man, the pig's skin is supplied by ubiquitous
musculocutaneous arteries and by a few direct cutaneous arteries." 32 This
observation has been confirmed by other authors: "Except for pigs, whose
cutaneous vasculature resembles that of man, loose-skinned mammals are
vascularized by direct cutaneous arteries" (Montagna and Parakkal33). Therefore, in

this respect, human skin is more similar to pig skin than to that of nonhuman
primates: "Actually, the vascularity of the skin of most nonhuman primates is
essentially similar to that of other furred animals" (Montagna 34). In particular,
Baccaredda-Boy,35as well as Moretti and Farris,36 found that the skin of chimpanzees
differs from that of human beings in having numerous large, superficial vessels
(i.e., direct cutaneous arteries).

Human skin also stands apart from that of

In the paragraph at left, the
other primates and from that of most
calculations for the pig capillary
other mammals for that matter with
separation interval were based on
Young and Hopewell's data (605.4, Fig.
respect to the quantity of blood that can be
1 and Table 2). In the chimpanzee, the
37
circulated through it. A certain amount of
epidermis is richly vascularized only
blood is needed just to feed the skin. This is
beneath the friction surfaces (palms
the amount it receives in most animals. In
and soles), not beneath the hairy-skin
regions. Thus, regarding the
humans, however, the maximum blood flow
chimpanzee, Montagna (365.5,191)
can be more than a hundred times greater
states: "Where the epidermis is flat
than this minimum.38 Fed by temperature[i.e., hairy-skin regions], capillary loops
sensitive musculocutaneous arteries, the
are ill-defined Capillary loops are
deepest and most complicated
densely spaced cutaneous capillaries of
underneath the epidermis of the
human beings play an essential
friction surfaces.
thermoregulatory role.39 When the body
begins to overheat, large quantities of warm blood can be rapidly cooled in these
capillaries via sweat evaporation. One measure of cutaneous vascular density is the
capillary loop separation interval. In human beings, the typical distance between
capillaries ranges from 50 to 100 microns.40 In porcine flank skin, this figure is
reduced to only about 20 microns, a separation interval so small as to be almost

incredible. When white pigs are exposed to high temperatures, the skin flushes pink
with blood (even in the absence of sunlight) as it does in light-skinned human
beings under similar conditions.41
Fleas. Perhaps this difference between our
cutaneous vasculature and that of our primate
kin accounts for another human distinction:
"Ironically," writes Nicole Duplaix, "man is
unique among the primates in having fleas."42
More than 2,400 distinct types of fleas have
been treated as species or subspecies.43
Parasites are usually rather specific in their
Human flea, Pulex irritans
choice of host. Fewer than twenty of these
2,400 types will readily bite human beings.44 Foremost among those that feed on
Homo sapiens is the human flea, Pulex irritans, but we are not the only suitable
hosts for this species. According to Bennett,
Newton's law of cooling states that the
"Pulex irritans, the human flea, breeds freely
in hog-house litter and may become a
serious pest of swine."45
The panniculus adiposus replaces hair as an
insulating layer in human beings and pigs.
According to Beckett (63.8,2),

rate at which heat flows out of a warm

body into a cooler surrounding medium
is proportional to the difference
between the temperature at the body's
surface and the temperature of the
surrounding medium.

The pig increases or decreases the amount of heat lost by varying the blood flow in the [skin's]
capillary bed If all blood flow to the outer body parts were stopped, the thermal resistance
between the body cavity or muscle tissue and skin surface would approximately equal the
resistance of the fat layer plus the resistance of the hair and skin. To the extent that a pig is able to
direct a sizable flow of blood through the skin and region just below the skin, the fat layer is bypassed and thermal resistance is at a minimum.

In the figure above, notice that the musculocutaneous arteries pass through the
cutaneous fat. This perforated fat layer constitutes an insulating mechanism that
can respond quickly to ambient temperature, a characteristic that hair lacks.
Dilation of the musculocutaneous arteries in response to heat increases blood flow
to the skin. This increase in circulation can raise skin surface temperature to a level
almost as high as that within the body, thus increasing the rate at which heat is lost
to the environment.b In cool environments, constriction of these arteries reduces
skin temperature and, consequently, the rate at which body heat is lost to the
atmosphere because the fat layer can then serve as an insulating blanket.
Possession of a panniculus adiposus allows
adjustment to changes in ambient
temperature on a moment-to-moment basis
a clear advantage in the temperate zones
where much of the human race has made its
home, because these regions are much more

Obviously, furred animals cannot

remove their coats when it's hot
they shed. But shedding is a process
that takes weeks, not minutes. It is a
seasonal adjustment, not the momentto-moment adjustment seen in human
beings and pigs.

subject to sudden, extreme shifts in temperature than those close to the equator.
Nonhuman primates and other furred animals do not have the option of adjusting
their skin temperature. Because their skin is not insulated from the rest of the body
by a layer of fat, its temperature must remain near that of the flesh beneath it.
Pig skin is separated from the inner body by a thick fat layer, and it can cool to an
extreme degree. Fat, not hair, is the primary insulating barrier.47 Alaskan swine can
withstand sub-zero temperatures by cooling their skin to as little as 9 C (at an
ambient temperature of -10 C) without suffering tissue damage.48 Acclimatized
human beings, too, can reduce skin temperature to about 10 C without injury.49
This mode of insulation is completely different from that of nonhuman primates,
more like that seen in certain aquatic mammals (e.g., seal, walrus). With the
exception of the pig, it seems that no other land animal has this form of insulation.
More than a naked ape, Homo is a variably insulated naked ape. In hot
environments human beings (and pigs) can the increase circulation of warm blood
to the skin and raise temperatures almost to the level of body core temperature,
thus maximizing heat loss to the surrounding air. If weather turns cold, they can
restrict cutaneous circulation, cooling the skin to such a degree that heat loss is
significantly reduced. This ability is especially apparent in fat50or acclimatized
individuals.51 Although a cultural advance, the invention of clothing, made it
possible for Homo to inhabit cool regions formerly off-limits to primates, a biological
advance, in the form of a new insulation system, has increased the human ability to
withstand the sudden temperature variations found in those regions.
Besides being a good insulator, human skin
If skin has any hair whatsoever (scalp,
is surprisingly thick. "The epidermis over our
forearm, belly) dermatologists refer to
general body surface ["hairy skin" see note
it as "hairy skin." Hairy skin in humans,
at right] is substantially thicker than that of
then, is the skin covering most of the
body, the general body surface. Other
other primates: the horny layer [stratum
regions, that are absolutely hairless
corneum] can be peeled off intact as a
(lips, palms, soles) are called
diaphanous but tough membrane that can be
"glabrous."
used for experimental purposes The
epidermis in the hairy skin on nonhuman primates, mostly like that of any other
furred mammal, is relatively thin, with a relatively thin horny layer" (Montagna 52).
Pigs, though, have a thick epidermis and
Another quotation from Montagna
stratum corneum, thicker even than that of
(360.3,13): "Elastic fibers are
human beings.53
numerous everywhere [in pig skin]. In
The elasticity of our skin is also unusual.
"Whereas the skin of the great apes and that
of some of the simian primates have variable
amounts of elastic fibers, in no animals,
regardless of sex, age, or locality have we
found the abundance of elastic tissue
characteristic of human skin" (Montagna54).

the papillary layer delicate fibers

branch toward the epidermis as they
do in the skin of man."

In the case of the chimpanzee's

dermis, Montagna and Yun state that,
"Elastic fibers, nowhere numerous, are
concentrated in the papillary body and
in the deep portion of the reticularis
dermis" (365.5,191).

This finding comes from the same author who, in an earlier article comparing
human skin with that of pigs, observed that "one of the most striking resemblances
between these two skins [pig and human] is the large content of elastic tissue in
the dermis."55
He also remarks that "the surface of both skins [human and porcine] is grooved by
intersecting lines which form characteristic geometric patterns." 56 In a separate
paper on the evolution of human skin he provides a little more detail:
The outer surface of human skin is crisscrossed, almost everywhere, by fine intersecting congenital
lines (You can confirm the presence of these lines by looking at the back of your hands). This
characteristic is not limited to human skin; creases are also found on the skin of pachyderms,
walruses, and, to a lesser extent, pigs. With the exception of occasional, shallow creases, the surface
of the hairy skin of nonhuman primates is smooth.57

The presence of these lines in both pigs and humans is not easily explained in
terms of natural selection since they have no known function. 58
On the underside of our "hairy skin" (general body surface), where the epidermis
meets the dermis, is a different patterning not corresponding in its configuration to
the outside patterning described in the preceding paragraph. A similar, though
coarser, pattern is also characteristic of the epidermal-dermal junction in pigs.
Montagna, however, notes that "in split-skin preparations where the epidermis is
neatly removed from the dermis, the epidermis of heavily haired animals is flat.59
Even in monkeys and apes, epidermal grooves are found only around the
attachment of the ducts of glands and pilary canals." We can account for a finer
patterning in humans than in pigs by the fact that a fine mesh is intermediate
between the coarse patterning of pig skin and the smooth undersurface of
nonhuman primate skin.
So, in the pig, we have a sparsely haired animal
Note: A section discussing
with a fatty, stretchy skin supplied by
sweating in humans, pigs, and
musculocutaneous arteries. The surface of the hairy
chimpanzees, which formerly
appeared here, has been
skin is marked by congenital lines similar to those
moved. Sorry for any
seen in human beings, and the patterning of the
confusion or inconvenience
epidermal-dermal junction is also quite similar in
this may have caused!
the hairy skin regions. Under the hypothesis that we
Jump to the new location >>
are considering, it makes little difference that pig
skin differs from human skin in other ways. The essential point is that, in those
cases in which our skin is peculiar for a primate, an explanation for each such
anomaly can be found in the skin of pigs.
The Savanna Hunter

Pigs sweat when they are hot. "The apocrine

[i.e., sweat] glands of the horse and pig
secrete profusely during violent exercise and
stress" (Montagna160). This sweating serves
a thermoregulatory function in pigs just as it
does in human beings.161 The hairy skin
sweat glands of nonhuman primates,
however, do not respond to thermal
stimulation. The failure of nonhuman
primates to sweat puzzled Montagna: "One
might surmise," he writes,
that, like man, these animals sweat in response to
heat stimulation. However, with singular exceptions,
if the glands secrete at all, the amount is so small
that it cannot be recorded. Sometimes animals show
beads of sweat on the facial disc when under deep
anesthesia, but our efforts to induce thermal
sweating have failed. We have also largely failed to
induce sweating with sudorific drugs, either
cholinomimetic or adrenomimetic. In the
chimpanzee, very few, small sweat drops were
recorded even after the administration of shockingly
large doses of these drugs.162

In contrast, even a small dose of

acetylcholine or adrenaline elicits sweating in
pigs. Even the immature pigs studied by
Ingram (247.1,95) responded to adrenalin.
The notion that nakedness has somehow
enhanced sweat evaporation in humans is
widely received. Supposedly, our sparse
pelage allowed our ancestors to cool their
skin more rapidly than hairy animals in hot,
dry environments, or somehow improved
their ability to dissipate metabolic heat while
rushing about the savannah in pursuit of
prey. Russell Newman, however, points out
that our lack of reflective hair actually
increases solar heat load and the need to
sweat.164 To substantiate this claim, he cites
a study by Berman showing that cattle
exposed to the sun sweat more after their
hair is removed.165 Similarly, panting
increases in shorn sheep.166

A mature pig has about 500,000 large

sweat glands distributed over its entire
body (503.3,497; 506.5,316).
Nevertheless, it is often asserted in the
literature that pigs do not sweat. This
assumption can be traced to studies by
Ingram and by Mount, who studied
perspiration rates in immature animals,
usually sedentary piglets (247.03;
247.1; 389.7; 390.1; 390.2; 390.3;
390.5). Studies evaluating pig sweating
have concentrated on young pigs
because they are of greater
commercial interest. Immature animals
are no more appropriate for
determining the evaporative qualities
of a boar or a sow than a toddler would
be for revealing traits of an adult
humanChildren sweat much less than
do adults (584.4,577). Small animals
have a tendency to hypothermia
(because their surface area is large in
proportion to their size), not
hyperthermia, and have little tendency
to sweat (390.8,182). Perspiration in
pigs is often overlooked because these
animals are, apparently, more efficient
sweaters than are humans. Their sweat
glands seem to be better attuned to
thermoregulatory needs (they produce
no more sweat than what is necessary
to cool cutaneous blood by
evaporation). Very little sweat is lost to
runoff because sweat rarely builds up
on the skin. But observed rates of
sweating in mature pigs are
approximately comparable to those of
humans. Beckett (63.4) found that a
350 lb. sow at rest lost approximately
95 g/m in sweat per hour at a dry
bulb temperature of 98E F and wetbulb temperature of 81). At a much
higher temperature (122EF dry bulb
and 79EF wet bulb), Myhre and
Robinson found that 70 kg men at rest
lost moisture (sweat + respiration) at a
rate 250 g/m< per hour (398.7,Table
3). Even in smaller pigs (198 lb. gilts),
skin moisture loss is important
(387.8,Table 1), ranging from one-third
to two-thirds of total moisture loss
(lung + skin). The claim that pigs need
a wallow when living in hot climates
(because they supposedly do not
sweat) is also encountered. But
Heitman and Hughes exposed hogs
without access to a wallow to high
temperatures (100E F; relative
humidity 35%) for a week without any
fatalitiesconditions where the only
avenue for heat dissipation is
evaporative cooling (232.5,176).

Clothing, which replaces hair as a radiation barrier in human beings, has much the
same effect on human perspiration. Human beings subjected to solar heat loads
sweat more when naked than when wearing light clothing under otherwise identical
circumstances. In a study of the effects of clothing on sweat, Adolph167concluded
that "the nude man can save easily as much body water by putting on a shirt and
trousers as can the clothed man by finding good shade." Moreover, body hair does
not reduce convective heat loss "and has nothing to do with radiation of long-wave
infra-red heat to cooler objects," says Newman.168 He therefore asserts that naked
skin,
is a marked disadvantage under high radiant heat
loads rather than the other way around, and that
man's specialization for and great dependence on
thermal sweating stems from his increased heat load
in the sun.169

If increased radiant heat loads caused early

humans to depend more on sweat for

My very crude experiment: I took two

beakers and lined the bottom of one
with a circle of rabbit fur. I then placed
water, drop by drop, in equal amounts
in both beakers. I continued the
experiment for several days, always
keeping the fur damp. Day after day,
the water level rose in the beaker
without fur. But no water buildup at all
occurred in the other beaker.

cooling, why has hair loss, which increases

those loads, progressed to the degree that it
has in Homo? Under the assumption that
Claims that naked skin confers an
humans first evolved on the arid, sunevaporative advantage can, for the
most part, be traced to a single
drenched savannah, it is difficult, in terms of
sentence: Mount (390.8,42) seems
survival efficiency, to account for a reduction
only to be expressing an opinion in
in hair density that would result in increased
saying that "In a bare-skinned animal,
rates of water consumption. Newman points
like pig or man, the evaporation of
water from the body surface takes up
out that there is no evidence that hair
most of the heat required for the
interferes with sweat evaporation. Actually, I
process from the body itself, and so
myself performed a crude experiment, the
constitutes an efficient cooling
results of which indicate that hair actually
system." Nevertheless, many later
authors cite this statement in
accelerates the evaporation of sweat. This
substantiation of the claim that bare
finding is surprising in light of evolutionary
skin enhances sweat evaporation. I
theorists' frequent claims to the contrary.
have not been able to locate any actual
But with a little consideration, one realizes
data (in the works of Mount or any
other author) demonstrating this
that a hair coat is not a vapor barrier. Fur's
assertion.
ability to "breathe" has always distinguished
it from less desirable insulators that slow
heat loss but don't "wick away" moisture from the skin. Why should hair not only
allow, but even enhance, evaporation rates? There are at least two reasons. First,
wet hair presents a more irregular surface to the surrounding atmosphere than
does hairless skin, augmenting the surface area available for evaporation. Second,
hair allows uniform dispersion of sweat by capillary action, preventing the formation
of the individual droplets seen on naked skin. When such droplets form, the skin
lying between them does not serve as an evaporative surface and the vaporization
rate is reduced.

As the amount of sweat on the skin

increases, the individual drops do merge to
form a continuous sheet of water. But when
a large amount of sweat is present on naked
skin, another type of inefficiency sets in
runoff. More sweat runs off hairless skin
without evaporating. The coat of a hairy
animal acts as a sponge, retaining sweat in
position until it can evaporate. Perspiration
dripping off the body has no cooling effect,
because no heat is absorbed by runoff. In
contrast, evaporating sweat absorbs a large
amount of heat.1a But Adolph's research
indicates that about a quarter of human
sweat can be lost to runoff, even under near
optimal evaporative conditions.1b A reflective
hair coat, then, has three advantages: (1)
lower solar heat loads; (2) increased rate of
evaporation; (3) less sweat wasted on
runoff. It is therefore difficult to understand
how naked skin can be interpreted as an
"adaptation" beneficial to a savannah hunter.
Of course, the "savannah hunter" hypothesis
is just one of many theories. Hair loss in
Homo has been the object of much
speculation (for a survey of such theories,
see 165.1). Besides those who say we lost
our hair on the savannah170and/or because
we were hunters,171there are others who
suggest we may have lost it in the forest,172
or even in the sea.173 Some authors suggest
that nakedness made us sexually
enticing174or that hairlessness became
thermally advantageous when we started
wearing clothes.175

At 40E C (the approximate temperature

of the body surface under hyperthermic
conditions) the latent heat of
vaporization of water is 2406 J g-1 =
575 cal g-1. The evaporation of just a
half-cup of sweat is sufficient to reduce
the temperature of a 150 pounds of
water by an entire centigrade degree.
Evaporation is essential to heat
absorption. Runoff merely removes
fluid from the body without cooling it
(When you pour out a cup from an urn
of hot coffee, the temperature of the
remaining coffee stays the same.).
This rate (25% of sweat lost to run-off)
is for men engaged in intense physical
exercise at high temperatures (running
without a shirt in the desert) (15.4).
Runoff loss can thus be significant even
in the desert, let alone on the more
humid savannah. Adolph (15.4,93-94),
for example, studied sweating in a man
exercising strenuously in the desert
(relative humidity: 32 percent;
estimated wind speed, 10 m.p.h.; the
man wore no shirt) and found that "his
rate of evaporative loss was 1,300
grams per hour. His measured rate of
weight loss, however, was 1690 grams
per hour, exclusive of water which
accumulated in his trousers." These
figures indicate that 23 percent of the
sweat went to runoff even if we
ignore the fact some of the water
absorbed by the trousers would have
run off of a naked human being. On the
African savannah, the humidity and
solar heat loads would be even higher
because the savannah lies closer to the
equator than the southwestern
American desert where Adolph
performed his experiments. On the
savannah, then, a larger percentage of
sweat would go to runoff (due to lower
evaporative rates at the higher
humidity) and, at the same time, a
larger amount of sweat evaporation
would be required to counteract the
higher savannah heat loads. This waste
of body fluids seems peculiar in a
creature that is supposed to be the
product of adaptation to a life of
strenuous diurnal hunting on the open
savannah.

Even if we wished to assume that humans

did at one time have a hair coat (there is
absolutely no evidence that such was the
case), these theories would not explain the
advantage of a sparse coat of hair. The hunting hypothesis is untenable because
nonhuman terrestrial predators all have thick hair coats. A similar objection can be
raised to the sexual enticement scenario. Why haven't all mammals lost their hair if
nakedness is enticing? The aquatic proposal is also dubious, most small (humansized or smaller) aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals do have hair coats.176

The results of my evaporation experiment make it difficult for me to accept Mount's

opinion that naked skin evaporates sweat faster than hairy skin.177 For the same
reason, I doubt Wheeler's suggestion that the acquisition of erect posture by
hominids "was probably the essential pre-adaptation which made it possible for
them to shed body hair and develop extensive evaporative surfaces." 178 Also
dubious is Kushlan's "vestiary hypothesis," because it proposes that the invention of
clothing left Homo free to lose his body hair and thus obtain "the most efficient
cooling system of any mammal."179 As we have seen, naked skin provides no
particular evaporative advantage.
Because nakedness is a handicap on the savannah, Newman concludes, it is
unlikely that human ancestors lost their hair after leaving the forest: "If one had to
select times when progressive denudation was not a distinct environmental
disadvantage, the choices would be between
a very early period when our ancestors were primarily forest dwellers or a very recent period
when primitive clothing could provide the same protection against either solar heat or cold. The
primary difficulty in arguing for the recent loss of body hair is that there seems to be no single and
powerful environmental driving force other than recurrent cold that is obvious after the Pliocene
epoch. Furthermore the developing complexity and efficiency of even primitive man's technology
would have decreased the probability of a straightforward biological adaption The obvious time
and place where progressive denudation would have been least disadvantageous is the ancient
forest habitat. Radiant energy does penetrate the forest canopy in limited amounts, [but] that
portion of the spectrum which is primarily transmitted through the vegetation, the near infrared
wavelengths of 0.75 to 0.93 microns, is exactly the energy best reflected by human skin (Gates,
1968180).181
In desert environments human beings
Note, however, that Newman does not
can lose as much as 12 liters in sweat
explain why our ancestors lost their hair in
per day (390.3,162). Since the African
the same environment (forest) where apes
savannahs lie closer to the equator
did not. If humans came into being via
than do most deserts, sweat rates
there should be at least as high if
hybridization between pigs and
not higher.
chimpanzees, their genesis would almost
surely have occurred in the forest. Chimpanzees live in forests. On the basis of its
high rate of water consumption, Yang concluded the pig, too, is functionally a forest
animal.182 Human beings need more water than almost any other animal. 183

Indeed, it seems incredible that a hominid would spend any more time than
necessary away from the forest. Although the savannahs of Africa were teeming
with game, they were also swarming with ferocious predators. When a human being
is chased by a lion, the first impulse is to find a tree. Consider the picture painted
by current evolutionary theory: the noble savannah hunter, naked to the brazen
sun, boldly erect on an arid and treeless plain, in indefatigable pursuit of a wary
and dangerous prey, indifferent to the attack of rapacious carnivores. Certainly this
description has dramatic appeal. It's like a Tarzan story. But is it plausible?
Plato's minimal definition of a human being as a "featherless biped" exploits the fact
that it is unusual for a mammal to use only two feet in the course of normal

locomotion. Since we're mammals, it's easy enough to understand the lack of
feathers. Why, though, do we go about on two feet? Human bipedality has long
been a subject of controversy. How long have human beings stood erect? How long
did the transition take from quadrupedal locomotion to bipedality? What factors
caused the change? Why have other primates not done the same?
Following in Darwins footsteps, a wide variety of authors have asserted that human
beings gradually developed the ability to walk on two feet in response to selective
pressures demanding that two hands be free to manipulate tools. In his book, The
Ascent of Man, Darwin stated this view succinctly: "If it be an advantage to man to
have his hands and arms free and to stand firmly on his feet, of which there can be
little doubt from his pre-eminent success in
the battle for life, then I can see no reason why it should not have been more advantageous to the
progenitors of man to have become more and more erect or bipedal. The hands and arms could
hardly have become perfect enough to have manufactured weapons, or to have hurled stones and
spears with true aim, as long as they were habitually used for supporting the whole weight of the
body or so long as they were especially fitted for climbing trees. 1

This explanation is not without its flaws. For one thing, should we conclude on the
basis of our supposedly pre-eminent success in the battle for life that every
human trait is superior? Isnt this line of reasoning a bit vague and self-indulgent?
Are our hands really in any way perfector do we just see ourselves that way? Isnt
it possible to manufacture weapons while sitting down?
And then, there is the presumption that we became more and more erect or
bipedal. Fossil evidence does not confirm this gradual transition. Apparently, even
very early hominids were fully bipedal. Thus, Lovejoy observes, that "for a number
of years and throughout much of the literature there has been an a priori
assumption that australopithecine locomotion and postcranial morphology were
'intermediate' between quadrupedalism and the bipedalism of modern man. There
is no basis
for this assumption...in terms of the lower limb skeleton of Australopithecus. It is often claimed,
principally on the basis of this a priori assumption, that morphological features shared by both
modern man and Australopithecus do not necessarily indicate similar gait patterns. Although this
might be true in terms of a single feature, it is demonstrably not true when the whole mechanical
pattern is considered...the only significant difference between the total biomechanical patterns of
Australopithecus and H. sapiens is one that indicates that Australopithecus was at a slight
advantage compared with modern man (femoral head pressure [i.e., pressure exerted by the
weight of the body on the hip joint]).

Fossil footprints preserved in volcanic ash at Laetoli, Tanzania, indicate that

hominids were fully bipedal at a very early
Pig tracks were also preserved at
date (3.7 million years ago).3 Similarly,
Laetoli (357.3,262a).
Straus and Cave concluded that the posture
of Neanderthals was not significantly different from that of modern humans. 4 Homo

erectus was also fully upright and bipedal.5 This lack of confirmation from the fossil
record leaves gradualistic explanations of bipedalism standing on shaky ground.
Even on a hypothetical level, the idea that early humans "gradually" attained erect
posture is implausible. One must either go on all fours or stand erect. No feasible
intermediate posture exists. Hollywood portrays cave men as slumped over, arms
hanging down. Maintaining such a position
for any length of time would put an extreme
These "free" hands seem not to have
been taken advantage of for more than
strain on the muscles of the lower back.
a million years: The earliest known
Millions of years of slouching, then, would
stone tools date from 2.6 million years
surely have produced more than a few
ago (556.6,236), whereas indisputable
backaches. In fact, it seems ridiculous to
evidence (Laetoli footprints) indicate
that hominids were fully bipedal 3.7
suggest that hominids went about day in,
million years ago (104.5; 293.8).
day out, partially erect. The physical strain
would be too great, even for us with our
This notion that free hands and
supposedly better-balanced bodies.
intelligence are connected did not
Gradualistic thought forces the conclusion
originate with Darwin, although he did
that early "human beings" spent a portion of
their time in the quadrupedal position, but
spent a gradually increasing portion of time
erect as evolution progressed. Why would
there be such a trend? Why have we
developed the ability to stand all day on two
feet?

espouse and popularize it. Perhaps, the

earliest thinker to propose it was
Anaxagorus who claimed that humans
became intelligent by using the hands
for manipulation rather than
movement. Aristotle thought the
opposite (i.e., that humans used their
hands because they had become
intelligent).

The many physical distinctions making a

Merfield (337.5,51) describes a favorite
bipedal form of locomotion possible (even
chimpanzee once on display at the
zoological gardens in London. She was
necessary, for efficiency) in humans would
an inveterate smoker. "You could hand
require many genetic alterations. Anyone
her a box of matches or a lighter, and
who wishes to account for the spread of
she would not only use them properly,
these mutations in terms of gradual
but could always be trusted to hand
them back when she was finished with
evolution must show how bipedality
them."
increased our ability to survive and
reproduce. Yet, a comparison of human and
simian modes of locomotion, suggests bipedality does not appear to be any great
boon. Supposedly, "the freeing of the hands" made tool manipulation possible. The
need for such manipulation, in turn, is said to have necessitated enlargement of the
brain.
But why must a tool maker or a tool user stand erect for long periods of time? The
hand, not the spine, seems to be the essential element in most manipulative
processes. Few such activities would require anything more than the facultative
bipedality of an ape. A chimp's hands would serve as well as ours in fashioning a
spear, bow, or axe they might even serve better: a chimpanzee has four hands.
Human beings commonly sit down to work on such projects, having no need to
stand. I can easily picture chimpanzees doing the same chipping away at an

arrowhead or heating spear tips in a fire. Studies of these animals have

documented that their hands, too, are capable of performing subtle tasks such as
decanting a glass of wine6 or even threading a needle.7 Surely, their using rocks and
sticks to crack nuts8 is not so different from the way our forebears would have used
hand axes.
Kortlandt has shown that chimps are capable of using weapons when they choose
to do so.9 In his experiments, he presented various objects to wild chimpanzees and
recorded their reactions. In one test, he placed a stuffed leopard on the ground
near a troop of chimpanzees. The "leopard" clutched a facsimile baby chimp in its
paws, and a concealed tape recorder emitted baby cries. Presented with this
phenomenon, the apes attacked, using large broken branches as clubs. Kortlandt
says that the blows were of such force that, had the leopard been real, it would
surely have been killed. Apparently we are not the only ones with "free" hands.
Jane Goodall has documented "aimed rock throwing" behavior in free-living
chimpanzees.10 If they can carry clubs and throw rocks, then chimpanzees certainly
have the anatomical wherewithal to carry and throw a spear. Physically, chimps may
be better equipped for throwing than we are. Their arms are far stronger than those
of human beings (about four times as strong, according to van Lawick).11 Our
ancestors invented the spear thrower, a hooked stick that, in effect, lengthens the
arm, increasing the force of the throw. The arms of chimpanzees are already longer
and stronger than those of humans.
If they can carry clubs, apes should also be physically capable of stalking prey with
a spear. Human hunters do not stand erect when their quarry is nearby. Rather,
they crouch, or even crawl, and approach their prey from downwind, taking
advantage of available cover. Only at the last moment when the prey is in range do
they spring up and throw the spear. Chimpanzees are quite capable of leaping and
throwing an object simultaneously.12
For all of these reasons, then, it is at least questionable whether bipedality has
enhanced our ability to survive and reproduce. A gradualist would object that, even
if we do not understand the selective pressures involved, such pressures must,
nevertheless, have existed, and that humans otherwise would never have made the
transition to erect posture. But slow selection of minute mutations is not the sole
conceivable mechanism that can account for human bipedality.
An Analysis of Human Bipedality
If we listed all the features contributing to our upright mode of locomotion, we
would find some of those features in the chimpanzee. Nevertheless, even though
chimpanzees do walk on two feet from time to time, such is not their normal mode
of progression. They lack certain characteristics that make moving around on the
hind limbs not only convenient for human beings, but really, under most
circumstances, the only practical way of getting around. But what if pigs possessed

all of those features relevant to bipedality that apes lack. Wouldn't it then be easy
to understand why a pig-ape hybrid might walk on two feet?
All the human distinctions listed in the remainder of this section were first identified
by other writers; I've merely gathered them together. If a scholar somewhere has
claimed that a certain characteristic distinguishes human beings from chimpanzees
and that that feature contributes to bipedality, then if I have encountered the
claim I at least mention it. I exclude only those features that relate to the skull;
cranial features are discussed in the next section. (It will also be convenient in this
section to discuss a few skeletal distinctions of human beings not directly relating to
bipedality.)
In the literature, most features said to
contribute to human bipedality are located in
the spine and lower extremities. For
example, our gluteal muscles, large in
comparison to those of other primates13,
enhance our ability to hold our torso erect.
Ardrey observes that
As the brain co-ordinates our nervous activity, so the
buttocks co-ordinate our muscular activity. No ape
boasts such a muscular monument to compare with
ours; and it is a failure more fundamental than his
lack of a large brain.14

Sonntag notes the small size of the

chimpanzee gluteal muscles in
comparison with those of humans
(533.6,356) and that they are small,
also, in the gibbons and Old World
monkeys (533.8,55,65). Duckworth
(158.3,179) observes that the
musculature of the upper limb is
almost exactly as heavy as that of the
lower limb in apes but that in humans
the leg muscles are three times as
heavy as those of the arms. Although I
have not been able to obtain exact
data on swine relating to this
proportion, a cursory examination of
any pig will reveal that the hind legs
are far more heavily muscled than the
forelegs.

Certainly, the gluteus maximus is a

significant portion of our anatomy. But, did apes "fail" to alter their bodies in this
respect? Or did they simply lack the potential for doing so? Perhaps no pure
primate had the potential to evolve into a human being by gradual mutation alone.
We could, however, have obtained our big rump by other means. One has only to
think of a country ham to realize that pigs, too, have powerful buttocks. Perhaps
the very first hominid had a large rump as well as many other distinctively human
features.
The Spinal Column
Centralization of the spine, another factor facilitating our erect carriage, is not seen
in other primates to the extent that it is in humans. 15 With the spine shifted toward
the center of the body, a larger proportion of the trunk lies to its rear. As a result,
the anterior portion is better counterbalanced by the posterior and less effort is
required to keep the body erect. In pigs, the spine is more centralized even than
our own,16 just as ours is more centralized
than an ape's.
The human sacrum is concave on its
Centralization of the vertebral column by
itself, however, does not account for the

anterior face while an ape's is rather

flat. The anterior face of a pig's sacrum
is markedly concave (405.5,I,35,Fig.
50).

ease with which the human body is held erect. Many other modifications of the
spine facilitate our bipedality. At the base of the human spine, where the lumbar
vertebrae meet the sacrum, is a sharp backward bend known as the lumbo-sacral
promontory (see illustration below). The angle formed by this promontory is more
acute on the front side of the spine because of subsequent tapering of the sacrum.
This configuration causes the sacrum to form the roof of the pelvic cavity in human
beings (instead of the rear wall as it does in other primates). 17

More significantly, it brings the base of the flexible portion of the spinal column into
a position directly above the hip joints (when viewed from the side). The force
applied to the pelvis by the weight of the upper body is directed straight downward
through the hip joints and does not tend to rotate the pelvis around those joints.
When an ape is fully erect, a vertical line passing through the base of the spine falls
behind the hip joints so that a rearward twisting torque is applied to the pelvis. This
torque must be countered by constant muscular exertion.
The dorsal, backward-projecting spine of the uppermost vertebra on an ape sacrum
is too long to permit backward flexure of the lowermost lumbar. In human and
pig,the spines on the dorsal (back) face of
Barone (55.1,I,439) states that "on the
the sacrum are quite short and do not
dorsal face of the [pig sacrum]
interfere with bending at this point (see
extreme reduction of the dorsal spines
illustrations above). But, do pigs have a
is quite characteristic." (translated by
E.M. McCarthy)
lumbo-sacral promontory? In anatomical
depictions of pig skeletons arranged in the
Krider et al. (280.5,Fig 4-1) provide a
typical quadrupedal pose, no promontory is
photograph of a pig carcass in this
visible. But if a human being gets down on
position. A lumbo-sacral promontory is
all fours, then the lumbar region is twisted
clearly visible.
forward relative to the sacrum, and the
promontory disappears. Perhaps an erect pig would also develop a sharp bend at
the base of the spine. Obviously, pigs do not ordinarily stand upright, and I have
never seen a drawing showing the configuration of a pig skeleton in such a position.
Nevertheless, anyone willing to examine a hanging side of pork will see that a
lumbo-sacral promontory is evident. Hanging a halved carcass by the hind leg
causes the leg to swing into a position that closely approximates erect human
posture. Here, again, porcine anatomy
Schultz (495.7,77) also points out that
accounts for a human peculiarity.
The human spine contains more lumbar
vertebrae and fewer sacral vertebrae than
does the spinal column of any great ape.18
Because sacrals are fused and lumbars are
not, the human spine is much more flexible

"the proportionate length of the lumbar

region of man surpasses that of the
man-like apes more than [would be]
expected from the differences in the
lumbar segments." In man the length
of the lumbar region is 38 percent of
the total length of the trunk, while in
the chimpanzee this region is only 22
percent of trunk length.

than an ape's. Consequently, we are capable of bending the body backward until it
balances over the hip joints (without rotating the pelvis backward). The "small" of
the human back is the external evidence of this backward curvature of the lumbars.
Pigs have even fewer sacrals19 than do human beings, and they have more
lumbars.20 So here, again, humans are intermediate between apes and pigs.

Cervical vertebra (pig). Tracing.

Cervical vertebra (human)

Cervical vertebra (ape)

Note that the great flexibility of the

human neck in comparison with that of
apes would make it possible to balance
the head, almost regardless of the
positioning of the foramen magnum. If
the head's ability to swing backward
and forward is not limited by long
spines on the neck vertebrae, then a
balance point will be attainable.

In all the great apes, the cervical (neck)

vertebrae have long dorsal spines
significantly longer than those on their
While it is commonly noted that the
thoracic (ribbed) vertebrae.21 In
dorsal spines of the cervical vertebrae
consequence, ape necks are stiff in
slant caudally in Homo, it has also
been observed (540.6, 223) that
comparison with a human being's. Any
"nonretroverted cervical spinous
nodding motion of the head is severely
processes occur frequently in modern
22
limited. Though all cervical spines are long
Europeans with perfectly normal
in apes, the fourth and fifth are usually
posture." In the accompanying
radiograph tracing (540.6,Fig. 5,223)
longer than the sixth and seventh. Humans
spines 6 and 7 slope cranially. Pig
and pigs, on the other hand, have relatively
cervical spines are so short that it is
short cervical spines except on the seventh
difficult to determine which way they
cervical, where the spine is long (but not so
slant except for the long one on the
seventh cervical which slants slightly
long as the thoracic spines).23As a result,
caudally (55.1).
humans are better able than apes to adjust
the balance of the head by tilting it
backward to the equilibrium point. Moreover, the figures above clearly show that
human cervicals are generally more similar to a pig's than to those of an ape.

The seventh human cervical vertebra differs in another respect from those of other
primates: it has transverse foramens or "foramina" (see illustration below). These
large openings on either side of the spinal canal "are very rarely missing in even the
seventh vertebra of Homo sapiens, but in the other primates it is rare to find
corresponding foramina in this segment" (Schultz24). In a work on the comparative
anatomy of humans and domestic animals, Barone discusses the seventh vertebra,
saying it "is not, in general, pierced by a transverse foramen, with the exception of
pigs and human beings. In these two cases it always is."25

Seventh cervical vertebra

(human)

Pelvis and Coccyx

At the opposite end of the spine are the
coccygeal vertebrae which together form the
coccyx, or tail bone. Adolph Schultz observes
that these vertebrae are fused in
chimpanzees, a lack of flexibility he terms
"puzzling."26 Under the assumption that
humans stand on a "higher" rung of the
evolutionary ladder, chimpanzees should
have a longer and more pliable "tail" than do
humans. But, in fact, the human coccyx is
not fused, but movable especially in
females, where it bends backward when
they are giving birth.27

Schultz (495.06,429) states that "In

the macaque and gorilla, as well as in
the other monkeys and apes examined
for these conditions, there is no fixed,
bony structure opposite the pubic
bones, as exists in man in the form of
the lower part of the sacrum. In the
former, therefore, the sacrum
interferes not nearly so much with the
passage of the fetus to be born, as in
the latter." The obstruction of the birth
canal by the sacrum in human beings
reflects the shortness of the human
pelvis in comparison with the simian.
This shortening can be accounted for
by the fact that pigs have a very short
pelvis. A small pelvic opening does not
interfere with parturition in swine
because their newborns are relatively
small in comparison with those of
primates.

The human pelvis and birth canal are smaller than those of apes.28 Moreover, the
sacrum and coccyx curve inward in humans to make a sharp-pointed obstacle that
must be negotiated by an emerging infant.29 In apes there is no curvature (see
illustration above), which leaves the birth canal unobstructed. 30 With their
constricted birth canals, human females experience far more difficulty in delivery
than do their simian counterparts. "Parturition in the great apes is normally a rapid
process," according to primatologist A. F. Dixson, who further states that
Gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees typically give birth in less than one hour and in most cases
there is little sign that parturition is imminent The rapidity with which the great apes give birth

correlates with the fact that the head of the newborn is remarkably small in comparison to the
female's pelvic canal. In human females, by contrast, labor may be prolonged and the baby's large
head is often turned sideways to facilitate its passage through the canal. 31

Turning of the head occurs in Homo sapiens

because the pelvis is so short that the birth
canal is wider than it is high (unlike other
primates).32 In humans, the height (anteroposterior diameter) of the birth canal
depends on the length of the coccyx and,
specifically, on how closely the tip of the coccyx
passage.
The human coccyx, then, ought to be relatively
larger than any newborn ape. And yet, "man
is distinct among higher primates by
possessing the largest average number of
coccygeal vertebrae, i.e., by having been so
far affected least by the evolutionary trend
to reduce the tail" (Schultz33). "In the human
coccyx there may be as many as six
elements, in the anthropoids there are quite
commonly only two. The anthropoids have
gone further than man in the reduction of
the tail" (Jones34). This longer "tail" is
difficult to account for in terms of natural
selection. With respect to reproduction, it is
clearly a negative factor. Nor does it have
any evident utility in other respects. Perhaps
we should look elsewhere for an explanation.
The sacrum of a pig is curved on its inner
side much like that of a human being (see
illustration above). Obviously, pigs have
tails, albeit short ones. If Homo is a hybrid
of ape and pig, we expect the human
sacrum to be curved and the coccyx to be
longer and more flexible than an ape's. The
human pelvis is peculiar in many respects.
According to Adolph Schultz,
distinguishing characters of the human ilium [upper
portion of pelvis] are so numerous and in most
instances so very pronounced, whereas the ilia of all
the anthropoid apes show so many basic similarities,
that no theory which derives man from a gorillachimpanzee stock can readily account for these
conditions.35

"The antero-posterior diameter extends

from the tip of the coccyx to the lower
part of the pubic symphysis," says
Gray (220.1,267). "It varies with the
length of the coccyx, and is capable of
increase or diminution, on account of
the mobility of that bone."

approaches the front wall of the

short, since the human neonate is

Contrary to popular belief, it is not
merely the human head, but the entire
body that is larger than that of any ape
at birth (460.5,73,Table 3). Even the
gorilla does not catch up with human
babies in size until the second year
(460.5,74,Fig. 10). This may be a
manifestation of heterosis. In
proportion to body size, the head of a
new-born ape is as large as that of a
human being. In both cases, the brain
composes about 12 percent of body
weight (188.7).

<< A similar conclusion was reached

by Straus: "The human ilium would
seem most easily derived from some
primitive member of a pre-anthropoid
group, a form which was lacking in
many of the specializations, such as
reduction of the iliac tuberosity and
anteacetabular spine and modification
of the articular surface, exhibited by
the modern great apes. I wish to
emphasize here that the anthropoidape type of ilium is in no sense
intermediate between the human and
lower mammalian forms. Its peculiar
specializations are quite as definite as
those exhibited by man, so that it
appears very unlikely that a true
anthropoid-ape form of ilium could
have been ancestral to the human
type." Quoted in (495.06,431).

The most obvious difference is the shortness of the human ilium. The pelvis of an
ape is about half again as long as a human's (as a percentage of body length) and
closely approaches the last rib36 (in the great apes, Schultz (495.7,76) notes that
the iliac crest approaches the last ribs "far more closely than in any other
primates"). A pig has a short pelvis and a wide gap between pelvis and rib cage,
just as we do. The upper blades of the pelvis run from side to side in apes but turn
towards the front in humans.37 They also turn forward in pigs.38
Lower Extremities
All nonhuman catarrhine primates have longer arms than legs.39 The reverse is the
case in humans. But pigs, like humans, have longer hind limbs than forelimbs.40 The
femur (thighbone) is the largest bone of the body. Paleoanthropologists distinguish
the femur of a hominid from an ape's in several ways. On the front of the lower end
of the femur in humans and apes, the patellar groove forms a track for the
kneecap. In apes, this groove is relatively shallow and its medial lip is more
prominent than the lateral.41 But in humans42 (and in pigs43) this groove is deep and
the lateral lip is the more elevated of the two.
Also, on the distal (lower) end of the femur are two condyles. In Homo, these
condyles are of approximately equal size. In pongids the medial one is markedly
larger than the lateral,44 but in pigs the femoral condyles are almost exactly equal
in size.45 Human femoral condyles also differ
Physical anthropologists often note that
in shape from those of other primates. "In
the intercondylar fossa (or notch) is
hominids, both condyles show a distinct
deeper in Homo sapiens than in
pongids (325.5,308; 445.5,282;
elliptical shape, indicating a specialization for
468.2). Barone (55.1,I,693) describes
maximum cartilage contact in the knee joint
the porcine intercondylar notch as "trs
only during full extension of the lower limb.
profunde" (very deep).
In [primate] quadrupeds, on the other hand,
the condyles show no such specialization to one position, being essentially circular
in cross-sectional outline" (Lovejoy46). Nevertheless, many non-primate quadrupeds
do, in fact, have elliptical femoral condyles. Among them are most of the domestic
animals: cows, sheep, horses, dogs and pigs (see illustration below).47 We have
no reason, then, to think that human elliptical condyles represent an adaptation
aiding in bipedal locomotion.

Lateral views of femoral condyles in humans,

non-human primates and pigs

Quadrupedal primates are bowlegged,

especially the anthropoid apes.48 Human
beings, however, are typically knock-kneed.49
Preuschoft50 follows Kummer51in suggesting
that our knock-kneed stance is an
adaptation facilitating bipedal posture, and
bowlegs, to quadrupedal posture. But the
domestic quadrupeds (dog, horse, cow, pig,
etc.) are consistently knock-kneed.>

Lovejoy (325.5,310) suggests that a

prominent lateral lip is an adaptation
"directly related to a valgus knee
position produced by a high bicondylar
angle." The horse, however, has a very
high bicondylar angle (that is, it is
quite knock-kneed) and yet the medial
lip is much more prominent than the
lateral. Knock-knees, then, do not
always result in a prominent lateral lip.
Approximate measurements I have
taken from anatomical drawings
(405.5,I,89) give a bicondylar angle of
about 15 degrees for the pig femur,
which suggests that pigs are more
knock-kneed than most human beings.

In pigs (and most other domestic animals), the femoral condyles rest on crescentic
menisci that are connected to the tibia (shinbone) in the same way as in humans.52
This configuration is significant because, as Tardieu53points out, Homo sapiens is the
only primate having a "crescent-shaped [lateral] meniscus with two tibial
insertions." In fact, in the vast majority of catarrhine primates (including the
chimpanzee and gorilla) the lateral meniscus is ring-shaped. In the tibia itself the
most prominent difference is the presence of a long malleolus medialis in
nonhuman primates.54 In Homo this downwardly directed, spike-like process is
reduced to little more than a nub. In pigs it is so short as to be nearly
nonexistent.55

Romer (470.4,273) remarks that, in

artiodactyls, "the astragalus is the most
characteristic bone in the skeleton, for it
has not only a rolling pulley above, but
an equally developed lower pulley
surface [articulating with the
calcaneus]. This type of articulation
gives very great freedom of motion to
the ankle for flexion and extension of
the limb and a potential springing
motion, but limits the movement to a
straight fore-and-aft drive even more
strictly than is the case in
perissodactyls [odd-toed ungulates]."

We find another human distinction in the

foot, in the joint between the heel bone
(calcaneus) and the anklebone (astragalus).
Szalay and Delson note that one feature
distinguishing hominids from apes is the
"loss of [the] ancestral helical astragalocalcaneal articulation, reducing the possible
range of movements in this joint."56 In apes
the articulation is "helical" because the joint
allows rotation of the foot in a plane parallel
to the ground. In Homo sapiens, this joint is more like a hinge. It allows only
flexion and extension.57 A pig, too, has a hinge-type articulation between the
calcaneus and the astragalus.
The proportions of the human foot are also
peculiar for a primate. Duckworth notes that
the human heel bone is longer than that of

The upper surface of the talus in

human beings is level from side-to-side
so that it is parallel to the base of the
foot (542.8,52). In chimpanzees (ibid.)
this surface lies at an angle so that a
perpendicular to it passes through the
lateral side of the sole of the foot
this angulation affects the way apes
walk when upright. In taking a step, all
of the pressure is placed on the outside
edge of the foot. Instead of rising on
its toes at the end of a step, an ape
rolls the pressure point forward along
the side of the foot in a rocking motion.
According to Sisson (525.3,184,Fig.
197) the porcine tibiotarsal joint is
level, as it is in human beings.

apes.58 Baba found that the length of the

third metatarsal bone exceeded the length of
the calcaneus in all primates in his survey
except in humans, in which the calcaneus is
slightly longer(the third metatarsal connects
the middle toe with the ankle and composes
most of the length of the foot between the
ankle and ball of the foot).59 Our high ratio
of calcaneus to metatarsal makes it easier
for us to bear the body's weight on the ball
of the foot (as we do each time we take a normal step), because the forepart of the
foot and the heel bone can be thought of as two ends of a lever having the ankle as
a fulcrum. As in humans, the heel bone is a bit longer than the third metatarsal in
domestic pigs.60
Our fingers and toes, are short compared to
those of apes.61 Our metacarpal bones and
phalanges are shorter than a chimpanzee's
(not just in relation to the overall length of
the hand, but absolutely).62 This shortening
can be explained by referring to the anatomy of
and stubbier, than our own (which, of course, is

The fact that our toes are shorter than

our fingers can be accounted for under
the hybrid hypothesis by the fact that
in chimpanzees the toes are markedly
shorter than the fingers.

pigs: their digits are even shorter

the case for most quadrupeds).

Lastly, consider the ungual tuberosities.

These small, hoof-shaped processes tip the
bones (nail phalanges) that underlie the
nails of our fingers and toes (see illustration
below). Nonhuman primates do not have
such processes. "When comparing the nail
phalanges of apes to those of man, a
pronounced slenderness of the former can
be observed. If the impressive strength of
pongid hands is taken into consideration,
this is surprising" (Preuschoft63). Shrewsbury
and Johnson state that "the distinguishing
features of the human distal phalanx are the
broad spade-like tuberosity with proximal
projecting spine and the wide diaphysis,
which is concave palmarly to create an
ungual fossa. These features are not seen in

Shrewsbury and Sonek (510.6,237)

feel that the difference between human
nail phalanges and those of other
primates is so marked that a distinction
in terminology is called for, saying, "For
humans we reserve the diagnostic term
ungual tuft; for non-human primates
the term ungual tuberosity is to be
employed [because] the roughened
development of the volar aspect of a
broadened ungular tuft, characteristic
of humans, is not evident in the
prevailingly conical ungual tuberosities
of the other primates." While it does
seem that a distinction in terminology
is called for, it makes more sense to
use a new term in connection with
nonhuman primates instead of with
human beings, because the term
ungual tuberosity was originally used in
describing humans. Moreover, no
tubercle being present in these
animals, the choice of the term
tuberosity seems inappropriate.

primates such as the monkey and gorilla."64

This distinction, which was also present the various extinct hominids
(395.5,539,541), has been explained as an adaptation facilitating the manipulation
of objects with the fingertips. If such is the case, why should these processes also
be found on the tips of our toes? Do these hoof-like ungual tuberosities actually
reflect a relationship between humans and ungulates like the pig? That is, are they
vestiges of ancestral hooves?

Human distal phalanx (ungual tuberosities

circled in red).

Convergence or Relationship?

Our hypotheses have accounted for a number of traits in Homo. From the standard
neo-Darwinian perspective, it is hard to understand why the parallels between
human being and pig should be so extensive. Biologists call the existence of similar
traits in animals that they consider to be
distantly related analogy. They say analogy
Elsewhere on this website, some of the
is found when animals live under similar
problems with thinking in terms of
homology and analogy are considered
conditions or have similar habits. The same
at length. Access this discussion >>
needs in each case are supposed to cause
structures of similar function to develop during the course of evolution. But when
the organisms under consideration are considered to be closely related, such
features are termed homologous. Homologous features are usually judged to be so
when the similarities are numerous and extend to detail. As Dobzhansky et al. put
it, "Examination of the structure of convergent features usually makes it possible to
detect analogy because resemblance rarely extends into the fine details of complex
traits."65
In this section we have considered one complex trait (bipedality) in a fair amount of
detail. Any attempt to account for these details in terms of natural selection seems
inadequate. It is difficult to see what selective pressures could have caused
human beings and pigs to converge in so many different respects. Under neoDarwinian theory, to explain most of the human features that we have just
discussed, we have to posit pressures selecting for bipedality (some human
features long tail bone and ungual tuberosities cannot be explained in this
way). But pigs are quadrupeds. How will we account for the fact that they, too,
have these features? Perhaps it is all just a coincidence, but after a certain point
coincidence begins to assume the color of relationship.