Bipedalism, canine tooth reduction, and obligatory tool use

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (4):507-508 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Bipedalism in the earliest hominid specimens is always accompanied by the reduction of projecting canine teeth. Body size is smaller than chimpanzees or humans, but molar teeth are markedly larger. Use of a pointed stick for defensive purposes on the one hand, and digging for USOs on the other, may be why bipedalism was selected for. Passing such learned behavior to the next generation may have played a role in selecting for language.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,197

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Canine Minds, Human Minds.Jane Duran - 2007 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (1):109-115.
Identity-Based Reduction and Reductive Explanation.Raphael van Riel - 2010 - Philosophia Naturalis 47 (1-2):183-219.
Reduction and genetics.David L. Hull - 1981 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 6 (2):125-144.
Frege's reduction.Patricia A. Blanchette - 1994 - History and Philosophy of Logic 15 (1):85-103.
Does functional reduction need bridge laws? A response to Marras.Kevin Morris - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (3):647-657.
Popper's naturalized approach to the reduction of chemistry.Eric R. Scerri - 1998 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):33 – 44.
Walkie-talkie evolution: Bipedalism and vocal production.Robert R. Provine - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (4):520-521.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
47 (#340,113)

6 months
5 (#647,370)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references