Although David Carrier does not want to completely rule out this explanation, he does not think it is unlikely? After all, monkeys with the comparatively shortest legs, namely male orangutans and gorillas, spend the least amount of time on trees today. The biologist therefore examined whether primate species, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orang-utans, gibbons, baboons, and meerkats, had an association between leg length and male aggressiveness in females. As a measure of the combat readiness of the males served him thereby the difference in the height and in the length of the canines between males and females? both criteria for which earlier studies had already shown an association with aggressiveness.
The shorter the hind legs of the animals, the more pronounced were the size differences between the sexes, the evaluation showed. This shows that shorter legs are actually associated with increased aggressiveness and therefore probably also the Australopithecus males often fought with each other, so Carrier. However, there are exceptions to the rule: while bonobos have shorter legs than chimpanzees, they are more peaceful, whereas humans have longer legs but are more aggressive. In those cases, Carrier explained, there may have been another leg-length factor more important to survival than the benefit of fighting.David Carrier (University of Utah, Salt Lake City): Evolution, Vol. 61, p. 596 ddp / science.de? Ilka Lehnen-Beyel advertisement