LETTERS: Hair for hunting hunters untingfor huhuntingihus

Stephen R. Gould
Friday 18 October 1996 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Christopher Hill (Letters, 16 October) quite rightly offers Elaine Morgan's theory as an alternative to the Savannah orthodoxy on human evolution, but misrepresents much of it.

Hairlessness lets us lose heat very rapidly, so we can run for very long periods, far longer than any other hunting mammal. Further, the pinnipeds (seals etc) are all covered in hair, and are conspicuously aquatic. Neoteny is common in higher mammals, particularly predators and primates.

In fact, most of the reasons he cites are actually good evidence for our hunting (carnivorous) past. There are much better pieces of evidence for our semi-aquatic ancestry.

For example, for proper neural development we need fatty acids found in large quantities only in fish: no other primate has this dependency.

If new-born babies are submerged in water, they automatically hold their breath, and reflexively tilt their heads up as they are brought to the surface.

Finally, though Elaine Morgan's views are not yet entirely orthodox, a substantial minority of biologists now accept them.

STEPHEN R GOULD

London SW5

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in