A new study proposes that Lucy, our famous Australopithecus ancestor, could have spent most of her time in trees, according to a report published in the journal, PLOS One. Although Lucy—her fossil known as AL 288-1—only stood roughly three-and-a-half feet tall, her arm bones exhibit remarkable strength.

The discovery of Lucy half a century ago changed our perspective of human evolution. Of the earliest hominids discovered, her skeleton was the most in tact. But scientists have struggled with a definitive identity for Lucy because although evidence confirms she walked on two feet, she also climbed trees to avoid predators and to sleep, so the question remains how long she spent in them.

For the analysis, researchers examined the physiology of bones in how they can grow weaker or stronger depending on how often they’re used. They compared Lucy’s skeletal structure to the bones of about 100 chimpanzees and 1,000 modern humans and found that climbing trees required terrific brawn. And the ratio of strength between her arms and legs suggests that she was more chimpish than bipedal.

“That doesn’t mean she was acting like a chimp, just that she was stressing her limbs more like a chimpanzee than a modern human,” said lead study author, Christopher Ruff, a paleoanthropologist at Johns Hopkins University.

To draw conclusions on how Lucy interacted with her environment, scientists analyzed 3-D digital markups of bones digitized from scans of the originals. They discovered Lucy’s bones were quite robust.

“She’s tiny, but for her size, she’s coming in very strong,” said John Kappelman, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Texas at Austin who was also involved in the study.

Lucy’s bones don’t suggest much tool use, which could have also led to the same bone thickness. Researchers concluded that she climbed trees more than initially surmised.

But the scientific community isn’t unanimous on the study. Paleoanthropologist, Donald Johanson, still believes Lucy and A. afarensis primarily stood upright.

“They would have had to spend a considerable amount of time in the trees for this to happen, and I think the overwhelming anatomical evidence is that they were terrestrial in their preferred locomotion,” Johanson said, thinking that food gathering and digging up roots could have led to the density of Lucy’s bones.

The study leaves the question as to whether A. afarensis’ skeletal remains are just remnant adaptations from earlier ancestors. Lucy’s long arms, curved fingers and toes and shoulder blades that curve toward the head than the side of the body are clues that she was more chimp-like. Her big toe, however, is like ours, indicating she was bipedal according to Dr. Johanson.

Source: The New York Times

Image credit: Wikipedia Commons CC BY-SA 3.0

The nomination of Donald Trump as the next commander-in-chief is causing chaos in the scientific community. His anti-scientific political views towards progressive research are leaving many experts wondering if he will reverse current policies.

“Trump will be the first anti-science president we have ever had,” said Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society, published in Nature on Wednesday. “The consequences are going to be very, very severe.”

Trump’s stance on climate change is of primary concern for scientists. While campaigning, the president-elect pledged to “cancel” the Paris climate change agreement endorsed earlier in the year and promised to wipe out environmental regulations.

Lecturers such as Joshua Drew with the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology at Columbia University, are concerned. “It doesn’t look like it’s going to be great,” he said. “The class I’m teaching right now is coastal and estuarine ecology, and we cover a lot of topics including global climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification. The fact that Trump doesn’t believe in that does not bode well toward having a U.S. policy that addresses those issues.”

There’s also skepticism that Trump will slash federal spending towards scientific research. Scholars rely on grants from government agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. As a guest on Michael Savage’s conservative radio talk show, he said, “I hear so much about the NIH, and it’s terrible.”

Historically, however, these agencies have received more subsidy under Republican administrations. But Democrats increased spending towards NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation while they reduced spending on the NIH, NSF and the U.S. Department of Agriculture according to a study conducted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance conducted a study in 2015.

Yet Trump is unpredictable and hard to define leaving much uncertainty.

“I have tenure, so if I have a gap between grants, it wouldn’t be disastrous. But I know a lot of people who are earlier in their careers and are really worried about what it means for funding right now . . . about what a reduction in funding would mean for their ability to have a career as a scientist,” said Meghan Duffy, a disease ecologist at the University of Michigan.

He has, however, vowed to support NASA exploration. “Observation from space and exploring beyond our own space neighborhood should be priorities,” he said in a retort to ScienceDebate.org and expressed that space research will encourage studies in STEM and lead to investment in our nation and job creation.

How health policy and management will be governed is also a mystery, though. Howard Kurtzman, acting executive director for science at the American Psychological Association, voiced the organization’s willingness to work with the new administration despite Trump’s assertions that vaccines cause autism.

But his immigration policies might preclude influential scientists from coming to the country.

Source: The Washington Post