Published in "Natural and Technical Sciences"
(Estestvennye i Tekhnicheskie Nauki, ISSN 1684-2626) 2004, Iss.4, p.75-76, in Russian.
Translation by the author.



On the Himalayan hominoids external sizes

Michael Trachtengerts

Despite of persistent efforts of various expeditions to receive a trustworthy information about the expected primates in the Himalayas, the images of a single exemplar made by A.Tishkov were received till now. The species was named as Alamas alamas [1]. Now I try to estimate numerically the sizes of the hominoid body.

Comparing the relative dimensions of the animal and a nearby boulder, A.Tishkov had defined at observation that its height did not exceed 1 m 40 cm. With this in view and taking hominoid images in three forms [1], it is possible to get realistic estimations of the size of its body.

The relative measurements which have been made on the images yielded the following results in distance between some points in relative units of length (with errors approximately 2 - 4 units):

From top of the head up to the shoulder joint ¾ 48 units;

from the shoulder joint down to coxal joint ¾ 70 units;

from the shoulder joint down to the elbow ¾ 55 units;

from the elbow down to the hand ¾ 35 units;

length of the hand with extended fingers ¾ 28 units;

from coxal joint down to the knee ¾ 48 units;

from the knee down to sole ¾ 51 units;

length of the foot ¾ 30 units.

With these measurements the height of the straight alamas is 217 units and the ratio of height to length of foot is 217/30 = 7.2, that is within the limits of this parameter for human. Thus, with alamas height 140 cm the real length of its foot, taking into account possible discrepancies, is approximately 19 cm.

That shows also the value of the relative unit of length 140/217 = 0.65 cm. I applied the measurements and general appearance of the creature to its lateral view that resulted on Figs 1.

Fig.1. Side view of Himalayan hominoid Alamas alamas.


Now we can estimate now such important an anthropology characteristic of a primate, as intermembral index (IM). It shows relative proportions of limbs for primates and is the ratio of full bone lengths of arm and leg multiplied by 100. With the data mentioned above (with the amendment of 4 units on thickness of the anklebone the tibia will equal 47 units), IM of alamas is approximately (55+35) \ (48+47 *100 = 95. The human IM is 72 in average, chimpanzee’s ¾ 106, and gorilla’s ¾ 117 (See Jeff Meldrum). Thus this index for alamas shows intermediate position between human and apes though it is closer to the last.

Now I have used the relations received for estimation of stature of large hominoids which footsteps were photographed by E.Shipton. It had been shown in [2] that the snapshot represents overlapping tracks of two exemplars. We shall take into account that the ratio growth to length of foot will be somewhat low for big heavy primates. Adopting that it may be about 6.5, we shall get that the height of the first exemplar with foot of 35 cm was about 2 m 30 cm, and the second with 28 cm foot was about 1 m 80 cm high.

Comparing parameters of growths and weights for big anthropoids it is possible to estimate also weight of the animals. Robust anthropoid, and even a stout human can weigh about 150 kg at growth of 180 cm. If the larger of these exemplars had the same proportions of its body his weight, in view of cubic dependence of weight from linear dimensions (linear ratio is 230/180=1,27 and cube of 1,27 is 2,05), could exceed 300 kg.

It is known that anthropoids show significant sexual dimorphism with overwhelming advantage of males in size and weight. The assumption that among moving together animals the larger exemplar was male and the smaller female is quite realistic.


1. Trachtengerts M. Unknown primate of Himalayas. The integrated scientific journal, 2002, #20(43), pp. 30-35.

Also see at:

2. Trachtengerts M. The Himalayan snapshot by Shipton and Ward - new analysis of the footprint, Natural and Technical Sciences (Estestvennye i Tekhnicheskie Nauki, ISSN 1684-2626) 2003, Iss.6, pp.75-78.

Also see at

Ó M.Trachtengerts 2004