It is difficult to speak of a behavioral model of A. anamensis at this time because of the findings still being so recent. While fossil evidence certainly supports a bipedal chimp-like creature who maintained a diet of nuts and fruits, there has been little evidence of behavior apart from this. As mentioned earlier, the paleoenvironment of A. anamensis is still debatable, which would of course have a significant impact on the species' behavioral model. Was A. anamensis nothing more than a bipedal ape? Research still needs to be done in order to answer the more difficult questions about its behavior and interaction with its environment.
I must say that while researching for this paper, I have become quite intrigued with the ongoing argument over taxonomic classification of hominids older than A. afarensis. While on one side, we have paleoanthropologists arguing for A. anamensis as a direct ancestor to A. afarensis, there is also evidence to support the idea that A. anamensis has more in common with the genus homo in terms of its limbs. The anthropology community is presented with a troubling species for classification: a specimen that is at once more similar to us than other australopithecines, and yet also comparably primitive to A. afarensis (even considering the difference in ages). I have no choice but to agree with the classification of A. anamensis, taking consideration of what little we actually know about it.
…
