> But even at 23% of energy, I'd say they qualify as important...etc.

the point: first to establish that aborigines turn to plant foods only as a
second option, not by choice of main preference, since they are so
calorically-vacuous.  Next time i'm at the library I'll try to get hold of
the exact quote from the book.  of course if the hunt is poor then yams will
help plug the calorie gap. And digging up yams is more useful than doing
nothing. But in itself this is hardly an endorsement of the ouback yam as a
food staple.

second: to show the regard aborigines themselves have for the relative
merits of animal versus plant foods.

third: to question the 23% figure you quote ad nauseum.  i find it dubious
to say the least, but your whole argument rests on the uncritical acceptance
of this figure. apart from bunyas [and macadamias], the only plant food in
australia with any calories to speak of are some varieties of yams, yet they
too are relatively poor in calories compared with say sweet potato.  I'm
curious as to why you have not done any independent research and are happy
to just quote Cordain. i would like to find out further about the various
yams we have here, hopefully we can get down to some clear facts.  but if
you say 23%, i ask, which plants?  simple question.   Since the aborigines
had generally outsanding health and fitness when white man first made
contact, its quite interesting and important to know whether the diet had 3
or 23% of calories from plants.

andrew