> 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