Okay, could someone please settle this debate. An internet buddy and I were arguing about whether kangaroos are considered to be bipeds. My opinion is that by definition they are, since they move around on two legs. He says that they aren't technically bipeds because they don't move in the same way that humans do. Am I right or is he? Or are we both wrong?

Bipedalism simply means that an animal moves about using it's two hind limbs. So yes, they are bipedal. I think they also sometimes utilise their arms to move about while grazing, but their primary form of locomotion is certainly bipedal.

Bipedalism simply means that an animal moves about using it's two hind limbs. So yes, they are bipedal. I think they also sometimes utilise their arms to move about while grazing, but their primary form of locomotion is certainly bipedal.

 

Thought so. Thanks.

Pedal comes from the Latin pedis, meaning "foot", and kangaroos have two of them on the ends of their legs, thus making them bipedal. Their forelimbs are considered arms equipped with hand-like paws.

 

I think they also sometimes utilise their arms to move about while grazing, but their primary form of locomotion is certainly bipedal.

That crawl-walking they do to move short distances actually involves their tails as well. They balance on tail and forelimbs like a tripod and then move their feet forward.

It should be noted that the occassional use of forelimbs to aid locolotion does not prevent one being classified as a biped. If it did then drunks could not be considered to be bipeds.