Well, my comment was partly in jest (though I do think it's by no means clear that 5 is a local optimum, thus it's quite possible that 4 or 6 would be better, a

Well, my comment was partly in jest (though I do think it's by no means clear that 5 is a local optimum, thus it's quite possible that 4 or 6 would be better, and twice either would give us a better base for counting), but I'm amazed that there's actual scientific discussion of the issue. I wish to quote the most pertinent part of the article though: > Is there really any good evidence that five, rather than, say, four or six, digits was biomechanically preferable for the common ancestor of modern tetrapods? The answer has to be "No,"