# Talk:Australopithecus africanus

This species was named by Dart in the 1940s.  But since then most scientists have lumped it with Australopithecus africanus and indeed Australopithecus prometheus redirects to the A. africanus article.  Ronald Clarke is proposing that Little Foot is A. prometheus and should be recognized as a distinct species.  When Clarke finally publishes the full Little Foot skeleton it will undoubtedly will attract huge press attention as the most complete such skeleton ever.  If that happened today, people will find the articles here in Wikipedia a bit confusing.  To clarify the situation, at a very minimum a subsection in the A. africanus article should address the alleged species.  I don't think an actual new article would be needed until it becomes clear that the majority of relevant scientists agree with Clarke and thus making a need for a separate A. prometheus article. 68.97.5.247 (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australopithecus africanus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227223429/http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/walker/classes/anth121/121australopithecus.pdf to http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/walker/classes/anth121/121australopithecus.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213163350/http://www.mnsu.edu:80/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/africanus.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/africanus.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australopithecus africanus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125005549/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/anthropology/faculty/profiles/Shapiro/Liza/ to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/anthropology/faculty/profiles/Shapiro/Liza/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/africanus.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

MEH Australopithecus africanus 29-04-2012 11-32-46 2592x3888.JPG
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

MEH Australopithecus africanus 29-04-2012 11-32-46 2592x3888.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Australopithecus africanus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 02:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is excellent work, and well on the path to GA and even FA. Most of the issues I have with the article's current state have to do with prose, but permit me to reiterate -- especially considering how long this review sat for -- that they're not in the least insurmountable issues. This is great work, and I'm sorry you got stuck at the end of the backlog.

I'm not really planning to get to FA   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Without further adieu:

The first specimen, Taung child, was described by anatomist Raymond Dart in 1924, and was the first early hominin found.
My understanding is the specimen in question is generally referred to as "the Taung child", rather than just "Taung child".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The specimen "Little Foot" is the most completely preserved early hominin, with 90% intact, and the oldest South African australopith, but it is controversially suggested this and similar specimens be split off into "A. prometheus".
This is a somewhat unwieldy sentence. "The specimen "Little Foot" is the most completely preserved early hominin, with 90% of the skeleton intact, and the oldest South African australopith. However, it is controversially suggested that it and similar specimens be split off into "A. prometheus"." reads better to me.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
A. africanus was a competent biped, though was less efficient at walking than humans.
"Though was" seems to be too many words for the amount of information -- just "though" (or "albeit") works.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
A. africanus also has several commonalities in the upper body with arboreal non-human apes, which is either interpreted as evidence of an at least partially arboreal lifestyle or nonfunctional traits inherited from more apelike ancestors.
Couple distinct things being discussed here, which impedes readability. My rewrite would be: "A. africanus also had several upper body traits in common with arboreal non-human apes. This is alternately interpreted as evidence of a partially or fully arboreal lifestyle, or as a non-functional vestige from a more apelike ancestor".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
A. africanus, unlike most other primates, seems to have exploited C4 foods such as grasses, seeds, rhizomes, underground storage organs, or creatures which eat those such as locusts, termites, grazing mammals, or even animals which eat those creatures. Nonetheless, the species had a highly variable diet, making it a generalist.
The former sentence has a lot packed into it, even moreso than where I previously called that out. It also seems obsolete next to the second sentence. Suggested rewrite: "A. africanus had a highly variable diet, making it a generalist. Unlike most other primates, it seemed to have eaten C4 foods such as grasses, seeds, and rhizomes, in addition to creatures higher on the food chain".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
and Taung child appears to have been killed by a bird of prey
See previous note on "the Taung child". (Assume this applies to all future mentions of "Taung child" alone, including in captions.)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
In 1933, South African palaeoanthropologist Robert Broom suggested moving A. africanus into Hominidae containing, at the time, only humans and ancestors.
Awkward sentence. Suggested rewrite: "In 1933, the South African palaeoanthropologist Robert Broom suggested moving A. africanus into Hominidae, which at the time contained only humans and their ancestors".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
the then popular model of human evolution
Should be "the then-popular model".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
To this extent, Dart made note of the amalgamations of large mammal bone fragments in australopithecine-bearing caves which are now attributed to hyena activity, but Dart proposed that the bones were evidence of what he named the "osteodontokeratic culture" produced by australopithecine hunters, manufacturing weapons using the long bones, teeth, and horns of large hoofed prey:
This is long and unwieldy. I don't have a quick suggested rewrite of it, but I do feel I need to call it out -- it scans as multiple sentences for sure.

split into 2 sentences   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Wider acceptance of A. africanus prompted re-evaluation of Piltdown Man in 1953 and again in 1955, revealing its falsehood.
My understanding of the Piltdown Man is that it was exposed conclusively in 1953, making the part about 1955 irrelevant.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Australopithecus is considered a grade taxon whose members are united by their similar physiology rather than close relations with each other over other hominin genera.
Run-on sentence. Should have a comma after 'grade taxon'. (Possibly also one after 'physiology'? Not sure.)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hominin timeline should link Ardipithecus kadabba, if possible. (Not a prose issue per se, but slots most neatly into the chronological prose discussion.)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
A. africanus had a fast ape-like dental development rate.
Putting a comma after 'fast' improves the readability/scannability of this sentence, lest 'fast ape-like' blend into each other and seem as though it's describing a particularly fast subset of apes.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
important for swiveling and stabalising the head
Should be 'stabilising'.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
StW 573 has a narrow thoracic inlet unlike A. afarensis and humans, though the clavicle is proportionally quite long, with a similar absolute length to that of modern humans.
Two sentences. Suggested rewrite: "StW 573 had a narrow thoracic inlet, unlike A. afarensis and [specify 'anatomically modern'?] humans. However, the clavicle is proportionately quite long, with a similar absolute length to that of modern humans".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The A. africanus hand and arm exhibit a mosaic anatomy with some aspects more similar to humans and others to non-human apes
Run-on sentence -- put a comma after 'anatomy'.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
She is the first and only early hominin specimen to definitively show that the arms were almost all long as the legs.
Confusing sentence. Not really sure how to rewrite this.

the actual proportions of early hominins is unclear because they don't fossilize as completely, so having the whole arms and legs as this individual shows that the arms of at least some early hominin individuals were as long as the legs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
this could possibly indicate that A. africanus either did not often consume high-sugar cavity-causing foods—such as fruit, honey, and some nuts and seeds—or often did consume gritty foods which decrease cavity incidence rate
The wording on both clauses here, especially the latter, seems suboptimal. "Often did consume" seems like it could just be "frequently consumed".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
which indicates this individual was regularly biting into acidic foods such as citrus, but tubers could have caused the same damage
Two sentences. "...which indicates this individual was regularly biting into acidic foods, such as citrus. However, tubers could have caused the same damage..."

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Because the Barium was most likely sourced from breast milk
'Barium' should not be capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence (this also applies to lithium and strontium).

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The juvenile specimen STS 24a was diagnosed with an extreme case of periodontal disease on the right side of the mouth which caused pathological bone growth
Run-on sentence, which should have a comma after 'mouth'.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Considerations aside from prose:
I mentioned the citations issue in the table; I'm not really sure what's up with that. It's a drop in the ocean relative to the other citing. It looks like it could just be a false alarm, but it may be a predatory journal -- I'd recommend looking more into it.

I use that journal frequently and have seen established researchers publish in it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Captioning: This is, honestly, a nitpick, so feel free to tell me to drop it, but it concerned me. The very first image -- the skull in the infobox -- has a caption on Commons which includes a red link to an article that isn't on Commons. I'd fix it myself, but I'm unclear whether the correct solution is to redirect it to a category, or to remove the link entirely. You likely know better than me.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
This is, overall, an article clearly on the GA path. With these issues fixed, it'll easily be a high GA with a view towards future FA status. Excellent work. I'm putting it on hold until the issues are fixed, and hoping to give it full GA status soon after what must have been a frustrating wait. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Changes all look good. Bringing this to GA. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Without further adieu"? 109.249.184.146 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Appears that this primate had a fossils range to the very start of the Pliocene https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4523742.pdf Bubblesorg (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)