# Talk:Herto Man

(title added by Said: Rursus (☻) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC))
erectus in Australia? Really? Could you give a reference for that claim? 
--Yak 15:06, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
You are right, there is not evidence of H. erectus in Australia. The maximum range of H. erectus was china. --Anonymous
So what it is that made them say H. s. idaltu is a subspecies anyways besides the "archaic features"? In fact, I'd like to know what these archaic features are since I suspect many of them are still present in the wide range of what can be considered H. s. sapiens. --Anonymous  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.210 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 
How is Idaltu pronounced?  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC) 

How are these guys another subspecies when I see people (like Aboriginies) that look almost the same way? The rounded part of the skull in the back, the brow ridge up front, they are shared by many people today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.104.149 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If it is a subspecies with a gene pole that was common with Homo sapiens2, can we then claim that this subspecies is extinct? Rather it would be disolved, obsoleted, or reevolved into us. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If the species as it is classified no longer exists, then it is extinct. Though it's genetic legacy may continue in other animals, those are separate but related species. Now, sometimes entire families go extinct, but they're not "more" extinct--they're just multiple extinct species. 217.120.178.21 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

McCall, ʺExamining the Emergence of the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort Industries in South 
Africa Using Behavioral Ecological Modelsʺ

In sum, critical re‐evaluation and re‐analysis of the available evidence fails to support the placement of BOU‐VP‐16/1 into its own subspecies. Instead, the early modern human remains from Herto, Ethiopia, should be considered part of a larger Pleistocene H. sapiens population that also includes remains from Irhoud, Skhul, Qafzeh, and Omo.

1. The lede makes no mention of the (currently Jul 11, 2014) published work indicating that Idaltu may be the direct ancestor to modern H.S.Sap.
2. The Morphology section states:"their morphology has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens..."

HOW does a subspecies have ANY feature "not typical" of the species??? Shouldn't this be:"their morphology has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens sapiens..." ??
"archaic" indicates that the feature IS found in the ancestral H.S.S. line, correct? If so, which ancestor is it referring to?
WHAT does "...(although modern human skulls do differ across the globe)." MEAN in this context? It must be obvious to anyone who has access to modern media and has thought about it that that modern human skulls do differ between geographical ethnic groups (since the evidence in the form of images saturates the media of the modern world). This parenthetical is confusing. does "across the globe" refer to the Earth or the skull? Very sloppy. The inclusion of this in the sentence can be taken to be critical of the claim that the skull morphology is outside of any likely Homo sapiens sapiens variation. Frankly, I don't understand it. I think it should be removed (or its meaning made clear).
Abitslow (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please translate to plain English:

"The many morphological features shared by the Herto crania and AMHS, to the exclusion of penecontemporaneous Neanderthals, provide additional fossil data excluding Neanderthals from a significant contribution to the ancestry of modern humans..."
I'm assuming this means that idaltu has archaic features that Neanderthal doesn't have, making idaltu our direct ancestor and not Neanderthal? Kortoso (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The articles says predating Neanderthals in the introduction but the timeline shows the opposite. Also the timeline does not contain H. sapiens sapiens, which is a bit of an omission? Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Stub Mandrel: - Please see a possible clarification in the discussions at the following => "Template talk:Human timeline#Homo idaltu appears to be in the wrong place" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Arboleh Please don't revert the edits and engage here in the talk page. Also don't describe other users' contributions as racist and biased when they are clearly not and don't accuse me of vandalizing the article when I am clearly not, otherwise I will report you. Ryanoo (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@ZeldaEnthusiast: I noted there is some to and fro on the status of this taxon. Please expand on the classification as extinct here, a citation would be ideal. cygnis insignis 03:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The "Morphology and taxonomy" section talks about Omo more than it does Herto.   216.255.165.198 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"A later study found that Herto man and his contemporaries were cranially similar to Oceanians, with Northern Melenesians being the closest"
this is interesting because perhaps exactly over there in Paua is maximum of Denisovan inheritance. Puting a sentence mentionig this with Jacob &a recent papaer would be OK ? Or this inference will be considered as 'original research' ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe it would be original research yes (very much so). And it would make little sense since Herto man is a type/branch of Homo sapiens (a.k.a. in the sense of anatomically modern humans) and has nothing to do with Denisovans, or no more than any other Homo sapiens/AMH do (Denisovans are a separate lineage that diverged in Asia and never lived in Africa.). The cranial similarities (between Oceanians and Herto/Idaltu) could easily be due to things such as convergent evolution and/or the retention of ancestral/early H. sapiens traits in Oceanians (and anyway, there is currently no evidence of/research on, as far as I know, suggesting Denisovan influence on the cranial morphology of Oceanians). Skllagyook (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Assuming art true and it would be "OR". In which field of scientific pursuits would be this "oryginlal research"? Perhaps 'OR' on geography :) to realize that Paupa and Nothern Melanesia may have something in common regarding geographic areas . Compare  A) map published in {doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.035} to B) other maps of marking Melanesia (north is up in our times) and maybe you could replicate my 'oryginal research'. If you would try and you could too what is then 'oryginal'.  . Looking on map do you see Denisovan descendants in 3 billion poeoples? There on the green or deep pink areas living peoples who can claim most faithful very old ancestry (prvovite prvi ljudi).
Assuming having 2 paper K, L. 
Assuming having G
Object G is in K. Object G is in L .
OK i don't going (yet) do such 'WP:OR?' on ...   (i hope it is unnecessery:)
Therefore (or without there) addition of paper L is valid.99.90.196.227 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I propose (bolded text is my) following edit:

A later study found that Herto man and his contemporaries were cranially similar to Oceanians, with Northern Melenesians being the closest. Ancient DNA from Homo Idalu need yet to be recover while ancient DNA related to most cranially similar Northern Melanesian was found in Syberia"".

@99.90.196.227:: Again, there is no reason to bring Denisovans into this, and there is no particular reason to believe (nor speculate nor imply, especially in an edit) that the possible cranial similarities between Oceanians/Melanesians and Herto have anything to do with Denisovans at all (as mentioned, Oceanians/Melanesians are only about 3-6% Denisovan; Oceanians/Melanesians are Homo s. sapiens). So again, this addition does not belong in the article. Skllagyook (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@99.90.196.227::I'm sorry but this does not make sense at all and I do not understand what you are trying to express. It is understood and generally accepted that some Oceanian groups (like Papuans and Melanesians) have a small amount of Denisovan ancestry (about 3-6%), but, as I have tried to explain, that has nothing to do with the topic of this article — which is Herto man — (and, in addition, to assume or speculate in any article that the cranial morphology of Oceanians has anything to do with their very small amounts of Denisovan ancestry, if such a hypothesis has not been proposed by any scientific research/reliable source which one can cite, is indeed WP:OR/original research). But, again (more to the point), Denisovans were a Eurasian hominin (who lived in parts of Asia and possibly parts of Oceania and later bred with Homo sapiens when H. sapiens arrived there) and this Denisovans had nothing to do with Herto man — who was an early type of Homo sapiens who lived in Africa and is considered a likely ancestor (and/or close relative) of all modern humans/H. sapiens groups, not only those in Oceania — , so I'm afraid I do not see the relevance of any of what you have written to this page. Skllagyook (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
If you "I do not understand what you are trying to express" do you comment on my text or our your misunderstanding. Maybe i move your as flooding & not on subject? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
ps im not going to say the Hs idalu == Hs denisova and if so migrated from Asia. And therefore differs from Omo remains (which you purged[2] today) This would (or not) be conclusion the audience(readers) can self capacitate or can't.
@99.90.196.227:: Denisovans have nothing to do with Herto man. They are not relevant to this article. Skllagyook (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@99.90.196.227:: I undid your edit because you (for some reason) had edited the section to say "Omo" when the sources/citations and context (and most of the article itself) were talking about Herto, not Omo. Skllagyook (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
that interesting looking trough history it was first that differ from Homo cro-magnon later that from Homo omo and you did that it differ from itself. Isn't true that Herto is logically synonymous for Idalu ? ANd for the link rigt; i didnt suspect u can change subject of sentence so i linked it only back. (now i know i must double look on your edits to not be decived by common sense) 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@99.90.196.227:: "Herto" refers to Idaltu (they are the same hominin/the same thing, as the lede explains). Omo is a different but closely related human, and also from Ethiopia but from another site (and both are types of H. sapiens/anatomically modern human/possibly early H. s. sapiens). Skllagyook (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
So you know you changed from '"different but closely related"+"also from Ethiopia" to more ambiguous and tautological over-group. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
OL we can get maybe explanationfor expanding comparison to mammals. So why it is better to compare Idalu ideally to Homo Sapiens not good to early Homo sapiens and the worse to most 4d proximate Homo omo? 99.90.196.227 (talk)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herto Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 01:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I'm starting this review.  My plan is to do two major passes through the article, first for prose, the second to verify the references.  In general, all my comments will be suggestions which you can accept or reject as you see fit.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Prose
To give a little background, which might help explain some of my comments, I'm scientifically literate, but not an expert in anthropology or evolutionary history of humans.  As I read through this, I'm trying to calibrate my comments to WP:TECHNICAL.


#### Lead section
"Herto Man refers to the 160,000 to 154,000 year old human remains".  This may be excessively nit-picky, but "human remains" is ambiguous as to whether it's singular or plural.  Was this a single person, or multiple people?  You explain a few sentences later that it was 12 or more, but it would be nice if there was a way to avoid the initial ambiguity.
how should I do that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Dunkleosteus77, Yeah, that's a good question.   Possibly, "...refers to the collection of 160,000...", but now that I come back to it, I think it's fine the way it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"The discovery of Herto Man was significant at the time" Is it no longer significant?
"especially significant"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"H. sapiens"  I'm not familiar with standard practice for species names, but my first thought was to wonder if all (non-expert) readers would connect that "H. sapiens" (and later, "H. s. idaltu") is the same as "Homo sapiens" mentioned earlier without that being explained.  If that's how it's always done, then no problem.
I don't understand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Dunkleosteus77, I was just wondering if a non-technical reader would understand the abbreviations.  But, it's not a big deal. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"In the original description paper ... (that is, a stage in a chronospecies)".  That's a big sentence to swallow, and by the time you get to "...have rejected this", it's no longer clear what "this" refers to.  Maybe break into two, something along the lines of "...new subspecies as "H. s. idaltu" (Afar: Idaltu; "elder").  This subspecies was described as a transitional morph...", and then in the next sentence, "Subsequent researchers have rejected this", replace "this" with something more specific: "...have rejected the classification" (or whatever).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"end-morphology and beginning-morphology", again, this may just be my unfamiliarity with standard usage, but this is jarring because "end" and "beginning" are not the same part of speech.  Does "end-morphology and start-morphology" work?  Same comment applies to similar usage later in the article.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


#### Research history
"The first fossils", this sounds like the first fossils of any kind.  How about "The first herto man fossils", or "The first H. s. idaltu fossils", etc?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"The materials are: BOU-VP-16/1 ... These materials represent at least 12 individuals."  This is confusing to me.  You enumerate 10 specimens, then say this is from at least 12 individuals.  Some of the specimen descriptions ("a nearly complete skull", "a parietal fragment") are clearly from one individual.  Others ("parietal fragments") could be a mix of fragments from more than one individual?
"further excavation..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"This region of the world..." I think start a new paragraph with this sentence.
"In a simultaneously published paper...".  Simultaneous with what?  I think you're referring all the way back to "the original description paper" mentioned in the lead section, but that's not clear.
No, referring to the paper which dated the remains   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"... just barely outside the umbrella of what is considered ...", unless that's a direct quote from the paper, delete "the umbrella of".  It doesn't add anything other than word count.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"..., beyond the range of variation for any present-day".  I think you're missing a word, "..., AND beyond the range..."?  Actually, another word, "... any present-day HUMAN"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"... they decided to classify".  My hunch is they didn't just decide to classify, they actually went ahead and classified.  So leave out "decided to".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"The name comes from the local Afar language idàltu "elder". "  The first time (in the lead), you punctuate this as "idaltu; "elder"" (i.e. with a semi-colon).  Be consistent.
dine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"In another simultaneously published paper,"  So, we've got a total of three papers that came out at the same time?
yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


#### Anatomy
No issues.


#### Culture
You use "artefact" in several places.  Is that an alternate spelling for "artifact"?
yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


#### See also
Don't use "colwidth=20em".  Let the software lay things out in the default style.  What looks good on your device may be totally weird on another device (web, mobile, etc).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This seems like a good place to stop.  My next pass will be looking in depth at the references, but I may not get to that for a day or two.


### References
Unfortunately, I don't have access to many of the sources in full text (i.e. Nature), so I'm just spot-checking what I can find.  There's certainly no question about the general reliability of any of the sources.

Lubsen & Corruccini refer to "Skhul V", which is referred to as "Skhul 5" in this article.  Is there a reason to not use the nomenclature from the original source?
some people use Roman numerals, some don't, it doesn't really matter so long as we retain the number five   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"Herto Man can be considered an "AMH" rather than a transitional morph, therefore making the subspecies distinction idaltu unjustified."  Looking at the long paragraph at the bottom of page 12 to the top of page 13 in Lubsen & Corruccini, I'm not sure this is correct.  They say, "our analyses do not support or refute the statement by White et al. (2003) that this specimen is different enough to be classified as a new subspecies" and go on to explore some scenarios by which it might be considered a subspecies and some by which it might not.  So I think you're making a stronger statement that is supported by the source.
"That is, their analysis found no support for Herto Man's position as a transitional morph, nor the nomen idaltu"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is technically a GA criteria, but could you update the "Human emergence: Perspectives from Herto, Afar Rift, Ethiopia" to include all the authors, with full first names?  "et al" can be used by a particular template for display, but the full data should be in the template.
Not really seeing any other issues here.


### Other criteria
I'm not seeing any issues with breadth of coverage, NPOV, stability, or images.

Shouldn’t this be under the title of homo sapien idaltu as that is the scientific name.  Or at least have at the very beginning “Herto man aka homo sapien idaltu…” Solri89 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

That name is mentioned in the lead, but it's almost never used except by the people who came up with the name. It's also more consistent with our other human subspecies articles, like Peking Man (and not Homo erectus pekinensis), Solo Man (and not Homo erectus soloensis), etc.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The way the species is laid out in the infobox is pretty confusing. I think(?) its supposed to denote that there's debate over whether Herto Man is homo sapien sapien or homo sapien idaltu, but it reads as though they're different names for the same thing. Cyan-Prince (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean those're the same thing, "H. s. idaltu" has only really been applied to Herto Man Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)