# Talk:Homo habilis

I personally thought this was a good page.  I would like to know more about homo habilis though!  Such as, how did they become extinct?  I'll probably add some info.  About that once I find it on other sites ^.^   -Freddy

Fixed it up a bit! cool species, added pic too.--Quena@sympatico.ca 04:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted a short paragraph that had to do with more religious aspects in comparison with actual evidence of H. habilis
backing up the species in general. --King of the Dancehall 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to know more about this homo habilis you have said that they were found along east africa bt which country? to me i think tanzania is the main country through which oldvai gorge is the main place —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.44.170.61 (talk • contribs).
I want to know what shelters Homo Habilis used. I will not add it myself though, too lazy. May add what they specifically ate sometime soon, though.

The section "Stratification and expansion" may be a bit fallacious, I don't think there is any fossil evidence of any Homo prior to H.erectus existing outside of Africa. The section lacks citations and until there is a valid reference disproving this complaint, such misleading information ought to be removed.
From the article: "Anthropologist Richard Leakey’s son Jonathon Leakey, unearthed an ape-like skull that shared human like traits in 1964", but Richard Leakey was born 1944, so his child could not had been more than 4-5 years old, and then Richard would have had to been a father in a quite young age. Does anyone have any more facts about this? /Nilzzon 16:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC
You're right. Richard Leakey was actually the brother of Jonathan Leakey. Louis Leakey was the father of both Richard and Jonathan Leakey. Details can be found in the Leakey foundation's website, which states, "In 1960, eldest son Jonathan Leakey found parts of a juvenile hominid skull, jaw, and hand bones." [1]
--Angrylilgurl 05:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Would like to see more comparisons between habilis and others such as erectus or aferensis  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.156.31 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 
removed inappropriate/useless/unrelated insult comment 98.67.2.77 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmsFan

I am not fully indating on the theories of the recent data that would include the H. habilis being reclassed as under the Australopithecus genus but i do know of the eviendce just not enough to write about it. could a section be added to express this new data by someone with more knowledge of the topic than i. of if there is alot to rename the topc to fit with it so. cj105 24 May 2006

I haven't heard any (recent) proposal to reassign habilis to Australopithecus. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Not very recent, but in 1999 Wood et al. proposed this reclassification. See "The Human Genus", Wood and Collard, Science 2 April 1999: 65, DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5411.65  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.237.94 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
He proposed it, but this has been seen as invalid revisionism.  The Austro's are clearly in a separate genus, and some paleontologists (the minority view at this time) see them closer to apes than man.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.2.77 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 
Douglas Futuyma calls the specimen "australopithecus habilis" in his second edition of "Evolution"(part of the evolutionary biology curriculum in great parts of the U.S). Stinukli (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2011 (GMT +1)
The reasoning for A. habilis rather than Homo habilis is due to the disproportionatly longer arm length in habilis versus other homo species, small cranium volume, a skull still retaining archaic features (protruding face) and shorter stature suggesting a spacially restrictive environment. Australopithecus brain sizes ranged from ~300 - ~600 which is close to the range of "Homo" habilis of 363-600 yet the page uses the very upper limit of habilis to say it had a brain size roughly half the size of the human brain. The page should state that they had a brain size only marginally larger than their decendants. The head shape, size of the body and long arm length relative to body still display archaic features. It is my view that this page is rather pro Leakey as they had decided to lower the limits of what species could be considered in the Homo genus by the features mentioned above. 70.126.82.78 (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Homo habilis brain sizes were formerly thought to range between 363 and 600 cc, even as late as 2000 when the "Australopithecus habilis" paper now cited in this Article was published. Subsequent reassessments of H. habilis skull fragments have updated its brain size to range between 550 and 687 cc. Despite what was published as late as 2000, the lower limit of H. habilis brain size is much higher than the 363 cc you talked about here. Here's a link: http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=3710. If that's not recent enough, I can always dig out my Evolution textbook. At any rate, the Article now uses an outdated source to take a revisionist position in its Lead contrary to scholarly consensus. I will be bold and correct this. Even this link, while it does indeed talk about ongoing controversy, makes it clear that the H. habilis brain averages more than 600 cc, the very measurement you insisted was the maximum of the range: http://australianmuseum.net.au/Homo-habilis. Exact quote: "Brain averaged 610 cubic centimetres in size, representing 1.7 per cent of their body weight. This was a significant increase compared to australopithecine brains" (Emphasis added).
610 cc > 600 cc. Again, 610 cc is now calculated to be the average brain size for Homo habilis, whereas you cited 600 cc as the maximum.
Homo habilis was a descendant of Australopithecus sediba and itself the common ancestor of the Genus Homo. Technically, the Genus Homo would become polyphyletic if it were to exclude its common ancestor, regardless of visible physical features. Moreover, the increase in brain size from A. sediba to H. habilis was appreciable and most likely explains why stone tool use began when it did. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Is ER 1470 known by a different name? I was expecting to find it here with no luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.234.198.197 (talk • contribs) .

KNM ER 1470 is Homo rudolfensis. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is a there a picture of a full Homo habilis skeleton, besides from the head. Anker99 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, so far only skulls (or parts of skulls) have been discovered. {The poster foremrly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.69.184 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

-didn't homo habilis exist until 27,000 in Java? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.59.193.47 (talk • contribs).
No - habilis never lived outside of Africa, as far as the known fossil record analysis.

No. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That was probably Homo erectus.Kfc1864 00:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Homo erecus lived in Java, and Neanderthals lived till 27,000 ya. Get your acts right.:)Kfc1864 talk my edits 09:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Richard Leakey on Time.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone should have time to annotate the article, the following are links to a Times article questioning that Homo habilis is the direct ancestor of Homo erectus as a result of recent finds at Lake Turkana, as well as to a news article and a letter in Nature:
[2]
[3]
[4].
I shall try and include some detail myself in due course, but that might be better done by someone with a scientific background who understands the debates. DSuser 13:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

we need authors. affilliations and nation of origins for reconstruction.
this one is german apparently. and to looks very thin what i think is not warranted. a comprehensive reference in the field would also be helpfull, it is a very rich resource when the chemical and geophysical and anatomical aspects are weighed to the anthropological/medical knowledge they derive from. Plenty of the research is relevant for the reconstruction of habitats , diets and other aspects. I don't think there is better except research on site.24.132.170.252 (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This interesting article [5] 'The foot that may prove 'hobbits' existed', states that:
"The long toes of H. floresiensis suggest they could be the direct descendants of a hominin similar to an early human ancestor such as H. habilis, rather than the more recent H. erectus, a species known to have migrated out of African long before the migration of our own species, H. sapiens." --217.33.67.248 (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, that makes an assumption that the Flores Island species was a true species, and not
some local morph of a known hominid.  However, if habilis is the direct anscestor of erectus
and the like, then, technically, yes - but habilis died out long, long before the Florestian 
creatures lived, and if they are a true taxon, then their ancestor was much more recent. 98.67.2.77 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmsFan
The idea that Hobbits may be more closely related to Homo Habilis or similar species has gained some traction in the past 15 years since these comments. Drsruli (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The article currently contains unsourced statements to the effect that H.h. ranged into Europe and Asia. This is to my knowledge completely unfounded, but I'm a late prehistoric archaeologist so I don't have any literature on the subject. Anybody else? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The Azores is Africa, I can see how some might have ended up there  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.109.87 (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC) 

Wait, this would mean that they built boats or rafts to get there. Just how advanced are these hominins? A  lot we probably don't know since the stuff didn't preserve.198.85.118.64 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
They weren't that advanced. But even a chimp can grab a log in a hurricane by accident and wind up on an island. It only takes two... Drsruli (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Maybe in 2009 it was less founded. It seems more likely now:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1107724108
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/dispersal-hominin/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3127876/
https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/the-first-migrations-out-of-africa/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9btN6H7H3Rg
Also, a competing theory that the hobbits represent descendants of such an early migration.
Drsruli (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I have begun an attempt to make the pages on Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, and Homo georgicus resemble each other in format and content more closely. I shall try to present each competing interpretation, but have often settled, half-way through the page, on presenting each species as legitimately distinct (while letting readers know, of course). My main concern is that these six pages present many prevalent and valid interpretations but no conformity of tone or content between pages (or sometimes even paragraphs). I shall also try to make conglomerate authorship less detectable between pages, personally editing large chunks using my own tone. I shall attempt, however, to let no personal interpretations of our ancestry interfere with the hypotheses presented. I will not eradicate any additions to these pages' content, obviously, but will attempt to make their voice and presentation uniform. Homo Ergaster (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This article suggests a connection between Homo Ergaster and Homo Erectus.  But when you link to the Homo Ergaster page on Wikipedia, the information there suggests there may not be a direct link between Ergaster and Erectus.  Can any changes be made to ensure these two closely related articles don't appear to contradict each other?
Solaricon (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
yes we must avoid the appearance of contradictions/inconsistencies76.178.120.228 (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It says Homo habilis was discovered in Olduvai Gorge, but also in Kenya, the Olduvai Gorge article says it's in Tanzania. Is this a contradiction or does the gorge go through both countries?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.245.138 (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC) 

No, Olduvai Gorge is entirely within Tanzania, but it's part of the larger Great Rift Valley where many fossils of early hominids have been found, and which is partly in Kenya. The first-discovered Homo habilis specimen, and several others, were found in Olduvai Gorge, but others were found in Kenya. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.69.184 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If we were talking about a member or members or traits of a species, does the term's conjugation change in any way? For example would I just say "a pair of homo habilis attacked a lone homo habilis, demonstrating homo habilis violence" ? Ranze (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, although in each case you should write it as Homo habilis – with the Genus given a capital 'H', the species a lower case 'h', and the whole name in italics: in extended text, you could also, after the first use, just write 'habilis'. Technically such Binomial names are in (Scientific) Latin, but few people try to work out and use the correct Latin inflections. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.69.184 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The current footnote 1 in the lede links to the very recent announcement of a 2.8 million-year-old jawbone. However, the linked reference (a BBC news story rather than a scholarly paper) does not explicitly identify the jawbone as being H. habilis, although it implies ancestry to habilis. (I have been unable thus far to access any more scholarly sources for the story.)
I think we need more solid sources to confirm that the specimen is indeed considered habilis, and not some (perhaps yet-unnamed) habilis antecedant. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the reference is to the age of the Hominini tribe and origin of Homo, not of Habilis. I agree it is far too early to assign a specific species to the new jawbone, but I don't think this reference does that, it merely confirms the  (new) 2.8 mya date for Homo as a genus. Nowimnthing (talk)
it is a bad idea to give a "reference" in the form of an url to a news story in any case. I linked the paper now, but I agree with Nowimnthing, it isn't clear at all that this fossil is H. habilis "proper" rather than ancestral to H. habilis. --dab (𒁳) 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what the paragraph is implying, or why it's relevant. To summarize: in 1955 Mary Leakey found two H. habilis teeth; later these were classified as "milk teeth"; however, in 1959 she found the cranium of Nutcracker Man (which is a robust australopithecine and isn't H. habilis). Well - so what? What did this mean for the milk teeth? What's "however" about that? If the point is that the teeth clearly didn't belong to Nutcracker Man, that could do with more elucidation.  Card Zero  (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Can't find any Nutcracker in the current article. It seems this issue has been addressed. Also there is only a single "however" in the article at the moment – truly that must be a record for Wikipedia! – and its use even seems somewhat justified, which is even more amazing! --BjKa (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

How come these can't be considered to be another genus of hominin, especially since they are not quite  like later hominins such as H. erectus/ergaster but not quite like Australiopiths.198.85.118.64 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

this is extremely lazy editing, to the point of simply wasting the time of people who have to clean it up.

You never write "scientists reported". We aren't underpaid journalists, we are unpaid encyclopedists.
You "cite" a press release dated January 2019, and turned this into "in January 2019, scientists reported". This is wrong, and shows that you haven't even glanced at the content of the press release itself. The press release reports on the publication of a special issue of an anthropological journal dedicated to the anatomy of A. sediba.
The volume on A. sediba was published in 2018. It appears to be a review of what is known about this species to date. It isn't "scientists reporting" some new find, it is paleoanthropologists reporting on what has emerged as general consensus
Finally, it is incredibly lazy that you, after you decided that your random url about a tenuously related topic, which you have not bothered to read must be added to this article, you simply tag it to the introduction section. This shows that not only did you not bother to read your source, you also did not bother to as much as glance over the existing article, even if just to establish where your 'addition' might fit into its structure.
Sorry about the rant, but I see this kind of thing all the time and I wanted to vent. And I see you decorate your user page with all kinds of both academic and on-wiki achievements, so one should assume that more can be expected. 
--dab (𒁳) 08:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homo habilis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Enwebb (talk · contribs) 19:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

H. habilis was proposed as being a human ancestor simpler without "being"
"proposed to have been"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Same here as more fossil elements and species were being unearthed
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The body proportions of H. habilis are only known from 2 highly fragmentary skeletons, and is based largely on assuming a similar anatomy subject/verb disagreement; "is" should be "are"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider "diet" as a subsection of culture. In the article Human it is a subsection of "Biology"
Human is hardly a C-class article, and in Neanderthal (at GA) I put it under Culture   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Oxford defines "culture" as the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively or the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group. Is there a word other than "culture" you could use here? What about "behavior"? Enwebb (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
culture encompasses social behaviors and norms of a society. In anthropology, a creature which produces tools is considered to have material culture (the Oldowan is a culture), and so the term culture has to be used here. Consequently, group dynamics as well as other behaviors are listed under Culture. This convention is also used in the GAs Homo naledi, Homo luzonensis, Homo rudolfensis, and Homo ergaster   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
a partial juvenile skull and hand and foot bones unclear which ones are partial. It could be, "A partial skull, as well as hand and foot bones" if that is what you mean.
the hand and foot bones are also partial   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, then the meaning is still unclear. Why not "partial skull, hand bones, and foot bones"? Why is "and" necessary twice? Enwebb (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
"partial skull bones" sounded incorrect. Done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Were the Leakeys a husband/wife team? You only mention Jonathan but then go on to say "discovered by the Leakeys' senior assistant Heselon Mukiri in 1959" which indicates more than one Leakey. I now see this is addressed in the next sentence, but the order is confusing. You could say, "...were discovered by Heselon Mukiri in 1959, who was a senior assistant of Louis and Mary Leakey (Jonathan's parents)."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
After description, it was hotly debated if H. habilis should be reclassified into Australopithecus africanus (the only other early hominin known at the time), in part because the remains were so old and at the time Homo was presumed to have evolved in Asia (with the australopithecines having no living descendants), and the brain size was smaller than what Wilfrid Le Gros Clark proposed in 1955 when considering Homo quite a long sentence. Can it be broken up?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Same To address this, in 1985, English palaeoanthropologist Bernard Wood proposed that the comparatively massive skull KNM-ER 1470 from Lake Turkana, Kenya, discovered in 1972 and assigned to H. habilis, actually represented a different species,[8] now referred to as Homo rudolfensis, but it is also argued that instead it represents a male specimen whereas other H. habilis specimens are female.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
You use both Ma and mya. I would stick with one.
Ma is adjective format   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
What's the methodology of the cladogram? Morphology? You could tack on a bit at the end, "based on x".
there isn't one, it's just an example of a potential tree. There is absolutely 0 resolution when it comes to early hominins   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
features less ancestral, or basal, traits I read "features" as a noun here and not a verb, which would make sense but for the "traits" at the end. Maybe just "has" so that confusion is avoided
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Great use of media overall
I try my best   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
What are your sources for the African hominin timeline?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
from australopithecines brain size I think should be either australopithecine brain size, using as an adjective, or australopithecines' brain size, using as plural possessive.
"australopithecine brain size"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The pattern of striations on the teeth of OH 65 slanting right could indicate right handedness, could you make the connection here a bit more clear to the reader--how handedness could result in a certain striation pattern
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
partially arboreal lifestyle in the trees "in the trees" is redundant here
it's supposed to gloss arboreal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
However, the foot has projected toe bone and compacted mid-foot joint structures, which restricts rotation in the hind and front parts of the foot and is implicated in the plantar arch elastic spring mechanism which generates energy while running (but not walking). can this be rephrased? Or perhaps split apart? I'm not really following the meaning
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
it is highly difficult to speculate with accuracy "speculate with accuracy" is a bit oxymoronic, perhaps "correctly identify"
"to speculate with any confidence"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
correlate between polygyny with a high degree and monogamy with a low degree based on general trends high degree and low degree of what?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
but early hominins possess probably possessed?
No, anatomically early hominins possess some traits that align with humans and some traits that align with various other apes (it's also the reason why there's basically no resolution)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I meant verb tense. Do you think it should be "possess" or "possessed"? Enwebb (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The left foot OH 8 seems to have been bitten off by a crocodile the left foot "of" OH 8? Or is OH 8 the severed foot?
it's just a foot (here's a picture)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
What are knappers?
one who knaps. I thought it was a common word, should I change it to something else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I would link and gloss at first usage. I have never seen that word before. Enwebb (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Checked for copyvio. Only hits were mirrors.
All media licensed appropriately.
Neutral, stable, broad Y


### Optional
high quantities of meat I would use "large" there, but I don't know that high is wrong.
I think it's considered more "proper" to begin sentences with the full genus name rather than an abbreviation. This is not a sticking point for GA, but something to consider.
I have never seen that convention used ever   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Just because you have never ever seen it doesn't mean it isn't a convention for some It's part of several style guides to not begin sentences with abbreviations. That specific convention is listed in several places.
American Fisheries Society "References to a genus that has already been mentioned may be abbreviated unless they occur at the beginning of a sentence"
Editage.com "However, it is better to spell out the genus in full at the beginning of a sentence."
IMA Style Guide pg 6, Beginning of sentence: spell out genus;
Enago Academy "There are a few exceptions to some of these rules. First, the entire genus name must be spelled out if it begins a sentence, even if a subsequent reference";
Like I said, optional. Enwebb (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
5 years earlier numbers less than 10 usually written out MOS:NUMERAL
personally I like seeing numbers than written out because my brain can more easily identify 5 than five   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll come back to this tomorrow, sorry for delay. Enwebb (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, I actually forgot this review was already open   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Louis Leakey.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

MEH Homo habilis Daynes.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Homo habilis.JPG
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

MEH Homo habilis Daynes.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Homo habilis.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Are there conclusive evidences that eating meat caused larger brains? - or not? - could this notion be more of a guess than factual? - this notion is referred to in the "Homo habilis#Diet" section of the article - My own related comments have been published in The New York Times (see copy, in part, below) - Could there have been some other cause for larger brains? - or not? 

Copied, in part, from => https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/opinion/coronavirus-meat-vegetarianism.html#permid=107161120 
Thank you for an excellent article - fwiw - seems eating meat may be linked to a higher cancer risk, according to a W.H.O. report ( https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/health/report-links-some-types-of-cancer-with-processed-or-red-meat.html ) => this finding seems to be consistent with the notion that humans may not be natural meat eaters - after all, humans can't eat raw meat like cats and dogs (real meat eaters) - humans may need to cook such food first - a relatively recent development in human history - further - seems early humans, instead of chasing after rabbits, or digging up carrots, may have been more opportunistic - and may have gone from one berry patch to another - much like many other primates - support for such a notion may include studies of the pulverized dental calculus of the fossil remains of early hominins, like "Australopithecus sediba" ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228324388_The_Diet_of_Australopithecus_Sediba ) - a related discusssion may be found in the 2015 PBS film documentary, "The Dawning of Humanity", that focused on discovering the fossil remains of "Homo naledi", but which also discussed related dental calculus studies (at about 46 min/114 min) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_of_Humanity ) ( transcript: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=nova-1974&episode=s43e01 - archive copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042614/https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?6tv-show=nova-1974&episode=s43e01 ) ...

In any case - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

We get food poisoning relatively easily because most of us cook raw meat, and don't need to harden our stomachs towards it. It's the same reason we don't have knives for teeth like other carnivores because we have actual knives to cut up food and daintily eat. In hunter-gatherer societies, hunting and gathering are equally important. Meat is problematic in civilization because the majority of people have a comparatively inactive lifestyle (most people can't pull off an Inuit diet). Australopithecines (like A. sediba) were probably a lot more herbivorous than Homo. Consensus is meat caused bigger brains, either by providing more calories, or taking less calories to digest. H. naledi is an oddball and it's unclear how it relates to any other hominin   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment first in response to the article snippet posted above -  I don't know what they consider "relatively recent", but humans have almost certainly been cooking  for 1-1.5 million years. As for the australopithecines, they came in two basic forms: gracile and robust. The robust australopithecines are thought to have been strict vegetarians, whence they evolved their huge jaws and massive molars - to be able to process extremely hard  and tough plant foods. The gracile  australopithecines - among them those from whom came our direct ancestors - were likely more omnivorous, but their meat intake was probabably limited to small critters.), insects (namely termites) etc. the first evidence of butchering is not till Homo habilis, and not widespread till Homo erectus. One fact that is a litle unsettling, but there's direct evidence that it happened, was that the last remaining robust australopithecines appear to have been hunted to extinction by Homo erectus and butchered for their meat. Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

article starts with: "Archaic human species from 2.8 to 1.65 mya. ... Homo habilis (lit. 'handy man') is an extinct species of archaic human from the Early Pleistocene of East and South Africa about 2.4 million years ago to 1.4 million years ago (mya)." and in the table to the right: "Temporal range: 2.3–1.65 Ma" - now what? 2.8 or 2.4 or 2.3 mya?? sources please! HilmarHansWerner (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It should be 2.4 to 1.65, fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
sorry, I added my last contribution above about the "table" before seeing yours. what's the source? in the german article you find: 2.1 mya; in the french 2.3; same in the spanish... so sources please! thanx!  HilmarHansWerner (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Based on those dates, the German article is using the most conservative definition H. habilis, and the French article is rounding down Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)