# Talk:Paranthropus robustus

I don't know anything about this topic, but this news story was interesting and might bring more readers to this page. — Pekinensis 22:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this as suspect: Some scientists believe that paranthropus robustus may have been prey for the early homo species.. If anyone can verify this, we can put it back. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Brain size "about as big as Mike Snow's." ??? MarcusAntoninus 04:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paranthropus robustus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 20:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The link to John D. Hawk in the external links appears to be incorrect.  The Hawk linked to is an American soldier, and there seems to be no anthropology connection there.
it works fine for me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dunkleosteus77: - I'm referring to the wikilink in "John D. Hawk's website".  John D. Hawk is an American soldier with no apparent connection to anthropology.  After further research, I'm assuming the wikilink is supposed to go to John D. Hawks. Hog Farm  Bacon 17:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
force of habit to keep the s outside the brackets   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
" The species is thought to have exhibited marked sexual dimorphism, with males substantially larger and more robust than females. The brain volume of the specimen SK 1585 is estimated to have been 476 cc. Based on 3 specimens, males may have been 132 cm (4 ft 4 in) tall and females 110 cm (3 ft 7 in). Based on 4 specimens, males averaged 40 kg (88 lb) in weight and females 30 kg (66 lb). " - The brain volume sentence seems out of place within the sexual dimorphism content.  Maybe move it to after the weight sentence.  Also, MOS:NUMERALS would want three and four, rather than 3 and 4.
moved, and I prefer using numbers over spelling them out because my brain can more easily identify them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Surely that TM 1517 image is of a cast of the fossil, not the fossil itself, right?  From what I've read, almost all hominin fossils on public display are casts.  If it's a cast, then maybe indicate in the caption that it's a cast.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
"However, remains were not firmly dated, and it was debated if there were indeed multiple hominin lineages or if there was only 1 leading to humans" - MOS:NUMERALS here, "one" instead of "1"
per above   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
"McHenry also estimated the living height of 3 P. robustus specimens (male SK 82, male SK 97, and female or subadult SK 3155)" - MOS:NUMERALS on the 3
" given the elevated levels of Strontium compared to adults in teeth from Swartkrans Cave" - I don't think strontium should be capitalized
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
"Bone tools dating between 2.3 and 0.6 mya" - You state that the sources indicate these tools are almost certainly from P. robustus, but the range of the tools exceeds the range of P. robustus on one end.  Do the sources have an explanation for this?
the dates of these cave members aren't well constrained, so I changed it to "Swartkrans (Members 1–3)..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
"A 2011 Strontium isotope study of P. robustus teeth " - Again, not sure that strontium should be capitalized
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a large quantity of duplinks in here: orangutans, lumbar vertebrae, vertebral arch, H. ergaster, tooth enamel, tooth root, Meganthereon, baboons, and A. sediba
done, and sediba isn't a duplink
Oops.  You're right, the checker tool I have installed flagged one of the cladistics charts as an inline link.
Some of the sources have no identifier attached.  See if any of them have an OCLC or doi, or if the publisher has an ISSN
I see only 1 which is a pHD dissertation, so it doesn't really get any identifiers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Placing on hold. Hog Farm  Bacon 15:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see File:DNH 7 Reconstruction.jpg in the article; no doubt it's a reconstruction done in good faith, but I think we'd need this to come from a reliable source for it to be usable, and in any case the technical quality of the drawing is not very good.  I think it would be best to remove this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.03.547326v1.full
This study gives new data on biological sex and genetic variability in the Paranthropus genus. I don't 100% recognize what I'm reading so I don't know how to add this into the article in any meaningful way.  Gastropod Gaming (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

it's still a preprint so we'll wait until it gets peer reviewed and published Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Basically, the study used AMELY dental proteins to identify male specimens, and AMELX to identify female specimens. They used 4 specimens, and gender assignment using morphological and protein clues yielded the same result for 3 of them, but a previously female-assigned tooth (SK835) was "unambiguously" identified as male so morphological gender differentiation has some problems Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there any basis for that comparison? If there's an article claiming that, I'd like to get a spefic reference. That comparison is now debated on a wiki in a different language.
"As many as four P. robustus individuals have been identified as having had dental cavities, indicating a rate similar to non-agricultural modern humans (1–5%)." 
--Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a part in the text when the article refers to an estimation of "lighter weight" which is actually heavier. Can anyone explain?
from the article:
"a compromise between erectness and facility for quadrupedal climbing." In contrast, he estimated A. africanus (which he called "H." africanus) to have been 1.2–1.4 m (4–4.5 ft) tall and 18–27 kg (40–60 lb) in weight, and to have also been completely bipedal.
This was soon challenged in 1974 by American palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould and English palaeoanthropologist David Pilbeam, who guessed from the available skeletal elements a much lighter weight of about 40.5 kg (89 lb).
--Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

some things got mixed around, the much lighter weight thing is about P. robustus, not A. africanus Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that there's a, let's just say, less than professional sketch with a caption reading "Reconstruction of a female P. robustus" uploaded by user "Nikhil Iyengar" as their own work. Is this appropriate to have up? I'm not one for editing articles but I want to bring it to attention. 71.36.122.185 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not know for sure, but several have paleoart that seem to come from wiki users; so considering how those are in use on multiple articles, including those widely considered as good, such as those by user Junnn11, (Which is featured in several good articles) I would assume that this would be appropriate assuming that the paleoart is accurate. Though I do not know for sure myself. However based on information on other paleoart on Wikipedia I assume it would be allowed. FortanEvirwoods (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)