Talk:Chororapithecus

message: I have yet to read the nature article but I would say the split indicates at Gorilla from Humans/Pan species not humans from other apes.  The split for Homo/Pan is about 6 million years ago. --Cody.Pope 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this issue may have now been addressed with a tidy up of wording. Drop another note if it hasn't. --jjron 02:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and modified the opening paragraph, to indicate this difference.  Hopefully the wording is all right. --Cody.Pope 10:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split Apes from Humans?? 

message: Per Chimpanzee: "It is thought that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees as recently as four to seven million years ago", though we're still waiting on a cite for that. We may want to be sure that Chororapithecus abyssinicus clarifies the Gorilla/Chimpanzee/Human lineage. --  Writtenonsand 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gorillas <-> Chimpanzees <-> Humans

message: Just something I noticed when browsing.
The source article says that the teeth "partly resemble" modern gorillas. The article says they are "nearly indistinguishable." Seems kind of misleading. 12.201.118.185 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. May be, the authors didn't read the original nature article; Suwa et. al. wrote, or instance, the fossil can "be recognized as a strong candidate for membership in the modern gorilla clade." --De.Gerbil 12:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nearly indistinguishable 

message: Seems very premature to restructure our entire thinking about the human/gorilla/ape/chimpanzee timeline based on nine little teeth.  Very intriguing but hardly proof of anything. Mapjc 14:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I've tightened up the wording of section headings a bit to try to acknowledge this. Note that other expert opinions skeptical of the implications are also clearly included. These could be expanded upon, especially as more criticism comes in. --jjron 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rush? 

message: Previous research section - mentions problems with carbon dating.  This should probably read as 'radiometric dating' as carbon dating exclusively used for several tens of thousand years period.  I also saw the same error in a news story about the discovery. ~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.50.195 (talk) 21:03, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
Logical whazzername: How can the 'failure to find a fossil' be 'due to the inaccuracy' of a dating method? This is nonsense. Please rewrite and say what you meant. Captainbeefart 02:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This stuff was typical nonsense creationist vandalism that has since been reverted. --jjron 02:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for minor edits / clarifications 

message: What family does this ape hail from? I assume Hominidae, but I'm not certain enough to add that to this article. Also, this article is not linked from any other article except for August 2007, which barely counts. Linking the genus redirect from the family page would solve that. --mav 02:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family?  

message: I'm of the belief that having a photo of a modern gorilla skull is more than a bit misleading, especially for a fossil that purports to push the earliest known ancestor of Pan and Homo back 2 million years. 174.251.137.63 (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @174.251.137.63 *Gorillini, not Pan. Pardon my mistake. 174.251.137.63 (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Both images are of Gorilla skulls. Even though Chororapithecus has teeth that were, in many respects, identical to that of a modern gorilla, that doesn't mean we should use the image of a gorilla skull. I'll remove the images from the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Photo