Talk:Orrorin

message: Orrorin tugenensis should be the name of the page, as it's an article on the species and not the genus.
132.205.15.4 21:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename the page 

message: For anyone who wants to fix the formatting, the latest good format was here --John Lynch 04:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the formatting 

message: Not only in this article the trend amongst paleo-anthropologists to consider some solitary finds done by the individual finds reason to claim, this is the
REAL ancestor, all the other are sidebranches.
I honestly don't believe anything of that, and have never done so.
(its encyclopedical garbage)
My viewpoint is rather the oposite. we interbred with evrything we could or couldn't and thus kept the flexibility in between the variety of hominid species at an incredible, not even animalesk (perhaps), dna level.
its just a suggestion.. but it might help paleoanthropolical research a few hundred years underways a few hundred years earlier.80.57.243.72 09:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the sidebranch industry

message: If Orrorin and Sahelanthropus are shown to have not only human characteristics, but also chimpanzee characteristics, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees has been found. This may refute the possiblity advocated by Wolpoff et. al. (2006) that Sahelanthropus was a member of an African ape clade related to humans and chimpanzees that left no descendants.
Wolpoff, M.H., J. Hawks, B. Senut, M. Pickford, and J. Ahern: "An Ape or The Ape: Is The Toumaï Cranium TM 266 a Hominid?" PaleoAnthropology 2006:36-50. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orrorin as an early human ancestor  

message: Bonobos have both "chimp" and "human" (bipedal about 25% of the time) features. Why is this not a bonobo-like ancestor of both chimps and humans? If it is where does Australopithicus fit in? 70.171.38.69 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bonobo is one of the two chimpanzee species. The other is the Common Chimpanzee. When something says it has "chimp" features, that means features in common to both the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why ''exactly'' is this fossil not a bonobo? 

message: The text currently says:
The team that found these fossils in 2000 was led by Martin Pickford. Pickford claims that Orrorin is clearly a hominin; based on this, he dates the split between hominins and other African great apes to at least 7 million years ago.
This contains a specific assumption which many readers will miss and I suggest that it be pointed out. The assumption is that the oldest chimp-human relative to show bipedal characteristics must be the first "on the way" to being human. No such assumption is justified by science. Chimp ancestors may have been more bipedal, and less knuckle-walking specialized, than chimps, just for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you consider the molecular suggestions of Sapien and Gorilla/Chimp separation is later than bipedalism in the fossile record, then it is possible, maybe likely, that the common ancestor of humans and Gorilla/Chimps was a bipedal ape.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.155.224 (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A hidden assumption of "progress towards human bipedalism" 

message: How can there be a split between hominins and great apes? According to Great ape a great ape is any member of Hominidae (therefore including humans), which is a superset of Hominini. Qemist (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says African great apes, indicating modern african great apes, not Hominidae as a whole, but I can see how it may be misleading as it is written, if you have a better wording feel free to suggest. Maybe from OTHER great apes would be clearer? Nowimnthing (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the split between hominins and African great apes 

message: The section below was added by  in November 2007.  However, only one of the references used (as available today) actually mentions Orrorin.  The origin[s] of bipedalism is a very interesting topic, but (1) it's not the topic of this article, (2) only one reference is scientific, and (3) an "alternative theory" (per edit summary) always need to be present as such.  So I removed this from the article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alt theory 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orrorin. 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/20140226104334/http://www2.ku.edu/~lba/courses/articles/ORRORIN.pdf to http://www2.ku.edu/~lba/courses/articles/ORRORIN.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I recently found a source saying the 20 specimens are from up to five individuals. If that source is maybe not great, let's at least have the article say we don't know how many individuals. This question is important so if we don't know we should at least say we don't know. thanks, brah what up (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "At least," as the current version says, and "Up to" are quite different things. It's better to cite the original study rather than some third party as is done now, so if you're looking at the study, fix the wording   04:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, I wrote it wrong here on talk. but my edit was right-- source says "coming from a minimum of five individuals". brah what up (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up to five individuals