Talk:Australopithecus anamensis

message: I can't find any mention on Wikipedia of Homo antiquus praegens Ferguson 1989. This is a fossil hominin from about the same age or slightly earlier than Praeanthropus anamensis. If the same, the name Praeanthropus praegens (or Australopithecus praegens, or whatever) would have precedence. Does anybody know if this has been addressed in the literature? And why is there no page for praegens? 69.231.215.41 (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The name was based on specimen KNM-ER TI 13150, which is just a piece of mandible with two molars. es:KNM-TH 13150 provides some citations, showing that other authors refer it to either A. anamensis or Ardipithecus. The name would not have priority, I believe, as it is a subspecies and Homo antiquus proper had a different holotype.--MWAK (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

text: I was mistaken: a subspecies replaces the specific name if the latter is invalid. It then all depends on whether KNM-ER TI 13150 shows any diagnostic traits, otherwise the name can be disregarded as a nomen dubium or indeterminata.--MWAK (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Homo antiquus praegens

message: But it needs sources. WAS 4.250 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice article

message: The 1965 and 1987 findings were of the same "specimen". Does that mean same individual? And the Leakey finds were of the same "hominid" - meaning same individual or just same species? 
"Although they did not find hips, feet or legs ... the fossils ... include ... the upper and lower parts of a leg bone (tibia)." Contradiction.
Where is Kanapoi? Is it the "hillside east of Allia Bay"? Nurg 22:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing article

message: Someone please upload an audio pronunciation see how lots of issues  | leave me a message 13:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio request

message: If you're discussing fossils, or long extinct species, you need images.  
- Angel Eyes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.139.212 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images needed 

message: USA Today still carries a link to Seth Borenstein's AP article. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-04-12-fossil-evolution-gap_x.htm
24.254.238.231 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New link for the Seth Borenstein reference 

message: Information on a single mandible is directly pertinent to the species it helped describe. This mandible article already strays into broader A. anamensis discussion, and it would be more welcome and useful integrated with the species article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Kanapoi KNM-KP 29281]] 

message: I went ahead and deleted 
It's been tagged for citation needed since January 2010, and was initially added in this edit  by . That edit  information instead of just adding it making me think it's just been uncaught vandalism... I can't find  about a Canadian archaeologist named Allan Morton who had anything to do with this. Umimmak (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed statement 

message: Mention of new fossil discovery in the lay press: 
That article has a link to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8 "A 3.8-million-year-old hominin cranium from Woranso-Mille, Ethiopia" (full journal article paywalled, page has citation details and abstract).
— (please mention me in replies: I don't actively scour my watchlist) Pelagic (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New fossil discovery, nearly complete cranium