Talk:Australopithecus

message: I've had to change or delete several comments in the Australopithecus article, mainly because of inaccurate information or religious idealism set to demolish Australopithecus as completely not related to modern humans (vandalism). This article should only mention the theories and evidence, it is not an opinion article. For more information on how humans are closely related to apes (particularly Pan troglodytes) see Chimpanzee Genome Project --King of the Dancehall 01:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please keep it scientific

message: Place Australopithecus afarensis, A. bahrelghazali, A. garhi, and A. anamensis in a new page, Praeanthropus. This is based on the new hominid family tree proposed by Cela-Conde & Ayala (2003), which shows that Orrorin is more related to Praeanthropus than to any other hominid genera. Praeanthropus africanus (Weinert, 1950) (P. afarensis [Johnason et. al., 1978] is a synonym) is the type species of Praeanthropus. Praeanthropus and Orrorin are placed in their own subfamily, Praeanthropinae Cela-Conde & Altaba, 2002. Strait & Grine (2004) suggest that Australopithecus is paraphyletic, based on a cladistic analysis.
Cela-Conde, C. J., & Altaba, C. R. 2002. Multiplying genera versus moving species: a new taxonomic proposal for the family Hominidae. South African Journal of Science 98: 229-232.
Cela-Conde, C. J., & F. J. Ayala. 2003. Genera of the human lineage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100 (13): 7684-7689.
Strait DS, Grine FE. (2004). Inferring hominoid and early hominid phylogeny using craniodental characters: the role of fossil taxa. J Hum Evol 47(6):399-452. 72.194.116.63 01:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Properly referenced descriptions of all significant viewpoints is the essence of our neutral point of view policy, which of course must be done using verifiable information without "original research". By the way, good idea to get an account, . .. dave souza, talk 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praeanthropus Senyuerek, 1955 

message: They were the slowest-moving primates at the time and many fell prey to carnivorous creatures (lions and the extinct Dinofelis). Once upon a time there was a beautiful princess who kissed a frog..... Who wrote this divel?  How the <insert expletive here> can we expect to persuade the creationists, et al if this is the quality of <insert another expletive here> our arguements. 125.25.181.38 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story time 

message: I fixed a sentence that was confusing and could have been construed to imply that humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (pan troglodytes) interbred (something that has not been shown because of the chromosome number differences and such experimentation is so taboo) and instead clarified that it was the lineages that diverged and interbred for a while  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.31.163 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A few changes

message: Is this even a word? Shouldn't it be "australopithecenes"? (Dare I propose australopitheci? Probably not.) Rwflammang (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Australopiths?

message: Is it australopithěcus or australopithēcus? The second seems more correct philologically. But what to scientists actually say?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.123.252 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one. Valeriya (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronounced?

message: "However, the view that human ancestors were knuckle-walkers is now questioned since the anatomy and biomechanics of knuckle-walking in chimpanzees and gorillas are different, suggesting that this ability evolved independently after the last common ancestor with the human lineage.{{cite journal | last1 = Kivell | first1 = TL | last2 = Schmitt | first2 = D. |date=Aug 2009 | title = Independent evolution of knuckle-walking in African apes shows that humans did not evolve from a knuckle-walking ancestor | url = | journal = [[Proceedinggracile australopiths evolved; the pelvis structure and feet are very similar to modern humans.<ref> The teeth have small canines, but australopiths generally evolved a larger postcanine dentition with thicker enamel.s of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America]] | volume = 106 | issue = 34| pages = 14241–6 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0901280106 | pmc = 2732797 | pmid = 19667206 |bibcode = 2009PNAS..10614241K }}</ref> Further comparative analysis with other primates suggests that these wrist-bone adaptations support a palm-based tree walking."
Can't figure out what's wrong here.  Help, please Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with Evolutionary role section 

message: The section on 'Cladistics, paraphyly, extinction, genus status, naming and human exceptionalism' reads as an unencyclopedic technical opinion essay on problems of definition in evolution and in my view does not belong in this article. I suggest deleting the whole section or reducing it to a neutrally worded non-technical paragraph about the issues specifically as they relate to Australopithecus. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Cladistics, paraphyly, extinction, genus status, naming and human exceptionalism 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: A sentence in the lead claims that this species is not "extinct" in "in the sense of having no living descendants," but as far as I can tell, there is NO sense in which the word "extinct" is used in this way. Furthermore, this contradicts the previous sentence. For example, see extinction: "The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of the species." The entire article contains no mention at all of whether or not the existence of living descendants has any any bearing on its status as "extinct." In fact, from the article: "Pinpointing the extinction (or pseudoextinction) of a species requires a clear definition of that species. If it is to be declared extinct, the species in question must be uniquely distinguishable from any ancestor or daughter species, and from any other closely related species. Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge." I perused through the references that are cited at the end of the sentence in question, and unless I missed it, none of them claim that this species is not extinct (in any sense). I'm going to modify the sentence to clarify the issue; this species is extinct (in every sense of the word) but gave rise to other species. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "extinct" and "no living descendents"  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion