Talk:Paranthropus robustus

message: 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)
thread_title:  News story 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suspect information 

message: Brain size "about as big as Mike Snow's." ??? MarcusAntoninus 04:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reconstruction image? 

message: 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)
replies: text: it's still a preprint so we'll wait until it gets peer reviewed and published Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New data 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The comparison to non-agricultural human beings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Much lighter weight? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should unprofessional sketch be removed?