Talk:Chororapithecus abyssinicus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Primates Chororapithecus abyssinicus is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Split Apes from Humans??

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Gorillas <-> Chimpanzees <-> Humans

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)

[edit] Text copied from Wikinews

Is there any reason for the Wikinews text to be in this article in a near-verbatim state? I realize that the article would be quite short without the additional commentary, but the tone/writing style of the last four paragraphs certainly isn't that of an encyclopedia article. – Swid (talk · edits) 19:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps complaints about unencyclopedic content should begin with the BMs that have been here for years, not breaking news that has yet to even pass through the usual "editors'" review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.251.227 (talk) 04:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the article's gone in near verbatim from Wikinews as a start, to be edited and improved upon. If you check now I think you'll already find considerable difference and improvement. --jjron 02:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nearly indistinguishable

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)

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)

[edit] Rush?

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)

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)

[edit] Suggestions for minor edits / clarifications

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)

This stuff was typical nonsense creationist vandalism that has since been reverted. --jjron 02:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from Peter Andrews are taken out of context and are misleading because of this (discovered by reading the original article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.244.85 (talk) 06:14, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family?

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)