Talk:Homo erectus soloensis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology. |
| Start | rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
Homo erectus soloensis 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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
From the village pump:
[edit] Potential Paleoanthropology Issue
I was just browsing the 'pedia and I came across the following articles, Homo erectus soloensis and Homo erectus meganthropus. I know a bit about the Homo genus and hadn't heard of these guys before. Can anyone with more expertise than myself help determine if these articles reflect consensus views on the subject or are, rather, fringe science? Thanks. --Dante Alighieri 18:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I think this might be catagorized as fringe science (i might be wrong). I did a google search for homo erectus soloensis site:.gov which yielded no results. I did a normal google search for the same homo, and one of the top results was an article from a Christ-Focused Creation Ministry. ON the other hand, there was a reference to it in www.thefreedictionary.com, but that might be a bogus source, and i haven't time to check. Sennheiser! 23:47, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
- This article at archeology.org [1] mentions soloensis in passing, and it seems the name is derived from the Solo River in Java. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
- Hmmmm. Interesting. I think this might actually be valid. Further investigation led me to this university article which included a photogrpah of a Homo Soloensis skull. I also found another university article with an even better explanation. very exciting stuff. Sennheiser! 00:19, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- By the time I got here (MUCH later), one of those university links was dead. I just added the second one to the article. Querl 06:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Found in Australia?
The article currently makes the claim that specimens of H.e. soloensis have been recovered from Australia, but I very much doubt whether that is the case. AFAIK the only specimens which go under that name (aka "Ngandong") are those which were retrieved in the 30s from the Solo River Indonesia itself, plus a couple more fragments from the same area which were uncovered in the 80s. Indeed, the taxonomy of soloensis is still subject to debate (ie, whether late erectus or early sapiens), it seems - see for eg here.
The article may possibly be confusing claims which have been made that there are apparent similarities with the Ngandong/Solo crania to paleoanthropological finds in Australia (such as the Talgai or Willandra Lakes specimens), but this is as far as it goes, and I am not aware of any positive identification or correlation. All hominid finds thus far in Australia have been classified as subsp. sapiens, or at least no claims of non-sapiens finds have been confirmed- that, at least is my understanding. Would anyone have or know of any references to erectus finds in Australia- or indeed, a reference that H.e. soloensis has been identified anywhere outside of Indonesia?--cjllw | TALK 06:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
Some people on the Internet are claiming that the fossils at Ngandong are H. sapiens or bear traits classifiable as H. sapiens (those coming from the multiregional origins movement, rather than the out of africa movement). How do we know that the classification of Homo erectus soloensis (in Java) and Homo neanderthalensis (in Europe) are not POV? — Rickyrab | Talk 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- POV, in what sense? Do you mean, following the H. erectus classification is (unjustifiably) favouring the RSOH at the expense of multiregionalists? I would think that regardless of any online debates, the article should follow the taxonomy appearing in modern published sources, if some of those argue the taxonomy is incorrect then that too cld be noted. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
