Talk:Lucy (Australopithecus)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Ethiopia, an attempt to co-ordinate articles related to Ethiopia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, 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 Project's quality scale.
WikiProject Primates Lucy (Australopithecus) 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] Couple of problems

Couple of problems, lucy was not near complete, she was 40% complete. Here name has nothing to do with aramaic, she was named after the beatles song "lucy in the sky with diamonds" which is what they were listening to when she was discovered. It mentions nothing about her health (she had arthritis when she died) or the age of death (which was 20 years old) and mentions nothing of her cranial capacity. I'd change it but am very new to editing wikipedia. Shoeb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.243.159 (talk • contribs)

Welcome. Go ahead and edit - we'll help out. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest, firstly as the article says, "Both Johanson and Gray carefully analyzed the partial skeleton and calculated that an amazing 40% of a hominin skeleton was recovered, which, while sounding generally unimpressive, is astounding in the world of anthropology." Perhaps the phrasing of the lead section can be improved, but as the rest of the Discovery section indicates, 40% is quite something for remains from that period. At a quick hunt through my old copy of the book I've not found anything about Lucy's age or health, probably not looking in the right place. Do you have a reference for these statements? Look forward to your help in improving the article, ... dave souza, talk 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uninformative link

  • Tel Aviv University Casts Doubt On Lucy appears to be an uninformative press release claiming, but giving no details of, a refutation of an alleged claim that Lucy was a "last common ancestor" which I've not seen made, so I've moved the link here. .. dave souza, talk 19:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valgus Knee

Article states that Lucy has a valgus knee. It's my understanding that the specific skeleton "Lucy" had no knee. Is this a statement about Australopithecines rather than Lucy? Is this information gleaned from other fossil bones? Perhaps it should say "Australopithecus had a valgus knee."70.57.120.23 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In a creationist video, they claim Lucy is just an ape. They say the scientists used the valgus knee as a proof she walked upright, but deceive us by not mentioning that knee was found kilometers away, belonging to a different skeletton. So what are the facts now? I assume they mixed that up, that no one ever claimed that knee belonged to Lucy, but what proof do the scientists have now she's a missing link, if not that? --Mithcoriel (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Lucy, whilst not possessing a complete knee joint, did have her right lower knee joint and left upper knee joint. This was sufficient to establish she possessed a valgus knee, and thus imply bipedalism. However Johanson also found another knee joint 2 km away but in the same strata which was a better example of a valgus knee but very little of the rest of the specimen remained. I'll check his book later and try to find out the other knee's catelog number. This other knee is often referred to with reference to the bipedalism of Australopithecines simply because it is a better example than Lucy's. GameKeeper (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
As stated in the article, the Knee joint reference AL 129-1 was found about two and a half kilometres away, a year before the "Ludy" discovery. More fossils, of the "first family", were later found, nearer to Lucy if I recall correctly. The skull and pelvis also give evidence of upright walking, see Australopithecus afarensis#Bipedalism .. dave souza, talk 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy - Speculation

Almost all of a creatures biology is found in its soft tissue - bones do not tell a story other than "it lived" and "it died". Any thoughts about how those bones moved or looked with skin on are speculation, not fact. Do those bones (found scattered, not together) really all go together? In that particular arrangement? If so, you can only guess at what the creature was, if it was an abnormal specimen, if it was afflicted by disease or deformation, dwarfism, giantism, premature aging, etc... They are just bones. We can't know if "Lucy" had (or could have been capable of having, due to age, defect, or lack of a mate) offspring. I think the article might be a bit biased towards the beliefs of the people who put the bones together. This article should be approached with the scrutiny it deserves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.152.191 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 July 2007

Your ignorance of anthropology and forensic science is not a sound basis for "speculation" about scrutiny of the article. .. dave souza, talk 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amharic name

The opening statement "Lucy (also given a second (Amharic) name: ድንቅነሽ dinqneš, "you are wonderful"..." does not seem to be supported by the Johanson and Edey book, as far as I can find without completely re-reading it. A web search just shows mirrors of this article. I've therefore put a {{Fact}} tag on, and would appreciate a reference, preferably giving a page number if it's somewhere in that book... dave souza, talk 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 'Problems' section

I removed the following text, which was under the title "Problems".

Further observation of the fossil appear to have shown that she did not have the knee joints to be able to walk. She walked only on all of her knuckles. Some justify her inability of being able to walk by saying that only ‘certain species of apes at the time were bipedal’. Furthermore, scientists had speculated that a hominid that lived at Lucy’s time would have had a large brain and would have been using tools by that time. However, scientists found that the braincase wasn’t near large enough to hold a brain the size that they had conjectured. In fact, it was only big enough to hold the size of a common chimpanzee’s brain. Problems also arrived when putting together her rib cage. Human rib cages are far more flat than apes, who have a barrel shaped rib cage. When putting together Lucy they found hers to be almost completely like that on an ape.

For the following reasons

  • ...she did not have the knee joints to be able to walk.She walked only on all of her knuckles This directly contradicts the references. Please cite a reference if can.
  • Furthermore, scientists had speculated that a hominid that lived at Lucy’s time would have had a large brain and would have been using tools by that time. However, scientists found that the braincase wasn’t near large enough to hold a brain the size that they had conjectured. In fact, it was only big enough to hold the size of a common chimpanzee’s brain This is mentioned already in the Cranial specimens section
  • Problems also arrived when putting together her rib cage. Human rib cages are far more flat than apes, who have a barrel shaped rib cage. When putting together Lucy they found hers to be almost completely like that on an ape. This does not explain why this was a 'problem'. The article could do with some more info on Lucy's ribs but without citations and coming from the same editor as added the above I decided to remove this too. GameKeeper 22:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove 'was flown out in the middle of the night'

Please remove this snippet, it seems like a hidden message that it was sneeked out of the country. Doesn't add anything to the controversy part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.65.235.123 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, it wasn't supported by the source and an update was needed anyway. .. dave souza, talk 07:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed 'current debate' section

I removed [1] as this does not relate directly to Lucy as it was not her jaw that was used. It is also in the Australopithecus afarensis page where it is more appropriate. GameKeeper 17:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modified 'Current Debate' section

I modified and reinserted the section "Current Debate" to clarify previous confusion regarding pertinency to Lucy. This information is pertinent to Lucy, not because of her jawbone, but because it has heavy bearing on her and her species' relationship to man, a topic already discussed thoroughly throughout the rest of the article. Some overlap of information with the australopithecus afarensis article is unavoidable, and already present anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.191.216 (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This article does not assert direct human lineage, and as Gamekeeper says the question is appropriately dealt with at the afarensis article. .. dave souza, talk 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 24th

Lucy was found on the 24th of November, I tried to edit this but for some reason the edit wont stick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.141.169.98 (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

THe date was in the article 2x, once in the box on the right once in the text. I have altered 2nd instance too. This date is backed up by http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by GameKeeper (talk • contribs) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Checking a few other references , some say the 30th of November! It looks like there is some disagreement. I'll do some digging and see what I can find. GameKeeper 07:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Johanson & Edey (1981), Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind p. 17 opens with "On the morning of November 30, 1974". The "Institute of Human Origins" page at the asu page linked above states "the 24th of November, 1974". The site lists as Faculty "Donald C. Johanson, Ph.D., Director", so presumably it would be worthwhile emailing them. Can you do that in the context of whatever else you find? .. dave souza, talk 10:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I am drawing a blank on this one. I have emailed ASU and not got a reply. I have checked some newspapers from 1974, I did find a reference to Lucy's discovery in the 24th of December 1974 issue of the Guardian (page 3, at bottom). It states the date as the 24th of November, this info coming from a press conference in Addis Ababa given on the weekend of 21-22nd of December 1974 . I could not find a reference earlier than Johanson's book "Lucy, the beginnings of humankind" (1981) to the 30th of November date. In my opinion the 24th was the earliest date given so perhaps we should stick with that. Any other opinions welcome.
Other info/clues from various sources.
  • It was the day after Richard Leakey had left the camp, that Lucy was discovered.
  • 24th was a Sunday, 30th a Saturday.
  • There is a fair amount of confusion around Ethiopian dates due to the Ethiopian calendar.
  • Ethiopia itself was in turmoil at the time due to the fall of Haile Selassie. ( he was deposed on 12th September 1974.) GameKeeper 22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wrong data

I've came this wiki page to get some ideas for a paper i am wrtting up on this particular find... it has alot of mistakes, it also speaks largely about certain fetures which were not found in association with Lucy but other Australopithecus afarensis finds. This article should probably focus only on the significance of Lucy, and her fossil material, not on general knowledge found from all Australopithecus afarensis finds. Also citations are missing from the Notable characteristics section, and some of that info is not very good. If anyone cares to fix it I'd suggest looking at some primary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.253.44 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dates of exhibit

The Houston Museum website http://www.hmns.org/exhibits/special_exhibits/lucy.asp?r=1 currently says the exhibit in Houston will go through April 27, 2008, not April 20. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BIASED

this article is BIASED. there is no talk of intelligent design or desputes AND NO WHERE DOES IT SAY LUCY IS A FAKE!!!!! no where is there any mention of lucy being a fraud. someone change this please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.249.135.22 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon, I hesitate to tell you this, but unfortunately sometimes verifiable reality is biased. Particularly against fraudsters like the "intelligent design" cdesign proponentsists. Not sure about these desputes, any relation to Despute Dawg? . . dave souza, talk 08:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What makes this human?

What exactly makes this skeleton more "human" than monkey? 65.101.237.204 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The creature who possessed this skeleton was more closely related to a modern day homo sapiens than a monkey, just as you are more closely related to your mother than your cousin. GameKeeper (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well said. A longer answer.... The article notes "Lucy was only 1.1 m (3 feet 8 inches) tall, weighed 29 kilograms (65 lb) and looked somewhat like a Common Chimpanzee, but although the creature had a small brain, the pelvis and leg bones were almost identical in function with those of modern humans, showing with certainty that these hominids had walked erect." A Chimpanzee is more like a human than a monkey is, and indeed is the closest of the apes to humans. The implication of Lucy walking upright is that she was probably on the branch that led from a common ancestor with chimpanzees off towards humans, and from analysis it has been thought that her species Australopithecus afarensis was ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo, which includes the modern human species, Homo sapiens. An alternative analysis suggests the species may have belonged to the robust australopithecines branch of the hominid evolutionary tree and so not a direct ancestor of man. The articles will give you a bit more detail. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)