Talk:Australopithecus africanus/Archive 1

Archive 1

News story

I don't know anything about this topic, but this news story was interesting and might bring more readers to this page. — Pekinensis 22:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that i fixed this page up somewhat, alot of information seemed desprately needed.--Quena@sympatico.ca 21:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Nature peer review

Nature peer reviewed this article and compared it to the Britannica article. They found 1 error in this article, although they don't say what it was. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html , I'll try to find it. --JPotter 00:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:External_peer_review#Nature. We're hoping they will provide a list of the alleged errors soon. —Steven G. Johnson 01:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Will someone actually fix the problem??? This tag looks pretty ugly on the page.--King of the Dancehall 17:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Warning removed.

I removed it. I am an ordinary guy from Québec (French), and I don't care what notoriety Nature has, if they don't or can't say what's the error (one sentence doesn't take long to formulate), they don't deserve that kind of authority for us to put such an ugly sign up. We'll correct it when and if they confess what it is, we'll not submit to manipulations. What do they want ? Free advertisement ??

There is knowledge, and then, there's how you use it.

Éric Roy

We can wait a week. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nature errors to correct

• The contribution of Broom in the 1930s should be mentioned.

They are mentioned in Paranthropus robustus which he discovered and classified in 1938. Broom is however also mentioned here, so I'm removing the stupid tag.

We should mention it further, that's what they were saying. I'm not familiar at all with the topic, but I assume he's of great importance than we make him out to be. -- user:zanimum

---

Robert Broom was of great importance, but mostly due to his discovery of Paranthropus robustus a close relative from South Africa as well (also linked in this article). Raymond Dart was the initial founder of the species. Raymond did not literally find the bones within the lime cave but a local colleage (mine worker) sent it to him in a box, it was then that raymond began the study.--King of the Dancehall 05:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This also may be of interest. [1]. Apparently, the kid was killed by a bird

Interpretations?

"Charles Darwin suggested that humans had originally evolved from Africa, but during the early 20th century most anthropologists and scientists supported the idea that Asia was the best candidate for human origins. However, the famous Leakey family have argued in favor of the African descent since most hominid discoveries such as the Laetoli footprints were uncovered in Eastern Africa."

This doesn't make much sense to me. Between the early 20th century and the discovery of Laetoli footprints (1978-79) there are decades. I suppose that the intended meaning was "at the beginning of the century Asia was thought to be the cradle of humanity, then discoveries of A. Africanus and other hominids, and finally Laetoli footprints, pushed the idea of African descent of mankind", but as the paragraph is written now it suggests that Asian origin was the only accepted theory until 1978. Nature tag has been removed but this article seems to me all but good. GhePeU 10:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations need help.

There are citations, but they aren't cited anywhere in the text. Of course the template tells us this, but if you are out there, and you like to put citations on facts, then you'll get a gold star for the day, imb. Rhetth (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The "infamous" Leakeys?

Someone used this adjective to describe the Leakeys -- although why they should be considered infamous (i.e., known for committing malicioius acts) is not clear either from this article or their biographical entries. (Richard Leakey is involved in Kenyan politics, but to fight corruption in that country, & that is irrelevant to this article.) Until someone can explain this odd bit of POV, I'm removing it. (And I have no idea if this is the "error" the Nature complained of in this article.) -- llywrch 19:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Most likely it was written by someone who didn't quite know what "infamy" means. - Nunh-huh 19:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok it no longer says "infamous" Leakey, so I'm taking down the warning.

Are you sure that was the error that the reviewer noticed for Nature? -- llywrch 21:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me the problem, I am willing to correct it. The warning on the page looks bad and unattractive. This page should attract people not turn them away from it. So if anyone has any insights or any usefull info please tell me.--King of the Dancehall 22:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't stress over this mystery too much: a lot of people would like to know what the errors were that Nature listed. Hopefully they will share this information with us so we can make the necessary changes. -- llywrch 00:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they've already said they are going to make this information available, and that it will probably take them a week or so. - Nunh-huh 00:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

the most egregious of the remaing errors have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makapan (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How was it discovered?

Currently the article says that

Raymond Dart was at Taung near Kimberley, South Africa in 1924 when one of his colleagues spotted a few bone fragments and the cranium on the desk of a lime worker.

and later on, under the heading Discovery says that

Discovered by anatomist Raymond Dart in Johannesburg in 1924. A box of strange-looking fossils had been sent to him by a friend, and he was attempting to examine these.

So which was it? Was he in two places at once? Felsenst (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I rewrote a part of the Taung Child section, and removed the whole Discovery section as it was mostly just repeat of the former. The explanation given for the Taung Child find did not really even match the reference given, which quoted Dart's own writing. I also added a reference to TalkOrigins Archives, which had a mini-biography for Dart. — OttoMäkelä (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Craniodental features and brain size - too broad

The section begins with a discussion of brain and skull features, but then branches into hand/foot features and how the creature might have moved about. Perhaps break this into various, more specific sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilighthours (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)