Talk:Australopithecus sediba

What about A. garhi?

Is there any merit to the claim that A. sediba is transitional to Homo? Or is this just the usual bid for media attention? How can an Australopithecus fossil of 1.8 Mya be "transitional" to a speciation that occurred 2.6 Mya? We already have a claim of a species of A. claimed as transitional to H., Australopithecus garhi. There, at least, the chronology makes sense. Any claim of "transitional to Homo" made in this article should try and present how A. sediba compares to A. garhi. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend that I know much about this. But I do know that Berger has commented that the dating of these particular fossils does not imply that the species did not already exist at an earlier date, thus it could be ancestral to Homo. I'll leave it to others to judge whether that is a realistic position. Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's impossible to judge what the long-term scientific impact of Berger's discovery will be at this point. It'll take time for people to react... there is already some disagreement (that has been added to the article). We'll see how this develops over the coming months. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The transitionality is judged "possible" by the authors of the paper. I confirm what Alfons Åberg said about the dating "paradox" and how it is solved in the paper. What makes A. sediba such a good candidate (apparently) to link the genera Australopithecus and Homo is the high number of shared derived character with H. erectus - more than A. garhi and also more than "H." habilis - for example in the pelvis. Thus the claim is actually substained. (PM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.210.101 (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is true, and H. habilis and H. erectus both evolved from A. independently, H. erectus via A. sediba and H. habilis by some other way, this would effectively mean that the H. vs. A. distinction breaks down as phyologenetically tenable taxonomy. This is possible, of course, but it raises a huge WP:REDFLAG and needs detailed discussion in the Homo article, not stashed away in some footnote on an obscure fossil. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

H. habilis v H. erectus

either Homo habilis or even the later Homo erectus

What? Isn't habilis an ancestor to erectus? How could you ever have it not be an ancestor of both, unless you are telling people that the genus Homo is paraphyletic, a composite of different lineages that are not related to each other in any way, except from an ancestoral genus, but without a root species at all.

65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't agreement as to whether erectus is derived from habilis or not. Alfons Åberg (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, it had already been proposed that H. habilis should be moved to Australopithecus before this find. If A. sediba is considered the ancestor of H. erectus, H. habilis/rudolfensis would be excluded from our direct ancestry and the genus Homo as now defined would become polyphyletic, yes (not paraphyletic: this is when a taxon is formed grouping a common ancestor and only some of its descendent). (PM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.210.101 (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the bewildering diversity of names that continue to contribute to this chaos of anthropological nomenclature, one important discussion that Au. Sediba opens is the variation exhibited for this species at this time period in this geographical region in whatever this species is, whether that be one of many or simply a chronospecies (one of the same species exhibiting a different type of variation). It will allow workers to go back to their finds and ask different types of questions. For instance, Kimbel and Johanson should be asking if their 2.3 year-old maxilla (AL 666-1) is described to the correct chronospecies, as it the oldest Homo at this time and it exhibits less derived Homo traits than do MH1 and MH2. If the mandible and teeth of MH1 and MH2 were found in isolation, I don't believe that there would be any discussion of a 1.95 mya Australopithecus, but instead which Homo species would have such small dentition but exhibits the variation of cusp spacing exhibited by Australopithecus. We certainly should take in consideration that MH1 is a juvenile, but don't forget also that the tooth size of the adult (MH2) is even smaller that that of the juvenile. I think at this point we should be discussing that this is a mosaic of characters retained from Australopithecus and handed down to Homo which should suggest interbreeding.Timothy Michael Earwood 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

“very derived”

What does “very derived” mean? —Michael Z. 2010-04-11 07:15 z

"derived" means "sharing synapomorphy". "very derived" is silly. I have tried to fix it. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Critics disagree among themselves

One thing I have noticed is that Berger's critics do not agree among themselves. Some say no, it's not a transitional species, it's an Australopithecus while othes say no, it's not a transitional species, it's a Homo. (This distinction may be worth wile taking into account in the article). So apparently there's a plethora of views on the subject. This might suggest that sediba is an important find and interpretations may yield something new. Alfons Åberg (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I have still not read any serious criticim, only general observations that I'm sure will not stand the facts. But the paper is just come out and critics have not had time to verify the claims. The paper is also very general: the authors still need to provide detailed descriptions and comparisons of the various part of the skeleton, and excavations are still ongoing (since the paper was written, more parts and more individuals have been found) - so we need to wait before the real debate starts. It is an exciting discovery that will surely spark a lot of interesting discussions! (PM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.210.101 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

so? Just because B and C are both critical of A does not mean that B and C necessarily agree among themselves. It is subjective to depict a symmetrical situation of A, B and C all agreeing among themselves as "B+C disagree with A". --dab (𒁳) 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image seems somewhat cartoonish. Is it convention to use images of this quality? From what I can tell, the drawing is based on Figure 1 in the 2010 Science paper from Berger et al. I think it would be best to remove the image until a higher quality version becomes freely available. Emw (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

more to the point, the image has copyright issues. You cannot just trace a photograph and then claim the result as your own work. --dab (𒁳) 12:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a number of images from our files as I was sent a request by email. They may be found at the following addresses on wikimedia commons if anyone wishes to replace the cartoon.

File:Australopithecus_sediba.JPG

File:Mathew_Berger_with_Malapa_Hominin_1.JPG

File:Lee_Berger_and_Job_Kibii_at_the_moment_of_discovery_of_Malapa_hominid_2.JPG

File:Mathew_Berger_with_Malapa_Hominin_1.JPG

File:Lee_Berger_and_the_Cranium_of_Australopithecus_sediba_MH1.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.141.15.229 (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

proposed species

re this, Spotty11222 (talk · contribs) is wrong in several ways.

• just because a species is "described in Science", there is nothing "official" about it. By saying Australopithecus sediba (Berger et al., 2010) we are just stating that the species has been proposed.
• by saying "if another paper comes out disputing it; then its disputed and we can mention it" you are not only confusing "proposed" with "disputed". Even if nobody had time to criticize the proposal, it would still be a proposal.
• Plus, you make clear that you have not bothered to read the article, which does make clear that the species is not just proposed, but also disputed, especially this part,

  "Criticism has been raised in Nature magazine that the authors of the initial description have failed to take the wealth of variation within Australopithecus africanus into account, prior to defining the finds as an independent species"

As you may have heard, the article lead section is supposed to summarize article content. As the article body details how the species is disputed, it stands to reason that the lead should mention the fact as well. --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The species has been officially described in the journal Science. There is no disputing that. That's like disputing Cruxicheiros as a valid genus. It has been described in a scientific journal as a new genus and species. By this reasoning, you might as well list all the other species of Australopithecus as "proposed". Yes, they are all proposed species. All species are proposed because taxonomy is a man-made creation of classifying life, but A. sediba has also been recognized by the ICZN as an official species. For example, as search of the Paleobiology Database shows A. sediba as being a species. [1] You stated that "just because a species is "described in Science", there is nothing "official" about it. By saying Australopithecus sediba (Berger et al., 2010) we are just stating that the species has been proposed." However, that does make it "official". It has been reocognised as a valid species, and remains as one until a study comes out disputing that.

Obviously, some people disagree with the papers on it, but that alone doesn't warrant a change in the wording of "proposed species" or "actual species". For example, you could say in the article lead that "Australopithecus sediba is a species of Australopithecus...." And then later on in the lead, you could mention the apparent controversy of the lack of phylogenetic trees, classification issues, and taxonomy problems that constitute many people's claims that this is not a valid species.

"Even if nobody had time to criticize the proposal, it would still be a proposal." So what you're saying is that every species that has been named, every genus, family, and order, etc., is "proposed" if no one else comments on it either in the press, letters to journals, or actual studies in journal articles? Because that's the way you make it sound. Species are named in taxonomic journals all the time and are automatically regarded as being valid. Dozens of new dinosaur species are classified each year, but these are still listed as official species even if their taxonomic history is convoluted. -- Spotty ¹¹²²² 11:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Young Discoverer

How about adding some words form the boy who discovered it, a rare treat in this field?

" I called my dad over and about five metres away he started swearing, and I was like 'what did I do wrong?' and he's like, 'nothing, nothing - you found a hominid' " from - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8609192.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.37.228 (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

morphology and interpretations

Is is really necessary to have a full paragraph quoting Dawkins? Is it necessary to quote Dawkins at all? Seems to be added an argument from authority fallacy to the article. I'm a dawkins fan, but I just don't see how quoting him really adds to the edification of the article. I'm pretty far removed from an anthropologist, so I don't feel qualified to edit the article, but I think it should be restricted to presenting salient facts and interpretations specifically about the find, not generic philosophical commentary from someone who hasn't specifically studied the fossils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zencycle (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have no problem with quoting Dawkins generally speaking, but it's just not very relevant here. Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The passage could be replaced by a simple link to an article on evolutionary nomenclature. I'm not qualified to suggest an alternative, but as a former magazine editor, I can recognize irrelevance when I see it. Mdmcginn (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Detractors of notion of A. sediba being ancestral

Species can exist for 1 +/- 0.5 million years. If the currently known fossils were late members of A. sediba, then the species may have evolved up to 3.5 mya. If the earliest known H. rudolfensis was an early member of that species, there is no mathematical contradiction to the notion of A. sediba being a direct ancestor.

Secondly, basing the species description on the skeleton of a juvenile seems to make some kind of ironic of sense for lineages that are moving towards greater and greater neotony. The juveniles will be somewhat closer to modern humans, who have lost a good portion of our sexual dimorphism as we retain more and more of our juvenile traits.

Lizard1959 (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australopithecus sediba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325202100/http://www.origins.org.za/news/entry/australopithecus_sediba_named_by_17-year-old_johannesburg_student/ to http://www.origins.org.za/news/entry/australopithecus_sediba_named_by_17-year-old_johannesburg_student/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630144236/http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com:80/_news/2012/06/27/12430341-this-pre-human-ate-like-a-chimp to http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/27/12430341-this-pre-human-ate-like-a-chimp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Australopithecus sediba/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 22:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• and an adult female partial skeleton – "partial adult female skeleton"?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• recovered from Malapa, Cradle of Humankind – would state here that this is a cave.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• which creatures could accidentally fall into – I'm not sure about the use of the word "creature". It is not scientific (and alludes to creation); also it seems to exclude Homo sapiens.

I never really noticed creature and creation have the same root, and I guess modern humans would be excluded from the list as the cave had already caved in by the time we came on the scene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• with less a pronounced brow ridge – "a less prinounced"?

fixed

• with less a pronounced brow ridge, cheek bones, and prognathism (the amount the face juts out) – less than what? Other Australopithecines?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• The teeth are oddly small – "oddly" is not very encyclopedic; maybe "comparatively"?

I mean it was pretty odd to find such small teeth in an australopithecine. "Unusually?"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"quite small"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• but is similar to modern savanna chimps – Savanna chimps only eat c3 forest plants? Savanna chimps = Chimps that live in savannas?

Yes, savanna chimps are chimps which live on the savanna, and they eat the same food as forest chimps   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• No other hominin bears evidence of eating bark – Does this mean that A. sediba does? Should be clearly stated then, do not let the reader guess.

"A. sediba seems to have eaten only C₃ forest plants such as some grasses and sedges, fruits, leaves, and bark...No other hominin bears evidence of eating bark."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• (columns running down alongside the nasal opening down to around the mouth) – what kind of columns? Colums of bone, cartilage, or a chamber? This has also two times "down"; one too much?

If you look at this image, you'll see there's a column of bone between the orbit and the maxilla on either side of the face (the lateral borders of the nose). These are called the anterior pillars. I'm not sure how to describe this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What about "a pair of bony bulges running down …" as explanation? The important things to understand are that 1) they are bone, and 2) it is an externally visible feature. "Bony bulge" might give a good idea here? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The presence of species which evolved after 2.36 million years ago became extinct around 1.5 million years ago indicates – "and" missing? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• At last, one of my hominin articles is getting reviewed. I'm trying to get this article (and Paranthropus robustus) to FA   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• When I have time I will review more, but can't promise anything at the moment. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The cave networks around Malapa comprise long, interconnected networks of caverns and openings 500 m (1,600 ft) long and 100 m (330 ft) wide. – Somewhat convoluted. Networks comprise networks? There are several networks? What, then, is 500 m long and 100 m wide – the whole set of networks? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Malapa site may have been at the base of an at most 30 m (98 ft) deep cavern system – without further details, I have no idea at all how I should imagine this. So the several networks, each 500 m long, are at the base of an 30 m cavern system? And why past tense? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It says "Caves near Malapa define a 500-m-long and 100-m-wide network of interconnected openings along chert-filled fractures. . .These trends, combined with

valley slope and bedding orientation, suggest that Malapa lies near the base of an originally >30-mdeep, strata-bound and fracture-controlled cave system eroded by valley incision"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• streeam – typo?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• an the African wild dog, – word to much

I don't see that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Megalotragus antelope, – "a"

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• phytoliths – better explain/link

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Because A. sediba had several traits seemingly convergent with Homo ergaster/H. erectus, particularly in the pelvis and legs, the describers postulated that A. sediba was a transitional fossil between Australopithecus and Homo. – But then they would be homologous, not convergent?

assuming that hypothesis is correct. Changed to "in common with"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Currently, the oldest Homo specimen is – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and search for "currently" for an explanation why this is not ideal.

If we discover an earlier Homo, this would be quite notable and the article would have to be updated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• A. sediba is now thought to have contemporaneous with H. ergaster/H. erectus and Paranthropus robustus in the Cradle of Humankind. – "been"

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• However, A. sediba could also represent a late-surviving morph or sister species of A. africanus unrelated to Homo. – See also linked page above for "however". I also like to use it, but you make heavy use of it. Here, "Alternatively" might be a better alternative.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• The very back of the brain is estimated to have been 7–10 cc. – The "back of the brain", what is that, a defined entity? If it is just the back part of the endocranium that is preserved, what does this volume tell us?

It says "The missing portion at the posterior aspect of the cranium is estimated to be approximately 7-10 cc"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• as true ancestor of Homo – "the"

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• For measuring brain volume, only the cranial vault of MH1 was preserved – Sounds as if everything else was destroyed by the researcher while measuring brain volume. Reformulate?

Removed "For measuring brain volume"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• assyemtrical – typo

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• However, such characteristics are also found in some A. africanus skulls – and this is a general comment, I see it in the entire article. We need author attributions! I think this was the one reason why the Neanderthal failed at FAC. When we state something without attribution, the reader will assume that this is the scientific consensus. This is not necessarily the case, and if we want to present a consensus, we need a secondary source to back this up. In all other cases, we need to make clear that we are citing single opinions (i.e., papers). We always need to write something like this: "However, Kimbel and Rak, in 2017, found that such …". Alternatively, "a 2017" study" works as well, just the year is important so that the reader sees how recent that study is.

I didn't think anatomical measurements were taken to be potentially controversial items (like should "The shape of the mandibular ramus is quite different between MH1 and MH2" be prefixed with "According to Berger"?). But anyways, changed to "However, such characteristics are also found in some A. africanus skulls from Sterkfontein Member 4, which Kimbel and Rak believed could indicate that these Homo-like attributes would have been lost in maturity"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, author attribution only for controversial statements, i.e. proposed hypotheses, claims, and anything that can be expected to get challenged or at least discussed in the future. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• In all likelihood – and you cite a single study, which is therefore given undue weight. We need to stay neutral. See point above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Rearranged. That should go with "However, A. sediba could also represent a late-surviving morph or sister species of A. africanus unrelated to Homo" which is supported by 4 studies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• 85% of its adult size using a chimplike growth trajectory, – "assuming" instead of "using"?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• The lordosis (humanlike curvature) and joints of the neck vertebrae which indicate similar head posture to humans. – "which" is too much?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• the overall anatomy of the neck vertebrae are apelike – "is"

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• A. sediba lacks a humanlike brachial plexus (which is identified in some A. afarensis), and the brachial plexus is responsible for nerves and muscle innervation in the arms and hands enhancing motor control. – I guess that the second part of the sentence is the explanation for "brachial plexus" and not specific for this species? Could be made clearer. Also, what does it mean that it is not humanlike? I think a bit more detail is needed here to make this information useful.

changed to "and the human brachial plexus is responsible"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• In the description, you switch tense for no obvious reason (e.g., "However, A. sediba seems to have a highly mobile lower back" vs "A. sediba had a broad and humanlike lower chest".

fixed this one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• The hip joint appears to have had a more humanlike pattern of load bearing than OH 62 assigned to H. habilis – does this mean "than the H. habilis specimen OH 62"?

that works too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• australopiths, australopithecines – I suggest to always use the same word when you mean the same thing. Otherwise the reader will asume that "australopiths" is something different. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

there is a difference depending on your definition of Australopithecus. "Australopith" refers to all members of the genus, and "australopithecine" refers to all members of Australopithecina. Australopithecina includes Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Kenyanthropus, and depending on who ask Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus. However, Australopithecus could extend to include Paranthropus and Kenyanthropus depending on who you ask, so australopith can or could not be synonymous with australopithecine. So, I just used "australopith" when the source specifically said Australopithecus and "australopithecine" when it said "australopithecine"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• though the shape of shoulder blade – "the"?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• importance in creating and using complex stone tools. – "important"

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• a high horizontal angle – angle of what?

deleted (it relates to the presence/absence of the foot arch)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Carbon isotope analysis – lower case

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Such a feeding pattern is also done by modern savanna chimps – "observed in" or "present in" instead of "done"?

observed in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ar. ramidus – Ardipithecus was never spelled out in the article.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure if it is a good idea to abbreviate genus names in the first place; we have no space limits here (and therefore no reason to do this) and the average reader can hardly remember all of them!

There's Homo, Australopithecus (and Paranthropus = Australopithecus depending on who you ask), and 1 mention of Ardipithecus, so there really aren't much to keep track of   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• fracture-resistant foods – what does this mean?

that's the exact wording used by the source, "and they probably included bark and other fracture-resistant foods as at least a seasonal part of their diet"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• sagittal x transverse – too technical I think, maybe simplify to "80.8 mm long and 112.4 mm broad".

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• (which would equate to an adult brain size 572–664 cc, significantly larger than the 420 cc observed) – maybe this is not necessary to mention, not really relevant as it only part of the line of argument proposed by this particular study, an assumption made just to prove this point, and that line of argument has become very clear already; it therefore doesn't add much.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• The nasomaxillary (from the nose to the upper lip) complex – "The nasomaxillary complex (bone between nose and upper lip)" to make this clearer? Because if you explain with "nose" and "upper lip", which are soft parts, the reader will assume that the term "nasomaxillary complex" refers to soft parts; it need to be made clear that the bone is meant.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Because resorptions occurs – resorption occurs

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• which are depository reflecting prognathism – I think you should give a little bit of background here and explain that prognathism changes with ontogeny, and how it changes in hominids. Otherwise I fear the reader will not get the point of the paragraph. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"which are depository, reflecting increasing prognathism with age"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• rest of article is ok, no more comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• I will pass it now, congrats. Please consider the comment about the author contribution though. I will stay away from any possible discussion at FAC regarding this issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction in pathology section

The pathology section states that MH1 probably had an osteoid osteoma in the right lamina of the sixth thoracic vertebra. An osteoid osteoma is a benign (noncancerous) bone tumor. Later, it states that MH1 had "the earliest diagnosed case of cancer for a hominin by at least 200,000 years." If this refers to the probable benign osteoid osteoma, it is misleading to say that MH1 definitely had cancer. 15 minutes can save you 15% or more (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is this sentence in the first part of the article? It doesn’t make sense

“Malapa is interpreted as having been a natural death trap, the base of a long vertical shaft which creatures could accidentally fall into” 2001:56A:7211:700:CD0:8620:EFDD:7D8E (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)