Talk:Chororapithecus

Chororapithecus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 25, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)

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)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 16:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well uphold my tradition of a review for every nomination, in which case I'll take this one on. On first read the article seems a little shy on some information, but I'm not surprised given the probable lack of papers on a taxon known from a few teeth. I'll continue adding more as I go along. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy:

Either some linking to the locations (Chorora Village, Beticha) or some rough approximations of the location (eg. southern Ethiopia) would be appreciated, otherwise the only location information easily identified is the country.
~~Explanation of what CHO-BT stands for would be good~~

I would assume "Chorora - Beticha" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case an institution the teeth are held in would be nice, if available. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't seem to specify that User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Stating they are derived after that they have unique specializations is unnecessary~~

I like to include the actual term User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two phrases are not synonymous, and derived is not used later, so one of them should go. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are they redundant or contradictory? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are redundant enough that both "derived" should not be included since it is never brought up later in the text. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like to include the actual term, like "Hominini (humans and chimps)" instead of just "humans and chimps" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 13:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should either be incorporated into the sentence "... are derived as they have unique specializations ..." or removed, as it disrupts sentence flow and is not an explanation of what unique specializations mean. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would you define derived? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being derived is a relative term, compared to gorillas Chororap is not derived. Having unique features makes it derived compared to their common ancestor, which is not what the comparisons are to. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Because the Chororapithecus teeth have several specializations not shared with those of gorillas (they exhibit a derived condition compared to the presumed last common ancestor), they did not consider it as ancestral to the gorilla." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is some conflict between the lead and the taxonomy here. The lead says Chororap. is the only fossils of a great ape lineage, but taxonomy says it is the only Miocene fossil, but also that Nakalip. is as well.

Because they didn't firmly say "We classify Nakalipithecus in Gorillini", they simply said it's a possibility, whereas with Chororapithecus, the discoverers said "We classify it in Gorillini, though it is a possibility it is not" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe then add the modifications of the phylogeny where nakalipi is either outside or within gorillini to make it clearer its position is less certain. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of age discussion seems a bit choppy, perhaps split between the original and later interpretation like "... and the discoverers then concluded that the gorilla–human last common ancestor (LCA) existed about 12 mya.[1] The [teeth/deposit] was subsequently re-dated to about 8 mya by [authors], which, if Chororapithecus is indeed a stem gorilla ..."

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~A little mixing of tenses, all but the final sentence of the age paragraph should be past-tense~~

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~A bit more discussion of the phylogenetic results could add to the article, why Chorora is where it is etc.~~

similarities with gorillas is in the Anatomy section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~It is mentioned that is might not be a gorillin, but where would it be if it wasn't?~~

it would be a stem hominine or hominid, added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~This paper discusses hominin evolution, and puts forward how previous studies require Chororapithecus to be a hominin to match their proposed MRCA~~

That's basically the function of "it is possible that Chororapithecus and gorillas instead convergently evolved the same teeth due to a similar diet" and "if Chororapithecus is indeed a stem gorilla". If it isn't a gorillin, then it wouldn't be a crown hominine User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~It is also suggested that Chororapithecus having lateral cusps is the primitive feature for Homininae and also suggests the genus is a stem-hominine instead of a gorillin~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~And finally there is this review of phylogeny that should probably be included~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~A statement giving the uncertainty of it being a gorillin would be nice, since the papers I found above seem to state the teeth actually differ more than they are similar.~~ IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy:

~~The "molars range in size" should specify that it is adult gorilla size, and also replace "from" with "between"~~

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~"increasing" -> "increase"~~

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Discussion on why a wide base is important would be nice~~

I'm fairly sure the answer is it makes crushing more effective but it doesn't specify User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~A bit more discussion of why the latter features are important, or comparisons to other animals teeth would add some relevance to the section~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paleobiology:

~~An image of a comparable environment would be nice~~

I'm not aware of anyone making note of a comparable environment User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~What plants are harder and more brittle?~~

it doesn't specify, but when I see hard, brittle foods, it generally is in reference to seeds User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then add a statement about what orangutans eat? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in Suwa ea 2015, it includes all the ecological information you could need, more about specific fauna from the same locality, from elsewhere in the formation, relative ages, habitat types, and "first sub-saharan mammals from 7-9ma"

I don't know what more I would add that would be relevant to Chororapithecus User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything about the environment would be good, and the statement about being the first discovery of sub-saharan mammals from the late miocene would be worthwhile adding to the history section. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

added to Palaeobiology User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other and Lead:

~~The total number of teeth is never mentioned in the article, should be added~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~(and the only other) should be removed, and an entire sentence should be added detailing the possible relationships~~

the only possible relationships are that it's either in Gorillini or it's not User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bracketed phrase still messes with the flow of the sentence, it should either be incorporated into the prose or removed. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

removed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~If information on the describers is available, etymology and some more background could be added to the lead, and the taxonomic aspects could be split into their own paragraph~~

I think the lead is as big as it should be considering how tiny the article is. It's already bigger than the Anatomy section User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments:

~~I'll let the "derived" discussion stay above, but that one~~
~~Information on the describers should be given at the beginning of the taxonomy/history section, Suwa and two other authors have articles so they should be relevant enough to be mentioned in context~~

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Every time the authority of something changes, authors should be mentioned (eg, who redated it, who considered the teeth to be non-gorillin etc)~~

I mean, everyone acknowledges that it could not be a gorillin User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Optional" See Also should be made into three columns, reduced in content, or moved below References~~

the amount of columns depends on how wide your screen is. My screen shows 3 columns, and See also is always placed before References in my experience User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah looking at it I can see it is set to the width 25em. I would reduce it to 20em so there isn't as much separation of columns while preserving the look on mobile and other setups. Now optional. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~A note about the localities being different ages is good, especially since it means not all listed fauna definitely coexisted~~

I just listed out the animals from the Beticha locality User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An image of gorilla teeth should be added to Anatomy (if it exists) if one of those of Chororap cannot be found or made.

added gorilla skull User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Optional" I would personally think splitting the Taxonomy into a History and a Taxonomy section would be better, as then the information about discovery, what fossils, authors etc can be separated from age and classification more cleanly
~~"Optional" An image of Afar Region, Ethiopia should be added to Paleobiology to add a rough environmental context and illustrate the article more~~

I don't know if the Afar region 8 mya looked like as it is now User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 17:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I have to say, the article, for what's available, is rather comprehensive. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, good job. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Photo

I'm of the belief that having a photo of a modern gorilla skull is more than a bit misleading, especially for a fossil that purports to push the earliest known ancestor of Pan and Homo back 2 million years. 174.251.137.63 (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@174.251.137.63 *Gorillini, not Pan. Pardon my mistake. 174.251.137.63 (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Both images are of Gorilla skulls. Even though Chororapithecus has teeth that were, in many respects, identical to that of a modern gorilla, that doesn't mean we should use the image of a gorilla skull. I'll remove the images from the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A skull image has been added back into the article and I agree it does NOT belong here. It is also misleadingly labeled to imply it is a Chororapithecus skull, despite clearly being 100% intact and not fossilized, not to mention this taxon is known exclusively from teeth. 2601:441:5000:13E0:605D:AECF:8686:7867 (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]