Talk:Cro-Magnon 1
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge tags
[edit]I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species
[edit]1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.
2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.
3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.
4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Morphological characteristics?
[edit]It would be nice to see some information on how the morphology of the Cro-Magnon skull compares to modern humans, with respect to archaic vs. modern features. --Saforrest 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well i agree, something more could be said, i moreless see this skull used as the type specimen for ourselves wikithrough, and it looks very strongly build compared to most. splendid teeth btw.! is there a known explanation for the relatively strongly eroded frontside? since it's fossilised that exposure must be archaic. (could be just water dripping on a grave ofcourse.)62.194.221.212 (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Gender
[edit]Is Cro Magnon 1 male or female?
Photos
[edit]There 2 photos of two differents specimens of skull. One should be the correct one (maybe) but at least one should be wrong and so removed.--Bramfab (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Cranial Cavity Size
[edit]I have corrected an error on this article regarding the cranial cavity of Cro-Magnon 1 and modern humans. It was written that modern man had an average cranial cavity size of 1,200-1,700cm3, which is false. It is well known that the average cranial cavity for living people falls somewhere between 1,200cm3 and 1,400cm3, with variation occurring between the sexes and the races. The source cited also listed modern humans as having larger cranial cavities than Neanderthals, which is an elementary error. The biggest cranial cavity ever unearthed belonged to Amud 1, a Levantine Neanderthal. He was measured at 1,740cm3, which far surpasses Cro-Magnon 1 and all other Upper Paleolithic hominids and absolutely dwarfs contemporary man.
- [1] gives Cro-Magnon 1 an endocranial volume of 1730cm. Not that I think this means a lot as it is just one specimen. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Cro-Magnon 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060707133653/http://www.mnh.si.edu:80/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html to http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)