Jump to content

Talk:Homo ergaster/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
Yeah! Just so you know, I will not have huge amounts of time on my hands until about 4 or 5 June (I didn't expect a review to begin this quickly!) so major changes needed (there will probably be a few) might have to wait until then. I'll try and address smaller issues you find in the meantime, hope that's fine. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first thing I'm noticing is that the majority of the texts you're citing come from 2005 or before, and a lot of the ones after that don't focus on H. ergaster, and consequently some views in the article I'm noticing are one-sided or outdated. I'll make note of them as I read   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even think of that, but yes, you're right. I'll do my best to update areas you feel require more recent texts as you find them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lede states that most fossils are from the period 1.8 to 1.7 million years ago, but that "a handful" of specimens are younger than that, but yes this could be made more clear. Unless that is outdated as well, there is, as stated later in the article, some confusion as to when ergaster disappears. I've added the 1.5 mya date (Turkana Boy) to the lede as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The core issue presented in the entire article is what H. erectus actually is. "later H. erectus populations in Asia" would refer to H. erectus sensu stricto which AFAIK is restricted to younger Asian fossils. I'll look into this more when I get the time, but I remember a theory that H. ergaster/H. erectus evolved in Asia and then expanded back into Africa, not sure how well that holds up anymore. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that's the theory I'm talking about   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a paragraph on this theory; will add more from the other source (the 1.95 mya one) soon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done with this now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure of this since "Neanderthal" is a common name and we don't capitalize names like "human" and "wolf". I've capitalized it now since you expanded the Neanderthal article. Is it capitalized because "Neandert(h)al" is technically a place name? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True. I changed the examples of American English I knew of in the article to British English, but I might be missing stuff since I'm not a native English speaker. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "tendency towards extended period of development and growth" from the lede and from the other place where it was cited as a significant difference between earlier Homo and H. ergaster. Also added a paragraph on the Gona pelvis and the Mojokerto child and what they mean for growth in H. ergaster. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Earlier Homo likely lived in large groups of perhaps a hundred individuals or more" you may want to double check this? Considering how few remains are known, I don't believe the behavior of pre-erectus hominins is particularly well known   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is speculation and conjecture from one of the sources. I think it's fine to keep in the article itself, where it is made clear that it is speculation, but I've removed it from the lede. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other sources discussing group composition?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For obvious reasons there don't seem to be very many on the group size of early Homo. I've added another source with estimates on group size. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source used for this specifically refers to H. ergaster as the first primate to become a "social carnivore", which I took to mean pack-hunter, but hunter-gatherer might be better here since we're dealing with almost-humans. Changed to "hunter-gatherer" in the lede. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you should use this in the body as well, as H. erectus (and similar species) are regarded as the first hunter gatherers, which I think is implicated in the extinction of australopithecines and other Homo but I don't quite remember   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "hunter-gatherer" in the body as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all instances of "thick skull walls" from the article; if this would be a trait only in H. ergaster fossils I'm sure it would have been brought up in the defense of keeping it as a separate species at some point so I assume they didn't have absurdely thick skulls walls either. I added the actual other distinctions Klein (2005) mentions to replace the double use of "thick skull walls" in the sentence in question. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Went with "per". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "or" does come: "Baab concluded that H. erectus s.l. was either a single but variable species, several subspecies divided by time and geography or several geographically dispersed but closely related species". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, changed both instances of "supraorbital" to "brow ridge". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "most". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this (published this year!) paper would be the one used for that. The fossils seem to be described as Homo erectus sensu lato, which again highlights the messiness of H. erectus. Since they are from Africa, they would probably be regarded as H. ergaster under a strict definition of H. erectus (though maybe not - H. erectus sensu lato covers a wide range of morphology). I don't have access to the paper (maybe you have?) so I can't really look into this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an African Homo erectus and so would fall under the umbrella of H. ergaster. The most relevant parts to this article are "DNH 134 [the H. erectus s. l. specimen] is at least 100,000 to 150,000 years older than H. erectus s.l. specimens from Dmanisi and over 300,000 years older than the KNM-ER-3733 cranium from Kenya at ~1.63 Ma old... As such, DNH 134 represents the oldest fossil with affinities to H. erectus in the world. Despite this, we do not assert that the species necessarily evolved first in southern Africa, especially given major geological biases in hominin finds across Africa. However, the dating of the DNH 134 cranium to >1.95 Ma ago substantially weakens the hypothesis that H. erectus sensu lato evolved outside of Africa."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added the info from this paper. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If only European and East Asian fossils and artifacts are considered, it is possible that archaic humans expanded beyond Africa and Israel only between 1.6 and 1 million years ago" I remember evidence of hominin occupation in China 2 mya   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the source for that? That would be good to include in the article, then. East Asian fossils being younger than 1.6 million years should still hold up. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From Nature   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The age of Ubediya is already mentioned earlier in the same paragraph (the age for the tools is the same as the incisors - 1.4 to 1 mya), does it need to be mentioned again? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You spelled it differently the second time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yeah. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to no longer be true; added precise dating with citation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased this a bit and changed some stuff around but the idea here is that H. erectus is very commonly reiterated to have been the species that first left Africa and colonized Eurasia, but that if H. ergaster is distinct, these early H. erectus would have actually been H. ergaster. There is a lot of poking at this idea in the section itself; mentioning that the time and manner of leaving Africa are conjecture and pointing out that there is no clear reason why earlier Homo or even australopithecines would have been unable to leave Africa. I added the bit about very early hominin evidence from China, which should make it more clear that there is a lot of uncertainty about when (and in what form) hominins first left Africa. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should avoid the word "recent"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all instances of "recent". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote "he or she". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol yes, changed it to just "jaw". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some mentions of sexual dimorphism but I still think it merits discussion since it appears to be brought up quite often. I've added more sources and tried to make clear that thers is some debate as to the extent of dimorphism in australopithecines and early Homo. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any links for those? I found another (though even earlier - 1992) study arguing that the bigger brain (not body size though) of H. erectus would bring with higher energy requirements. This article from 2013 states that "the large body and large brain of H. erectus needed more energy, and thus food, than previous hominins. Larger biological structures, particularly energy-intensive ones like muscles and brains, require greater energy inputs to maintain". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First proposed by [1] in 1995, and I used [2] and [3] on Homo erectus. I think you're not finding these because you're searching for H. ergaster instead of H. erectus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I should definitely have searched around more for H. erectus considering the situation at hand here. I've added this (mostly after what was in the erectus article) and made clear that there is some debate in regards to energy needs. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "implies a relatively small gut, suggesting a more easily digested diet composed of food of higher quality" one of the main theories on brain size increase is the reduction of gut size. Gut size could reduce due to the consumption of animal fat (ape guts have to synthesize fat by fermenting plants) and this energy could then be diverted to brain growth, thus allowing the brain to increase while maintaining the same caloric intake   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, changed a lot of "likely" to "possibly", "probably" and "might". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed this entirely, flows better without it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a bit problematic. I've tried to make it clear now that females would have foraged as well, though not necessarily in the same way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Homo ergaster in particular would still have inherited it from earlier Homo (who in turn inherited it from australopithecines). I've added "inherited the Oldowan culture of tools from australopithecines and earlier Homo". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "industrial tradition", not really necessary to keep in there either way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Updated this section in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the whole part on fire; there is significantly earlier evidence but it isn't universally accepted. The article should present the current view now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of H. antecessor's questionable position; the idea of the 2 cladograms was to show that even those that consider H. ergaster to be "African H. ergaster" split it cladistically from the rest of H. erectus, agreeing that the African fossils seem to be more basal. Maybe it's unnecessary to have two, might be best to remove the 2019 one in that case since the 2015 one uses H. ergaster and not "African H. erectus" and doesn't present H. antecessor as ancestral to us. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the 2019 one has a lot of other information that's not relevant to this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; removed the 2019 cladogram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a section on language, most of it taken from what was already in the H. erectus article on speech in Turkana Boy. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I actually don't know either. I've rephrased this entire part, the meaning should come across better now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image? I think the new one looks better (and it's from a paper) – it's the same skull so I didn't think it would matter? I put the previous one further down in the article but if you think that one was better I can restore it to the infobox. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The white skull and the reconstruction are both facing the same direction so it would make more sense to pair them together   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's true. Switched them around. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the order of brow ridges and receding foreheads here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "traditionally interpreted as male", which is true. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "may have persisted" and explained a bit more. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are and they are quite similar to earlier H. ergaster, but as explained in the "evolution and temporal range" section I don't think their classification is entirely clear. I've added this to the lede. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the taxonomy part of the lede before the fossil range part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "Homo ergaster are an extinct ..." to "Homo ergaster is an extinct ...". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What in particular do you feel is outdated there? AFAIK sweating still seems to be the most commonly accepted explanation (1, 2). Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When did complete hairlessness evolve?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added the 3 mya louse estimate which seems to be thrown around a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking of later estimates. Regarding the earlier estimate, see [4]   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the 1.2 mya estimate from the erectus article? I've added the results from the paper you've linked and added stuff on the 1.2 mya estimate. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said it's highly unlikely that australopithecines were hairless, and then said that it's possible hairlessness evolved 3 mya (i. e., in australopithecines)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that it was "highly unlikely" that australopithecines were hairless but I can see how the two paragraphs seem somewhat contradictory. I've tried rephrasing it a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed explanation of the 3 mya date to the explanation that is presented in the erectus article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the small gut of H. ergaster also suggests a more easily digested diet composed of food of higher quality" double check if the source actually says that, even if gut size reduced due to the consumption of animal fat, a smaller gut means a more easily digested diet   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From page 326: "the trunk proportions in Homo ergaster suggest a relatively small gut that is compatible with a higher quality and more easily digested diet". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe check other sources to see if gut reduction due to animal fat and gut reduction due to digestibility are opposing views   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like opposing views? If animal fat is easier to "get out" of meat than it is to synthesize fat through fermenting plant matter then this is effectively the same point as digestibility? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homo_ergaster/GA1&oldid=959383674"