Talk:Homo naledi/GA1

GA Review

Despite this, their classification with other Homo remains unclear. – This needs to be clearer I think. "Despite this", despite what? Maybe "Despite this exceptionally high number of specimens"? The average reader will not know that "15 different individuals" is a high number compared to most other Homo species.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic anatomy – Maybe needs to be explained. Not sure if linking to Mosaic evolution will do the trick.

added explainer User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fossils represent 737 anatomical elements—including the skull – the skull does count for a single element? What does count as an element in the first place? This needs explanation I think.

"the parts of the skull"

The remains of at least three individuals – suggest to add "additional" for clarity (additional individuals).

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lesedi Chamber of the cave – This chamber is not in the diagram of the cave; was it newly discovered?

It was discovered a month after the Dinaledi Chamber, November 2013. Do you think the map on this article would be better? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. The current one is simple and easy to understand, but gives a false impression about the size of the cave system. The other one would deliver more information, and provide a realistic picture. And it includes the location of the other chamber. I would thus argue for the other one, but difficult. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

replaced User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their mosaic anatomy also greatly expands the range of variation for the genus – would add "known" (known range of variation" for clarity.

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

revises previous conceptions of human evolution – like what? Here we need at least an example I think.

Previous conception was small brained Homo could not compete with bigger brained Homo because big brain = smarter = better, so "The persistence of small-brained humans for so long in the midst of bigger-brained contemporaries revises previous conceptions of human evolution". I suppose for example, Australopithecus is thought to have died out because they couldn't compete with H. habilis and big brained Homo, and habilis died because they couldn't compete with erectus with double the brain size, and erectus died out from competition with heidelbergensis, and the chain goes on. This casts doubt on this notion of bigger is better basically, but the source doesn't actually so all that detail, it just says this changes everything without specifying specifically what everything is User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about "The persistence of small-brained humans for so long in the midst of bigger-brained contemporaries revises the previous conception that a larger brain would necessarily lead to an evolutionary advantage"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2017, the remains were dated to 335,000–236,000 years ago in the Middle Pleistocene. – I think adding the dating method is important.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the presence of temporal and occipital lobe – maybe add "of the brain" to improve comprehensibility.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The frontal lobe – as above

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the 2nd molar erupted comparatively late in life, emerging alongside the premolars instead of before – but premolars are already in the milk dentition … this is only about the permanent dentition I guess? Could be clarified.

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The necks of the molars is – "are"?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y-shaped hypoconulid (a ridge on the right side) – terms like "right" and "left" make no sense here. We don't know if the tooth we need to imagine here is on the left or on the right side of the jaw!

"towards the cheek" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and have a high frequency of main cusps – "higher number"?

no, some individuals have those cusps, some don't, H. naledi has a strangely high proportion of those who do User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I thought that modern humans always have a metacone, for example? What about saying "high frequency of presence of main cusps" or "do develop main cusps more frequently"? The current wording is not clear enough imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The source says "H. naledi also shows some obvious distinction from these Homo samples by the frequent presence of principal cusps, such as metacone M²–M³, hypocone M²–M³, and hypoconulid with Y-pattern on M¹–M³" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and have a high frequency of main cusps, namely the metacone (midline on the tongue-side) and hypocone (to the right on the lip-side) on the 2nd and 3rd molars, and a Y-shaped hypoconulid – So they have three cusps which is more than in modern humans? Not sure what the difference to other Homo is, can this be made clearer?

Concerning the spinal cord – "the spine"?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, H. naledi appear to have been small-bodied compared to other Homo, though it is unclear if this single specimen is representative of the species. – Which single individual?

"Concerning the spinal cord, only the 10th and 11th thoracic vertebrae (in the chest region) are preserved from presumably a single individual" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is too far away. Who can remember that it said "a single individual"? Furthermore it is not apparent to the lay reader that size is estimated based on these two vertebrae. Maybe "if the only individual that preserves parts of the spine is representative"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Overall, this H. naledi specimen appears to have been small-bodied" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pelvis has features reminiscent of Australopithecus, including anterposteriorly compressed (from front to back) femoral necks – The femur is not part of the pelvis.

"and legs" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thumb had a well-developed metacarpal bone, which is used in holding and manipulating large objects, and strong crests to support its opponens pollicis muscle – its referring to the thumb but should it refer to the metacarpal instead?

"The metacarpal bone of the thumb was well-developed" User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now the rest of the sentence doesn't fit anymore because there is no "had". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The shrinking of teeth in Homo compared to other apes is typically correlated with the consumption of softer foods, either by gathering softer food or by cooking it. The sharpening of teeth in Homo is typically explained by the selection of tougher foods, such as plant and muscle fibres. – I don't get the connection to H. naledi here, what is the point?

fixed User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H. naledi is the only identified hominin to have existed during the early Middle Stone Age of the Highveld region, South Africa. – What is the point here, what does this mean for this section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

added User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]