Talk:Ardipithecus

Primates High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethiopia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia 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.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

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.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cocoa2021, Lpara002, Ralle034.

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Ardipithecus article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Ardipithecus}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Links added. - UtherSRG 16:18, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

faster bipedalism?

umm, surely bipedalism renders the creature slower not faster.

Depends entirely on what creatures you are comparing.

Any four footed creature can run faster than a two legged primate.

Nope. Chameleons, tortoises, etc, are much slower than two-legged primates.

Surely the advantage of bipedalism is the ability to see further, since the eyes are higher? The evolutionary advantage of early bipeds was to hunt intelligently in groups, in the way chimpanzees can, not an ability to outrun something!! Another possible advantage of bipedalism is that you present a smaller area to the sun, and dont overheat in the daytime.

I see no evidence to support the idea that early bipeds could outrun even a small cat. Neither could we outstamina anything, outclimb anything, or out stealth anything. All we could do was outsmart the opposition!

Lincolnshire Poacher

And you can carry stuff around too. Lots of good things about walking instead of crawling.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was only a couple of energy advantages. Everything else was affected negatively. Although yes, later the standing upright did allow early humans to use tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.77.242 (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

don't discount bipedalism

Human walking is extremely efficient. No chimp can could come remotely close to the ability of a human to walk long distances while using little energy.

Daggers

Why are there dagger symbols next to each of the species? Can they be removed? Badagnani 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those indicate extinct. Do not remove them. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References Badly Needed

I can't believe an article as important as this one includes no references. Please help supply some ASAP. --1000Faces (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts

The article says that A. ramidus is "not considered a hominid ancestor," yet goes on to discuss how discovery of ardipithecus' bipedal traits challenge "current theories of the origins of hominid bipedalism." There is conflict within the statements of the article as to whether this Ardipithecus should be considered a hominid ancestor, and the sources cited appear to be in direct comflict on this issue. Aramink (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section headed "Criticism" mentions (without sources) that there are contentious accusations in the scientific community over the study of the creature, period. Perhaps a clarification of the conflicts and an explanation of what data is being withheld, and by whom, would give the reader of this article more information.Aramink (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ardi

The section on the recent (Oct 2009) discovery of "Ardi" needs expanding. The National Geographic article I cited contains much more discussion and speculation about the locomotion and behavior of A. ramidus, which could be incorporated into the "Lifestyle" section. Likewise, the cited article contains discussion about the "missing link" and an extra "previously unknown" period of human evolution. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ardi is not a "new" find. It is the original Ardipithecus fossils. What is happening is the scientists researching those fossils are about to publish the results of their decades of research. Some reporter apparently got excited and printed that they had some big new find, and the rest of the media ran with the "new find" angle. Here are some links to the actual scientific publication:

News release

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1001sp_ardi.shtml

Central article collection point:

http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus

Interview with lead researcher (audio):

http://sciencevideo.aaas.org/aaas/news/releases/2009/media/1001science_interview.mp3

Transcript of interview:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1001sp_ardi_interview.shtml

Summaries of articles:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1001sp_ardi_summaries.shtml

Press backgrounder:

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1001sp_ardi_backgrounder.shtml - Oralloy (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the paragraph with a reference to the long period of study since the discovery, and the current announcement of its details. Should I say that the first analysis is complete and the discoverers are ready to place the skeleton in its proper context, or would that be an opinion? —--Monado (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest human ancestor

Regarding oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor:

This is completely wrong -- the oldest fossil skeletons of a human ancestor are probably early bony fish-like creatures. But I grok what the article is trying to say, I just don't know enough to repair it. Something like "earliest identified fossil skeletons of non-tree-dwelling hominid ancestors of humans"? But not that phrase. :-) Can someone clean that up -- syntactically and semantically -- and edit the page? Joshua McGee (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a re-read, it is (kinda) attributing the text to the team. Does someone have a direct quote? And if the quote is imprecise, could we have both a proper citation and a scientific elaboration of the significance of this find? Joshua McGee (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's bullshit, but it is in the source National Geographic article. Perhaps the whole section could be replaced with one based on scholarly sources instead of popular media. BTW it's impossible to say whether any fossil skeleton is of a human ancestor or not. It may be a representative of a species ancestral to h.sapiens, but that is a different statement. Qemist (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science meets hollwood. Ardi looks like a less expensive edition of Ida. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven new articles in a special section of Science

There is a special section of the journal Science on Ardipithecus that just appeared online yesterday. http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/ This special section includes eleven new papers. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reading a big part of it. Each of the 11 research articles is summarized in a less-technical author's summary, and there are two good news summaries and an editorial besides. The author's summaries seem to be free on line. They're very good, very comprehensive, and relatively easy to understand. --Nbauman (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life restoration

There is a life restoration of A. ramidus (based on the newly described material) that has been submitted for review at WikiProject Palaeontology's Paleoart review. Anyone is welcome to provide their input on it to make sure that the restoration is anatomically accurate before it is uploaded and put into the article.

Alternatively, someone could attempt to get permission from Science via email that would allow for some of the figures in the special issue to be used in the Wikipedia article. Smokeybjb (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ardi question

Ardi is referred to in some of the newspapers as 'a woman': at what point in the development of hominides is the transition from 'female of species X'/'male of species Y' to 'woman' and 'man'? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC quote

Says the BBC:

Asked whether A. ramidus was our direct ancestor or not, the team said more fossils from different places and time periods were needed to answer the question.

"We will need many more fossil recoveries from the period of 3-5 million years ago to confidently answer that question in the future," the scientists said in a briefing document that accompanied their journal papers.

"But if Ardipithecus ramidus was not actually the species directly ancestral to us, she must have been closely related to it, and would have been similar in appearance and adaptation.

Is this actually a quote from something that I can link to? I can't track down this "briefing document"... Evercat (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"canine cutting complex"

the presence of a "canine cutting complex"

What's this? There's no such phrase in the cited paper. Evercat (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Ardipithecus ramidus?

The article explains that kadabba comes from the Afar word for "basal family ancestor". What is the etymology of the words Ardipithecus and ramidus (in English, please)? It would also be good if you could cite the source(s). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the requested information with this edit. Emw (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations

I think we need some illustrations of Ardipithecus. I mean, there is a ton of great illustrators here on Wikipedia, like ArthurWeasley, for instance. Markunator (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an illustration that I have made of Ardipithecus that is awaiting review (see the "Life restoration" section of this talk page), and will be put in the article once it is made sure to be accurate by other editors. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, please head over to the review section for that image[1], people, most of the reviewers on the paleontology project are unfamiliar with non-human primate anatomy, I assume. AW has retired, by the way, but he never drew primates in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. ramidius or Ar. ramidus?

Science magazine uses Ar. ramidus. Anybody know why? Which one should we use? --Nbauman (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it would be to differentiate it from the genus Australopithecus, which is mentioned in the same article. Australopithecus has historical precedence. If both are used in the article (and it appears at this time that is true), then Ar. should be used for consistency. SkoreKeep (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore summary?

I want to restore this edit and use it as a summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ardipithecus&action=historysubmit&diff=324679505&oldid=324660079

I had a long discussion about this with Evercat on my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nbauman#Ardi_etc

Basically, my summary follows the summary in Science magazine. These are the issues that White and Lovejoy emphasized, and also the issues that the editors of Science magazine emphasized as important in their summary: Specifically, that (1) humans are not descended from chimpanzee-like ancestors, as some anthropologists, like the ones White cited, maintained; and that (2) the main significance of Ardipithecus is in the insight it gives on reproductive and social behavioral changes -- the things that make us human.

Don't forget, Wikipedia is written for the average person, not the specialist. These details about the geological strata and millions of years are meaningless to the average person. The average person couldn't define "hominin". The important message for everyone -- as White and Lovejoy keep emphasizing -- is the meaning of Ardi for our understanding of the social and behavioral evolution of humans.

I'd like to know how other editors feel about this and if anyone objects. --Nbauman (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is still substantially there; I just reworded part of it, added a caveat about the dangers of using Ardi as a proxy for the MRCA of chimps and humans, and moved it down. Are you happy with the paragraph as it stands? I don't really mind it being moved upwards. Evercat (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain size

Is this quote right? "... & slightly over 20% the size of the modern Homo sapiens brain."

Ardipithecus had a small brain, & yet its bigger than modern homo sapiens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.4.15 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that Ardipithecus's brain was something like 20.4% the size of a typical human brain. However I see how readily that can be misinterpreted (e.g., 20% over (i.e. greater than) the size of the modern human brain), so I've rephrased it to "roughly 20% the size". Thanks for pointing that out. Emw (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bidepalism

Bipedalism had the advantage of allowing Ardipithecus to carry more food. This meant that they could also provide for their partner and offspring. Which helped with the survival and success of the species. (Source: Discovery Channel Documentary)

Yes, bipedalism is probably a more efficient way of getting around, and so less energy and food is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.4.15 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but only by a little. Also if your sourcing Walking with Cavemen its bbc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.77.242 (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ardipithecus kadabba

Ardipithecus kadabba is "known only from teeth and bits and pieces of skeletal bones", and is dated to approximately 5.6 million years ago. The sources for this first sentence in the section are not talking about A. kadabba but of A. ramidus. Can someone clear this up? Syn 05:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Surface finds"

Says the 1994 article at [2]:

All hominid specimens were surface finds located in the section within 3 m of the Daam Aatu Basaltic Tuff. The immediately underlying Gaala Vitric Tuff Complex is dated at 4.39 +/- 0.03 Myr.

Someone wrote that this means the bones were not between layers, but I'm unclear that it means this at all. I take it that, depending on the shape of the geology, bones can be at the surface and be between layers? Evercat (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing weasel job!

Despite the possibility that Ardipithecus is a direct ancestor to modern humans has [[been eliminated] this article never bluntly says so in simple language that a lay person would understand. Leaving most people to believe the "missing link" headlines from the news media and glance over these articles to confirm this erroneousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.58.43 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That newspaper article is about A. afarensis, not ardipithecus. Normally the right response to a complaint like this is "then change it!", but in this case it might be better that you didn't, given that you're talking about another species. :-) Joshua McGee (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've described the relation to Homo as "disputed", backed by a cited academic source. If you think it is refuted beyond the reasonable scientific doubt, please provide a more reliable source. --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

roughly 20% the size of the modern Homo sapiens brain ????

Of course, the 300 to 350 cm3 of the Ardi's brain is about 37% of the Homo sapiens brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.241.130 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the human brain size is 1130-1260 cm^3, thus 300-350 cm^3 is 23.8-31%. Of course. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ardipithecus. 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/20130228131344/http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ardipithecus/ardipithecus.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ardipithecus/ardipithecus.html

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) 11:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph-long quotations should be indented

There are at least two paragraph-long quotations that should be indented (for purposes of clarity). I tried to indent one of them but apparently I didn't know how to do this properly. Sorry about that. If someone could indent this and the last paragraph of the article it would help make clear to readers that these entire paragraphs are quotations. Radphilosophe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radphilosophe (talk • contribs) 00:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These long quotations should also be re-written. I have flagged the section as improper usage of non-free text. Long quotations are simply lazy writing. The pertinent info should be summarized in order to avoid copyright violations, as the text quoted is NOT CC-licensed. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having two fair use in a gallery certainly isn't proper. FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source-Check

Very nice use of sources in the evidence you've presented. The articles I was referred to did a thorough job of further explaining scientific evidence presented. <Jackson Francis (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Jackson_Francis>[reply]