Talk:Herto Man: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:46, 29 September 2019

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Primates Start‑class Mid‑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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Anthropology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Palaeontology Start‑class High‑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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Evolutionary biology Start‑class High‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human Genetic History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Africa Start‑class Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mammals Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

(confusions)

(title added by Said: Rursus (☻) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

erectus in Australia? Really? Could you give a reference for that claim? --Yak 15:06, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

You are right, there is not evidence of H. erectus in Australia. The maximum range of H. erectus was china. --Anonymous

So what it is that made them say H. s. idaltu is a subspecies anyways besides the "archaic features"? In fact, I'd like to know what these archaic features are since I suspect many of them are still present in the wide range of what can be considered H. s. sapiens. --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.210 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is Idaltu pronounced? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are these guys another subspecies when I see people (like Aboriginies) that look almost the same way? The rounded part of the skull in the back, the brow ridge up front, they are shared by many people today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.104.149 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct?!

If it is a subspecies with a gene pole that was common with Homo sapiens², can we then claim that this subspecies is extinct? Rather it would be disolved, obsoleted, or reevolved into us. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the species as it is classified no longer exists, then it is extinct. Though it's genetic legacy may continue in other animals, those are separate but related species. Now, sometimes entire families go extinct, but they're not "more" extinct--they're just multiple extinct species. 217.120.178.21 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ref

McCall, ʺExamining the Emergence of the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort Industries in South Africa Using Behavioral Ecological Modelsʺ

In sum, critical re‐evaluation and re‐analysis of the available evidence fails to support the placement of BOU‐VP‐16/1 into its own subspecies. Instead, the early modern human remains from Herto, Ethiopia, should be considered part of a larger Pleistocene H. sapiens population that also includes remains from Irhoud, Skhul, Qafzeh, and Omo.

This article is a mess

1. The lede makes no mention of the (currently Jul 11, 2014) published work indicating that Idaltu may be the direct ancestor to modern H.S.Sap.
2. The Morphology section states:"their morphology has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens..."

HOW does a subspecies have ANY feature "not typical" of the species??? Shouldn't this be:"their morphology has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens sapiens..." ??

"archaic" indicates that the feature IS found in the ancestral H.S.S. line, correct? If so, which ancestor is it referring to?

WHAT does "...(although modern human skulls do differ across the globe)." MEAN in this context? It must be obvious to anyone who has access to modern media and has thought about it that that modern human skulls do differ between geographical ethnic groups (since the evidence in the form of images saturates the media of the modern world). This parenthetical is confusing. does "across the globe" refer to the Earth or the skull? Very sloppy. The inclusion of this in the sentence can be taken to be critical of the claim that the skull morphology is outside of any likely Homo sapiens sapiens variation. Frankly, I don't understand it. I think it should be removed (or its meaning made clear).

Abitslow (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penecontemporaneous?

Please translate to plain English:

"The many morphological features shared by the Herto crania and AMHS, to the exclusion of penecontemporaneous Neanderthals, provide additional fossil data excluding Neanderthals from a significant contribution to the ancestry of modern humans..."

I'm assuming this means that idaltu has archaic features that Neanderthal doesn't have, making idaltu our direct ancestor and not Neanderthal? Kortoso (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles says predating Neanderthals in the introduction but the timeline shows the opposite. Also the timeline does not contain H. sapiens sapiens, which is a bit of an omission? Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stub Mandrel: - Please see a possible clarification in the discussions at the following => "Template talk:Human timeline#Homo idaltu appears to be in the wrong place" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arboleh

@Arboleh Please don't revert the edits and engage here in the talk page. Also don't describe other users' contributions as racist and biased when they are clearly not and don't accuse me of vandalizing the article when I am clearly not, otherwise I will report you. Ryanoo (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

extinction status

@ZeldaEnthusiast: I noted there is some to and fro on the status of this taxon. Please expand on the classification as extinct here, a citation would be ideal. cygnis insignis 03:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More confusion

The "Morphology and taxonomy" section talks about Omo more than it does Herto. 216.255.165.198 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oceania & Denisowa

"A later study found that Herto man and his contemporaries were cranially similar to Oceanians, with Northern Melenesians being the closest"

this is interesting because perhaps exactly over there in Paua is maximum of Denisovan inheritance. Puting a sentence mentionig this with Jacob &a recent papaer would be OK ? Or this inference will be considered as 'original research' ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be original research yes (very much so). And it would make little sense since Herto man is a type/branch of Homo sapiens (a.k.a. in the sense of anatomically modern humans) and has nothing to do with Denisovans, or no more than any other Homo sapiens/AMH do (Denisovans are a separate lineage that diverged in Asia and never lived in Africa.). The cranial similarities (between Oceanians and Herto/Idaltu) could easily be due to things such as convergent evolution and/or the retention of ancestral/early H. sapiens traits in Oceanians (and anyway, there is currently no evidence of/research on, as far as I know, suggesting Denisovan's influence on the cranial morphology of Oceanians). Skllagyook (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming art true and it would be "OR". In which field of scientific pursuits would be this "oryginlal research"? Perhaps 'OR' on geography :) to realize that Paupa and Nothern Melanesia may have something in common regarding geographic areas . Compare A) map published in {doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.035} to B) other maps of marking Melanesia (north is up in our times) and maybe you could replicate my 'oryginal research'. If you would try and you could too what is then 'oryginal'. . Looking on map do you see Denisovan descendants in 3 billion poeoples? There on the green or deep pink areas living peoples who can claim most faithful very old ancestry (prvovite prvi ljudi).

Assuming having 2 paper K, L. ^[1]
Assuming having G (the geo area)
Object G is in K. Object G is in L .

OK i don't going (yet) do such 'WP:OR?' on ... (i hope it is unnecessery:)

Therefore addition of paper L is valid.99.90.196.227 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ (where K and L are now abstract but may be substitutet as K alredy in article and quouted on top of this chapter . L may be {doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.035}doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.06.008 . (mnemonic: k cranium; l linked DNA; G geo)

[1] (where K and L are now abstract but may be substitutet as K alredy in article and quouted on top of this chapter . L may be {doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.035}doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.06.008 . (mnemonic: k cranium; l linked DNA; G geo)

[1]

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 this is interesting because perhaps exactly over there in Paua is maximum of Denisovan inheritance. Puting a sentence mentionig this with Jacob &a recent papaer would be OK ? Or this inference will be considered as 'original research' ? [[Special:Contributions/99.90.196.227|99.90.196.227]] ([[User talk:99.90.196.227|talk]]) 10:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
-:I believe it would be original research yes (very much so). And it would make little sense since Herto man is a type/branch of Homo sapiens (a.k.a. in the sense of anatomically modern humans) and has nothing to do with Denisovans, or no more than any other Homo sapiens/AMH do (Denisovans are a separate lineage that diverged in Asia and never lived in Africa.). The cranial similarities (between Oceanians and Herto/Idaltu) could easily be due to things such as convergent evolution and/or the retention of ancestral/early H. sapiens traits in Oceanians (and anyway, there is currently no evidence of/research on, as far as I know, suggesting Denisovan influence on the cranial morphology of Oceanians). [[User:Skllagyook|Skllagyook]] ([[User talk:Skllagyook|talk]]) 10:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
+:I believe it would be original research yes (very much so). And it would make little sense since Herto man is a type/branch of Homo sapiens (a.k.a. in the sense of anatomically modern humans) and has nothing to do with Denisovans, or no more than any other Homo sapiens/AMH do (Denisovans are a separate lineage that diverged in Asia and never lived in Africa.). The cranial similarities (between Oceanians and Herto/Idaltu) could easily be due to things such as convergent evolution and/or the retention of ancestral/early H. sapiens traits in Oceanians (and anyway, there is currently no evidence of/research on, as far as I know, suggesting Denisovan's influence on the cranial morphology of Oceanians). [[User:Skllagyook|Skllagyook]] ([[User talk:Skllagyook|talk]]) 10:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
+::Assuming art true and it would be "OR". In which field of scientific pursuits would be this "oryginlal research"? Perhaps ''''OR' on geography <small>:)</small> to realize that Paupa and Nothern Melanesia may have something in common''' regarding geographic areas . Compare  A) [https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/938e819f-5a9f-49bb-887f-425cfd4e055e/fx1.jpg map] published in {doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.035} to B) other maps of marking Melanesia (north is up in our times) and maybe you could replicate my 'oryginal research'. If you would try and you could too what is then 'oryginal'. <!--JNP!YR;CMWFRLZ--> . Looking on map do you see Denisovan descendants in 3 billion poeoples? There on the green or deep pink areas living peoples who can claim most faithful very old ancestry (prvovite prvi ljudi).
+*Assuming having 2 paper K, L. <ref>(where K and L are now abstract but may be substitutet as K alredy in article and quouted on top of this chapter . L may be {doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.035}doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.06.008 . (mnemonic: k cranium; l linked DNA; G geo) </ref>
+*Assuming having G (the geo area)
+*Object G is in K. Object G is in L .
+OK i don't going (yet) do such 'WP:OR?' on ...   (i hope it is unnecessery:)
+Therefore addition of paper L is valid.[[Special:Contributions/99.90.196.227|99.90.196.227]] ([[User talk:99.90.196.227|talk]]) 00:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)