Talk:Orrorin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 17 June 2022 by Haha what up brah in topic Up to five individuals
Jump to navigation Jump to search

<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".

Script error: No such module "Banner shell".

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

File:Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lilly861. Peer reviewers: Avielman, PeerlessJ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Reply

page needs to be rewritten

This page needs to be rewritten by someone who know what "Orrorin" actually is. Having read this page I'm no wiser than before. --Pinkunicorn


Extinct species of Human or Ape, lived several million years ago, known from fossils found recently (sometime 1995-2001, i'm not sure) in Africa. That's about all i can remember, but maybe it's enough for someone to go and find out more.


rename the page

Orrorin tugenensis should be the name of the page, as it's an article on the species and not the genus. 132.205.15.4 21:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. A precedent has been set in previous pages with Ardipithecus relating to the genus and Australopithecus afarensis relating to the actual species (the convention being <Genus>_<species name>).--John Lynch 01:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And this has been resolved.--John Lynch 04:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fix the formatting

For anyone who wants to fix the formatting, the latest good format was here --John Lynch 04:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Vandilism

I suggest a routine check for vandilism or displacement of information.

the sidebranch industry

Not only in this article the trend amongst paleo-anthropologists to consider some solitary finds done by the individual finds reason to claim, this is the REAL ancestor, all the other are sidebranches.

I honestly don't believe anything of that, and have never done so. (its encyclopedical garbage) My viewpoint is rather the oposite. we interbred with evrything we could or couldn't and thus kept the flexibility in between the variety of hominid species at an incredible, not even animalesk (perhaps), dna level. its just a suggestion.. but it might help paleoanthropolical research a few hundred years underways a few hundred years earlier.80.57.243.72 09:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Orrorin as an early human ancestor

If Orrorin and Sahelanthropus are shown to have not only human characteristics, but also chimpanzee characteristics, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees has been found. This may refute the possiblity advocated by Wolpoff et. al. (2006) that Sahelanthropus was a member of an African ape clade related to humans and chimpanzees that left no descendants.

Wolpoff, M.H., J. Hawks, B. Senut, M. Pickford, and J. Ahern: "An Ape or The Ape: Is The Toumaï Cranium TM 266 a Hominid?" PaleoAnthropology 2006:36-50. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

Why exactly is this fossil not a bonobo?

Bonobos have both "chimp" and "human" (bipedal about 25% of the time) features. Why is this not a bonobo-like ancestor of both chimps and humans? If it is where does Australopithicus fit in? 70.171.38.69 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Bonobo is one of the two chimpanzee species. The other is the Common Chimpanzee. When something says it has "chimp" features, that means features in common to both the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

A hidden assumption of "progress towards human bipedalism"

The text currently says:

The team that found these fossils in 2000 was led by Martin Pickford. Pickford claims that Orrorin is clearly a hominin; based on this, he dates the split between hominins and other African great apes to at least 7 million years ago.

This contains a specific assumption which many readers will miss and I suggest that it be pointed out. The assumption is that the oldest chimp-human relative to show bipedal characteristics must be the first "on the way" to being human. No such assumption is justified by science. Chimp ancestors may have been more bipedal, and less knuckle-walking specialized, than chimps, just for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you consider the molecular suggestions of Sapien and Gorilla/Chimp separation is later than bipedalism in the fossile record, then it is possible, maybe likely, that the common ancestor of humans and Gorilla/Chimps was a bipedal ape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.155.224 (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

the split between hominins and African great apes

How can there be a split between hominins and great apes? According to Great ape a great ape is any member of Hominidae (therefore including humans), which is a superset of Hominini. Qemist (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It says African great apes, indicating modern african great apes, not Hominidae as a whole, but I can see how it may be misleading as it is written, if you have a better wording feel free to suggest. Maybe from OTHER great apes would be clearer? Nowimnthing (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Alt theory

The section below was added by Template:Ul in November 2007. However, only one of the references used (as available today) actually mentions Orrorin. The origin[s] of bipedalism is a very interesting topic, but (1) it's not the topic of this article, (2) only one reference is scientific, and (3) an "alternative theory" (per edit summary) always need to be present as such. So I removed this from the article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply


Thus, the origins of bipedalism occurred in an arboreal precursor living in forest and not a quadrupedal ancestor living in open country. A recently published idea suggests that ancestral apes may have shared the technique used by modern orangutans of moving bipedally over small springy branches with the vertebral column oriented vertically (orthograde), using their arms for balance and keeping their legs straight. This kind of upright locomotion could have been used as a way of getting around on the ground when gaps opened in the forest canopy. Our closest extant relatives the gorillas and chimpanzees developed a flexed stance (with clinograde, (sloping) vertebral column) and are more adapted to tree climbing and to quadrupedal locomotion while on the ground. According to a minority of researchers, like humans, they have fused and strengthened wrist bones suggesting a shared period of knuckle walking.

References
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orrorin. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Template:Sourcecheck

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Up to five individuals

I recently found a source saying the 20 specimens are from up to five individuals. If that source is maybe not great, let's at least have the article say we don't know how many individuals. This question is important so if we don't know we should at least say we don't know. thanks, brah what up (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Template:Ping "At least," as the current version says, and "Up to" are quite different things. It's better to cite the original study rather than some third party as is done now, so if you're looking at the study, fix the wording Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
oops, I wrote it wrong here on talk. but my edit was right-- source says "coming from a minimum of five individuals". brah what up (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply