Talk:Sahelanthropus
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article mention the people involved with this project. It also have a photo. "The near-complete skull, pieces of jawbone and several teeth unveiled in july 2001 - march 2002 were discovered in the desert of northern Chad by a team led byAlain Beauvilain, of the Centre National d'Appui à la Recherche, N'Djamena, Chad." [http://site.voila.fr/toumaihttp://site.voila.fr/toumai/humanadventure.html
The first sentence seems to be incomplete. I can't fix it because I don't know what the author was trying to say. It currently reads:
There's something missing between "tree" and "early".thx113811:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In camparison to a Gorilla's skull, Toumai's does have some similar traits. Seehttp://www.interet-general.info/article.php3?id_article=4311. I'm not sure if this represents the oldest hominid since the molecular genetic cloak extends 5 million years in contrast to 7. More can be read in Richard Leakey's novel "The origin of Mankind".
Even if Toumai is proven not a direct human ancestor, it would be interesting as an earlier link for Gorillas and Chimpanzees.
What does "thought to have lived" mean? Is this synonymous with "claimed to have lived"?All I've seen is that the discoverers put out a date of 6-7 million based on associated fauna and have also put up a firm date (on their websites, not their publications) of 7 million years. I don't see an indication of any serious work on dating. This is a topic which is of wide interest, and it would be nice to have more links, preferably with a recent review.Abu Amaal03:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Sahelanthropus was demonstrated not to be the earliest human, Sahelanthropus is probably the ancestor of chimpanzees and humans. Orrorin might also be a chimp/human ancestor.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by72.194.116.63 (talk •contribs) .
The lack of skeletal remains clearly explains why the controversy over the identification of Sahelanthropus as a human ancestor erupted. While Sahelanthropus, for the time being, is assigned to Homininiincertae sedis, discovery of postcranial remains may not only reinstate Sahelanthropus as the earliest human ancestor, but also answer the question surrounding the lifestyle of Sahelanthropus.—Precedingunsigned comment added by72.194.116.63 (talk •contribs)
Add these references to the reference section:
Wolpoff, M.H., B. Senut, M. Pickford & J. Hawks (2002). Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus’? Nature 419:581-582.
Brunet, M. (2002). Reply to “Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus.’ Nature 419:582.
Brunet M., Guy F., Pilbeam D., Lieberman D.E., Likius A., Mackaye H.T. et al. (2005): New material of the earliest hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad. Nature, 434:752-5.
Zollikofer C.P.E., Ponce de León M.S., Lieberman D.E., Guy F., Pilbeam D., Likius A. et al. (2005): Virtual cranial reconstruction of Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Nature, 434:755-9.
Wood B. (2002): Hominid revelations from Chad. Nature, 418:133-5.
The new material attributed to Sahelanthropus by Brunet et. al. (2005) is TM 247 and TM 292. Zollikofer et. al. (2005) noted a hole in the spinal cord of Sahelanthropus, suggesting that Sahelanthropus was bipedal, indicating that bipedalism was invented by hominids 7 million years ago. These papers provide more supporting evidence that Sahelanthropus is a hominid. Brunet plans to continue excavations of the area in which Sahelanthropus was found and may find postcranial remains that may belong to Sahelanthropus.
Is it possible that bipedalism evolved in the common ancestor of humans & chimps, only to be lost secondarily in chimps?. Such evolution & secondary loss of features is not unheard of in animals (example: the flightless ostrich evolved from flying birds, which in turn evolved from flightless dinosaurs). Also, it would account for the fact that Sahelanthropus is older than the suggested last common ancestor between chimps & humans. -User:64.237.249.12116:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article cannot go on like that, with one part of the article contradicting the next, or even one sentence contradicting the next.The status as an hominina or as a paninais not settled, the article must reflect that and not try to impose one view or the other. --Dwarfpower (talk)16:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was attacked as nonnotable and proposed for deletion. You can comment atWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_D._Hawks#John_D._Hawks. --JWB (talk)22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good day,i am a Zoology student and wish to know more about "Toumai"—Precedingunsigned comment added by41.217.158.68 (talk)14:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know thatFile:Sahelanthropus tchadensis - TM 266-01-060-1.jpg will be appearing aspicture of the day on March 15, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb atTemplate:POTD/2012-03-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on theMain Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!—howcheng{chat}05:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading a bit on Wikipedia on Human origins. I note that Tim White, who I have zero knowledge of, is cited time and time again as being "THE" source of various claims stated on Wikipedia. To me, this raises a red flag. If it is true that Dr. White is the only source for so much on human origins, then his entire "model" is likely a "pet theory" rather than accepted broadly across the scientific community. I don't know the quality of his work, nor the robustness of his analysis, and I have no reason to believe it is not of the highest quality; I simply wish to raise the possibility that there is too much attributed to only one investigator to be be taken as solid, established science. (Too much reliance on "authority"). FWIW.Abitslow (talk)17:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is anRFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?
Please feel free to comment there.SPACKlick (talk)16:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link onSahelanthropus. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online19:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the photo of the Daynès reconstruction ofSahelanthropus is misplaced in the flow of page. I attempted to place it under theRelationship to humans and chimpanzees heading, as that's where I feel it would be most appropriate, and found that it defaulted to its present position at the left of the See Also bullet list regardless of where I tried to place it. What is the nature of this formatting bug? Also, isRelationship... a better place for the picture than where it's intended to be now?Shmuser (talk)04:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewed version inNature is behind a paywall. Here is the open source version of the preprint.
Peaceray (talk)18:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the Wikipedia article this section:
"The definitive phylogenetic position of Sahelanthropus within hominids is uncertain. It was initially described as a possiblehominin ancestral to bothhumans andchimpanzees, but subsequent interpretations suggest that it could be an early member of the tribeGorillini or a stem-hominid outside the hominins. Examinations on the postcranial skeleton of Sahelanthropus also indicated that this taxon was not a habitual biped."
Has no source put next to it, which is odd, since it seems there is currently more support towards the first theory of it being upright including that in 2024. Not doubting that there is discuss and plenty we need to learn about it, just that its odd to not put reference to any of these papers in the opening itself when talking about it.FortanEvirwoods (talk)01:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
%2c_early_1900s%2c_Central_Africa%2c_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo%2c_Pende_people%2c_wood%2c_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG)
.svg)
