Talk:Australopithecus anamensis: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 131.104.139.212 - "→Images needed: new section" |
{{User:WildBot/tag}} |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{PrimateTalk|class=C|importance=mid}} |
{{PrimateTalk|class=C|importance=mid}} |
||
{{User:WildBot/tag}} |
|||
==Homo antiquus praegens== |
==Homo antiquus praegens== |
||
Revision as of 03:59, 8 March 2010
Primates C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
WildBot has stopped running and will not check this page. You can still use the Dablinks tool to check this page for links to disambiguation pages. This tag can be safely removed. |
Homo antiquus praegens
I can't find any mention on Wikipedia of Homo antiquus praegens Ferguson 1989. This is a fossil hominin from about the same age or slightly earlier than Praeanthropus anamensis. If the same, the name Praeanthropus praegens (or Australopithecus praegens, or whatever) would have precedence. Does anybody know if this has been addressed in the literature? And why is there no page for praegens? 69.231.215.41 (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice article
But it needs sources. WAS 4.250 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Confusing article
The 1965 and 1987 findings were of the same "specimen". Does that mean same individual? And the Leakey finds were of the same "hominid" - meaning same individual or just same species?
"Although they did not find hips, feet or legs ... the fossils ... include ... the upper and lower parts of a leg bone (tibia)." Contradiction.
Where is Kanapoi? Is it the "hillside east of Allia Bay"? Nurg 22:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Audio request
Someone please upload an audio pronunciation see how lots of issues | leave me a message 13:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Images needed
If you're discussing fossils, or long extinct species, you need images.
- Angel Eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.139.212 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)