Talk:Orrorin

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orrorin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Africa 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
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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)[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 Dave souza 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

Sample, I. (June 1, 2007). "New theory rejects popular view of man's evolution - Research - EducationGuardian.co.uk". Retrieved 2007-11-05.
"BBC NEWS - Science/Nature - Upright walking 'began in trees'". 31 May 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-05.
Thorpe S.K.S. (24 May 2007). "PREMOG - Supplementry Info". Origin of Human Bipedalism As an Adaptation for Locomotion on Flexible Branches. Primate Evolution & Morphology Group (PREMOG), the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Liverpool. Archived from the original on 2007-07-17. Retrieved 2007-11-01. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140226104334/http://www2.ku.edu/~lba/courses/articles/ORRORIN.pdf to http://www2.ku.edu/~lba/courses/articles/ORRORIN.pdf

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

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) 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]

@Haha what up brah: "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]