Talk:Oreopithecus

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

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

Untitled

Are there any outside links to support the claims of this article? A date, or even just a year, for when the bones were first found? Who led the expedition?

As it stands, this article is a stub, and for all anyone knows, is a hoax.

Nope, not a hoax. See Mikko's phylogeny page] for some scant information. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name quickly inspired the commonly used name for the species among paleontologists, which is, inevitably, Cookie Monster.

I don't understand. What name? Was there something lost in an earlier edit, or am I missing something? Nik42 22:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific name, Oreopithecus. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family

Why does wikipedia take sides in a scientific dispute over the origins of this fossile? Is it really in wikipedias interest to take sides? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.185.28.23 (talk • contribs) .

The taxobox is used to give readers a quick overview of the taxonomy and provide quick access to key taxa. The article body itself spells out the questionability of the Oreopithecidae family, as would that article once it gets written. It's appropriate to leave the link in the taxobox and let the more inquisitive reader read further than the taxobox. the question mark I can live with. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

broken external link

The 3rd hot link appears to be inactive. Jbottoms76 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error

The following passage was posted by 66.192.122.49 at Wikipedia:Help desk. I've transferred it here, since here it's more likely to have constructive results. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--

This passage contains an error and is found under Oreopithecus.

"The Swamp Ape (Oreopithecus bambolii) is a prehistoric primate species from the Miocene epoch whose fossils have been found in Italy (Tuscany and Sardinia) and in East Africa.

Their habitat appears to have been swampy, and not savanna or forest. The fossils are sufficient to indicate that there was a lumbar curve, implying some adaptation to upright walking, in distinction to otherwise similar species known from the same period. Since the fossils have been dated to about 8 million years ago, this represents an unusually early appearance of upright posture, lending itself to the aquatic ape theory of human bipedalism, especially in conjunction with other evidence of a possible earlier date for the evolution of hominids, such as the six to seven million year old, very human-looking Toumai skull."

An early time of appearance of bipedalism in no way supports the aquatic ape theory. Time of origin of bipedalism may well be fifteen million years ago during the miocene ape radiation. The bipedal mode of walking is fifty percent more efficient than quadrupedal ape locomotion. Association with water in fossils does not assure those animals were swimmers. Many pteradactyls were found preserved in sediments! —preceding comment by User:66.192.122.49

Must have been a double post above. I trimmed it and added a pair of indents. Apparently all references to the aquatic theory have been removed. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cites, please

Article has no inline cites (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations). Please provide good inline cites for everything in this article. Paleontology of Hominoidea is always a controversial subject. (WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:CITE#CHALLENGED) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could to find sources for this article online. Per May 2006, when most of the present content was added by Prionesse (talk · contribs), only Alba 2001; Carnieri 2003; Rook 2004; and Spoor 2003 were used as references, so most of the content can probably be attributed to those. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh*, I first thought this article was a copyvio of "Oreopithecus (Genus)". Zip Code Zoo. last updated April 2010, but their article is apparently a dump of this article from that date. "All rights are reserved" of course. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Including typos such as Tarsius bancamus instead of Tarsius bancanus and "Jens Lorenz Franken" instead of "Jens Lorenz Franzen". --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency between sites of fossil finds and extinction described in Evolutionary History section

Fossil sites include East Africa as well as Tuscany. The evolutionary history section states that the species died out when the island they existed was joined to the mainland but if the range of this species was much larger than just this island how can this be? Mikebrophy (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to EB Oreopithecus has been "found as fossils in Late Miocene deposits in East Africa and Early Pliocene deposits in southern Europe (11.2 to 3.4 million years ago)" so my guess is it disappeared from Africa first and then from Europe. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that this information comes from EB. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alba, David M. et al

I removed

Alba, David M.; et al. (2001). "Canine reduction in the Miocene hominoid Oreopithecus bambolii: behavioural and evolutionary implications". Journal of Human Evolution. 40: 1–16. PMID 11139357. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

as a reference from the article since I couldn't determine if this work resulted in any knowledge at all. Does this, ultimate, conclusion mean anything:

canine reduction could be also alternatively (although not exclusively) interpreted as an aspect of generalized microdontia?

Correct me if I'm wrong. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]