Talk:Afrasia djijidae

Confusing statement
fossil evidence for its existence in Libya and Burma may be a very weak form of argument that human ancestors could have evolved outside of Africa, rather than in the Great Rift Valley of western Africa.

Rather than? The Great Rift Valley is the area of origin of modern hominans, but that's something that happened in a time about 5 million years ago. Afrasia is from 37 million years ago. Is there any source that suggests that the Great Rift Valley was hitherto believed to be the main or sole distribution area of the ancestors of Homo in the Eocene? --:Slomox:: &gt;&lt; 08:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like someone's confusing the Africa vs. Asia simian origins debate with both the divergence between humans and chimpanzees as well as the controversy surrounding the human dispersal "out of Africa". –  Maky  « talk » 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. The debate is over whether anthropoids evolved in Africa or Asia; that hominins like Australopithecus evolved in Africa much later is hardly if at all controversial now. (And besides that, the Rift Valley is in eastern, not western, Africa.) Ucucha (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright... thanks to Ucucha and Dr. Beard, who both sent me a copy of the journal article, I have completely re-written the article to clarify the issues. I haven't proofread my work, and although I'll try, I'm probably too tired to catch everything.  Anyway, this should cover just about everything... except a review of the detailed dental morphology.  If that gets added (and written well), the article could be submitted to WP:GAN. Otherwise I'm going to hold off a day or two on the WP:DYK nomination to see if the press picks up on this, in which case I'll nominate for WP:ITN.  But since we're only talking about four isolated teeth, and not something as pleasing as a fully articulated skeleton, our sensationalist media may give it a pass.  What a shame...  –  Maky  « talk » 06:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's looking like this hit the press a few days ago (and mostly bounced off). Oh well...  Anyway, I'll try to nominated it on DYK when I wake up tomorrow.  If anyone wants to make contributions about dental morphology, I'll include them in the DYK nom credits. –  Maky  « talk » 07:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

GA?
Maky, I think this is ready for GAN, and probably FAC, now. I'll fill in some red links. It's a pity the authors don't at all discuss ecology; I'd assume Afrasia was a small insectivore like living tarsiers. Ucucha (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the excellent additions and fixes! Yes, I think it's ready for GAN, and once I'm a bit more rested tonight, I will submit it to both GAN and DYK. –  Maky  « talk » 23:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Afrotarsius
I suggest that the following be moved to Afrotarsius: an animal known from 38–39 million years old deposits in Libya (species Afrotarsius libycus)[8] and younger deposits in Egypt (A. chatrathi).[9] Afrotarsius was originally described as a tarsier, but later suggested to be related to primitive simians.[10] It is not about Afrasia djijidae and it is not directly related to what is written here about Afrasia djijidae. There are probably more passages that should be moved. Afrotarsius is mentioned 27 times. --Ettrig (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are to give a comprehensive account of our knowledge of this animal, we'll have to place it in its context, and that means that Afrotarsius, currently considered the closest relative of Afrasia, will be mentioned a lot. Afrasia itself is mentioned more, as it should: 35 times. The article about Afrotarsius certainly needs expansion (I just wrote it as a quick stub), but that doesn't mean this article is not enhanced by giving some context. Ucucha (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the above is meant as a counterargument. But there is no concrete content. It is of course good to provide a context. For a fact to be relevant it must in some way relate to the proper content of the article. The counterargument above does not in any way demonstrate such relevance. It is very difficult to demonstrate non-relevance. But look at this statement Afrotarsius was originally described as a tarsier. It reports a historic incorrect belief about another species. The article does not point out any relevance of this statement to "our" species. Since the belief itself is false it can be of no help in understanding "our" species. Since the belief does not relate the other species to "our" species, it is not about the history of science of "our" species. So therefore I think this statement is not relevant context in this article. --Ettrig (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That statement you quote implies that there are some people in the field of paleoanthropology that might still favor tarsier affinities, not only for Afrotarsius, but also for Afrasia. Since the discovery is brand new and no one has had time to publish a counter argument, we need to put the debate into context.  –  Maky  « talk » 00:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved (withdrawn by requesting editor). Chamal T •C 16:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Afrasia djijidae → Afrasia – Monotypic fossil taxons are found at genus-level not species. Jack (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The genus name is already taken as an article title. Ucucha (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Although we would normally include taxa which are the only species within their genus in the genus article (as is being proposed here), in this case the genus name appears to be have other uses, so keeping the article under the species name seems to create less confusion. If a 2nd species is described within the genus Afrasia, reconsideration of the issue may make sense. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: You two are probably right, it does make sense to have the page under the species name when there is an existing page at the genus page, thanks for making it clear! Note to admins: I want to retract my move request, cheers, Jack (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * In cases where the genus name is used elsewhere, the title would be Afrasia (genus) or similar, as in other palaeontology articles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is true. I'm not sure why this wasn't proposed or discussed. – Maky  « talk » 17:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems the discussion was only open for two days, so there was little opportunity to chime in... FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afrasia djijidae. 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/20130308211417/http://www.carnegiemnh.org/assets/science/vp/Late%20middle%20Eocene%20epoch%20of%20Libya%20yields%20earliest%20known%20radiation%20of%20African%20anthropoids.pdf to http://www.carnegiemnh.org/assets/science/vp/Late%20middle%20Eocene%20epoch%20of%20Libya%20yields%20earliest%20known%20radiation%20of%20African%20anthropoids.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)