Talk:Anthropopithecus

Proper categories
Hi, I disagree with the replacement of category "Prehistory" with category "Prehistoric life":


 * "Prehistoric life" refers to specific [taxonomically accepted] life forms. Kakabekia, for example, is a fossilised life form having been specifically and taxonomically accepted by scientists.
 * "Prehistory", as a general category, refers to human discourse on Prehistory, not exclusively to specific fossilised life forms. Anthropopithecus has been proposed by different authors to designate too many different things until it was definitely abandoned in 1895/1905, so it cannot be considered as a specific life form, whether or not prehistoric.

If you read again the entire article you'll notice that:
 * Referred to the Java Man, Anthropopithecus had been definitely abandoned in 1894.
 * Referred to the chimpanzee, Anthropopithecus had been definitely abandoned in 1895.
 * Referred to the specific prehistoric life forms, Anthropopithecus had been definitely abandoned progressively, by means of synonimysation with other genera.
 * Referred to the hypothetical Tertiary man who authored the "eoliths", Anthropopithecus had been definitely abandoned in 1905.

Thus, we are facing a polysemous term that had been used in different domains in the history of zoology, anthropology and paleoanthropology. The term Anthropopithecus doesn't deal with a specific identified life form only, it is an obsolete taxon used by zoologists (to refer to the chimpanzee) and prehistorians (to refer to both hypothetical and specific fossils, not all of them belonging to fossilised humans). This is why the article doesn't fit properly in the category "Prehistoric life". It does fit properly in "Prehistory", which is a more general category. Regards, Kintaro (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert but I believe Prehistory to be too general with one of the available subcategories being acceptable. I think that is borne out by the current contents of the various categories by way of example.PRehse (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! you say with one of the available subcategories being acceptable. Well, the opposite of what you say is exactly what I was trying to clearly demonstrate: because of all the above reasons, your suggested category IS NOT an acceptable subcategory. But if you do not share my views, then let's leave the categories as they are. Indeed, I will not revert your decision as long as you don't accept the validity of my strongest arguments. Cheers! Kintaro (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Pithecanthropus" split
To be honest, this article barely makes mention of the historical concept of Pithecanthropus, which to my count, has around (and probably over) 21 different taxonomic combinations and has enough history as a genus and/or subgenus to sustain it's own article, at least. Clumsystiggy (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)