Talk:Australopithecine

Hominina
Given that the family-group Hominidae Gray, 1825 has precedence over Australopithecinae Gregory & Hellman, 1939 for more than a century, technically the correct name for a subtribe including Australopithecus and Homo should be Hominina...


 * Yes, two of the three cited sources make it clear that Hominina is NOT Australopithecine, Hominina includes both Australopithecine AND Homo. In the older source I couldn't find the mention of Hominina. Hominina needs a separate page. 193.115.83.189 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest making Draft:Hominina first, and get it polished and approved and put into place, before making changes to this article. I've reverted your changes for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Question
This article is cobbled together from statements in the articles linked. It lacks direct sources. Is it really true that there are suggestions deriving Homo from Paranthropus? This seems improbable. If there aren't, it would seem undisputed that Homo branched off Australopithecus. Is this the case? If so, why doesn't the Australopithecus article state this plainly? dab (𒁳) 12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Kenyanthropus
Wouldn't Kenyanthropus also be an "australopithecine", and thus there would be three genera? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kenyanthropus, as it stands, is not an australopithecine. By definition, only Australopithecus and Paranthropus are australopithecines. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What?
This article is unreadable to me as a layman. What is this? --Lajm (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at cleaning up the article and making it a bit more accessible. Cheers Jack (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Date range
Shouldn't we mention the temporal range for autralopthecine in the text near the top part of the lede since the "when" for A. helps people with understanding the setting for the rest of the article? It is shown in the info-box, but it is rather unobvious there (rather small print), and new readers may be tuning the box out of their vision (due to ad fatigue). Even if they do notice the text in the info-box, the words "temporal range" may be a bit over-the-heads of the latest generation of readers (no offense to them, but there are a lot of US new gens who seem a bit uneducated) and they may not realize it refers to a time range. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism
the ending -ine gr: -ίνα (-ίνος as πιγκουίνος also exists, but that means penguin and in English it is an -in NOT and -ine) is feminine, thus not a fitting generic choice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410E:4E00:946:CAB9:C9D4:5599 (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Unintelligible, apparently incorrect and confused, inconsequential and directed to the wrong audience (Wikipedia is not the scientific community or a taxonomic naming authority). Modern Greek is irrelevant for Greco-Latinisms in English. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Dubious: All these related species are now sometimes[dubious] ... termed australopiths
See my talk page entry at REDIRECT Talk:Australopiths quoting an academic citation from 2010 claiming otherwise.

I have no opinion here, I'm merely trying to get the wires straight as an armchair pedant. &mdash; MaxEnt 21:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"More sexual dimorphism than H.Sapiens"?
How? What? Adult H.Sapien females have breasts, even when not lactating and do not experience estrus. Is "more" larger genitalia? 2603:6000:D7F0:8150:6191:B024:8315:7118 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)