Talk:Australopithecus

A 2001 discovery and -- let's just say much more -- contradicts many conclusions in this entry.
First, two critics about a portion of the first paragraph (copied in red below) -- one supporting the possibility of afarensis as an ancestor, and one against it:

“...since then, Hominid fossils have been found that are older than A. africanus, yet nevertheless seem to belong to the genus Homo. Thus, the genus Homo either split off from the genus Australopithecus at an earlier date (the latest common ancestor being A. afarensis or an even earlier form), or both developed from an as yet possibly unknown common ancestor independently. ... The fossil record seems to indicate that Australopithecus is the common ancestor...”

1. | A recent discovery by those famous Leakey anthropologists shows that even afarensis had a non-Australopithecine competitor, so -- for the same reason that I agree with this Wikipedia entry when it says that we might not have descended from africanus, but from another, competing genus instead -- I think there's just as much reason that we should not state, with so much certainty as this author has, that afarensis is a "common ancestor" of ours. We can't be certain whether even afarensis is what we "developed from," especially given this 2001 discovery. This is why we still call these species the 'missing link(s)': We aren't certain; this part of our history is 'missing'. Also, since this other genus discovered in 2001 were contemporaries of afarensis, I also doubt that they "developed from" (to quote the red text) afarensis. And thus, this new genus brings up a very plausible scenario which the Wikipedia entry doesn't recognize the possibility of: that we descended from this other genus, Kenyanthropus, without them descending from any Australopithecines, which would contradict the two only scenarios which are recognized as possible in this "either...or" claim in red(that "genus Homo either split off from the genus Australopithecus at an earlier date...or...") ).

We can't even make an affirmative case that we descended from any Australopithecines: Basically, the claim of our ‘descent’ from <I>afarensis</I> was only a presumption to begin with: There wasn’t any actual <B>evidence</B> to merit this theory of descent from Australopithecines (or if there is evidence, I'd love to see it because I've been asking fruitlessly for years. ;-) ), but rather an assumption was made because (at the time, i.e. before 2001), "We know of no competitors to <I>afarensis</I>, nor species similar to us, like <i>afarensis</I> is, so we must have descended from them". Such presumptions are 'burden of proof' fallacies in the system of logic (i.e., A negative presumption, in logic, can never prove an affirmative conclusion, such as, "We did descend from...") : Or as we scientists would say, <B>‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,’ as the 1972 and 2001 Leakey discoveries painfully pointed out because finally, that evidence was no longer absent,</B> with 1972 as the demise of <I>africanus</I> being considered the only known (homonid) species of that era, and 2001 being the demise for our assumptions about <I>afarensis</I> being our only possible ancestor from their respective era -- and with scientists on both sides, ever since, arguing about which species was 'more human' in each era and thus more likely to be our ancestors, without either side really having incontrovertible evidence. And really, who's to say a third species of that era won't be discovered, which is more similar to us than these two? The only rational stance on this issue is agnosticism, and to simply admit that we don't posess enough knowledge to come to any hard-formed opinions. To assume things without affirmative evidence is simply bad science and bad logic (with science being called <i>Logical</I> Empiricism by philosophers for a reason ;-) ), which ironically seems to have been accepted by a large portion of my fellow ‘scientists’ until the 1972 and 2001 discoveries made them question their assumptions. Can we try parsing the word assumption, to bring some levity to this regarding us 'oh so smart' scientists: ass|u|me.

2. Note that I put emphasis on the word ‘either,’ in the above red text: There’s another, plausible option which has been ignored by the author of this Wikipedia entry (Is anyone starting to see his pattern? ;-) ): that <I>afarensis</I> did exist earlier than the genus <I>Homo</I> but we simply haven’t yet discovered fossils to prove it, just as we “didn’t yet discover” *any* fossils of <I>Kenyanthropus</I> until 2001... Just because we haven't discovered it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, as we found with <I>Kenyanthropus</I> and as the saying "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" summarizes.  We can’t ASSume whether or not we’ll find such fossils, and therefore we shouldn’t be falsely led into this ‘either/or’ false claim, nor that no possibilities exist besides those two simply because they were the only two which the author came up with as possibilities.  This area of science, being so immature, still gives us very little evidence to back the claims of the Wikipedia author, especially given the certaintism with which some of these claims were stated; so of course I'm pleased that at some of the claims were stated with the appropriate amount of probabilism, but not certaintism, which is merited by the (lack of good) evidence.

And finally, a critique about this last bit:

“The existence of <I>Australopithecus</I> seems to have put firmly to rest the theory that human-like intelligence evolved first and bipedalism followed.”

3. Kenyanthropus platyops had a larger braincase than Australopithecus, and we can’t be sure whether these BOTH were evolutionary dead-ends because they might have competed with an even smarter species. We’re still discovering fossils, folks, and there might be a third, fourth, and so on as-yet-undiscovered species, one of which could have had human-like intelligence before any of these genera went bipedal, so no, the existence of Australopithecus proves nothing firmly; this is yet again non-sequitur logic from the author of this article.

Just a closing thought... History is like walking through fog: The further back we try to see, the harder it is to see much detail.

Oh, and if anyone wants to get more info on these two species of <i>australopithecus</I> and the newly-discovered species with whom they competed:

"The brain shape is also more humanlike and he likely was capable of rudimentary speech. The picture shown is of skull 1470, the most complete habilis skull ever found, found by Richard Leakey's team at Koobi Fora. Incidently, the stone tools made by habilis were a dramatic departure from what earlier hominids were able to do." "Kenyanthropus platyops [the 2001 discovery listed above] resembles skull 1470 found in the eastern Turkana basin in the 1970s. Called Homo rudolfensis by some researchers and a member of genus Australopithecus by others, the Nature article suggests researchers now must consider if it instead descended from Kenyanthropus." In the 1970s, Bernard Ngeneo, a member of Richard Leakey's field crew working the fossil beds on the eastern shore of Lake Turkana, found a skull known from its catalogue number - KNM-ER 1470. This skull, "1470 man" for short, looks very modern, and is generally assigned to Homo rudolfensis, a very early member of our own genus. Kenyanthropus has a very similar, flattened face, but is almost twice as ancient as 1470. "The line of descent promoted till not long ago was roughly Ramapitbecus (fossil ape), Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and finally ending up with Homo sapiens. In this sequence Australopithecus and Homo habilis were given rather humanlike characteristics, such as an apelike head or face on a modern looking human body. Paleoanthropological discoveries of the last 25 years have done much to undermine this fairly simple picture. Besides these, various other kinds of research on fossil hominids have disturbed the picture even more."

Please keep it scientific
I've had to change or delete several comments in the Australopithecus article, mainly because of inaccurate information or religious idealism set to demolish Australopithecus as completely not related to modern humans (vandalism). This article should only mention the theories and evidence, it is not an opinion article. For more information on how humans are closely related to apes (particularly Pan troglodytes) see Chimpanzee Genome Project --King of the Dancehall 01:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, what you'd have against religious? Answer me what's vandalism: Say what it think or using 'religious' in a negative connotation? Don't take it personally, but it offend me deeply. 177.105.90.13 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Human?
I doubt that it's a human. It's extinct monkey that related to simple chimpanzee, skull of Australopithecus is more closer to chimp than to human. If we'll see skulls of chimpanzee & human, you'll see big difference.

Such metamorphosis of bones can't be possible even in 10 billion years. I doubt that Austoralopithecus is hominid. It's much closer to chimpanzee. Conclusion: It is monkey.

This article must be fixed, Australopithecus is not a hominid. I don't believe in any evolution & I think that appearance of evolutionary materials in any article about animals & human is violating of Wikipedia's principle of neutrality. End


 * Of course you have scientific sources for all these assertions right?


 * (Free use image removed by bot) compare to chimpanzee


 * Maybe you can explain why the teeth look much more like a human's or why the Foramen magnum is toward the bottom of the skull in the Australopithecine and toward the back in the chimpanzee.


 * BTW chimpanzees are not monkeys (monkeys have tails.)


 * see the archive on Talk:Evolution for numerous responses to the NPOV claim. In short they all come down to NPOV.


 * see and  if you have more questions. Nowimnthing 18:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see, I would disagree with you, I saw two skulls near each other & if they were 'fresh', you wouldn't mention any difference. However, I respect your point of view.

Chimps aren't monkeys? Oh sorry, I meant apes. In my language, Ape & Monkey is the same word.

What teeth? You see teeth on the skull? Maybe it's forged teeth? Maybe there are no teeth at all? Maybe some upper jaw was destroyed to look more human-like. I mean that everything can explain your 'teeth' question.


 * I can't upload pictures(I'm not registered)
 * but text is here:

I respect your opinion, dude. But don't go about saying that everything related to evolution should be removed from Wikipedia. And, while you are right that Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, it nonetheless is written only from both sides of a valid argument. Creationism is not an argument currently taken seriously by the scientific community. Furthermore, a chimpanzee is a hominid. Hominidae is the family containing all great apes (which humans do qualify as, I don't know why we keep pretending we're only "closely related" to them), but it is usually confused with Homininae, which contains the genus Homo and its closest relatives. Australopithecus is a close relative of the chimp, I'll give you credit for that, but it is an equally close relative of humans (although in behaviour and general appearance it was probably closer to a chimp). Wikipedia isn't the place for arguments questioning the validity of evolution. You're entitled to your beliefs, but for discussing them try somewhere else like Conservipedia for example, just not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

from www.evolutiondeceit.com


 * Australopithecus : An Ape Species


 * The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape", as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago. There are a number of different species among the astralopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. Afarensis. After that comes A. Africanus, and then A. Robustus, which has relatively bigger bones. As for A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a sub-species of A. Robustus.


 * All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. They are short (maximum 130 cm. (51 in.)) and just like today's chimpanzees, male Australopithecus is larger than the female. Many other characteristics-such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's ape.


 * However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.


 * This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years thanks to grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary ape genus and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.71 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of Australopithecines to that of modern orang-utans.72


 * Briefly, Australopithecines have no link with humans and they are merely an extinct ape species.


 * 71 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, New York: Toplinger Publications, 1970, pp. 75-94.


 * 72 Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt", Nature, Vol 258, p. 389.


 * Evolution deceit by Harun Yahya, chapter 10.


 * P.S


 * Evolution is NOT a science, it is only a theory(STILL UNPROOVED THEORY!).
 * I understand that you won't like to do this, but please visit www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10.php & see pictures for yourself, if you want.

This is a place to discuss the article, not debate evolution, your sources are 36 year old debunked creationist hogwash, and  have all your answers. Nowimnthing 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, I'm not "creationist". But thist doesn't mean that I support evolution. That's all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.204.190.170 (talk • contribs).


 * One should register, but if one doesn't, one can should still use 4 tildes (~) to sign their comments. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Praeanthropus Senyuerek, 1955
Place Australopithecus afarensis, A. bahrelghazali, A. garhi, and A. anamensis in a new page, Praeanthropus. This is based on the new hominid family tree proposed by Cela-Conde & Ayala (2003), which shows that Orrorin is more related to Praeanthropus than to any other hominid genera. Praeanthropus africanus (Weinert, 1950) (P. afarensis [Johnason et. al., 1978] is a synonym) is the type species of Praeanthropus. Praeanthropus and Orrorin are placed in their own subfamily, Praeanthropinae Cela-Conde & Altaba, 2002. Strait & Grine (2004) suggest that Australopithecus is paraphyletic, based on a cladistic analysis.

Cela-Conde, C. J., & Altaba, C. R. 2002. Multiplying genera versus moving species: a new taxonomic proposal for the family Hominidae. South African Journal of Science 98: 229-232.

Cela-Conde, C. J., & F. J. Ayala. 2003. Genera of the human lineage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100 (13): 7684-7689.

Strait DS, Grine FE. (2004). Inferring hominoid and early hominid phylogeny using craniodental characters: the role of fossil taxa. J Hum Evol 47(6):399-452. 72.194.116.63 01:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 18.26 16 April 2007

The phylogeny of the australopithecines (and, for cladists, Paranthropus) is still under a lot of debate, but I don't see this reflected in the article. There is a lot of evidence on either side, but the article seems to take the cladistic view that aethiopicus, robustus, and boisei are in a separate genus when consensus in the scientific community does not support this. There's still too much conflicting evidence to state it definitively one way or another, and I'd like to rewrite part of the article to include this controversy. Anyone for or against? Thoughts? 71.197.87.105 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Properly referenced descriptions of all significant viewpoints is the essence of our neutral point of view policy, which of course must be done using verifiable information without "original research". By the way, good idea to get an account, . .. dave souza, talk 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Story time
They were the slowest-moving primates at the time and many fell prey to carnivorous creatures (lions and the extinct Dinofelis). Once upon a time there was a beautiful princess who kissed a frog..... Who wrote this divel? How the can we expect to persuade the creationists, et al if this is the quality of <insert another expletive here> our arguements. 125.25.181.38 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC) mja

When did the Australopithicines walk the earth
This article reads:
 * "were widespread ... as early as 3.9 to as late as 3 million years ago".

But as Australopithecus anamensis emerged about 4.2 million years ago (according to wikipedia), and Australopithecus africanus not went extinct before 2 million years ago. Wouldn't it be less confusing for the reader when the article would read: "lived in ... as early as 4.2 to as late as 2 million years ago". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel van Heusden (talk • contribs) 13:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had reverted your edit because all you did was change the numbers, with no citation and no edit summary. Since you are changing the numbers so that they match another article, I'll unrevert. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Australopithecus firts appears as Australopithecus anamensis "between 4.17 and 4.12 million years" ago (according to the wikipedia article) and the Australopithecus africanus lived "between 2-3 million years ago" (according to the wikipedia article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel van Heusden (talk • contribs) 14:27 (2 edits), 7 December 2007
 * Uther seems to have reverted, and not to have unreverted. --Jerzy•t 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The text quoted by DvH 8 weeks ago got changed today to a mathematical contradiction, presumably resulting from a first-time IP editor's discomfort with associating the concept of "earl[ier]" with the larger number. I reworded it to avoid repeated mistaken edits, but it should be determined whether we can say "3.0 to 3.9", which is much more informative, and less annoying than "3 to 3.9". --Jerzy•t 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A few changes
I fixed a sentence that was confusing and could have been construed to imply that humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (pan troglodytes) interbred (something that has not been shown because of the chromosome number differences and such experimentation is so taboo) and instead clarified that it was the lineages that diverged and interbred for a while —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.31.163 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Australopiths?
Is this even a word? Shouldn't it be "australopithecenes"? (Dare I propose australopitheci? Probably not.) Rwflammang (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

pronounced?
Is it australopithěcus or australopithēcus? The second seems more correct philologically. But what to scientists actually say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.123.252 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The first one. Valeriya (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Parking controversial text here for discussion
This text recently added by an IP is a minority view based on dated sources. I'm doubting that it should be in the article.

"They were once thought to be a link between the evolution of man since they were bipedal. However, modern science showed they were definitely not bipedal and were just an ordinary ape species (Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, pp. 75-94.). Charles E. Oxnard, an evolutionary biologist, admitted that the skull closely resembled a modern day orangutan's (Charles E. Oxnard, 'The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt,' Nature, vol. 258, 4 December 1975, p. 389.). A science magazine later confirmed that Australopithecus was not a link. 'A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered.' (Isabelle Bourdial, 'Adieu Lucy,' Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62. )."

This is a fast-developing field, with regular discoveries of new fossils. We shouldn't be using these dated sources, which represent a minority view. And certainly not in the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Pasting here comments I left on the Talk page of the IP who added this -- comments in response to his query on my Talk page:


 * You apparently have a dynamic IP, so I don't know if you or someone else will get this message. But if you're the person who edited Australopithecus Afarensis, I removed the material because it doesn't represent the scientific consensus. See Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, specifically the section on undue weight, which says that minor points of view need not be represented in an article. The scientific consensus is that modern humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. And that Afarensis was bipedal. Whether Afarensis is in the lineage of modern humans is not yet known, one way or the other. TimidGuy (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the cited sources verify the statement, 'modern science showed they were definitely not bipedal and were just an ordinary ape species.' Even the cited sources don't say any such thing, and it is unclear why we would use sources from 1975 to say anything about 'modern science.'  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No that is defnbitely wrong. The very solid consensus is that all australopithecines were bipedal, and that one of the autralopithecine (perhaps A. sediba) species evolved in to Homo habilis.The phrase "Ordinary ape" species doesn't mean anything since the most ordinary ape species is currently Homo sapiens.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with Evolutionary role section
" However, the view that human ancestors were knuckle-walkers is now questioned since the anatomy and biomechanics of knuckle-walking in chimpanzees and gorillas are different, suggesting that this ability evolved independently after the last common ancestor with the human lineage. s of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America]] | volume = 106 | issue = 34| pages = 14241–6 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0901280106 | pmc = 2732797 | pmid = 19667206 |bibcode = 2009PNAS..10614241K }} Further comparative analysis with other primates suggests that these wrist-bone adaptations support a palm-based tree walking. "

Can't figure out what's wrong here. Help, please Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Genus status
The paraphyly of genus Australopithecus with respect to genus Homo (not the other way around) is actually a foregone conclusion. See e.g. and. Suggestions?

Section on Cladistics, paraphyly, extinction, genus status, naming and human exceptionalism
The section on 'Cladistics, paraphyly, extinction, genus status, naming and human exceptionalism' reads as an unencyclopedic technical opinion essay on problems of definition in evolution and in my view does not belong in this article. I suggest deleting the whole section or reducing it to a neutrally worded non-technical paragraph about the issues specifically as they relate to Australopithecus. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A.afarensis.jpg

"extinct" and "no living descendents"
A sentence in the lead claims that this species is not "extinct" in "in the sense of having no living descendants," but as far as I can tell, there is NO sense in which the word "extinct" is used in this way. Furthermore, this contradicts the previous sentence. For example, see extinction: "The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of the species." The entire article contains no mention at all of whether or not the existence of living descendants has any any bearing on its status as "extinct." In fact, from the article: "Pinpointing the extinction (or pseudoextinction) of a species requires a clear definition of that species. If it is to be declared extinct, the species in question must be uniquely distinguishable from any ancestor or daughter species, and from any other closely related species. Extinction of a species (or replacement by a daughter species) plays a key role in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge." I perused through the references that are cited at the end of the sentence in question, and unless I missed it, none of them claim that this species is not extinct (in any sense). I'm going to modify the sentence to clarify the issue; this species is extinct (in every sense of the word) but gave rise to other species. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that one of the twigs deep in the Australopithecus tree is you. In today's [cladistics|cladistic] world, we assign all descendents of a group to that group. There are good reasons for that. Among the reasons is that otherwise you can't, on a scientific basis, determine whether you belong to a group or not.Jmv2009 (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Australopithecus family.jpg