Talk:Australopithecus anamensis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mirandaswinson, Maddieperi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Homo antiquus praegens
I can't find any mention on Wikipedia of Homo antiquus praegens Ferguson 1989. This is a fossil hominin from about the same age or slightly earlier than Praeanthropus anamensis. If the same, the name Praeanthropus praegens (or Australopithecus praegens, or whatever) would have precedence. Does anybody know if this has been addressed in the literature? And why is there no page for praegens? 69.231.215.41 (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The name was based on specimen KNM-ER TI 13150, which is just a piece of mandible with two molars. KNM-TH 13150 provides some citations, showing that other authors refer it to either A. anamensis or Ardipithecus. The name would not have priority, I believe, as it is a subspecies and Homo antiquus proper had a different holotype.--MWAK (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken: a subspecies replaces the specific name if the latter is invalid. It then all depends on whether KNM-ER TI 13150 shows any diagnostic traits, otherwise the name can be disregarded as a nomen dubium or indeterminata.--MWAK (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice article
But it needs sources. WAS 4.250 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Indeed. Moreover, it needs live linked sources rather than dead links. To this end I am removing this link - http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HUMAN_EVOLUTION?SITE=SCBMN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT - and replacing it with this one: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-04-12-fossil-evolution-gap_x.htm Elroch (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusing article
The 1965 and 1987 findings were of the same "specimen". Does that mean same individual? And the Leakey finds were of the same "hominid" - meaning same individual or just same species?

"Although they did not find hips, feet or legs ... the fossils ... include ... the upper and lower parts of a leg bone (tibia)." Contradiction.

Where is Kanapoi? Is it the "hillside east of Allia Bay"? Nurg 22:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Audio request
Someone please upload an audio pronunciation see how lots of issues | leave me a message 13:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Images needed
If you're discussing fossils, or long extinct species, you need images.

- Angel Eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.139.212 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

New link for the Seth Borenstein reference
USA Today still carries a link to Seth Borenstein's AP article. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-04-12-fossil-evolution-gap_x.htm

24.254.238.231 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Mike

Proposed merge with Kanapoi KNM-KP 29281
Information on a single mandible is directly pertinent to the species it helped describe. This mandible article already strays into broader A. anamensis discussion, and it would be more welcome and useful integrated with the species article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Since no one objects, and the topics substantially overlap, I will redirect Kanapoi KNM-KP 29281 to this article. I have copied the existing text below should anyone wish to incorporate it into the existing article.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Name and Origin

Roughly 4.2-3.9 million years old, KNM-KP 29281 is an adult mandible fossil of an East African Australopithecus Anamensis. This fossil makes up part of the A. Anamensis holotype and has given great insight as to what Australopithecus Anamensis most likely looked like. While archaeologists are not fully certain, due to the strong sexual dimorphism, it is believed that the mandible is from a smaller adult female. The rather narrow mandible is well-preserved and contains all of the teeth- notably, the large canines. A. Anamensis is often described as primitive and much more ape-like than any of its successors, however, it is known that A. Anamensis was bipedal.

Discovery

KNM-KP 29281 was discovered in 1994 by a man named Peter Nzube in Kanapoi, Kenya. Kanapoi is an archaeological lakeside site in Kenya just southwest of Lake Turkana. It is a well-known location for yielding numerous fossils and remains of Australopithecus Anamensis. Kanapoi shows evidence of a wide variety of habitat. The well-preserved fossils in Allia Bay show aquatic animals, hippos, monkeys, and crocodiles, but the nearby wooded and bushland habitats show quite the contrast. This suggests a wide range of adaptability for A. Anamensis.

In addition to the mandible and maxilla, various other bones have been found at this site such as cranium bones, teeth, and a tibia supporting bipedalism (2). In addition to the mandible being used for the holotype, other fossils from Kanapoi have been used in creating an image of A. Anamensis. Mary and Louis Leakey, along with their son, his wife, and their granddaughter, have had a large role in discovering many of the fossils at this site. They have worked with Peter Nzube, excavated many fossils themselves, and have various prominent works published on their work in Kanapoi, Kenya, and Australopithecus Anamensis'' as well.

While often compared and similar to Miocene apes, the dentition of KNM-KP 29281 does differ in many ways. For example, the premolars are much more complex and the cheek bone enamel is significantly thicker. The molars are much larger, lower-crowned, and more strongly enameled than any ape as well. We see strong sexual dimorphism in the lower canines which are much larger and pronounced in male specimens. The U-shaped teeth rows are very asymmetrical and the teeth roots are very large and robust.

Based on patterns on the teeth and the remaining enamel, it has been suggested that A. Anamensis consumed primarily fruit and foliage. However, the thick enamel suggests consuming harder food such as tubers, roots, and nuts.

Removed statement
I went ahead and deleted Little additional information was uncovered until 1987, when Canadian archaeologist Allan Morton (with Harvard University's Koobi Fora Field School) discovered fragments of a specimen protruding from a partially eroded hillside east of Allia Bay, near Lake Turkana, Kenya.

It's been tagged for citation needed since January 2010, and was initially added in this edit by. That edit information instead of just adding it making me think it's just been uncaught vandalism... I can't find  about a Canadian archaeologist named Allan Morton who had anything to do with this. Umimmak (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

New fossil discovery, nearly complete cranium
Mention of new fossil discovery in the lay press:

That article has a link to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8 "A 3.8-million-year-old hominin cranium from Woranso-Mille, Ethiopia" (full journal article paywalled, page has citation details and abstract).

— (please mention me in replies: I don't actively scour my watchlist) Pelagic (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)