Talk:Australopithecus sediba

What about A. garhi?
Is there any merit to the claim that A. sediba is transitional to Homo? Or is this just the usual bid for media attention? How can an Australopithecus fossil of 1.8 Mya be "transitional" to a speciation that occurred 2.6 Mya? We already have a claim of a species of A. claimed as transitional to H., Australopithecus garhi. There, at least, the chronology makes sense. Any claim of "transitional to Homo" made in this article should try and present how A. sediba compares to A. garhi. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to pretend that I know much about this. But I do know that Berger has commented that the dating of these particular fossils does not imply that the species did not already exist at an earlier date, thus it could be ancestral to Homo. I'll leave it to others to judge whether that is a realistic position. Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to judge what the long-term scientific impact of Berger's discovery will be at this point. It'll take time for people to react... there is already some disagreement (that has been added to the article). We'll see how this develops over the coming months. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The transitionality is judged "possible" by the authors of the paper. I confirm what Alfons Åberg said about the dating "paradox" and how it is solved in the paper. What makes A. sediba such a good candidate (apparently) to link the genera Australopithecus and Homo is the high number of shared derived character with H. erectus - more than A. garhi and also more than "H." habilis - for example in the pelvis. Thus the claim is actually substained. (PM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.210.101 (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is true, and H. habilis and H. erectus both evolved from A. independently, H. erectus via A. sediba and H. habilis by some other way, this would effectively mean that the H. vs. A. distinction breaks down as phyologenetically tenable taxonomy. This is possible, of course, but it raises a huge WP:REDFLAG and needs detailed discussion in the Homo article, not stashed away in some footnote on an obscure fossil. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

H. habilis v H. erectus

 * either Homo habilis or even the later Homo erectus

What? Isn't habilis an ancestor to erectus? How could you ever have it not be an ancestor of both, unless you are telling people that the genus Homo is paraphyletic, a composite of different lineages that are not related to each other in any way, except from an ancestoral genus, but without a root species at all.

65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there isn't agreement as to whether erectus is derived from habilis or not. Alfons Åberg (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If I am not wrong, it had already been proposed that H. habilis should be moved to Australopithecus before this find. If A. sediba is considered the ancestor of H. erectus, H. habilis/rudolfensis would be excluded from our direct ancestry and the genus Homo as now defined would become polyphyletic, yes (not paraphyletic: this is when a taxon is formed grouping a common ancestor and only some of its descendent). (PM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.210.101 (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the bewildering diversity of names that continue to contribute to this chaos of anthropological nomenclature, one important discussion that Au. Sediba opens is the variation exhibited for this species at this time period in this geographical region in whatever this species is, whether that be one of many or simply a chronospecies (one of the same species exhibiting a different type of variation). It will allow workers to go back to their finds and ask different types of questions. For instance, Kimbel and Johanson should be asking if their 2.3 year-old maxilla (AL 666-1) is described to the correct chronospecies, as it the oldest Homo at this time and it exhibits less derived Homo traits than do MH1 and MH2. If the mandible and teeth of MH1 and MH2 were found in isolation, I don't believe that there would be any discussion of a 1.95 mya Australopithecus, but instead which Homo species would have such small dentition but exhibits the variation of cusp spacing exhibited by Australopithecus. We certainly should take in consideration that MH1 is a juvenile, but don't forget also that the tooth size of the adult (MH2) is even smaller that that of the juvenile. I think at this point we should be discussing that this is a mosaic of characters retained from Australopithecus and handed down to Homo which should suggest interbreeding.Timothy Michael Earwood 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

“very derived”
What does “very derived” mean? —Michael Z. 2010-04-11 07:15 z 

"derived" means "sharing synapomorphy". "very derived" is silly. I have tried to fix it. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Critics disagree among themselves
One thing I have noticed is that Berger's critics do not agree among themselves. Some say no, it's not a transitional species, it's an Australopithecus while othes say no, it's not a transitional species, it's a Homo. (This distinction may be worth wile taking into account in the article). So apparently there's a plethora of views on the subject. This might suggest that sediba is an important find and interpretations may yield something new. Alfons Åberg (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly I have still not read any serious criticim, only general observations that I'm sure will not stand the facts. But the paper is just come out and critics have not had time to verify the claims. The paper is also very general: the authors still need to provide detailed descriptions and comparisons of the various part of the skeleton, and excavations are still ongoing (since the paper was written, more parts and more individuals have been found) - so we need to wait before the real debate starts. It is an exciting discovery that will surely spark a lot of interesting discussions! (PM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.210.101 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

so? Just because B and C are both critical of A does not mean that B and C necessarily agree among themselves. It is subjective to depict a symmetrical situation of A, B and C all agreeing among themselves as "B+C disagree with A". --dab (𒁳) 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead image
The lead image seems somewhat cartoonish. Is it convention to use images of this quality? From what I can tell, the drawing is based on Figure 1 in the 2010 Science paper from Berger et al. I think it would be best to remove the image until a higher quality version becomes freely available. Emw (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

more to the point, the image has copyright issues. You cannot just trace a photograph and then claim the result as your own work. --dab (𒁳) 12:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a number of images from our files as I was sent a request by email. They may be found at the following addresses on wikimedia commons if anyone wishes to replace the cartoon.

File:Australopithecus_sediba.JPG

File:Mathew_Berger_with_Malapa_Hominin_1.JPG

File:Lee_Berger_and_Job_Kibii_at_the_moment_of_discovery_of_Malapa_hominid_2.JPG

File:Mathew_Berger_with_Malapa_Hominin_1.JPG

File:Lee_Berger_and_the_Cranium_of_Australopithecus_sediba_MH1.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.141.15.229 (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

proposed species
re this, is wrong in several ways. As you may have heard, the article lead section is supposed to summarize article content. As the article body details how the species is disputed, it stands to reason that the lead should mention the fact as well. --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * just because a species is "described in Science", there is nothing "official" about it. By saying Australopithecus sediba (Berger et al., 2010) we are just stating that the species has been proposed.
 * by saying "if another paper comes out disputing it; then its disputed and we can mention it" you are not only confusing "proposed" with "disputed". Even if nobody had time to criticize the proposal, it would still be a proposal.
 * Plus, you make clear that you have not bothered to read the article, which does make clear that the species is not just proposed, but also disputed, especially this part,
 * "Criticism has been raised in Nature magazine that the authors of the initial description have failed to take the wealth of variation within Australopithecus africanus into account, prior to defining the finds as an independent species"
 * The species has been officially described in the journal Science. There is no disputing that. That's like disputing Cruxicheiros as a valid genus. It has been described in a scientific journal as a new genus and species. By this reasoning, you might as well list all the other species of Australopithecus as "proposed". Yes, they are all proposed species. All species are proposed because taxonomy is a man-made creation of classifying life, but A. sediba has also been recognized by the ICZN as an official species. For example, as search of the Paleobiology Database shows A. sediba as being a species. You stated that "just because a species is "described in Science", there is nothing "official" about it. By saying Australopithecus sediba (Berger et al., 2010) we are just stating that the species has been proposed." However, that does make it "official". It has been reocognised as a valid species, and remains as one until a study comes out disputing that.


 * Obviously, some people disagree with the papers on it, but that alone doesn't warrant a change in the wording of "proposed species" or "actual species". For example, you could say in the article lead that "Australopithecus sediba is a species of Australopithecus...." And then later on in the lead, you could mention the apparent controversy of the lack of phylogenetic trees, classification issues, and taxonomy problems that constitute many people's claims that this is not a valid species.


 * "Even if nobody had time to criticize the proposal, it would still be a proposal." So what you're saying is that every species that has been named, every genus, family, and order, etc., is "proposed" if no one else comments on it either in the press, letters to journals, or actual studies in journal articles? Because that's the way you make it sound. Species are named in taxonomic journals all the time and are automatically regarded as being valid. Dozens of new dinosaur species are classified each year, but these are still listed as official species even if their taxonomic history is convoluted. -- Spotty  11222 11:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Young Discoverer
How about adding some words form the boy who discovered it, a rare treat in this field?

" I called my dad over and about five metres away he started swearing, and I was like 'what did I do wrong?' and he's like, 'nothing, nothing - you found a hominid' " from - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8609192.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.37.228 (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

morphology and interpretations
Is is really necessary to have a full paragraph quoting Dawkins? Is it necessary to quote Dawkins at all? Seems to be added an argument from authority fallacy to the article. I'm a dawkins fan, but I just don't see how quoting him really adds to the edification of the article. I'm pretty far removed from an anthropologist, so I don't feel qualified to edit the article, but I think it should be restricted to presenting salient facts and interpretations specifically about the find, not generic philosophical commentary from someone who hasn't specifically studied the fossils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zencycle (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have no problem with quoting Dawkins generally speaking, but it's just not very relevant here. Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The passage could be replaced by a simple link to an article on evolutionary nomenclature. I'm not qualified to suggest an alternative, but as a former magazine editor, I can recognize irrelevance when I see it. Mdmcginn (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Detractors of notion of A. sediba being ancestral
Species can exist for 1 +/- 0.5 million years. If the currently known fossils were late members of A. sediba, then the species may have evolved up to 3.5 mya. If the earliest known H. rudolfensis was an early member of that species, there is no mathematical contradiction to the notion of A. sediba being a direct ancestor.

Secondly, basing the species description on the skeleton of a juvenile seems to make some kind of ironic of sense for lineages that are moving towards greater and greater neotony. The juveniles will be somewhat closer to modern humans, who have lost a good portion of our sexual dimorphism as we retain more and more of our juvenile traits.

Lizard1959 (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Australopithecus sediba. 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/20120325202100/http://www.origins.org.za/news/entry/australopithecus_sediba_named_by_17-year-old_johannesburg_student/ to http://www.origins.org.za/news/entry/australopithecus_sediba_named_by_17-year-old_johannesburg_student/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630144236/http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com:80/_news/2012/06/27/12430341-this-pre-human-ate-like-a-chimp to http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/27/12430341-this-pre-human-ate-like-a-chimp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction in pathology section
The pathology section states that MH1 probably had an osteoid osteoma in the right lamina of the sixth thoracic vertebra. An osteoid osteoma is a benign (noncancerous) bone tumor. Later, it states that MH1 had "the earliest diagnosed case of cancer for a hominin by at least 200,000 years." If this refers to the probable benign osteoid osteoma, it is misleading to say that MH1 definitely had cancer. 15 minutes can save you 15% or more (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)