Talk:Homo naledi/Archive 2

Fossil Dating Results
This is a heads-up for anyone with a watch on the talk page, I noticed the article did not have current information about the dating results, which appear to be very significant. I read about them at the BBC website http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39842975 but don't have time to perform an edit. 0x69494411 18:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

New research papers
We should probably incorporate more descriptive data on the hands and feet, per the new research articles below. New CC images are at Commons:Category:Homo naledi. I think it would be a good idea to divide Morphology into head, hands and feet, with an introductory paragraph on stature (height, mass, general appearance).

Note there is also an as-yet-unpublished dissertation by Christopher S. Walker of Duke University: Ontogeny of Lower Limb Morphology and Proportions in the Dinaledi Hominins, but it's currently firewalled with an "Embargo release date" of 2017-08-06, and so we should probably wait until it is published (or at least other reliable sources mention its findings) before even using anything from the abstract, so as to not jump the gun and put ideas out prematurely, or without sufficient context. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the National geographic article about the 2 nature articles: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151006-homo-naledi-human-hands-feet-science-anthropology/

I think your idea of different sections for each body part is good. I don't think we can use an unpublished embargoed article. CuriousMind01 (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The papers to be published are numerous and it will be ridiculous to report on every nuisance. Most of the anatomical descriptions and comparisons are so technical that it does not enrich or benefit this article. For the layman reader at Wikipedia, it is enough to state that "the skeletal anatomy combines primitive features known from australopithecines with features known from early hominids." Our article already mentions the main features such as torso, cranium, arms, hands, fingers, hip, feet, etc. Unless there is another key observation/conclusion/discovery, I think more technical descriptions of specific bones and comparative morphology are not needed and will clutter the page. Having said that, this article will surely grow significantly in the coming months and years with regards to the dating and  evolutionary context. My 2 cents.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course we need not rehash each paper, or go into minutiae of carpal lengths and subtrochanteric diameters, but this may turn out to be one of the best known Homo species, and I think it's a worthy and possible (even if distant) goal to strive for comprehensiveness somewhat above the level of detail given in news, but less than that given in journals, while still remaining readable to the layperson. There are ways of making technical articles understandable, such as putting detailed yet less important information in footnotes to increase the educational value— e.g. a brief footnote on how the authors estimated mass (inferred from femur diameter) might be helpful to the inquisitive reader. This will be an exciting process! --Animalparty! (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

For perusal: another paper, a commentary by one of the scientists involved with the Dirks et al. paper:

"derived apomorphic"?? what does that mean?
regarding: The skeletal anatomy combines plesiomorphic ("primitive") features known from australopithecines with more derived apomorphic features known from later hominins.

Is there a less technical alternate wording for "derived apomorphic" in the lead? --CuriousMind01 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section not merited
The back and forth criticism is not a controversy it is totally par for the course and happens every time a new important find is published. White faced the same degree of criticism for keeping Ardipithecus in the dark for 15 years. This should go in the opinions section, but does not warrant a separate controversy section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * While I agree in principle to include a "Controversy" section, I want to make clear that it will be maintained in an objective and contextual manner: Berger chose to go to South Africa at a time when it was considered inappropriate for academics to be seen dealing with that country. Also, Berger was a newcomer in the field and he was ridiculed when he published his first couple of books on his hypothesis that the evolution of modern humans was not linear, but the product of significant hanky-panky between different hominid species (polyphyly) This means converging branches (hybrids), not only diverging branches as in a tree. Since then, he was proven right in that there was significant interbreeding with Neantherthals. Although there is no genetic material from naledi, it supports his assertion in a manner that the "sacred cow" of paleoanthropology is being turned upside-down overnight by a new scientist who was ridiculed not long ago for hypothesis he is now substanciating with a new species find. Resistance from the current establishment (or understanding), is facing a dramatic shift akin to the past switch to the heliocentric view of the cosmos.  His hypotheses and interpretations are consistent with new undeniable data. The descriptions of the anatomy were done by >60 career scientists, and were peer-reviewed. The resistance is from the established belief of a linear descent, and it seems it is increasingly unsustainable.


 * Regarding the excavation, taking specimens from granular LOOSE clay from one square meter is easy so it is much faster than embedded in rock (I've done it myself as a trained volunteer), it was documented extensively by thousands of hours of video and was shown to be appropriate and did not damage the fossils.


 * Most important, no scientific review has been published criticizing the science of the find or its methods. So far the critics come from informal comments from experts facing a radical change on the theories themselves helped support. Be mindful we are watching history unfold; The fossil remains are outstanding, are authentic, and are just starting to reveal its story. The story of this find is still unfolding and it may take decades to unravel and be placed in context. Don't get carried away with "critics" published by the media. Keep objectivity and substance, please.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why a criticism section is considered suboptimal. Because by its nature, it is about criticism (and not about the context). That doesn't mean that criticsm has no place in the article. It is mentioned in the hypotheses section (and the lede). The criticism now shown in the criticism section would be best added to the appropriate sections (about the excavation strategy etc). A little bit of nuances on the comment of BatteryIncluded is however also in place: we simply don't know if "history is unfolding" here, and we have no idea whether we wil conculde in 10 years that things were rushed here; or whether the interpretation will be completely different in a couple of years. L.tak (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved the controversy statements to the Opinion section, per the editor thoughts above, and after searching found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism;
 * "1.4 Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies"
 * "Although the term "criticism" can, in that context, include both positive and negative assessment, the word "Criticism" should be avoided in section titles because it may convey a negative connotation to many readers."...Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments". "...Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes."...CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Embargo
I see this new paper has a publishing embargo until August 2017, along with the planned publication of the dating. This paper (presumably already peer-reviewed) calls it "Plio-Pleistocene hominin" implying the transition dating 2.6 million years ago. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you are referring to this dissertation. As to age, the abstract states only that features of the skeleton "imply that the Dinaledi chamber contains Plio-Pleistocene hominins" (emphasis added). In any case I don't think we should assume that a dissertation has been subject to the same scrutiny as formal peer-review for publication. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I forgot to enclose that link. I agree in that it is a dissertation, not the same as a full-fledged research paper. (I am still curious for the reason to the embargo till August 2017.)  Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever the reason, it's turned out to be wise, as the recently released dating data completely undermine it. {The poster formerly known as 87.18.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Everything is broken
Have I missed something? The skeletons look as though they have been through a mangle. This degree of scrambling does not happen by accident. Hyaenas don't go into caves of this sort. Owls and rats can't cause such damage. There is no cave bear in Southern Africa. If the creatures were laid to rest in ritual peace, why all the broken bits? Doesn't make sense... Captainbeefart (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Paleoanthropology is not broken, just updated. :-)  BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the main papers on these finds, already linked in the References as item 4, goes into the details of this.
 * Long story short – the bodies (at least 15, but many more may be counted when excavations resume) were (it seems) inserted through a narrow gap into the chamber at the top of a slope, and gradually slid down while decomposing, mixing up the bits.
 * This likely took place over a period of decades-to-centuries. During and after this period (which might have been anything up to 3 million years ago) the chamber partly filled up with water which then drained (gently, as the groundwater level rose and fell) multiple times: this will have further moved all the remains about.
 * The actual bones themselves are mostly undamaged, with no evidence of any person or animal disturbing the bodies after deposition (except in very recent times), though all the originally intact skeletons have been mostly disarticulated by these processes.
 * (All this is merely my own inexpert summary of the parts of the paper relevant to the question, helped only by my "expertise" as a former science textbook editor – dissenting and additive contributions are welcome!) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

When I wrote "Everything is broken" I was quoting Dylan and using artistic licence. "Mostly undamaged" means what? The photograph in the article is not the best for detailed assessment but looking at it in just a casual manner I counted 53 broken bones, including the major bones of limbs, which do not fall apart at the drop of a hat. Captainbeefart (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When I wrote above " . . . the bodies . . . were . . . inserted through a narrow gap into the chamber at the top of a slope . . ." I did not make explicit that this involved a 12-metre vertical drop down a narrow fissure on to a rock surface, as can be seen in the diagram of the chamber in the Article (reproduced from the aforesaid Reference #4). I'd think dropping a corpse, in whatever condition of decay, 12 metres on to rocks might well result in some broken bones.
 * It actually may have been even farther. The 12m drop is from the top of the cave's underground entrance. For the hominids, this would mean crawling a long way through the cave complex, presumably without light. An alternative is that the bodies were dropped from some no-longer-extant surface opening. This cave is around 30m below ground level. That is a long way for a corpse to fall.128.138.156.47 (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note also that the photo shows pieces of bones from most or all of the 15 individuals so far identified: where you see 2 or 3 pieces of a femur lined up, for example, they're not necessarily all from the same femur, so the gaps don't necessarily represent "breaks". Bone can decay a lot over a couple of million years or so of repeated inundation and drying, and while it seems that nothing major was eating the corpses, the bones do show the marks of feeding by snails and beetles. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Now it all begins to hang together. Thanks for the exposition. Ritual burial takes on a 'hole' new meaning. Next time I bury my granny in fond social ceremony I'm going to throw her down a sump in the Carlsbad Caverns. Rest in pieces :)Captainbeefart (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just like archaeology. Rather than be like modern scientists and admit that they don't know when in fact they don't know, just fall back to medieval divine providence 'science' and say 'religious ritual purpose' when they really haven't a clue. Conveniently, 'religious ritual purpose' of course implies intelligence. Sheesh!--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the paleoanthropologists involved in these excavations have ever used the word "religion" in connection with the finds. A "ritual" action need not be religious. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.25.88 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a forum, and Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for broader discussion of the subject. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly the questions raised by Captainbeefart reveal areas where the Article text could be made more explicit, drawing on the original papers? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.25.88 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating
It's highly unlikely that the researchers will use radiocarbon dating, as the article suggests. The sources don't say they will. It requires organic matter. Plus, these are popular sources, not academic. One source simply gives radiocarbon dating as an example of how doing the dating destroys the material, but doesn't say they'll use that. It's very odd that the article gives the impression that radiocarbon dating is somehow relevant when the researchers will be using other methods of dating. TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

According to one of the published studies, they will be using Uranium-lead dating on the flowstone layers. There's no mention of radiocarbon dating. TimidGuy (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Per "(John)Hawks (researcher on the team) says they plan to but says the technique(radiocarbon dating) “involves destroying material, and we didn't want to do that(radiocarbon dating) until we had published a description of the species.”"

I understand the relevancy of carbon dating is to determine if the fossils are less than 50,000 years old; as one dating technique; compared to no dating.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The fossils have not been conclusively dated. Comment
Regarding new wording: "The fossils have not been conclusively dated." I think "The fossils have not been dated" is the correct wording. Reason: There have been 3 dating attempts with inconclusive results, so the the fossils have not been dated. (meaning we do not know the age of the fossils) --CuriousMind01 (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My aim is to state that they tried and are still trying. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think the new wording is not correct. The fossils have not been dated at all. Dating attempts is not the same as dating. I think: "The fossils have not been dated." or "The fossils age is unknown" are better words. Farther down the text discusses the attempts, the text could be moved after the not dated text, to explain the attempts and future attempt. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

https://elifesciences.org/articles/24231 31.151.163.18 (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC) they have 5 recent papers on naledi. somehow it creeped up in me there was something of the sain heritage in it when reading (i wasnt trying to find out so i can't point finger), i was just surprised, maybe it was in the definite statements about age. however the rest of the website clutters science with creationism so ... there probably is. i read the dating paper and i have a few questions, how can we be sure it is not a secondary or twice reworked deposit, the U Th variance indicate several sedimentary impacts. alltho apparently the topography excludes at least in part the first possibility and against the secvond is some bones are found in articulation. typical big accumulations of human bones from the era have a catastrophic background, so perhaps something like a flood or mudflow deposited them there at once (which would not leave a lot of evidence of transport through flowing water), an option like that is not explored. well and a few more, not all of them i would think wise to publish. if we assume good faith, the body of the dating report appears just fine. especially the dating of the flowstione layers is convincing (and appears doable). the circumstances for conservation were (and perhaps are..) far from ideal over time, however iianm under the initial flowstone layer conservation would have been excellent. i would not be surprised if it were actually older than the 270ka that is now put on it. but for that there should be evidence of some collapse of a ceiling or flowstone layer on which the material initially was deposited, or perhaps a sudden and big flooding event (the whole fossil bearing layer lies on a distinct and "older" layer with what appears an unconformity between them, and the cave apparently had options to "drain" through 100ks of years) 31.151.163.18 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Source
This was on CNN today. Could be used to expand the "Excavation" section.--v/r - TP 02:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional excavating is happening as we speak. New information will be more useful than old reviews. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No new hints on this "update":
 * It looks like the "new excavation" in the cave system is limited to understanding the geology/deposits, with an aim to help determine dating of the fossils. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As reported on 25 April 2017 here:
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39710315
 * Berger has just announced a probable date range of 200,000–300,000 ybp (something of a surprise), but the formal paper won't be out for "some months." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Three new papers
As announced by the BBC on 09 May 2017 here –

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39842975

Berger, Hawks et al have just released one new paper about further H. naledi bones found in another cave (Lesidi) 100m away from Rising Star, one on dating the Rising Star fossils (earlier than expected from above!), and one on H. naledi and Hominin evolution in general, in the journal Genomics and Evolutionary Biology. They are accessible via the online site eLife: the link to eLife is in the BBC report. Plenty to digest here.
 * [Edited 12 May 2017 to add] To obviate possible confusion from my inaccuracy above: both the Dinaledi and the Lesidi Chambers are part of the Rising Star cave system, but the entrance used to access Lesidi is over 100m from that used to access Dinaledi. Also, thanks to Drbogdan for adding individual reference links.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We should add the new dates and remove some of the speculation regarding the dates. TimidGuy (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

✅ - added several related edits, for starters at least, to the main article - further text/refs welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I see we'll need to update the subsection on Dating. TimidGuy (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I did some general cleanup, including the Dating section. Marc Mywords (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The third paper, if anyone needs a cite, is
 * Also published at the same time is
 * 68.235.53.187 (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 68.235.53.187 (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 68.235.53.187 (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In the news nominating
Hi folks. With the recent news I am going to try and nominate this page for the In the News section. I tried cleaning up the article a bit but it could definitely benefit from some more work.


 * Yes: currently this article makes only one mention (in the lede) of the Lesidi chamber discoveries, which include a specimen ("Neo") with a larger brain capacity than previously sampled (and the Rising Star Cave article has no mention as yet). This effects the Morphology section, and and the now-published Dinaledi dating makes a good deal of the Opinions section irrelevant. We really need an editor with paleoanthropological expertise and time to do these articles justice (not to diminish the efforts already made as discussed above) – I'm not up to it myself, being just an interested layman. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Was successful in getting this posted to In The News! Great work and thanks to all who helped edit these past days. Marc Mywords (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)