Gigantopithecus has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 25, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Gigantopithecus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 May 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noa0910, Hootalin, Ninkaido.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Either species could have crossed the Bering Land Bridge much in the way it is thought humans may have brought themselves to the New World. I have removed this line because it sounds to me like cryptozoological speculation to explain Bigfoot. How could a creature that lived in tropical or subtropical climates survive the intense cold of Siberia (during the Ice Age no less!) to reach the Bering Land Bridge? Nik42 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
These claims are not generally considered credible by the scientific community.
[1] I have removed this line and reference because the reference does not support the statement. The referenced article makes no remarks about Gigantopithecus, it does not discount the existence of the "legendary apes", nor does it provide any statement as to the scientific community's views on the issue. I have replaced it with a statement drawing attention to the pure logic of the problem: we do not know the morphology of Gigantopithecus, so we cannot compare it to the morphology of any living species. That is; there will never be any evidence of Giganto crossing the land-bridge, until a more complete fossil is found, and a Big Foot is examined. I will leave it to a
WikiGnome to correct the reference to Destination Truth.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
There is already another article that covers the exact same creature. A merge is in order —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.149.41.45 ( talk • contribs) .
I think this is the other page they said about Gigantopithecus blacki it seems the exact same but phrased differntely -- Climax Void 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this line a bit vague?
"Although it is not known why Gigantopithecus died out, researchers believe that climate change and resource competition with better adapted species were the main reasons."
Why not just say:
"Although it is not known why Gigantopithecus died out, researchers believe that climate change and resource competition with humans were the main reasons."
· AO Talk 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The result was no consensus (6 merge, 3 keep), therefore no action will be taken. -- Jack ( talk) 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Should be merged with "Gigantopithecus blacki" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.85.115 ( talk • contribs).
The example given by Merriam-Webster is "a herbivorous animal". That should settle it. Thanks. AstarothCY ( talk) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So let's just carry on reverting back and forth, shall we? AstarothCY ( talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You're joking, right? We've been over this. If you don't provide a rationale, I'm reverting. AstarothCY ( talk) 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Pronouncing "herbivore" with a silent "h" is the rarer form in US English, and certainly much rarer outside the US. Why is someone insisting it take precedence? -- 77.96.133.241 ( talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
AstarothCY, i've only just stumbled into this fight; but there really is no standard as far as a/an before H words. hell, i switch sometimes myself, depending on the mood i'm in. but "an" is typically the british/commonwealth convention, and perfectly valid itself. i think you'll find that if you end up taking this to WPMammals, you're going to come away unhappy, because the Wikipedia convention, on matters where no larger conventions hold, will always go with what was previously done in the article -- which, here, is going to be "an". i'll freely admit that UtherSRG can be frustrating to deal with at times, but he really is right on this one. just ask another admin. - Metanoid ( talk, email) 01:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
here's WP:MOS, which is a general guide you may/not have already seen. the intro touches upon the problem at hand, i think. also, here is the outcome of a similar dispute which i believe is relevant: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Optional styles. i hope that helps some. i'm still getting the conventions down myself, hehe. - Metanoid ( talk, email) 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Was Gigantopithecus an Arboreal animal (i.e. living up trees), or ground dwelling animal? I ask because obviously it lived in forested areas and eat bamboo, but could it climb trees like an Orangutan? Or was it more like a panda walking through the forest floor? It would seem almost too large to get into a tree at that size. I suppose I have a few other related questions, did Gigantopithecus walk upright like a human, or like other apes? (knuckle-walking or whatever it's called). And did it have any predators? If anybody know these things they should probably be added to the article. -- Hibernian ( talk) 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I would take a wild guess and say that they are not, but don't take my guess too seriously. If the jaw and teeth fossils are large, it would indicate the animal ate a lot of food, and would not be too agile. If they are small, it would indicate they do not eat as much, and would be more agile and would climb. Like I said, don't take my guess too seriously, but do listen to my logic. ;) Paleo Kid ( talk) 18:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if any DNA studies have been done. It should be possible to extract DNA from inside teeth. Of course the thought of cloning them is really appealing. -- Calypsoparakeet ( talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything about DNA being found. I think most people are waiting for Mammoths to be cloned rather that Gigantopithecus. And yes, the thought of cloning does sound appealing. :) Paleo Kid ( talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
DNA tends to deteriorate after 10,000 years so it is unlikely but plausible although the teeth are not really the best places to find DNA. We do know from comparing what fossils we have to fossils of orangutans (no gorillas apparently ever made it into Asia) both extinct and extant that it most likely resembled an orangutan-- Nicholas Wolf ( talk) 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I can see from the discussion history that there was a lack of consensus on merging the article about the species Gigantopithecus blacki with the article about the genus Gigantopithecus. There are presently 3 articles about the named species within this genus. These are:
There is extremely little information in the fossil record about this genus. At best, each species article duplicates information in the article about the genus. At worst the species articles are stubs or hatracks for speculation about Bigfoot. Lets go ahead and merge all four articles into an improved and expanded single article about the genus, with sub-headings for each named species. - Michael J Swassing ( talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
An adequate time for discussion has passed, and in reading the help page for Merging it seems reasonable to commence the merger. - Michael J Swassing ( talk) 04:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps changing 'the pseudoscience of cryptozoology' to 'the science of cryptozoology'. Please discuss this before changing again. Cryptozoology meets the arbitration committee's definition of a pseudoscience, now reflected in Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories. This has been discussed on several pages, including the cryptozoology talk page. In any case, it is certainly not a science, and if in general you wish to assert that it is you need to include some references. I am reverting again because this is a really egregiously incorrect and unsourced statement. Please contribute to this discussion before further reverts. Locke9k ( talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
While I do not agree that it is "pseudo science", but I feel that the edits and other cryptozoological bits in this article are not approaprate for the most part. 64.197.3.194 ( talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Could anyone please upload this image. Also that website says Gigantopithecus exist up to 1.8 mya. 98.119.158.59 ( talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Merged all three species articles, 'Gigantopithecus blacki', 'Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis', and 'Gigantopithecus giganteus' into genus article Gigantopithecus. - Michael J Swassing ( talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I was working a bit quick and sloppy last night to get the merger done. A few areas are still pretty rough. Can we confirm that there are only three named species? What is the relationship between the three species, as in, does one species descend from another or are they divergent? - Michael J Swassing ( talk) 14:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
i would be delighted to find a statistic research relating size of this primates finds and the ones of erectus as a factor of rarity, so actually i want to point out how typically these way more robust bones perished where erectus ones survived, and i am curious if one can infer some art of cultural development, iow perhaps being "homo" is to some extend mirrored in the availability of (post)cranial finds. interestingly there are also some finds indicating hominids actually deposed of their dead relatives outside or away from their primary dwellings, (comp australopith. finds and that in many caves after 100k's years of inhabitation no more complete specimen (except crania) are found, crania btw. often being suggestively well preserved, displaced and possibly even 'manhanded').) thus early hominids managed to accidently end up as a fossil in hominid-trace bearing layers (way more often then bigger animals), it suggests more hominid remains then we perhaps supposed have been the result of actual accidents and calamities (with what the individuals apparently coped differently from eg. giganthopithecus). this is speculation to some extend, but perhaps someone has done some of these statistics.(one oddity being that we have more teeth of this (locally older?) species then of erectus but not one skull(part)). 24.132.171.225 ( talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
once read somewhere that (most) g.b. localities had mostly been plundered for "dragon bones". chinese preferred to collect bigger bones, humans unlike g. lived and camped in caves, tropical climate is not ideal for fossilisation (their whole areal being warm and moist), some g.b. localities also preserved mostly teeth and mandibular material of other species(in modern times). (low) temperature is btw. also a major factor for dna conservation. probably recognisable hominid remains (as opposed to apparently pong remains) were less sought after for dragon bones. there is an interesting porcupine theory in the article, alltho i am not quite sure what indeed statistic implications that would have had for other bones, or why porcupines would preferentially have eaten and carried big bones (then again perhaps they do). 31.151.163.18 ( talk) 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't that the "scientific" name givin to sasquatch? or did they find a speceis and used the name? I immedatly noticed this as a avid studier of cryptozoology. I would think it'd be agasint wikipedia's rules to use a name for an animal that's existance is disputed on a page for a proven animal in this case. 64.197.3.194 ( talk) 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that in the article there should be a section to propose the connection between Gigantopithecus and Sasquatch. If someone wanted to learn more about the connection, there should be something there. PLEASE do not start yelling at me as I have seen throughout this page, just talk calmly. Thank you! Paleo Kid ( talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's start a Section on fictional references to this genus. I've seen a number of other Articles on otherwise nonfictional topics with "In fiction" Sections. That said, most people consider blockbuster and classic films to be notable. To sum up, I would like to point out that King Kong was a member of Gigantopithecus kong, a fictional species within this otherwise nonfictional genus. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"Gigantopithecus giganteus is a large extinct species of ape that lived in what is now India. This animal is known only from teeth and jawbones.[9] Based on the slim fossil finds, it was a large, ground-dwelling herbivore that ate primarily bamboo and foliage. It was approximately half the size of its Chinese relative, Gigantopithecus blacki. Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores."
These two paragraphs appear to be contradictory. Is this animal known from teeth and jawbones only, or has enough of the postcranial skeleton been found to show stomach contents? 66.232.245.74 ( talk) 22:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
While doing some editing today I checked on the species G. bilaspurensis. From what I am seeing it is commonly accepted that G. bilaspurensis and G. giganteus are the same species. However I am seeing both species names ( here G. giganteus vrs G. bilaspurensis here) used for the taxon in the last 5 years or so. is there any way of untangling which is the synonym and which the valid name? Either way the Indian species entries should be merged into on section.-- Kev min § 00:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there any scientific verification about the Gigantopithecus? I read the references that are included and they don't seem scientifically professional at all. In fact, some are just a noname webpage that someone created. There must be some sort of criticism about this to provide a criticism section. Mylittlezach ( talk) 17:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Considering all that's been found is some teeth and a couple mandibles how do we know these weren't just big-jawed gorillas? Even if they were a different species there's absolutely no evidence that they were "10 feet tall, 1200 pounds" as claimed by the article, I think it should be mentioned that this was pretty much a complete guess. -- BigPimpinBrah ( talk) 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Gorillas are known from DNA reconstruction to have evolved in Africa and most likely never ventured into Asia where Gigantopithecus's remains were found. -- Nicholas Wolf ( talk) 21:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Current article claims Gigantopithecus lived until a hundred years ago. This flies on the face of everything I've ever read about Gigantopithecus besides pseudoscience tying it to the yeti and bigfoot myths. I checked the source linked and sure enough, it talks about Gigantopithecus extinction taking place about 300,000 years ago, and that the humans it coexisted along with were Homo erectus.-- 80.26.120.40 ( talk) 02:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gigantopithecus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I removed and will keep removing the sections on the Yeti and Bigfoot because both sections are obvious original research and synthesis. What few citations the sections did have are either irrelevant, or are unreliable and untrustworthy. And the (anonymous) editors who insist on keeping those sections do not appear to be too interested in addressing these problems.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 05:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I wrote the Legend of the Yeti section, it was based on this Smithsonian article: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-bigfoot-really-exist-how-gigantopithecus-became-extinct-16649201/ I'm not a wiki editor and I've found it extremely difficult to put in citations, the article covers the change in environment and available food caused by the rise of the Tibetan plateau 1.6 million to 800,000 years ago which altered the climate of South Asia, ushering in a colder, drier period where the forests shrank back to the mountainous Himalayas, water in the air gathers at mountains this is how clouds form. Would I need to cite how clouds form? I can easily do so putting in a wiki article is another matter entirely. AD Scott ( talk) 23:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gigantopithecus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
What's with the uncited drawing of the orangutan that says it's a 'restoration' of Gigantopithecus? This is like a joke right?
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
I wonder why .. Curtisarmstrongfan ( talk) 02:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Gigantopithecus is now thought to be monotypic, as the other two species have been subsumed into Indopithecus, WP:PALAEO guidelines state that articles about genera with multiple species should generally only have an article on the genus, except in specific circumstances, considering that this genus is now monotypic, there is no question of merging. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 10:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Starsandwhales ( talk · contribs) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing your article over the next few days.
starsandwhales (
talk) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Everything looks good! starsandwhales ( talk) 01:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
To the IP who keeps reverting, it would be incorrect to put an image of a height comparison of an animal that is only known by tooth and jaw elements. The size comparison reconstruction is also, in and of itself, worse stylistically. The gorilla-like reconstruction is no less accurate than the skinny reconstruction by Harry Wilson, and is also a more common reconstruction of the animal, such as on the UCL website User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 02:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello there to our favorite Hungarian! Enjoy the block! Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 06:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Dunkleosteus77 ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC).
The first part of the section on classification gives facts from primary sources and mentions a "multiregional hypothesis", circa 1946?, with a link to Multiregional origin of modern humans, which [fwiw] states "The multiregional hypothesis was first proposed in 1984, and then revised in 2003". Do other sources elaborate on these theories and cite these authorities? ~ cygnis insignis 06:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Gigantopithecus has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 25, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Gigantopithecus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 May 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noa0910, Hootalin, Ninkaido.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Either species could have crossed the Bering Land Bridge much in the way it is thought humans may have brought themselves to the New World. I have removed this line because it sounds to me like cryptozoological speculation to explain Bigfoot. How could a creature that lived in tropical or subtropical climates survive the intense cold of Siberia (during the Ice Age no less!) to reach the Bering Land Bridge? Nik42 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
These claims are not generally considered credible by the scientific community.
[1] I have removed this line and reference because the reference does not support the statement. The referenced article makes no remarks about Gigantopithecus, it does not discount the existence of the "legendary apes", nor does it provide any statement as to the scientific community's views on the issue. I have replaced it with a statement drawing attention to the pure logic of the problem: we do not know the morphology of Gigantopithecus, so we cannot compare it to the morphology of any living species. That is; there will never be any evidence of Giganto crossing the land-bridge, until a more complete fossil is found, and a Big Foot is examined. I will leave it to a
WikiGnome to correct the reference to Destination Truth.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
There is already another article that covers the exact same creature. A merge is in order —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.149.41.45 ( talk • contribs) .
I think this is the other page they said about Gigantopithecus blacki it seems the exact same but phrased differntely -- Climax Void 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this line a bit vague?
"Although it is not known why Gigantopithecus died out, researchers believe that climate change and resource competition with better adapted species were the main reasons."
Why not just say:
"Although it is not known why Gigantopithecus died out, researchers believe that climate change and resource competition with humans were the main reasons."
· AO Talk 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The result was no consensus (6 merge, 3 keep), therefore no action will be taken. -- Jack ( talk) 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Should be merged with "Gigantopithecus blacki" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.85.115 ( talk • contribs).
The example given by Merriam-Webster is "a herbivorous animal". That should settle it. Thanks. AstarothCY ( talk) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So let's just carry on reverting back and forth, shall we? AstarothCY ( talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You're joking, right? We've been over this. If you don't provide a rationale, I'm reverting. AstarothCY ( talk) 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Pronouncing "herbivore" with a silent "h" is the rarer form in US English, and certainly much rarer outside the US. Why is someone insisting it take precedence? -- 77.96.133.241 ( talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
AstarothCY, i've only just stumbled into this fight; but there really is no standard as far as a/an before H words. hell, i switch sometimes myself, depending on the mood i'm in. but "an" is typically the british/commonwealth convention, and perfectly valid itself. i think you'll find that if you end up taking this to WPMammals, you're going to come away unhappy, because the Wikipedia convention, on matters where no larger conventions hold, will always go with what was previously done in the article -- which, here, is going to be "an". i'll freely admit that UtherSRG can be frustrating to deal with at times, but he really is right on this one. just ask another admin. - Metanoid ( talk, email) 01:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
here's WP:MOS, which is a general guide you may/not have already seen. the intro touches upon the problem at hand, i think. also, here is the outcome of a similar dispute which i believe is relevant: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Optional styles. i hope that helps some. i'm still getting the conventions down myself, hehe. - Metanoid ( talk, email) 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Was Gigantopithecus an Arboreal animal (i.e. living up trees), or ground dwelling animal? I ask because obviously it lived in forested areas and eat bamboo, but could it climb trees like an Orangutan? Or was it more like a panda walking through the forest floor? It would seem almost too large to get into a tree at that size. I suppose I have a few other related questions, did Gigantopithecus walk upright like a human, or like other apes? (knuckle-walking or whatever it's called). And did it have any predators? If anybody know these things they should probably be added to the article. -- Hibernian ( talk) 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I would take a wild guess and say that they are not, but don't take my guess too seriously. If the jaw and teeth fossils are large, it would indicate the animal ate a lot of food, and would not be too agile. If they are small, it would indicate they do not eat as much, and would be more agile and would climb. Like I said, don't take my guess too seriously, but do listen to my logic. ;) Paleo Kid ( talk) 18:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if any DNA studies have been done. It should be possible to extract DNA from inside teeth. Of course the thought of cloning them is really appealing. -- Calypsoparakeet ( talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything about DNA being found. I think most people are waiting for Mammoths to be cloned rather that Gigantopithecus. And yes, the thought of cloning does sound appealing. :) Paleo Kid ( talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
DNA tends to deteriorate after 10,000 years so it is unlikely but plausible although the teeth are not really the best places to find DNA. We do know from comparing what fossils we have to fossils of orangutans (no gorillas apparently ever made it into Asia) both extinct and extant that it most likely resembled an orangutan-- Nicholas Wolf ( talk) 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I can see from the discussion history that there was a lack of consensus on merging the article about the species Gigantopithecus blacki with the article about the genus Gigantopithecus. There are presently 3 articles about the named species within this genus. These are:
There is extremely little information in the fossil record about this genus. At best, each species article duplicates information in the article about the genus. At worst the species articles are stubs or hatracks for speculation about Bigfoot. Lets go ahead and merge all four articles into an improved and expanded single article about the genus, with sub-headings for each named species. - Michael J Swassing ( talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
An adequate time for discussion has passed, and in reading the help page for Merging it seems reasonable to commence the merger. - Michael J Swassing ( talk) 04:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps changing 'the pseudoscience of cryptozoology' to 'the science of cryptozoology'. Please discuss this before changing again. Cryptozoology meets the arbitration committee's definition of a pseudoscience, now reflected in Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories. This has been discussed on several pages, including the cryptozoology talk page. In any case, it is certainly not a science, and if in general you wish to assert that it is you need to include some references. I am reverting again because this is a really egregiously incorrect and unsourced statement. Please contribute to this discussion before further reverts. Locke9k ( talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
While I do not agree that it is "pseudo science", but I feel that the edits and other cryptozoological bits in this article are not approaprate for the most part. 64.197.3.194 ( talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Could anyone please upload this image. Also that website says Gigantopithecus exist up to 1.8 mya. 98.119.158.59 ( talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Merged all three species articles, 'Gigantopithecus blacki', 'Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis', and 'Gigantopithecus giganteus' into genus article Gigantopithecus. - Michael J Swassing ( talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I was working a bit quick and sloppy last night to get the merger done. A few areas are still pretty rough. Can we confirm that there are only three named species? What is the relationship between the three species, as in, does one species descend from another or are they divergent? - Michael J Swassing ( talk) 14:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
i would be delighted to find a statistic research relating size of this primates finds and the ones of erectus as a factor of rarity, so actually i want to point out how typically these way more robust bones perished where erectus ones survived, and i am curious if one can infer some art of cultural development, iow perhaps being "homo" is to some extend mirrored in the availability of (post)cranial finds. interestingly there are also some finds indicating hominids actually deposed of their dead relatives outside or away from their primary dwellings, (comp australopith. finds and that in many caves after 100k's years of inhabitation no more complete specimen (except crania) are found, crania btw. often being suggestively well preserved, displaced and possibly even 'manhanded').) thus early hominids managed to accidently end up as a fossil in hominid-trace bearing layers (way more often then bigger animals), it suggests more hominid remains then we perhaps supposed have been the result of actual accidents and calamities (with what the individuals apparently coped differently from eg. giganthopithecus). this is speculation to some extend, but perhaps someone has done some of these statistics.(one oddity being that we have more teeth of this (locally older?) species then of erectus but not one skull(part)). 24.132.171.225 ( talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
once read somewhere that (most) g.b. localities had mostly been plundered for "dragon bones". chinese preferred to collect bigger bones, humans unlike g. lived and camped in caves, tropical climate is not ideal for fossilisation (their whole areal being warm and moist), some g.b. localities also preserved mostly teeth and mandibular material of other species(in modern times). (low) temperature is btw. also a major factor for dna conservation. probably recognisable hominid remains (as opposed to apparently pong remains) were less sought after for dragon bones. there is an interesting porcupine theory in the article, alltho i am not quite sure what indeed statistic implications that would have had for other bones, or why porcupines would preferentially have eaten and carried big bones (then again perhaps they do). 31.151.163.18 ( talk) 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't that the "scientific" name givin to sasquatch? or did they find a speceis and used the name? I immedatly noticed this as a avid studier of cryptozoology. I would think it'd be agasint wikipedia's rules to use a name for an animal that's existance is disputed on a page for a proven animal in this case. 64.197.3.194 ( talk) 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that in the article there should be a section to propose the connection between Gigantopithecus and Sasquatch. If someone wanted to learn more about the connection, there should be something there. PLEASE do not start yelling at me as I have seen throughout this page, just talk calmly. Thank you! Paleo Kid ( talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's start a Section on fictional references to this genus. I've seen a number of other Articles on otherwise nonfictional topics with "In fiction" Sections. That said, most people consider blockbuster and classic films to be notable. To sum up, I would like to point out that King Kong was a member of Gigantopithecus kong, a fictional species within this otherwise nonfictional genus. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"Gigantopithecus giganteus is a large extinct species of ape that lived in what is now India. This animal is known only from teeth and jawbones.[9] Based on the slim fossil finds, it was a large, ground-dwelling herbivore that ate primarily bamboo and foliage. It was approximately half the size of its Chinese relative, Gigantopithecus blacki. Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores."
These two paragraphs appear to be contradictory. Is this animal known from teeth and jawbones only, or has enough of the postcranial skeleton been found to show stomach contents? 66.232.245.74 ( talk) 22:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
While doing some editing today I checked on the species G. bilaspurensis. From what I am seeing it is commonly accepted that G. bilaspurensis and G. giganteus are the same species. However I am seeing both species names ( here G. giganteus vrs G. bilaspurensis here) used for the taxon in the last 5 years or so. is there any way of untangling which is the synonym and which the valid name? Either way the Indian species entries should be merged into on section.-- Kev min § 00:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there any scientific verification about the Gigantopithecus? I read the references that are included and they don't seem scientifically professional at all. In fact, some are just a noname webpage that someone created. There must be some sort of criticism about this to provide a criticism section. Mylittlezach ( talk) 17:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Considering all that's been found is some teeth and a couple mandibles how do we know these weren't just big-jawed gorillas? Even if they were a different species there's absolutely no evidence that they were "10 feet tall, 1200 pounds" as claimed by the article, I think it should be mentioned that this was pretty much a complete guess. -- BigPimpinBrah ( talk) 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Gorillas are known from DNA reconstruction to have evolved in Africa and most likely never ventured into Asia where Gigantopithecus's remains were found. -- Nicholas Wolf ( talk) 21:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Current article claims Gigantopithecus lived until a hundred years ago. This flies on the face of everything I've ever read about Gigantopithecus besides pseudoscience tying it to the yeti and bigfoot myths. I checked the source linked and sure enough, it talks about Gigantopithecus extinction taking place about 300,000 years ago, and that the humans it coexisted along with were Homo erectus.-- 80.26.120.40 ( talk) 02:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gigantopithecus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I removed and will keep removing the sections on the Yeti and Bigfoot because both sections are obvious original research and synthesis. What few citations the sections did have are either irrelevant, or are unreliable and untrustworthy. And the (anonymous) editors who insist on keeping those sections do not appear to be too interested in addressing these problems.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 05:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I wrote the Legend of the Yeti section, it was based on this Smithsonian article: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-bigfoot-really-exist-how-gigantopithecus-became-extinct-16649201/ I'm not a wiki editor and I've found it extremely difficult to put in citations, the article covers the change in environment and available food caused by the rise of the Tibetan plateau 1.6 million to 800,000 years ago which altered the climate of South Asia, ushering in a colder, drier period where the forests shrank back to the mountainous Himalayas, water in the air gathers at mountains this is how clouds form. Would I need to cite how clouds form? I can easily do so putting in a wiki article is another matter entirely. AD Scott ( talk) 23:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gigantopithecus. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
What's with the uncited drawing of the orangutan that says it's a 'restoration' of Gigantopithecus? This is like a joke right?
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
I wonder why .. Curtisarmstrongfan ( talk) 02:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Gigantopithecus is now thought to be monotypic, as the other two species have been subsumed into Indopithecus, WP:PALAEO guidelines state that articles about genera with multiple species should generally only have an article on the genus, except in specific circumstances, considering that this genus is now monotypic, there is no question of merging. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 10:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Starsandwhales ( talk · contribs) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing your article over the next few days.
starsandwhales (
talk) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Everything looks good! starsandwhales ( talk) 01:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
To the IP who keeps reverting, it would be incorrect to put an image of a height comparison of an animal that is only known by tooth and jaw elements. The size comparison reconstruction is also, in and of itself, worse stylistically. The gorilla-like reconstruction is no less accurate than the skinny reconstruction by Harry Wilson, and is also a more common reconstruction of the animal, such as on the UCL website User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 02:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello there to our favorite Hungarian! Enjoy the block! Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 06:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Dunkleosteus77 ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC).
The first part of the section on classification gives facts from primary sources and mentions a "multiregional hypothesis", circa 1946?, with a link to Multiregional origin of modern humans, which [fwiw] states "The multiregional hypothesis was first proposed in 1984, and then revised in 2003". Do other sources elaborate on these theories and cite these authorities? ~ cygnis insignis 06:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)