This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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Note there is also an as-yet-unpublished dissertation by Christopher S. Walker of Duke University: Ontogeny of Lower Limb Morphology and Proportions in the Dinaledi Hominins, but it's currently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 I don't think we can use an unpublished embargoed article.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)
For perusal: another paper, a commentary by one of the scientists involved with the Dirks et al. paper:
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)
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)
Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] There's no mention of radiocarbon dating. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This was on CNN today. Could be used to expand the "Excavation" section.--v/r - T P 02:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)As announced by the BBC on 09 May 2017 here –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39842975 [1] [2] [3]
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.
Done - @ TimidGuy: 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)
References
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.
A news item involving Homo naledi/Archive 2 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 May 2017. |
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
For perusal: another paper, a commentary by one of the scientists involved with the Dirks et al. paper:
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)
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)
Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] There's no mention of radiocarbon dating. TimidGuy ( talk) 12:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This was on CNN today. Could be used to expand the "Excavation" section.--v/r - T P 02:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)As announced by the BBC on 09 May 2017 here –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39842975 [1] [2] [3]
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.
Done - @ TimidGuy: 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)
References
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.
A news item involving Homo naledi/Archive 2 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 May 2017. |
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |