This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lucy (Australopithecus) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | Lucy (Australopithecus) was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 24, 2007, November 24, 2008, November 24, 2010, November 24, 2011, November 24, 2013, and November 24, 2014. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Shaheenl (
article contribs).
Uh I don't get how ape is used as contrasting to human ancestors....Aren't we still Apes? Belonging to the family Hominidae along with chimps,bonobos and other 'great apes'. Therefore, sentances like this "Doubters of the evolutionary evidence of Lucy to humans use this evidence to claim that Lucy is more likely an extinct species of ape" don't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.173.14 ( talk) 20:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
"Johanson was able to recover Lucy's left innominate bone and sacrum. Though the sacrum was remarkably well preserved, the innominate was distorted like a carnivorous child/ baby , leading to two different reconstructions." I know virtually nothing about anthropology but this surprised me. Surely not? 217.136.43.131 ( talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
(copying and editing from Origin talk page) I was just scrolling through the "On this day..."s at the top of the page, and it's funny, and oddly appropriate, that Lucy was discovered on November 24, 1974, 115 years, to the date, after the publication of On the Origin of Species [1]. As some of you know, there has been a concerted effort by a number of editors to get the Origin page up to FA standards (which it recently passed [2]) in order to have it featured on the main page on November 24. Since we still have a little time before then, it might be interesting to try and find some things to help make November 24 a real double-whammy, with both the publication of the Origin and the 35th anniversary of Lucy included as front-page items; Origin as the featured article for the day, and something for Lucy, especially since this November 24 will be the 35th anniversary of her discovery. One idea is to look around to see if there is anything interesting, like a recent book, or article, that we could use as a "newsworthy" tie in. I know that Lucy was on tour for a while, but that was last year, so not exactly newsworthy for this November 24. Any ideas? Cheers, Edhubbard ( talk) 16:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Your last edit to Lucy (Australopithecus) was misspelt and did not appear to add anything useful to the article. Please explain the point you're trying to make on the talk page, and present a draft proposal for agreement and correction rather than repeatedly inserting poor quality text. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
My additional information regard taphonomy 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(undent) If you think there is some substantive content that is missing, which you clearly do, you need to 1) explain why it is important (see WP:BURDEN) and 2) given your difficulties with the English language, work with other editors to improve the quality of your writing so that the key points can be included. As of right now, you are engaging in a slow-moving edit war, even after Dave, and now me, have asked you to please bring this to the talk page, rather than simply insisting on adding the garbled text that you want to add. In fact, there are many more grammatical and spelling errors than "piked" vs. "picked". Please work with us to explain why this should be included in the article, and to improve the English of the addition you want to make so that we can even make sense of it. Edhubbard ( talk) 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The article at present gives the date of discovery as the 24th of November. There are conflicting sources, some giving 24th, some 30th. This was discussed in 2007. Now an anonymous editor has changed the date to 30th [3], and Edhubbard has reverted it [4], giving the edit summary "revert: there are conflicting dates in the literature, but this has been discussed before Talk:Lucy_(Australopithecus)/Archive_1#November_24th and settled, as it appeared on the main page twice". My reading of the earlier discussion is that at the end it seemed on balance that 24th looked more likely, but there was still doubt. Perhaps it would be better to mention both possibilities in the article, or alternatively to just say "November". I think that, where there is genuine doubt, to simply quote one possibility as a fact is an error. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Alemseged et al., ʺPaleoanthropological Research at Dikika, Ethiopia and Comparative Morphology of the Juvenile Hominin from DIK‐1ʺ The Dikika Research Project (DRP) had been working at Dikika, Ethiopia since 1999. Among the many paleontological discoveries is a remarkably preserved partial skeleton of a juvenile Australopithecus afarensis (DIK‐1‐1 also nicknamed “Selam.”) recovered at the Locality DIK‐1 between 2000 and 2003. The ca. three years old presumed female comes from sediments ca. 3.3 Ma in age and represents the earliest and most complete juvenile fossil ever found. The find consists of the whole skull, with a natural brain endocast, the entire rib cage, hand phalanges, distal end of the right humerus, both knees and an almost complete foot. Also, included are skeletal parts that were previously little known from the early part of the hominin fossil record, including the hyoid bone, and the shoulder blades. The Dikika girl documents, for the first time, the complete skull morphology of juvenile Australopithecus afarensis and any early hominin older than 3 million years. The femora, the tibiae and the foot preserve evidence that this ancient species walked upright even at the age of three. However the two shoulder blades share shape similarities to those of gorillas. The fingers are also long and curved, as seen in other Australopithecus afarensis specimens raising some questions concerning the role of arboreality in this species. Among the rare finds is the hyoid bone. Its morphology in the Dikika girl is similar to that of African great apes and different from that of humans. The scientific significance of the new find is manifold, contributing substantially to our understanding of the morphology, body plan, behavior, movement and developmental patterns of our early ancestors. After full cleaning and preparation of the fossil we will be able to reconstruct, for the first time, much of an entire body of a 3 year‐old Australopithecus afarensis child —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 ( talk) 20:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
At the top of the page it claims that Lucy is nearly 40% complete, while according to my sources she is 47 out of 207 bones [1] which is closer to 23% complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur.science ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps big bones are being counted as bringing more "completion" than small bones. Evercat ( talk) 19:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting suggestion and brings up a more interesting point: completion percentage is vague and unless there is some kind of scientific construct as to how completion percentage should be calculated I think we should probably leave it out altogether. Arthur.science ( talk) 20:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
If there are verifiable reports that Lucy has 47 bones, and verifiable reports that A. afarensis has 207 bones, it's not original research to say that 23% of the bones have been found. However as I noted above, that doesn't seem to be how the figure was determined. I assume the figure is from (weight of bones found) / (expected weight of complete skeleton) or somesuch, which is also a sane way of doing it. Evercat ( talk) 12:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
So I emailed Donald Johanson to ask, and he said 40% was roughly (bones found) / (total bones - hand and foot bones), which seems about right. This is, of course, totally non-citeable. Evercat ( talk) 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
References
I have another article to link to as a citation but I don't want to mess up the page: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568 Reybeez ( talk) 15:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1073 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 ( talk) 16:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Evercat ( talk) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Lucy was the first known human ancestor. == — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.172.84 ( talk) 22:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
"The tour was approved by the Ethiopian government and organized in collaboration with the Houston Museum of Natural Science, where it had been on display from August 31, 2007 until September 1, 2008, along with an original Digital Dome Theater (Planetarium) feature film about the origins of lucy called Lucy’s Cradle, the Birth of Wonder, featuring music by Shai Fishman, recorded and produced at Fish-i Studios - http://www.fish-i.com.[19]"
Sounds very much like a plug imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.200.94 ( talk) 17:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, 3rd sentence, the word hominid is linked to the article for hominins. Either the link or the word should be changed.
Also, that paragraph says that Ardi is the earliest known hominid. I'm not an expert on human evolution but that doesn't seem right to me. First, both the article on [ [5]] and the article cited in the notes section seem to indicate it's the oldest skeleton but not oldest fossil. Also, should this also be hominin here instead of hominid? I would have to guess it's not the oldest hominid fossil though maybe it's the oldest complete hominid skeleton as well as hominin skeleton.
Thanks for anyone's attention to this.
Tejonoso ( talk) 09:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It's been changed, it seems, to hominin. The article 'hominin' starts with "The chimpanzee–human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species that the genera Homo and Pan (i.e. humans on one hand and bonobos and common chimpanzees on the other) share as a common ancestor." Is this what Lucy or any Australopithecus was? the last common ancestor to chimpanzee and human? Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose the "six-year" tour is August 2007 to sometime 2013. Right?
Some update may be valuable. -- P64 ( talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Johanson and Maitland A. Edey won the U.S. National Book Award (Science) for Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981). [6] Is Edey a professional science writer, not paleo.? -- P64 ( talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It says Lucy was among the earliest "hominids" - aren't hominids a much broader group? Twin Bird ( talk) 21:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The word "derived" is used a couple of times in this article. Even after looking up the meaning, it's unclear what it means in this context. Can someone suggest a different wording of those sections or at least add an explanation of how they use the word "derived" in paleontology?
-- DougEngland ( talk) 15:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Her greater trochanter, however, was clearly derived, being short and human-like rather taller than the femoral head," means that trait evolved since splitting from her ancestor. Hope this helps, Jack ( talk) 15:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the following recently added bit from the lead:
Seems it would belong in the Criticisms section if anywhere. Has this 1999 pub received any attention or is this "new theory" re the family tree just one person's idea? Vsmith ( talk) 01:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Evolutionary scientists will NEVER learn (see the Piltdown man and the Nebraska Man). Just for starters, she's just an ape; however, I will first provide two websites to the controversy of the latest 'finding' - although this theory of her being a precursor to humankind has been debunked for a few decades now - that was once presupposed to be man's prehistoric ancestor, called 'Lucy'. ( http://www.creationtips.com/lucy.html) and ( http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html). Shortly, I will attempt to expand the Criticisms section to include and paraphrase this information. Needless to say, if you would like any additional references I can include a dozen more.shyjayb 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb ( talk • contribs)
Greetings and thank you for coming front and center you clod! But I was only being modest by the numbers in sources; for I could start at the top with about another 3-400 of them when it comes to how many ways, sizes, shapes and forms I can dethrone and dismiss this 'Lucy' as just another hoax or swine that you think I'm making of this. And since you want to be the jester I just may humor you, but I will not start edit warring. Many thanks again.shyjayb 01:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb ( talk • contribs)
Someone really needs to edit the fact that this page gives the impression that Lucy is without a doubt a Australopithecus - an supposed common ancestor of the human. This is widely debated and therefore the article should reflect this. Perhaps the language in the first paragraph should indicate that Lucy has only been alleged to have been a common ancestor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.220.26 ( talk) 13:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is Londa Schiebinger's criticisms in this article? They are certainly not noteworthy. She has no expertise on this subject and there is no citation to the peer-reviewed literature. Unless a section on fringe views of Lucy is to be created, this should be removed. There are plenty of real controversies among actual scientists about this fossil. They should are what should be noted. 68.97.26.72 ( talk) 04:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There are many more criticisms of the Lucy fossil idea. How can we even be sure they came from the same animal when the bones were not found cemented together in the same rock layer? Many would argue that it is very unlikely that bones from one animal spread over a wide area for "millions of years" could be put back together.
I would submit these articles as further reading for the controversy surrounding Lucy: http://www.icr.org/article/was-lucy-ape-man/ http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.180.168 ( talk) 10:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The Title of this article is Lucy (Australopithecus). But Australopithecus is the family name, not the species name. You can't say that Lucy is representative of the whole family. It should be, in my opinion, Lucy (Australopithecus Afarensis) otherwise it is just misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.178.214 ( talk) 15:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
removed.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Maybe it's needed to correct the weblink of reference No.2. from http://iho.asu.edu/about/lucy%E2%80%99s-story into https://iho.asu.edu/about/lucys-story, because I've found "Page not found". Sphenodon ( talk) 10:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
moved from the article:
This really looks trivial, and for some unknown reason the date in the edit isn't the same as 30 Nov 74 as shown in Johanson's book. . dave souza, talk 17:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Lucy was in fact not a human the person who found her even said that she was just an ape — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.160.2 ( talk) 19:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There is an exhibit in the Creation Museum about Lucy and the creationist interpretation about Lucy's involvement in the missing link. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.240.118 ( talk) 19:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Any reason Mary Leakey isn't included in the "Discovered By" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.137.162 ( talk) 20:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no proof that this is the missing link between humans and apes! 2606:A000:EFC0:4E:5090:698C:67E2:2B92 ( talk) 01:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The article says in various sections that AMNH declined to host the exhibit and she returned to Ethiopia in 2013, however she appears to be at the museum currently and, non verifiable, I know, I saw her on exhibit last weekend. Either way, the EL #6 needs updating (possibly to mine above or this one) as it's a dead link. THoughts? StarM 18:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This article was the 5th most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 1,148,394 views for the week November 22 to 28, 2015. The "41st Anniversary of the discovery of Lucy" was the subject of a Google Doodle ( link) November 24. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton#.VSki9zTF-wC
It says Gary Sawyer and Mike Smith at the American Museum of Natural History in New York found that one of the vertebra fragments belongs to a baboon,when they have work on a new reconstruction of Lucy’s skeleton with with help from Scott Williams at New York University.But there is any information about this work and its conclusion.Someone is afraid or has reservations of new Piltdown man disgrace?-- Kamuran Ötükenli ( talk) 12:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
"We looked at every species that was potentially there – porcupines, small cats and baboons – to see if we could match the bone to the vertebrae of another animal. Eventually we found it was the right size and shape for the "baboon", which further analyses supported."
"Williams told New Scientist that the fossil of a gelada baboon thoracic vertebra must have "somehow" been mixed up with Lucy's remains.
The team now plan to present their findings at the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco next week."
'Lucy was not found in association with lots of other different bones and was painstakingly studied during excavation and description. "Mistakes" can of course be made with 1000s of fragments but "that wasn’t the case here."
"Dan Gebo at the Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. “Given that broken bones are always a problem and "most of us are not vertebral specialists", it would not be unusual to make a "small mistake".”"
"If the fragment really does prove to belong to a baboon, he says, “we can cut Don Johanson and his colleagues "some slack"”."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton/
-- Kamuran Ötükenli ( talk) 13:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The Discovery section states that Hadar was discovered in 1974, surveying started in 1973, and the end of the first field season was in 1971. Can someone correct this?
HBego ( talk) 08:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lucy (Australopithecus). 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.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
let's hope the IPs find a new target in the mean time. If someone feels need to extend, feel free. I'll watch as much as I can when it expires. StarM 02:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
70.68.25.161 ( talk) 22:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
9 mill year old australipithicus teeth found in river bed of Rhine in Germany. This blows OOA to pieces, and makes many references and comments on this page incorrect - for example the time bar on the right, has a arrow poitning at 1 mill years with the title "earliest in Europe". This is clearly wrong.
Please edit this page accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.149.119 ( talk) 00:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lucy (Australopithecus). 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.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like permission to edit the Lucy the Hominid Wikipedia page because I have encountered an error while using the page. Under the list of people who found the remains of Lucy, there are 4 names, 3 of which lead to the page that they are supposed to, the Wikipedia page of that person. But for the last name, Tom Gray, when it is clicked it doesn't lead to Tom Gray's Wikipedia page. Instead, it leads to the same Wikipedia article just farther down the page. My suggested edit would be to either try to make the link lead to Tom Gray's Wikipedia page or just remove the link to the page that is lower down and just includes Tom's name. I hope that you will consider allowing me to fix this mistake. Thank you for your time. [1] CRB3182 ( talk) 06:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I've read in a Guinness Book of World Records that was from 1989 how Lucy was the first Homo despite her living 3 million years ago. Since when was she considered a human, and not an Australopith? 137.118.99.79 ( talk) 01:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This article claims that Donald Johanson discovered AL 129-1 in November 1971 which is at odds with the more consistent looking date of November 1973 given in the main artilce AL 129-1. If it's true that "...in the autumn of 1973 the team began surveying sites around Hadar for signs related to the origin of humans." as stated by the previous paragraph in the Discovery section, then November 1973 is likely the correct date.
The exploration date of the Hadar region and subsequent founding of IARE by Maurice Taieb also needs to be improved and made clearer and more consistent in this article as well as in AL 129-1, Hadar Ethiopia, and Maurice Taieb. Ehsanamini ( talk) 05:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I recall a sidebar in a children's publication when I was a kid claiming that she was named after Lucy Ricardo. Perhaps it was written by some old fart who didn't like the Beatles. If anyone knows of this claim and can make any citations of it, that would be most interesting. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 01:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
DR.zersenay Alemseged was also involved in the finding the old human hominid known as lucy 196.191.221.196 ( talk) 10:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248486800525 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.270.5240.1297.b
Several sources are debating whether Lucy was a female or a male, evaluating the difference in size from lucy to the remainder of fossils of their species, and also evaluating the pelvic width in relation to whether they could actually birth a child.
I dont know if this is for edit suggestions or not, but Someone more familiar with wikipedia, please help! Thanks! 100.36.174.171 ( talk) 19:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
How was two bones matched to create a knee? 2605:59C8:37:4410:2C9D:B834:4F0D:4451 ( talk) 18:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Lucy (Australopithecus has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 § Lucy (Australopithecus until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
18:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is probable that the year 1971 was mistyped under Discovery - First find: "In November 1971, near the end of the first field season, Johanson noticed a fossil of the upper end of a shinbone, which had been sliced slightly at the front." According to source 12 and wiki page AL 129-1, it should be 1973. Zwen0416 ( talk) 09:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lucy (Australopithecus) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | Lucy (Australopithecus) was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 24, 2007, November 24, 2008, November 24, 2010, November 24, 2011, November 24, 2013, and November 24, 2014. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Shaheenl (
article contribs).
Uh I don't get how ape is used as contrasting to human ancestors....Aren't we still Apes? Belonging to the family Hominidae along with chimps,bonobos and other 'great apes'. Therefore, sentances like this "Doubters of the evolutionary evidence of Lucy to humans use this evidence to claim that Lucy is more likely an extinct species of ape" don't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.173.14 ( talk) 20:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
"Johanson was able to recover Lucy's left innominate bone and sacrum. Though the sacrum was remarkably well preserved, the innominate was distorted like a carnivorous child/ baby , leading to two different reconstructions." I know virtually nothing about anthropology but this surprised me. Surely not? 217.136.43.131 ( talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
(copying and editing from Origin talk page) I was just scrolling through the "On this day..."s at the top of the page, and it's funny, and oddly appropriate, that Lucy was discovered on November 24, 1974, 115 years, to the date, after the publication of On the Origin of Species [1]. As some of you know, there has been a concerted effort by a number of editors to get the Origin page up to FA standards (which it recently passed [2]) in order to have it featured on the main page on November 24. Since we still have a little time before then, it might be interesting to try and find some things to help make November 24 a real double-whammy, with both the publication of the Origin and the 35th anniversary of Lucy included as front-page items; Origin as the featured article for the day, and something for Lucy, especially since this November 24 will be the 35th anniversary of her discovery. One idea is to look around to see if there is anything interesting, like a recent book, or article, that we could use as a "newsworthy" tie in. I know that Lucy was on tour for a while, but that was last year, so not exactly newsworthy for this November 24. Any ideas? Cheers, Edhubbard ( talk) 16:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Your last edit to Lucy (Australopithecus) was misspelt and did not appear to add anything useful to the article. Please explain the point you're trying to make on the talk page, and present a draft proposal for agreement and correction rather than repeatedly inserting poor quality text. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
My additional information regard taphonomy 76.16.176.166 ( talk) 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(undent) If you think there is some substantive content that is missing, which you clearly do, you need to 1) explain why it is important (see WP:BURDEN) and 2) given your difficulties with the English language, work with other editors to improve the quality of your writing so that the key points can be included. As of right now, you are engaging in a slow-moving edit war, even after Dave, and now me, have asked you to please bring this to the talk page, rather than simply insisting on adding the garbled text that you want to add. In fact, there are many more grammatical and spelling errors than "piked" vs. "picked". Please work with us to explain why this should be included in the article, and to improve the English of the addition you want to make so that we can even make sense of it. Edhubbard ( talk) 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The article at present gives the date of discovery as the 24th of November. There are conflicting sources, some giving 24th, some 30th. This was discussed in 2007. Now an anonymous editor has changed the date to 30th [3], and Edhubbard has reverted it [4], giving the edit summary "revert: there are conflicting dates in the literature, but this has been discussed before Talk:Lucy_(Australopithecus)/Archive_1#November_24th and settled, as it appeared on the main page twice". My reading of the earlier discussion is that at the end it seemed on balance that 24th looked more likely, but there was still doubt. Perhaps it would be better to mention both possibilities in the article, or alternatively to just say "November". I think that, where there is genuine doubt, to simply quote one possibility as a fact is an error. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Alemseged et al., ʺPaleoanthropological Research at Dikika, Ethiopia and Comparative Morphology of the Juvenile Hominin from DIK‐1ʺ The Dikika Research Project (DRP) had been working at Dikika, Ethiopia since 1999. Among the many paleontological discoveries is a remarkably preserved partial skeleton of a juvenile Australopithecus afarensis (DIK‐1‐1 also nicknamed “Selam.”) recovered at the Locality DIK‐1 between 2000 and 2003. The ca. three years old presumed female comes from sediments ca. 3.3 Ma in age and represents the earliest and most complete juvenile fossil ever found. The find consists of the whole skull, with a natural brain endocast, the entire rib cage, hand phalanges, distal end of the right humerus, both knees and an almost complete foot. Also, included are skeletal parts that were previously little known from the early part of the hominin fossil record, including the hyoid bone, and the shoulder blades. The Dikika girl documents, for the first time, the complete skull morphology of juvenile Australopithecus afarensis and any early hominin older than 3 million years. The femora, the tibiae and the foot preserve evidence that this ancient species walked upright even at the age of three. However the two shoulder blades share shape similarities to those of gorillas. The fingers are also long and curved, as seen in other Australopithecus afarensis specimens raising some questions concerning the role of arboreality in this species. Among the rare finds is the hyoid bone. Its morphology in the Dikika girl is similar to that of African great apes and different from that of humans. The scientific significance of the new find is manifold, contributing substantially to our understanding of the morphology, body plan, behavior, movement and developmental patterns of our early ancestors. After full cleaning and preparation of the fossil we will be able to reconstruct, for the first time, much of an entire body of a 3 year‐old Australopithecus afarensis child —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 ( talk) 20:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
At the top of the page it claims that Lucy is nearly 40% complete, while according to my sources she is 47 out of 207 bones [1] which is closer to 23% complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur.science ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps big bones are being counted as bringing more "completion" than small bones. Evercat ( talk) 19:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting suggestion and brings up a more interesting point: completion percentage is vague and unless there is some kind of scientific construct as to how completion percentage should be calculated I think we should probably leave it out altogether. Arthur.science ( talk) 20:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
If there are verifiable reports that Lucy has 47 bones, and verifiable reports that A. afarensis has 207 bones, it's not original research to say that 23% of the bones have been found. However as I noted above, that doesn't seem to be how the figure was determined. I assume the figure is from (weight of bones found) / (expected weight of complete skeleton) or somesuch, which is also a sane way of doing it. Evercat ( talk) 12:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
So I emailed Donald Johanson to ask, and he said 40% was roughly (bones found) / (total bones - hand and foot bones), which seems about right. This is, of course, totally non-citeable. Evercat ( talk) 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
References
I have another article to link to as a citation but I don't want to mess up the page: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568 Reybeez ( talk) 15:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1073 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 ( talk) 16:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Evercat ( talk) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Lucy was the first known human ancestor. == — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.172.84 ( talk) 22:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
"The tour was approved by the Ethiopian government and organized in collaboration with the Houston Museum of Natural Science, where it had been on display from August 31, 2007 until September 1, 2008, along with an original Digital Dome Theater (Planetarium) feature film about the origins of lucy called Lucy’s Cradle, the Birth of Wonder, featuring music by Shai Fishman, recorded and produced at Fish-i Studios - http://www.fish-i.com.[19]"
Sounds very much like a plug imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.200.94 ( talk) 17:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, 3rd sentence, the word hominid is linked to the article for hominins. Either the link or the word should be changed.
Also, that paragraph says that Ardi is the earliest known hominid. I'm not an expert on human evolution but that doesn't seem right to me. First, both the article on [ [5]] and the article cited in the notes section seem to indicate it's the oldest skeleton but not oldest fossil. Also, should this also be hominin here instead of hominid? I would have to guess it's not the oldest hominid fossil though maybe it's the oldest complete hominid skeleton as well as hominin skeleton.
Thanks for anyone's attention to this.
Tejonoso ( talk) 09:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It's been changed, it seems, to hominin. The article 'hominin' starts with "The chimpanzee–human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species that the genera Homo and Pan (i.e. humans on one hand and bonobos and common chimpanzees on the other) share as a common ancestor." Is this what Lucy or any Australopithecus was? the last common ancestor to chimpanzee and human? Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I suppose the "six-year" tour is August 2007 to sometime 2013. Right?
Some update may be valuable. -- P64 ( talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Johanson and Maitland A. Edey won the U.S. National Book Award (Science) for Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981). [6] Is Edey a professional science writer, not paleo.? -- P64 ( talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It says Lucy was among the earliest "hominids" - aren't hominids a much broader group? Twin Bird ( talk) 21:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The word "derived" is used a couple of times in this article. Even after looking up the meaning, it's unclear what it means in this context. Can someone suggest a different wording of those sections or at least add an explanation of how they use the word "derived" in paleontology?
-- DougEngland ( talk) 15:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Her greater trochanter, however, was clearly derived, being short and human-like rather taller than the femoral head," means that trait evolved since splitting from her ancestor. Hope this helps, Jack ( talk) 15:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the following recently added bit from the lead:
Seems it would belong in the Criticisms section if anywhere. Has this 1999 pub received any attention or is this "new theory" re the family tree just one person's idea? Vsmith ( talk) 01:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Evolutionary scientists will NEVER learn (see the Piltdown man and the Nebraska Man). Just for starters, she's just an ape; however, I will first provide two websites to the controversy of the latest 'finding' - although this theory of her being a precursor to humankind has been debunked for a few decades now - that was once presupposed to be man's prehistoric ancestor, called 'Lucy'. ( http://www.creationtips.com/lucy.html) and ( http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html). Shortly, I will attempt to expand the Criticisms section to include and paraphrase this information. Needless to say, if you would like any additional references I can include a dozen more.shyjayb 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb ( talk • contribs)
Greetings and thank you for coming front and center you clod! But I was only being modest by the numbers in sources; for I could start at the top with about another 3-400 of them when it comes to how many ways, sizes, shapes and forms I can dethrone and dismiss this 'Lucy' as just another hoax or swine that you think I'm making of this. And since you want to be the jester I just may humor you, but I will not start edit warring. Many thanks again.shyjayb 01:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb ( talk • contribs)
Someone really needs to edit the fact that this page gives the impression that Lucy is without a doubt a Australopithecus - an supposed common ancestor of the human. This is widely debated and therefore the article should reflect this. Perhaps the language in the first paragraph should indicate that Lucy has only been alleged to have been a common ancestor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.220.26 ( talk) 13:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is Londa Schiebinger's criticisms in this article? They are certainly not noteworthy. She has no expertise on this subject and there is no citation to the peer-reviewed literature. Unless a section on fringe views of Lucy is to be created, this should be removed. There are plenty of real controversies among actual scientists about this fossil. They should are what should be noted. 68.97.26.72 ( talk) 04:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There are many more criticisms of the Lucy fossil idea. How can we even be sure they came from the same animal when the bones were not found cemented together in the same rock layer? Many would argue that it is very unlikely that bones from one animal spread over a wide area for "millions of years" could be put back together.
I would submit these articles as further reading for the controversy surrounding Lucy: http://www.icr.org/article/was-lucy-ape-man/ http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.180.168 ( talk) 10:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The Title of this article is Lucy (Australopithecus). But Australopithecus is the family name, not the species name. You can't say that Lucy is representative of the whole family. It should be, in my opinion, Lucy (Australopithecus Afarensis) otherwise it is just misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.178.214 ( talk) 15:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
removed.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Maybe it's needed to correct the weblink of reference No.2. from http://iho.asu.edu/about/lucy%E2%80%99s-story into https://iho.asu.edu/about/lucys-story, because I've found "Page not found". Sphenodon ( talk) 10:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
moved from the article:
This really looks trivial, and for some unknown reason the date in the edit isn't the same as 30 Nov 74 as shown in Johanson's book. . dave souza, talk 17:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Lucy was in fact not a human the person who found her even said that she was just an ape — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.160.2 ( talk) 19:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There is an exhibit in the Creation Museum about Lucy and the creationist interpretation about Lucy's involvement in the missing link. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.240.118 ( talk) 19:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Any reason Mary Leakey isn't included in the "Discovered By" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.137.162 ( talk) 20:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no proof that this is the missing link between humans and apes! 2606:A000:EFC0:4E:5090:698C:67E2:2B92 ( talk) 01:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The article says in various sections that AMNH declined to host the exhibit and she returned to Ethiopia in 2013, however she appears to be at the museum currently and, non verifiable, I know, I saw her on exhibit last weekend. Either way, the EL #6 needs updating (possibly to mine above or this one) as it's a dead link. THoughts? StarM 18:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This article was the 5th most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 1,148,394 views for the week November 22 to 28, 2015. The "41st Anniversary of the discovery of Lucy" was the subject of a Google Doodle ( link) November 24. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton#.VSki9zTF-wC
It says Gary Sawyer and Mike Smith at the American Museum of Natural History in New York found that one of the vertebra fragments belongs to a baboon,when they have work on a new reconstruction of Lucy’s skeleton with with help from Scott Williams at New York University.But there is any information about this work and its conclusion.Someone is afraid or has reservations of new Piltdown man disgrace?-- Kamuran Ötükenli ( talk) 12:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
"We looked at every species that was potentially there – porcupines, small cats and baboons – to see if we could match the bone to the vertebrae of another animal. Eventually we found it was the right size and shape for the "baboon", which further analyses supported."
"Williams told New Scientist that the fossil of a gelada baboon thoracic vertebra must have "somehow" been mixed up with Lucy's remains.
The team now plan to present their findings at the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco next week."
'Lucy was not found in association with lots of other different bones and was painstakingly studied during excavation and description. "Mistakes" can of course be made with 1000s of fragments but "that wasn’t the case here."
"Dan Gebo at the Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. “Given that broken bones are always a problem and "most of us are not vertebral specialists", it would not be unusual to make a "small mistake".”"
"If the fragment really does prove to belong to a baboon, he says, “we can cut Don Johanson and his colleagues "some slack"”."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton/
-- Kamuran Ötükenli ( talk) 13:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The Discovery section states that Hadar was discovered in 1974, surveying started in 1973, and the end of the first field season was in 1971. Can someone correct this?
HBego ( talk) 08:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lucy (Australopithecus). 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.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
let's hope the IPs find a new target in the mean time. If someone feels need to extend, feel free. I'll watch as much as I can when it expires. StarM 02:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
70.68.25.161 ( talk) 22:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
9 mill year old australipithicus teeth found in river bed of Rhine in Germany. This blows OOA to pieces, and makes many references and comments on this page incorrect - for example the time bar on the right, has a arrow poitning at 1 mill years with the title "earliest in Europe". This is clearly wrong.
Please edit this page accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.149.119 ( talk) 00:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lucy (Australopithecus). 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.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like permission to edit the Lucy the Hominid Wikipedia page because I have encountered an error while using the page. Under the list of people who found the remains of Lucy, there are 4 names, 3 of which lead to the page that they are supposed to, the Wikipedia page of that person. But for the last name, Tom Gray, when it is clicked it doesn't lead to Tom Gray's Wikipedia page. Instead, it leads to the same Wikipedia article just farther down the page. My suggested edit would be to either try to make the link lead to Tom Gray's Wikipedia page or just remove the link to the page that is lower down and just includes Tom's name. I hope that you will consider allowing me to fix this mistake. Thank you for your time. [1] CRB3182 ( talk) 06:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I've read in a Guinness Book of World Records that was from 1989 how Lucy was the first Homo despite her living 3 million years ago. Since when was she considered a human, and not an Australopith? 137.118.99.79 ( talk) 01:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This article claims that Donald Johanson discovered AL 129-1 in November 1971 which is at odds with the more consistent looking date of November 1973 given in the main artilce AL 129-1. If it's true that "...in the autumn of 1973 the team began surveying sites around Hadar for signs related to the origin of humans." as stated by the previous paragraph in the Discovery section, then November 1973 is likely the correct date.
The exploration date of the Hadar region and subsequent founding of IARE by Maurice Taieb also needs to be improved and made clearer and more consistent in this article as well as in AL 129-1, Hadar Ethiopia, and Maurice Taieb. Ehsanamini ( talk) 05:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I recall a sidebar in a children's publication when I was a kid claiming that she was named after Lucy Ricardo. Perhaps it was written by some old fart who didn't like the Beatles. If anyone knows of this claim and can make any citations of it, that would be most interesting. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk) 01:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
DR.zersenay Alemseged was also involved in the finding the old human hominid known as lucy 196.191.221.196 ( talk) 10:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248486800525 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.270.5240.1297.b
Several sources are debating whether Lucy was a female or a male, evaluating the difference in size from lucy to the remainder of fossils of their species, and also evaluating the pelvic width in relation to whether they could actually birth a child.
I dont know if this is for edit suggestions or not, but Someone more familiar with wikipedia, please help! Thanks! 100.36.174.171 ( talk) 19:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
How was two bones matched to create a knee? 2605:59C8:37:4410:2C9D:B834:4F0D:4451 ( talk) 18:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Lucy (Australopithecus has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 § Lucy (Australopithecus until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
18:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is probable that the year 1971 was mistyped under Discovery - First find: "In November 1971, near the end of the first field season, Johanson noticed a fossil of the upper end of a shinbone, which had been sliced slightly at the front." According to source 12 and wiki page AL 129-1, it should be 1973. Zwen0416 ( talk) 09:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)