![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are there any outside links to support the claims of this article? A date, or even just a year, for when the bones were first found? Who led the expedition?
As it stands, this article is a stub, and for all anyone knows, is a hoax.
Why does wikipedia take sides in a scientific dispute over the origins of this fossile? Is it really in wikipedias interest to take sides? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.185.28.23 ( talk • contribs) .
The 3rd hot link appears to be inactive. Jbottoms76 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following passage was posted by 66.192.122.49 at Wikipedia:Help desk. I've transferred it here, since here it's more likely to have constructive results. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
--
This passage contains an error and is found under Oreopithecus.
An early time of appearance of bipedalism in no way supports the aquatic ape theory. Time of origin of bipedalism may well be fifteen million years ago during the miocene ape radiation. The bipedal mode of walking is fifty percent more efficient than quadrupedal ape locomotion. Association with water in fossils does not assure those animals were swimmers. Many pteradactyls were found preserved in sediments! —preceding comment by User:66.192.122.49
Article has no inline cites ( Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations). Please provide good inline cites for everything in this article. Paleontology of Hominoidea is always a controversial subject. ( WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:CITE#CHALLENGED) -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Fossil sites include East Africa as well as Tuscany. The evolutionary history section states that the species died out when the island they existed was joined to the mainland but if the range of this species was much larger than just this island how can this be? Mikebrophy ( talk) 13:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)as a reference from the article since I couldn't determine if this work resulted in any knowledge at all. Does this, ultimate, conclusion mean anything:
Correct me if I'm wrong. -- Fama Clamosa ( talk) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are there any outside links to support the claims of this article? A date, or even just a year, for when the bones were first found? Who led the expedition?
As it stands, this article is a stub, and for all anyone knows, is a hoax.
Why does wikipedia take sides in a scientific dispute over the origins of this fossile? Is it really in wikipedias interest to take sides? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.185.28.23 ( talk • contribs) .
The 3rd hot link appears to be inactive. Jbottoms76 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following passage was posted by 66.192.122.49 at Wikipedia:Help desk. I've transferred it here, since here it's more likely to have constructive results. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
--
This passage contains an error and is found under Oreopithecus.
An early time of appearance of bipedalism in no way supports the aquatic ape theory. Time of origin of bipedalism may well be fifteen million years ago during the miocene ape radiation. The bipedal mode of walking is fifty percent more efficient than quadrupedal ape locomotion. Association with water in fossils does not assure those animals were swimmers. Many pteradactyls were found preserved in sediments! —preceding comment by User:66.192.122.49
Article has no inline cites ( Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations). Please provide good inline cites for everything in this article. Paleontology of Hominoidea is always a controversial subject. ( WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:CITE#CHALLENGED) -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Fossil sites include East Africa as well as Tuscany. The evolutionary history section states that the species died out when the island they existed was joined to the mainland but if the range of this species was much larger than just this island how can this be? Mikebrophy ( talk) 13:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)as a reference from the article since I couldn't determine if this work resulted in any knowledge at all. Does this, ultimate, conclusion mean anything:
Correct me if I'm wrong. -- Fama Clamosa ( talk) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)