This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tedvogel. Peer reviewers: Ptama003, Theturtleprincess, Dhern041.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Penghu 1 appears to be the most widely used name of the fossil, both in the original description and in secondary, third-party sources (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]). The name Homo tsaichangensis currently appears to be used only in the McMenamin paper, published nearly concurrently. Until reliable secondary sources start to use "Homo tsaichangensis", I think we should focus on calling it Penghu 1, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:WEIGHT, as that is what people reading the popular news articles above are most likely to seek. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Support MicroPaLeo ( talk) 22:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with proposed move after enhanced discussion of the species identification issue. Chang et al. provided more than enough evidence to establish a new species as McMenamin points out. Penghu 1 scores 7 out of 16 key traits as either outlier or off the charts with respect to other Late Pleistocene species of Homo. Reading between the lines of the Chang et al. paper, there may have been some internal discord among the authors over the species naming issue. McMenamin 2015 has cleared this impasse, and the name Homo tsaichangensis is fully in accord with the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) naming rules. The species name could of course be synonymized or revised by later work, but this seems unlikely at this point based on the evidence presented in the two papers. Circulationsys ( talk) 22:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tedvogel. Peer reviewers: Ptama003, Theturtleprincess, Dhern041.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Penghu 1 appears to be the most widely used name of the fossil, both in the original description and in secondary, third-party sources (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]). The name Homo tsaichangensis currently appears to be used only in the McMenamin paper, published nearly concurrently. Until reliable secondary sources start to use "Homo tsaichangensis", I think we should focus on calling it Penghu 1, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:WEIGHT, as that is what people reading the popular news articles above are most likely to seek. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 20:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Support MicroPaLeo ( talk) 22:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with proposed move after enhanced discussion of the species identification issue. Chang et al. provided more than enough evidence to establish a new species as McMenamin points out. Penghu 1 scores 7 out of 16 key traits as either outlier or off the charts with respect to other Late Pleistocene species of Homo. Reading between the lines of the Chang et al. paper, there may have been some internal discord among the authors over the species naming issue. McMenamin 2015 has cleared this impasse, and the name Homo tsaichangensis is fully in accord with the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) naming rules. The species name could of course be synonymized or revised by later work, but this seems unlikely at this point based on the evidence presented in the two papers. Circulationsys ( talk) 22:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)