Citizendium - a community developing a quality, comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free.
Click here to join and contribute
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report

Talk:Ape

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Tail-less primates in Africa and Eurasia, e.g. humans, orang-utans and chimpanzees. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Anthropology and Biology [Please add or review categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant Not specified

Tree?

Hominoidea
 Hominidae 
 Homininae 
 Hominini 
 Hominina 

 Australopithecus



 Paranthropus



 Sahelanthropus



 Orrorin



 Ardipithecus



 Kenyanthropus



 Homo



 Panina 

 Pan



 Gorillini 
                 

 Gorilla




 Ponginae 
                 
                 

 Pongo





 Hylobatidae

 Hylobates



 Hoolock



 Nomascus



 Symphalangus




Is this a usefull tree? Kim van der Linde 12:40, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Very much so - could you look at hominin, Hominid and Primate for suggestions on placing this appropriatly? I've tried to cover the debate adequatly but this is a big job!

Many thanks again! Lee

I think the discussion would be best suited in this article, and not in the others (hominin, Hominid). It is not an issue to refer to this article from those. I do not think we have to cover each detail of the debate, but the general lines. It seems that you have a slightly different tree in mind with Pan and Gorilla in a single clade, but Goodman et al seems to favor the one that I included. Is goodman generally accepted?

M. Goodman, D. A. Tagle, D. H. Fitch, W. Bailey, J. Czelusniak, B. F. Koop, P. Benson, J. L. Slightom (1990). "Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of hominoids". Journal of Molecular Evolution 30: 260–266.

Kim van der Linde 13:32, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Its a bit old - on my web page [[1]] under "essays" I review the whole hominin - hominid thing - its where I developed the article from. Goodman was really pre-DNA in some respects and thus maybe you are right and an encyclopedic article should reflect both the earlier and maybe "conventional" opinions and the latest research. Your opinion? P.S. Keep going!

Lee R. Berger 13:53, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

I think the criterion should be what is generally accpeted within the field of experts. When your article is really thought provoking, but not followed, we would only introduce confusion among our readers who use a term and see it used differently everywhere else. So, that would be the crucial question to ask. Kim van der Linde 14:10, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
    • Ok - Buy that - paste as appropriate - away!

Lee R. Berger

Well, I would think that you as an expert in this field (much more than I) would be very capable of summarizing the current accepted ideas in this field. Kim van der Linde 09:56, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
Kim - I think your tree is really looking good!

Lee R. Berger 10:19, 12 September 2007 (CDT)

Defintiely the best talk page tree I've ever seen! When do we get to put it in the article? --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:46, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
When I am able to control the length of the branches so that the genera are aligned nicely under each other. Kim van der Linde 11:12, 12 September 2007 (CDT)