Talk:Gigantopithecus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noa0910, Hootalin, Ninkaido.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed Line

Either species could have crossed the Bering Land Bridge much in the way it is thought humans may have brought themselves to the New World. I have removed this line because it sounds to me like cryptozoological speculation to explain Bigfoot. How could a creature that lived in tropical or subtropical climates survive the intense cold of Siberia (during the Ice Age no less!) to reach the Bering Land Bridge? Nik42 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

These claims are not generally considered credible by the scientific community. I have removed this line and reference because the reference does not support the statement. The referenced article makes no remarks about Gigantopithecus, it does not discount the existence of the "legendary apes", nor does it provide any statement as to the scientific community's views on the issue. I have replaced it with a statement drawing attention to the pure logic of the problem: we do not know the morphology of Gigantopithecus, so we cannot compare it to the morphology of any living species. That is; there will never be any evidence of Giganto crossing the land-bridge, until a more complete fossil is found, and a Big Foot is examined. I will leave it to a WikiGnome to correct the reference to Destination Truth.

References

This is a duplicate article

There is already another article that covers the exact same creature. A merge is in order —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.149.41.45 (talk • contribs) .

Which article? There are currently 3, and none should be merged as far as I can tell.... One for the genus, and two for two of the three species. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the other page they said about Gigantopithecus blacki it seems the exact same but phrased differntely --Climax Void 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the genus. There are three species, and artciles for two of them have been started. No merge is needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Line in the intro

Isn't this line a bit vague?

"Although it is not known why Gigantopithecus died out, researchers believe that climate change and resource competition with better adapted species were the main reasons."

Why not just say:

"Although it is not known why Gigantopithecus died out, researchers believe that climate change and resource competition with humans were the main reasons."

· AO ^Talk 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Because perhaps it was other species it was in competition with, not humans per se. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pandas are often cited when talking about gigantopithecus extinction. Not everything has to deal with us.--Menah the Great (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no consensus (6 merge, 3 keep), therefore no action will be taken. -- Jack (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be merged with "Gigantopithecus blacki" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.85.115 (talk • contribs).

Why? There are multiple species of Gigantopithecus. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Currently there's three articles, Gigantopithecus, Gigantopithecus blacki and Gigantopithecus giganteus. The last one is basically a stub and two sentences, the first two are about the same length and cover much of the same information. I think the genus article could easily cover both. Discussion? WLU (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, per my above rationale. WLU (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• keep. There's no need for a change, no matter how small the stubs are. It's room for growth. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, but right now, giganteus is nothing at all and looks like it'll never be expanded. I'm suggesting a merge now, with no prejudice against spinning the articles off when they get bigger. Right now there's so much duplication between the genus page and G blacki that it's a re-wording of the same page. An another option, what about just making G. g into a section within the genus? WLU (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. The current setup, with so much duplication between Gigantopithecus blacki and Gigantopithecus, is terrible. The reasonable options are either to make it all fit in the Gigantopithecus article (which seems fine, given that Gigantopithecus giganteus will never be more than a small subsection), or move most of the material into the sub-articles and leave the Gigantopithecus article as essentially a pair of links. As I said, the first option seems better to me. - Atarr (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  As a third alternative, I would suggest the possibility of editing the blacki article down to a stub. This seems somehow less elegant than the other two options, but it does make it easier to split it out into two articles if a bunch more information abut Gigantopithecus giganteus suddenly comes to light. - Atarr (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, spin off species pages later if needed. B.S. Lawrence (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge, makes sense to me. AstarothCY (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge, nearly identical contentHelikophis (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand the articles, rather than merge! Kaarel (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, a single article can also do a better job comparing these species.Scray (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as per UtherSRG. Jack (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A herbivore? An herbivore?

The example given by Merriam-Webster is "a herbivorous animal". That should settle it. Thanks. AstarothCY (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. that's one example. It's not wrong, if you say "her-biv-or-ous". But if you say "er-biv-or-ous", then "an" is correct. [1]. Reverting. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a supporting citation that demonstrates how what I am saying is more valid. I'd be interested to see examples of use of "an herbivore" in similarly credible sources. While "an herbivore" may not be grammatically incorrect, until you can demonstrate (as I have) that this is something most people would recognize as grammatically correct, I don't see how it can be used. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt so I'll wait a couple of days for your response and supporting evidence before reverting. AstarothCY (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I provided a citation for the general usage of "a" vs "an" with regards to the pronunciation or silence of the leading "h" of a noun. It is a matter of pronunciation. As such, it does not get changed from the original, just as British vs. American Englishisms should not get changed. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your citation lacks credibility. It does not come from a credible source at all and it doesn't even make a convincing argument, not to mention that even if "an historic" was "correct", that means very little as to whether "an herbivore" is correct because I'm sure you know full well that the English language loves exceptions (or rules that apply to only one word). Of course it's a matter of pronunciation, the question is which one is more likely to seem unusual to most people, and I am pretty certain the answer is "an herbivore". To illustrate my point, do a google search for "an herbivore" and "a herbivore". You should find that you get 33,900 results for the former and 97,100 results for the latter. To further prove the point, do a Google Scholar search for those terms to find similar results. AstarothCY (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You help to prove my point. The difference in usage is less than an order of magnitude. The difference in scholarly usage (4390 for "a herbivore" and 2730 for "an herbivore") is even smaller. Neither are incorrect, so there is no need to change it. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. If I revert you now, there would be no reason to revert me back. In fact, if we are going by the measure of google hits, there IS reason for me to revert. Even if we don't go by it, what is your rationale for reverting me in the first place? AstarothCY (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's suppose that when you found the article, you didn't like that it used the word "colour", because your preference is to use "color". You might change the article, and I'd be justified in reverting it back. Neither are wrong. Both are right. One is predominant, but that predominance is inconsequential. The same is true for "an herbivore" and "a herbivore". Neither are wrong. Both are right. One is predominant, but that predominance is inconsequential. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So let's just carry on reverting back and forth, shall we? AstarothCY (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Leave off. Keep it as is. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a rationale for my edit. You have not provided one for reverting. AstarothCY (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right? We've been over this. If you don't provide a rationale, I'm reverting. AstarothCY (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

When two differemt possibilities are correct, use the one originally used in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

...except I've shown several reasons why "a herbivore" is a better choice, and you haven't shown any. AstarothCY (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have given a rationale, and provided a reasonable source. You refuse to accept it. That is your problem. You even helped prove my point with the Google searches. both are used, both are acceptable. Neither is used in a significantly grater amount than the other, so the original text holds. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, listion to the pronunciation given at Merriam-Webster, in the link you so helpfully provided. the pronunciation is without the 'h', so "an" is appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Pronouncing "herbivore" with a silent "h" is the rarer form in US English, and certainly much rarer outside the US. Why is someone insisting it take precedence? --77.96.133.241 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's how I and everyone I've talked to say it. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you aren't suggesting that as your source of credibility for this edit? AstarothCY (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply to UtherSRG} It's good to know you live in such a rarified and quaint area. "A herbivore", it stays. --77.96.133.241 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See above. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely call it "a herbivore" too and I think AstarothCY's source holds more weight than yours. That this is the second edit war you've been in over it and I really think you are violating WP:3RR. ~ mazca ^talk 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just been considering escalating this issue in a dispute resolution. UtherSRG, please consider stopping this edit war, you have already done 4 reverts in the past 24 hours and I don't think you're the kind of editor that needs to be disciplined for 3RR. AstarothCY (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AstarothCY, i've only just stumbled into this fight; but there really is no standard as far as a/an before H words. hell, i switch sometimes myself, depending on the mood i'm in. but "an" is typically the british/commonwealth convention, and perfectly valid itself. i think you'll find that if you end up taking this to WPMammals, you're going to come away unhappy, because the Wikipedia convention, on matters where no larger conventions hold, will always go with what was previously done in the article -- which, here, is going to be "an". i'll freely admit that UtherSRG can be frustrating to deal with at times, but he really is right on this one. just ask another admin. - Metanoid (talk, email) 01:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Metanoid, thanks for giving some third party opinion on this. I take the point that both forms are grammatically correct and that we generally go with the form that was originally in place. I will therefore back down and stop reverting. However, could you link me to the relevant Wiki guideline? I remember glancing at it a while ago but I've been searching just now and can't seem to find it mentioned explicitly anywhere. I just want to be clear on this and make sure I don't get caught up in edit wars in the future. Thanks. AstarothCY (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

here's WP:MOS, which is a general guide you may/not have already seen. the intro touches upon the problem at hand, i think. also, here is the outcome of a similar dispute which i believe is relevant: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Optional styles. i hope that helps some. i'm still getting the conventions down myself, hehe. - Metanoid (talk, email) 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That does help. AstarothCY (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Arboreal?

Was Gigantopithecus an Arboreal animal (i.e. living up trees), or ground dwelling animal? I ask because obviously it lived in forested areas and eat bamboo, but could it climb trees like an Orangutan? Or was it more like a panda walking through the forest floor? It would seem almost too large to get into a tree at that size. I suppose I have a few other related questions, did Gigantopithecus walk upright like a human, or like other apes? (knuckle-walking or whatever it's called). And did it have any predators? If anybody know these things they should probably be added to the article. --Hibernian (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has found anything bellow the neck so it can't be said if it walked upright or not, or if it climbed trees or not. The consensus, based on extrapolations by comparing giganto's teeth to gorillas, orangutans and other apes is that no primate of that size could get on a tree or walk on two feet for long. However, that doesn't mean it couldn't do for a short time, like gorillas do today. It's also possible that, like in gorillas, maybe males couldn't climb but females could, if they were smaller, but as I said there is little more than speculation based on the little evidence available. Given their size, it's unlikely adults had real predators either.--Menah the Great (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would take a wild guess and say that they are not, but don't take my guess too seriously. If the jaw and teeth fossils are large, it would indicate the animal ate a lot of food, and would not be too agile. If they are small, it would indicate they do not eat as much, and would be more agile and would climb. Like I said, don't take my guess too seriously, but do listen to my logic. ;) Paleo Kid (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DNA?

I wonder if any DNA studies have been done. It should be possible to extract DNA from inside teeth. Of course the thought of cloning them is really appealing. --Calypsoparakeet (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about DNA being found. I think most people are waiting for Mammoths to be cloned rather that Gigantopithecus. And yes, the thought of cloning does sound appealing. :) Paleo Kid (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DNA tends to deteriorate after 10,000 years so it is unlikely but plausible although the teeth are not really the best places to find DNA. We do know from comparing what fossils we have to fossils of orangutans (no gorillas apparently ever made it into Asia) both extinct and extant that it most likely resembled an orangutan--Nicholas Wolf (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge

I can see from the discussion history that there was a lack of consensus on merging the article about the species Gigantopithecus blacki with the article about the genus Gigantopithecus. There are presently 3 articles about the named species within this genus. These are:

• Gigantopithecus blacki
• Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis
• Gigantopithecus giganteus

There is extremely little information in the fossil record about this genus. At best, each species article duplicates information in the article about the genus. At worst the species articles are stubs or hatracks for speculation about Bigfoot. Lets go ahead and merge all four articles into an improved and expanded single article about the genus, with sub-headings for each named species. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Make it so, number one. -- Bobyllib (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be a major improvement. ClovisPt (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

An adequate time for discussion has passed, and in reading the help page for Merging it seems reasonable to commence the merger. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cryptozoology edits by IP user

An IP editor keeps changing 'the pseudoscience of cryptozoology' to 'the science of cryptozoology'. Please discuss this before changing again. Cryptozoology meets the arbitration committee's definition of a pseudoscience, now reflected in Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories. This has been discussed on several pages, including the cryptozoology talk page. In any case, it is certainly not a science, and if in general you wish to assert that it is you need to include some references. I am reverting again because this is a really egregiously incorrect and unsourced statement. Please contribute to this discussion before further reverts. Locke9k (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While I do not agree that it is "pseudo science", but I feel that the edits and other cryptozoological bits in this article are not approaprate for the most part. 64.197.3.194 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the Cryptozoology page. This Article is about a now-extinct fossilized genus, not the particulars of branches of zoology or of pseudoscience definitions. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

Could anyone please upload this image. Also that website says Gigantopithecus exist up to 1.8 mya. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Merged

Merged all three species articles, 'Gigantopithecus blacki', 'Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis', and 'Gigantopithecus giganteus' into genus article Gigantopithecus. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Good. Should be done to most articles about prehistoric species. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Named species of Gigantopithecus

I was working a bit quick and sloppy last night to get the merger done. A few areas are still pretty rough. Can we confirm that there are only three named species? What is the relationship between the three species, as in, does one species descend from another or are they divergent? - Michael J Swassing (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

statistics

i would be delighted to find a statistic research relating size of this primates finds and the ones of erectus as a factor of rarity, so actually i want to point out how typically these way more robust bones perished where erectus ones survived, and i am curious if one can infer some art of cultural development, iow perhaps being "homo" is to some extend mirrored in the availability of (post)cranial finds. interestingly there are also some finds indicating hominids actually deposed of their dead relatives outside or away from their primary dwellings, (comp australopith. finds and that in many caves after 100k's years of inhabitation no more complete specimen (except crania) are found, crania btw. often being suggestively well preserved, displaced and possibly even 'manhanded').) thus early hominids managed to accidently end up as a fossil in hominid-trace bearing layers (way more often then bigger animals), it suggests more hominid remains then we perhaps supposed have been the result of actual accidents and calamities (with what the individuals apparently coped differently from eg. giganthopithecus). this is speculation to some extend, but perhaps someone has done some of these statistics.(one oddity being that we have more teeth of this (locally older?) species then of erectus but not one skull(part)). 24.132.171.225 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

once read somewhere that (most) g.b. localities had mostly been plundered for "dragon bones". chinese preferred to collect bigger bones, humans unlike g. lived and camped in caves, tropical climate is not ideal for fossilisation (their whole areal being warm and moist), some g.b. localities also preserved mostly teeth and mandibular material of other species(in modern times). (low) temperature is btw. also a major factor for dna conservation. probably recognisable hominid remains (as opposed to apparently pong remains) were less sought after for dragon bones. there is an interesting porcupine theory in the article, alltho i am not quite sure what indeed statistic implications that would have had for other bones, or why porcupines would preferentially have eaten and carried big bones (then again perhaps they do).31.151.163.18 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

G. blacki ?

Wasn't that the "scientific" name givin to sasquatch? or did they find a speceis and used the name? I immedatly noticed this as a avid studier of cryptozoology. I would think it'd be agasint wikipedia's rules to use a name for an animal that's existance is disputed on a page for a proven animal in this case. 64.197.3.194 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

G. blacki is a valid scientific name for an extinct species. However it has been co-opted and badly misused by many laymen when referring to sasquatch in an attempt to validate claims that sasquatch is an existing mammal.--Kevmin (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sasquatch discussion here!

I believe that in the article there should be a section to propose the connection between Gigantopithecus and Sasquatch. If someone wanted to learn more about the connection, there should be something there. PLEASE do not start yelling at me as I have seen throughout this page, just talk calmly. Thank you! Paleo Kid (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

References in fiction Section, anyone else?

Let's start a Section on fictional references to this genus. I've seen a number of other Articles on otherwise nonfictional topics with "In fiction" Sections. That said, most people consider blockbuster and classic films to be notable. To sum up, I would like to point out that King Kong was a member of Gigantopithecus kong, a fictional species within this otherwise nonfictional genus. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, according to the mockumentary, King Kong's species is "Megaprimatus Kong" (sic). And I do not see why an offhand blurb would merit King Kong being shoehorned into this page.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to King Kong's own Wikipedia Article, early RKO trailers and other advertisements described him as "A prehistoric type of ape" [Italics added]. The very few fossilized apes possibly approaching his size were all in this genus, so one can make a pretty good case that, even within the fiction, the term "Megaprimatus" would be a junior synonym of Gigantopithecus. More importantly, this lends credence to the idea that King Kong was loosely based on Gigantopithecus fossils. The premise, which is where the fictional suspension of disbelief comes in, was that 1 individual somehow lived for 301 933 (Date of extinction=300 000 BC, Date of setting=AD 1933, 300 000+1 933=301 933) years after the rest of his species and even his genus were extinct. This can be supported by comparing the 2005 mockumentary with the RKO materials from 1933 and shortly before. So, this genus was notably the inspiration for one of the world's most famous fictional monsters. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This states that King Kong was created by Merian C. Cooper, who had a dream about a giant gorilla running amok in New York City. Suggesting that King Kong belongs in, was inspired by, and or is a synonym for the genus Gigantopithecus is blatant original research and synthesis. And having said that, there still is very little reason, if any, to mention King Kong in this article.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really a synonym considering the Genus Gigantopithecus is nonfictional; however, the idea that Cooper derived King Kong partly from Gigantopithecus is not original. I just referred to 2 things I didn't write: Early RKO trailers and the mockumentary. Given that dreams are partly syntheses of earlier waking thoughts and realities, and that the 1st discoveries of Gigantopithecus fossils occurred around the same time that Cooper had his dream (IE 1st half of the 1930s), there are nonoriginal dots to be easily connected here. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yourstill run afoul of WP:OR with this though, as you have not supplied any references which specifically link King Kong to Gigantopithecus. Without those links you have no way of proving that the genus was in reality the basis for the fictional ape.--Kevmin § 07:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Teeth and jaws only, or other remains?

"Gigantopithecus giganteus is a large extinct species of ape that lived in what is now India. This animal is known only from teeth and jawbones.[9] Based on the slim fossil finds, it was a large, ground-dwelling herbivore that ate primarily bamboo and foliage. It was approximately half the size of its Chinese relative, Gigantopithecus blacki. Also a recent fossil was found (2000) with another fossil of a different species inside of it (the specimen has yet to be identified) which poses that they might have been carnivores."

These two paragraphs appear to be contradictory. Is this animal known from teeth and jawbones only, or has enough of the postcranial skeleton been found to show stomach contents? 66.232.245.74 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I took out that sentence about "a different species inside of it". It appears to be a hoax. Here is a reference with details and scientific speculation about the diet of Gigantopithecus, with no mention of anything like this: Dickson, P. 2003. Gigantopithecus: A Reappraisal of Dietary Habits. Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Volume 11, Issue 1, Article 4. Wilson44691 (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I found the vandalism that added the rogue sentence, by the way[2]. It is a clear case! Wilson44691 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Only two species recognized

While doing some editing today I checked on the species G. bilaspurensis. From what I am seeing it is commonly accepted that G. bilaspurensis and G. giganteus are the same species. However I am seeing both species names (here G. giganteus vrs G. bilaspurensis here) used for the taxon in the last 5 years or so. is there any way of untangling which is the synonym and which the valid name? Either way the Indian species entries should be merged into on section.--Kevmin § 00:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

G. giganteus is the older name and thus has priority. Here's another Gigantopithecus reference you may find useful in your editing: Miller, S.F., White, J.L. and Ciochon, R.L. (2008), Assessing mandibular shape variation within Gigantopithecus using a geometric morphometric approach. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 137: 201–212. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.20856. Wilson44691 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Scientific Verification

Is there any scientific verification about the Gigantopithecus? I read the references that are included and they don't seem scientifically professional at all. In fact, some are just a noname webpage that someone created. There must be some sort of criticism about this to provide a criticism section.Mylittlezach (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not like criticism sections. Anyhow: http://scholar.google.dk/scholar?hl=da&q=Gigantopithecus&btnG= FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So how do we know if this was even a separate species?

Considering all that's been found is some teeth and a couple mandibles how do we know these weren't just big-jawed gorillas? Even if they were a different species there's absolutely no evidence that they were "10 feet tall, 1200 pounds" as claimed by the article, I think it should be mentioned that this was pretty much a complete guess. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Gorillas are known from DNA reconstruction to have evolved in Africa and most likely never ventured into Asia where Gigantopithecus's remains were found. --Nicholas Wolf (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Morphology of the teeth and jaws known are notably different from Gorilla species. And the size is estimated using body morphometrics, scaling the rest of the Gigantopithecus body based on statistics from related genera. Same as is dome for incomplete human remains. BigPimpinBrah do you have peer-reviewed papers that suggest otherwise?--Kevmin § 05:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering jaw size varies alot between animals of the same size I don't think we can make any such assumptions, I mean they were probably bigger than gorillas but 10 feet and 1200 pounds? That's a hell of a claim for an animal we haven't even found any bones of, it could just as easily have been an ape species with proportionally bigger jaws. Seems like some scientists were getting a bit carried away with this, maybe we should give more emphasis to some of the more conservative estimates? --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would we suspect that this species has much bigger head-to-body (or jaw-to-body) ratio than closely-related species? When a species develops a need for greater chewing power, the usual answer is to bulk up the teeth and the power of the jaw muscles, not to simply scale up the size of jaw bones in all dimensions. Humans have a bigger head-to-body ratio than chimps, but this was not in response to a need for greater chewing power (and in fact the jaw muscles are less powerful in humans than in chimps). Are you suggesting that Gigantopithecus was big-brained? Otherwise, I'm not sure your objections make too much sense... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't really answer this since there doesn't seem to be any info in the article on exactly how big their jaws were. I believe I saw a study once where they were comparing gorilla's jaws to humans and the biggest gorilla mandible was around 20cm long, it would be good to know how this compares to Gigantopithecus. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• More than just teeth seem to be known. And on this note, the silhouette in the size comparison looks off. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"And Gigantopithecus was pretty darn big. Fossils indicate it stood as high as 10 feet (3 meters) and weighed up to 1,100 pounds (500 kilograms)" (Strauss, Mark (Jan 6, 2016) "The Largest Ape That Ever Lived Was Doomed By Its Size" National Geographic). Considering National Geographic is a reliable source the upper limit of 10 feet (3 meters) and weighed up to 1,100 pounds (500 kilograms) is totally valid. In fact, the "200–300 kg (440–660 lb)" in the article has no reference and should have been contested a long time ago.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's better to use the source that actually calculated out those numbers. There are no references in the lead, you'll have to go into the actual article for that; the reference is in the Size section. NatGeo and other scientific journalists have a bad tendency to sensationalize size estimates; here, it looks like they rounded up the metric estimates (2.7 m became 3 m, so 9 ft went to 10; and 300 kg went to 500 kg) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Current article claims Gigantopithecus lived until a hundred years ago. This flies on the face of everything I've ever read about Gigantopithecus besides pseudoscience tying it to the yeti and bigfoot myths. I checked the source linked and sure enough, it talks about Gigantopithecus extinction taking place about 300,000 years ago, and that the humans it coexisted along with were Homo erectus.--80.26.120.40 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean this phrase here, "an extinct genus of ape that existed from perhaps nine million years to as recently as one hundred thousand years ago"?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraph is still quite wrong. If Gigantopithicus existed nine-million years ago would have the ape diverging three-million years before Orangutans, which is much earlier than anything I've seen sourced. If you follow the link supporting that line, it suggests the earliest would have been one-million years - "Rink has confirmed the time range for Gigantopithecus as being from one million years ago to 300,000 years ago." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:CC00:934A:DDBB:689E:2239:E3E8 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gigantopithecus. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Yeti and Bigfoot Sections

I removed and will keep removing the sections on the Yeti and Bigfoot because both sections are obvious original research and synthesis. What few citations the sections did have are either irrelevant, or are unreliable and untrustworthy. And the (anonymous) editors who insist on keeping those sections do not appear to be too interested in addressing these problems.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree , a 100,000 year extinct species linked to neo-Holocene fringe species as "Yeti" or "Bigfoot" is in any case very unconvincing. Tisquesusa (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Especially when the citations in the Yeti section never said anything about Gigantopithecus-human interactions evolving into the legend of the Yeti, or the citation given in the Bigfoot section is a self-published fan site that fails Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the Legend of the Yeti section, it was based on this Smithsonian article: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-bigfoot-really-exist-how-gigantopithecus-became-extinct-16649201/ I'm not a wiki editor and I've found it extremely difficult to put in citations, the article covers the change in environment and available food caused by the rise of the Tibetan plateau 1.6 million to 800,000 years ago which altered the climate of South Asia, ushering in a colder, drier period where the forests shrank back to the mountainous Himalayas, water in the air gathers at mountains this is how clouds form. Would I need to cite how clouds form? I can easily do so putting in a wiki article is another matter entirely.AD Scott (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gigantopithecus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233645/http://www.anthonyolejniczak.com/PDF/olejniczak_et_al_2008_AJPA_Gigantopithecus.pdf to http://www.anthonyolejniczak.com/PDF/olejniczak_et_al_2008_AJPA_Gigantopithecus.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Orangutan?

What's with the uncited drawing of the orangutan that says it's a 'restoration' of Gigantopithecus? This is like a joke right?

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

I wonder why .. Curtisarmstrongfan (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gigantopithecus.jpeg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge . Jack (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

---

As far as I can tell Gigantopithecus is now thought to be monotypic, as the other two species have been subsumed into Indopithecus, WP:PALAEO guidelines state that articles about genera with multiple species should generally only have an article on the genus, except in specific circumstances, considering that this genus is now monotypic, there is no question of merging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Support: per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. Jack (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Support - shouldn't have been split to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gigantopithecus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing your article over the next few days. starsandwhales (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• I'm not sure, but would it be clearer to say that it is hypothesized that the bones were eaten by porcupines (rather than likely eaten by porcupines)?

I mean it's not controversial, there are gnawing marks on tooth roots. The source says "Based on the rarity of bones in relation to the preponderance of isolated teeth and the presence of extensive rodent gnawing on tooth roots, it appears that the primary accumulating agent in the southern Chinese cave sites were porcupines"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the discussion about whether it was a human ancestor phased out?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• The information on peptide sequencing is good and it's clear on how that shows the relations between various apes. However it's unclear to be how the teeth were dated and how the timeframe of the last common ancestor is calculated.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• So far everything up to Description is well written.
• I've been told not to link to scientists that don't have articles yet.

really? I feel like I do that pretty often   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I checked WP:RED, and the links to non-notable people should be removed. You can keep the links for people who have articles other languages, but if someone doesn't have any secondary sources written about them then you should remove the link. starsandwhales (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Link pongine/ponginae

Ponginae is already linked in Classification   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok starsandwhales (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a template for dental formulas?

added. By the way, the source referred to them as P3 and P4 instead of P1 and P2 and I'm not entirely certain why. Should I say "first and second premolars" instead of "third and fourth premolars"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

How were you able to tell that the source was actually talking about P1 and P2? I'm not an expert so I'm not sure, but if that would make this article more consistent with other articles about early apes, then you should make the change. starsandwhales (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

They show pictures of the mandible with teeth which clearly show 2 premolars, never mention P1 and P2, and (this makes it the most obvious) they say "both lower premolars" or "both upper premolars" sometimes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you should follow convention. 00:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsandwhales (talk • contribs)

I guess it's standard to use P3 and P4 because apes lost 2 premolars   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Should "generalist diet" instead link to Generalist and specialist species?

yeah   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Why is the hypothesis of the hoofed animals being dragged in not considered viable?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Everything is well written

Everything looks good! starsandwhales (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction

To the IP who keeps reverting, it would be incorrect to put an image of a height comparison of an animal that is only known by tooth and jaw elements. The size comparison reconstruction is also, in and of itself, worse stylistically. The gorilla-like reconstruction is no less accurate than the skinny reconstruction by Harry Wilson, and is also a more common reconstruction of the animal, such as on the UCL website   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I see you've removed the height comparison, but the image still reconstructs Gigantopithecus with what looks like a prehensile lip and if we're going off of Johnson's estimate (or looking at the dimensions of any great ape), the humerus to femur ratio is far too big (the humerus is about double the length of the femur), which is why the the trunk has an oddly steep angle of inclination. I'm not doubting the validity of Harry Wilson's reconstruction (I quite like it), I'm doubting Luis guardiola 816's reconstruction, which clearly has issues   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

God damn it, why did the art from Kaek (Carlos Eulefi) get deleted, there was no copyright violation there, I requested from him to upload it to wikimedia commons, and he did.

What was the file name? I don't know if it's possible post-fact but I can try contesting the deletion   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gigantopithecus.jpeg It was this one: https://www.deviantart.com/kaek/art/Gigantopithecus-blacki-600210095 As you can see, this one blew, and still blows both we currently have out of the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.172.152 (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think what happened was on deviant art, he used the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works License (CC-BY-NC-ND) which is not allowed on Commons, so it was flagged and deleted. I'm gonna submit an undeletion request, but you should tell the artist to change the licensing on deviant art to CC0 (Zero Public Domain), CC-BY (Attribution), or CC-BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• If there is so much disagreement, a new restoration could also be requested at WP:paleoart. There is also this restoration, which hasn't been reviewed:[3] And speaking of images, I think we should also show the jaw more from the side, as in one of these images[4][5], otherwise it's depth is hard to appreciate. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  I thought I already checked Flickr but I guess my eyes skipped over that. The not-reviewed image is the inaccurate image I was talking about earlier   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  Alright, I think it should get the inaccurate paleoart template then so others won't use it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello there to our favorite Hungarian! Enjoy the block! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that mainly teeth of Gigantopithecus are found because other bones were likely eaten by porcupines? Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23150
  • ALT1:... that most known fossils of Gigantopithecus are teeth because other bones were likely eaten by porcupines? Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23150

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Justice delayed is justice denied

Improved to Good Article status by Dunkleosteus77 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC).

• Newly promoted GA, plenty long, and free of citation and copyright issues. QPQ had been done. I've proposed ALT1 with slightly improved grammar; Dunkleosteus77, is this okay? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's good   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Good to go with ALT1. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Classification

The first part of the section on classification gives facts from primary sources and mentions a "multiregional hypothesis", circa 1946?, with a link to Multiregional origin of modern humans, which [fwiw] states "The multiregional hypothesis was first proposed in 1984, and then revised in 2003". Do other sources elaborate on these theories and cite these authorities? ~ cygnis insignis 06:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiregional origin of modern humans refers to Weidenreich's model as polycentricism. I see some sources trying to distinguish Weidenreich's polycentrism and Wolpoff's multiregional, and other's credit multiregional to Weidenreich making no distinction at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: "… other's credit multiregional to Weidenreich making no distinction at all" What sources do that? ~ cygnis insignis 11:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

just doing a quick google search, [6], [7]   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)