Talk:Homo ergaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sentence[edit]

I've left the sentence "Homo ergaster developed the more sophisticated hand-axe." in the article, but it's not clear--more sophisticated than what? Vicki Rosenzweig

Should we retranslate "ergaster" as just "worker"? "Workman man" sounds redundant.

larger brain?[edit]

Didn't homo erectus have a larger brain? This site, for example(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#ergaster) says that H. erectus has a larger brain, while others give a range from ~850-1200cc, larger than 800cc in any case.

Hair/No-Hair, Skin, Sweat?[edit]

While I feel it's important to use our imaginations when trying to interpret what we've found, it seems to be a habit lately to take logical supposition and begin giving it as known fact. For instance, it's reasonable to wonder why Ergaster was so radically different from Habilis and Rudolphensis, the only two previous specimens known. It's not so reasonable to clearly state that some of the greatest differences were that Ergaster was hairless and dark-skinned, whereas Habilis was not. We have no evidence regarding this, and only have our own logic based on fossil finds and what we believe about the environment of the time.

Just as we once assumed that bipedalism only arose with Australopithecenes (and find that it existed quite further back, even if not as a standard means of locomotion), it's folly to assume that hairlessness was either a short process or one that occurred at the most convenient time. It's a valid argument that a lack of hair goes much further back in our line, just as it's easy to believe that loss of a noticable hair coat arose with more modern African populations.

Moreover, considering the wide variations in hairyness among modern populations (from the smooth and hairless to men who have built-in sweaters), it is doubtful that a wide-ranging population in varying environments could be defined under anything but an average hair covering.

It's nitpicking, but it's bad science to not seperate hypothetical reasoning and strongly derrived theory.

I agree. The recent edits made to several homin articles includes an excessive amout of repetitiveness and unscientific ponderings to warrant inclusion as is. I'm reverting this one as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Telanthropus capensis merge[edit]

Someone proposed that we merge Telanthropus capensis here. I think this is a bad idea and will clean up the other article a bit and delete the merge tag unless I hear objection. Any objection? --Selket Talk 20:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sulcus[edit]

H. ergaster may be distinguished from H. erectus by its ... lack of an obvious sulcus.

this needs to be more specific. there are many types of sulci:

  • in the brain
  • sulcus arteriæ vertebralis
  • sagittal sulcus
  • sigmoid sulcus
  • tympanic sulcus
  • lacrimal sulcus (sulcus lacrimalis)
  • sulcus tubae auditivae
  • radial sulcus (musculospiral groove)
  • preauricular sulcus
  • malleolar sulcus
  • Calcaneal sulcus
  • Intermammary sulcus
  • interlabial sulci
  • Anterior interventricular sulcus
  • Posterior interventricular sulcus

Attys 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

authority vs researcher[edit]

"Authority" is more accurate than "researcher". There are many folks that do research. Some of them publish, others work for those that publish. The ones that publish are authorities; they have "authored" the description or theory or hypothesis, etc. In fact, "authority" is used explicitly in taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion and Inclusion[edit]

I have begun an attempt to make the pages on Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, and Homo georgicus resemble each other in format and content more closely. I shall try to present each competing interpretation, but have often settled, half-way through the page, on presenting each species as legitimately distinct (while letting readers know, of course). My main concern is that these six pages present many prevalent and valid interpretations, but no conformity of tone or content between pages (or sometimes even paragraphs). I shall also try to make conglomerate authorship less detectable between pages, personally editing large chunks using my own tone. I shall attempt, however, to let no personal interpretations of our ancestry interfere with the hypotheses presented. I will not eradicate any additions to these pages' content, obviously, but will attempt to make their voice and presentation uniform. Homo Ergaster (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

I accidentally revised the page without including anything about H. ergaster's linguistic capacities: I shall right this as soon as I am able. Homo Ergaster (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno why all these sections in articles on human ancestors focus on 'symbolic' communication. It is well established now in studies of modern languages that symbolic constructions evolve from much more iconic ones. Wouldn't that imply that early Homo might utilize a far more iconic system overall? Even today there are many language families (for example Ubangian, in central Africa) where iconically organized vocabulary (ideophones) outweighs forms dominated by form/meaning arbitrariness (symbolicity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.78.76 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear intro[edit]

I don't understand this sentence in the intro:

There is still disagreement on the subject of the classification, ancestry, and progeny of H. ergaster, but it is now widely thought (though not agreed) to be the direct ancestor of later hominids such as Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis rather than Asian erectus.

Is this a correct interpretation?:

A  There is still disagreement on the subject of the classification, ancestry, and progeny of H. ergaster, but it, rather than Asian erectus, is now widely thought (though not agreed) to be the direct ancestor of later hominids such as Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis rather than Asian erectus.

Or is this?:

B  There is still disagreement on the subject of the classification, ancestry, and progeny of H. ergaster, but it is now widely thought (though not agreed) to be the direct ancestor of later hominids such as Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis rather than of Asian erectus.

 —Michael Z. 2010-03-03 18:57 z

A is definitely incorrect, B may or may not be correct. I am not sure there is much of a consensus. Some camps lump ergaster as a type of erectus. I don't a have a source handy or I would take a stab at a rewrite that may remove the reference to the Asian erectus line altogether. Nowimnthing (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


the writing in this article is astoundingly bad in general. I am tagging it for cleanup. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.6 mya to .6 mya (600,000 ka)[edit]

New evidence seems to suggest that Homo ergaster fossils have been found as recently as 600,000 years ago. My textbook How Humans Evolved (5th edition) by Boyd and Silk, 2009 is more recent than the previous 2007 source of ergaster being from 1.6-1.3 mya. The page in my textbook is on page 307.

"Homo ergaster appears in the African fossils about 1.8 mya and disappears about 0.6 mya" Galith2 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestor of Homo erectus[edit]

I read in Becoming Human by Ian Tattersaul that Homo ergaster was the ancestor of Homo erectus which was subsequently the ancestor of both Homo heidelbergensis (which in turn was ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis) and Homo rhodesiensis (which in turn was the ancestor of the now solely surviving Homo sapiens).

By the way, this makes sense based on the dates of speciation and extinction for Homo ergaster and Homo erectus already mentioned in the respective Articles. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanthropus[edit]

   "Atlanthropus" is a Rdr to the accompanying article, and Homo atlanthropus is mentioned twice on User talk:KamranRaju. Carleton S. Coon mentions Atlanthropus mauretancius on at least p. 10, 591 (table & footnote) and the genus alone on at least p. 10-11, 591 (footnote). There are no references within the text of the article. Britannica has

"Facts about Atlanthropus mauritanicus: Ternifine, as discussed in Ternifine (anthropological and archaeological site, Algeria): ...with the remains of other archaic humans, and resemblances to Peking man were observed. Initially the Ternifine group was considered sufficiently different to justify a new genus and species (Atlanthropus mauritanicus). However, later it was recognized that the fossils from Algeria and China, along with similar specimens from Java, could all be classified together in one species,..."

If it's applied only to the one specimen, we need at least to identify which one, rather than the whole species, somewhere in the article.
--Jerzy•t 03:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeframe[edit]

The current (24.12.2011) version of the article date Ergaster "about 2.5–1.7 million years ago.[1]", the reference being "Hazarika, Manji (16–30 June 2007). "Homo erectus/ergaster and Out of Africa: Recent Developments in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology"."

The article (as available at http://eaa.elte.hu/Hazarika.pdf), makes no such claim whatsoever, but instead: "H. ergaster existed between 1.8 million and 1.3 million years ago", om the second page (numbered 36).

The current figures were added anonymously in what appears to be vandalism (the first edit changed Africa with France, but was reverted 30 minutes later), here is the history page for reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_ergaster&diff=prev&oldid=377768412

I am reverting to the timeframe as per the reference merryXIV (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeframe redux[edit]

ANON.78 (re current page 12August 2015): why did you change the date range? The source (Hazarika, 2007) reports "1.8 mya", but you edit the page to a different value. Do you have a different source? Pls reply.Jbeans (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor made a similar change on the Homo erectus article. Perhaps that should also be reverted. TimidGuy (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Inconsistent with Itself[edit]

From the lead – “[Ergaster] is one of the earliest members of the genus Homo, possibly descended from, or sharing a common ancestor with, Homo erectus.“ This would make Erectus the older species (Ergaster..descended from...erectus)

From the Classification and Special Distinction section – “Some call H. ergaster the direct African ancestor of H. erectus, proposing that H. ergaster emigrated out of Africa and into Asia, branching into a distinct species.[5]” This would make Ergaster the older species (ergaster ancestor of erectus)

One or the other must be wrong; from the chart over at Homo it seems Ergaster is the older species, can anyone out there help out here to clean this up? See also the "Unclear Intro" and "Timeframes" sections on this Talk page Skates61 (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Discovery and representative fossils[edit]

Hi! there should be some clarification in this section. I see what i can find

http://www.efossils.org/species/homo-ergaster first dicovery 1971 in Koobi Fora

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7410/full/nature11322.html Since its discovery in 1972
Wikirictor (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.christopherseddon.com/2009/01/homo-ergaster.html From Koobi Fora, East Turkana: KNM-ER 3733, a cranium discovered in 1975 by Bernard Ngeneo,
Wikirictor (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homo ergaster. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Homo ergaster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dunkleosteus77[edit]

Yeah! Just so you know, I will not have huge amounts of time on my hands until about 4 or 5 June (I didn't expect a review to begin this quickly!) so major changes needed (there will probably be a few) might have to wait until then. I'll try and address smaller issues you find in the meantime, hope that's fine. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first thing I'm noticing is that the majority of the texts you're citing come from 2005 or before, and a lot of the ones after that don't focus on H. ergaster, and consequently some views in the article I'm noticing are one-sided or outdated. I'll make note of them as I read   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even think of that, but yes, you're right. I'll do my best to update areas you feel require more recent texts as you find them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lede states that most fossils are from the period 1.8 to 1.7 million years ago, but that "a handful" of specimens are younger than that, but yes this could be made more clear. Unless that is outdated as well, there is, as stated later in the article, some confusion as to when ergaster disappears. I've added the 1.5 mya date (Turkana Boy) to the lede as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H. ergaster exhibit primitive versions of traits later expressed in H. erectus and are thus likely the direct ancestors of later H. erectus populations in Asia" is it settled that H. ergaster/erectus evolved in Africa?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The core issue presented in the entire article is what H. erectus actually is. "later H. erectus populations in Asia" would refer to H. erectus sensu stricto which AFAIK is restricted to younger Asian fossils. I'll look into this more when I get the time, but I remember a theory that H. ergaster/H. erectus evolved in Asia and then expanded back into Africa, not sure how well that holds up anymore. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that's the theory I'm talking about   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a paragraph on this theory; will add more from the other source (the 1.95 mya one) soon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done with this now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure of this since "Neanderthal" is a common name and we don't capitalize names like "human" and "wolf". I've capitalized it now since you expanded the Neanderthal article. Is it capitalized because "Neandert(h)al" is technically a place name? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's kinda strange that the article is written in American English considering it's a predominantly Kenyan species (and Kenya uses British conventions)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True. I changed the examples of American English I knew of in the article to British English, but I might be missing stuff since I'm not a native English speaker. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a tendency towards extended periods of development and growth" possibly outdated (or at least contested), look up Mojokerto child (though not H. ergaster, it would still illuminate H. ergaster anatomy) and the 1.8 Ma female pelvis from Gona   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "tendency towards extended period of development and growth" from the lede and from the other place where it was cited as a significant difference between earlier Homo and H. ergaster. Also added a paragraph on the Gona pelvis and the Mojokerto child and what they mean for growth in H. ergaster. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Earlier Homo likely lived in large groups of perhaps a hundred individuals or more" you may want to double check this? Considering how few remains are known, I don't believe the behavior of pre-erectus hominins is particularly well known   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is speculation and conjecture from one of the sources. I think it's fine to keep in the article itself, where it is made clear that it is speculation, but I've removed it from the lede. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other sources discussing group composition?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For obvious reasons there don't seem to be very many on the group size of early Homo. I've added another source with estimates on group size. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source used for this specifically refers to H. ergaster as the first primate to become a "social carnivore", which I took to mean pack-hunter, but hunter-gatherer might be better here since we're dealing with almost-humans. Changed to "hunter-gatherer" in the lede. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you should use this in the body as well, as H. erectus (and similar species) are regarded as the first hunter gatherers, which I think is implicated in the extinction of australopithecines and other Homo but I don't quite remember   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "hunter-gatherer" in the body as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as thick skulls walls" CT scans showed this to not be the case except in the occipital in H. erectus (but I don't remember if they did one for H. ergaster), and thick skull walls is brought up twice in that sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all instances of "thick skull walls" from the article; if this would be a trait only in H. ergaster fossils I'm sure it would have been brought up in the defense of keeping it as a separate species at some point so I assume they didn't have absurdely thick skulls walls either. I added the actual other distinctions Klein (2005) mentions to replace the double use of "thick skull walls" in the sentence in question. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Went with "per". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "or" does come: "Baab concluded that H. erectus s.l. was either a single but variable species, several subspecies divided by time and geography or several geographically dispersed but closely related species". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, changed both instances of "supraorbital" to "brow ridge". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "most". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I distinctly remember H. erectus (maybe H. ergaster?) remains from the cradle of humankind dating to 2 million years ago   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this (published this year!) paper would be the one used for that. The fossils seem to be described as Homo erectus sensu lato, which again highlights the messiness of H. erectus. Since they are from Africa, they would probably be regarded as H. ergaster under a strict definition of H. erectus (though maybe not - H. erectus sensu lato covers a wide range of morphology). I don't have access to the paper (maybe you have?) so I can't really look into this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an African Homo erectus and so would fall under the umbrella of H. ergaster. The most relevant parts to this article are "DNH 134 [the H. erectus s. l. specimen] is at least 100,000 to 150,000 years older than H. erectus s.l. specimens from Dmanisi and over 300,000 years older than the KNM-ER-3733 cranium from Kenya at ~1.63 Ma old... As such, DNH 134 represents the oldest fossil with affinities to H. erectus in the world. Despite this, we do not assert that the species necessarily evolved first in southern Africa, especially given major geological biases in hominin finds across Africa. However, the dating of the DNH 134 cranium to >1.95 Ma ago substantially weakens the hypothesis that H. erectus sensu lato evolved outside of Africa."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added the info from this paper. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If only European and East Asian fossils and artifacts are considered, it is possible that archaic humans expanded beyond Africa and Israel only between 1.6 and 1 million years ago" I remember evidence of hominin occupation in China 2 mya   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the source for that? That would be good to include in the article, then. East Asian fossils being younger than 1.6 million years should still hold up. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From Nature   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Acheulean tools (the tool industry associated with H. ergaster)" that makes it sound like it's the only tool industry associated with H. ergaster   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The age of Ubediya is already mentioned earlier in the same paragraph (the age for the tools is the same as the incisors - 1.4 to 1 mya), does it need to be mentioned again? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You spelled it differently the second time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yeah. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though the precise dating of the Dmanisi skulls is not entirely certain" I'm sure this was true in 2005, but what about now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to no longer be true; added precise dating with citation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it would have probably been H. ergaster which first left Africa to colonize Europe and Asia" is this still a widely held opinion?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased this a bit and changed some stuff around but the idea here is that H. erectus is very commonly reiterated to have been the species that first left Africa and colonized Eurasia, but that if H. ergaster is distinct, these early H. erectus would have actually been H. ergaster. There is a lot of poking at this idea in the section itself; mentioning that the time and manner of leaving Africa are conjecture and pointing out that there is no clear reason why earlier Homo or even australopithecines would have been unable to leave Africa. I added the bit about very early hominin evidence from China, which should make it more clear that there is a lot of uncertainty about when (and in what form) hominins first left Africa. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should avoid the word "recent"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all instances of "recent". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote "he or she". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol yes, changed it to just "jaw". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sexual dimorphism is unconfirmed in australopithecines, and I think a lack of sexual dimorphism in H. erectus is also unconfirmed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some mentions of sexual dimorphism but I still think it merits discussion since it appears to be brought up quite often. I've added more sources and tried to make clear that thers is some debate as to the extent of dimorphism in australopithecines and early Homo. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the increased energy and dietary needs the species would have endured" I remember a study (studies?) arguing exactly the opposite   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any links for those? I found another (though even earlier - 1992) study arguing that the bigger brain (not body size though) of H. erectus would bring with higher energy requirements. This article from 2013 states that "the large body and large brain of H. erectus needed more energy, and thus food, than previous hominins. Larger biological structures, particularly energy-intensive ones like muscles and brains, require greater energy inputs to maintain". Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First proposed by [1] in 1995, and I used [2] and [3] on Homo erectus. I think you're not finding these because you're searching for H. ergaster instead of H. erectus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I should definitely have searched around more for H. erectus considering the situation at hand here. I've added this (mostly after what was in the erectus article) and made clear that there is some debate in regards to energy needs. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "implies a relatively small gut, suggesting a more easily digested diet composed of food of higher quality" one of the main theories on brain size increase is the reduction of gut size. Gut size could reduce due to the consumption of animal fat (ape guts have to synthesize fat by fermenting plants) and this energy could then be diverted to brain growth, thus allowing the brain to increase while maintaining the same caloric intake   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wanna be careful with assigning so much certainty to comparisons of early Homo with modern apes as the accuracy of these models is, if I remember correctly, controversial, though I might be thinking of earlier hominins   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, changed a lot of "likely" to "possibly", "probably" and "might". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed this entirely, flows better without it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2nd paragraph of Social structure and dynamics suggests that females were not active members of society   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a bit problematic. I've tried to make it clear now that females would have foraged as well, though not necessarily in the same way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Homo ergaster in particular would still have inherited it from earlier Homo (who in turn inherited it from australopithecines). I've added "inherited the Oldowan culture of tools from australopithecines and earlier Homo". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the industrial tradition" I don't think this is a widely used term, and (I might be wrong) I think it's a bit of a misnomer, as it was once believed these lithics were produced on an industrial level   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "industrial tradition", not really necessary to keep in there either way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Updated this section in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the oldest widely accepted evidence for use of fire is younger than 800.000 years ago" what exactly is this site? Also, are you sure that date is still widely accepted?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the whole part on fire; there is significantly earlier evidence but it isn't universally accepted. The article should present the current view now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really understand the point of having 2 different cladograms since they both present the same view of H. ergaster taxonomy. Also, H. antecessor is not thought to have been a direct ancestor of humans anymore as of this year   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of H. antecessor's questionable position; the idea of the 2 cladograms was to show that even those that consider H. ergaster to be "African H. ergaster" split it cladistically from the rest of H. erectus, agreeing that the African fossils seem to be more basal. Maybe it's unnecessary to have two, might be best to remove the 2019 one in that case since the 2015 one uses H. ergaster and not "African H. erectus" and doesn't present H. antecessor as ancestral to us. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the 2019 one has a lot of other information that's not relevant to this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; removed the 2019 cladogram. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a section on language, most of it taken from what was already in the H. erectus article on speech in Turkana Boy. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Behaviours of earlier Homo where probably present, though possibly amplified" I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Are Homo basically australopithecines on steroids?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I actually don't know either. I've rephrased this entire part, the meaning should come across better now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image? I think the new one looks better (and it's from a paper) – it's the same skull so I didn't think it would matter? I put the previous one further down in the article but if you think that one was better I can restore it to the infobox. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The white skull and the reconstruction are both facing the same direction so it would make more sense to pair them together   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's true. Switched them around. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the order of brow ridges and receding foreheads here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "traditionally interpreted as male", which is true. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "may have persisted" and explained a bit more. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are and they are quite similar to earlier H. ergaster, but as explained in the "evolution and temporal range" section I don't think their classification is entirely clear. I've added this to the lede. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead I think you should discuss taxonomy first so you can quickly address why it says "species or subspecies"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the taxonomy part of the lede before the fossil range part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "Homo ergaster are an extinct ..." to "Homo ergaster is an extinct ...". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What in particular do you feel is outdated there? AFAIK sweating still seems to be the most commonly accepted explanation (1, 2). Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When did complete hairlessness evolve?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added the 3 mya louse estimate which seems to be thrown around a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking of later estimates. Regarding the earlier estimate, see [4]   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the 1.2 mya estimate from the erectus article? I've added the results from the paper you've linked and added stuff on the 1.2 mya estimate. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said it's highly unlikely that australopithecines were hairless, and then said that it's possible hairlessness evolved 3 mya (i. e., in australopithecines)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that it was "highly unlikely" that australopithecines were hairless but I can see how the two paragraphs seem somewhat contradictory. I've tried rephrasing it a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed explanation of the 3 mya date to the explanation that is presented in the erectus article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the small gut of H. ergaster also suggests a more easily digested diet composed of food of higher quality" double check if the source actually says that, even if gut size reduced due to the consumption of animal fat, a smaller gut means a more easily digested diet   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From page 326: "the trunk proportions in Homo ergaster suggest a relatively small gut that is compatible with a higher quality and more easily digested diet". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe check other sources to see if gut reduction due to animal fat and gut reduction due to digestibility are opposing views   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like opposing views? If animal fat is easier to "get out" of meat than it is to synthesize fat through fermenting plant matter then this is effectively the same point as digestibility? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 DannyS712 (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Ichthyovenator (talk). Nominated by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) at 05:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Article was just promoted to GA status on May 28 and obviously has no issues with content or length. Hook is concise, neutral, and intriguing. For the citation, I specifically checked this source from that section. It all looks good to me! IagoQnsi (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homo_ergaster&oldid=1193690345"