Talk:Australopithecine

Palaeontology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Human Genetic History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Evolutionary biology High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hominina

Given that the family-group Hominidae Gray, 1825 has precedence over Australopithecinae Gregory & Hellman, 1939 for more than a century, technically the correct name for a subtribe including Australopithecus and Homo should be Hominina...

Yes, two of the three cited sources make it clear that Hominina is NOT Australopithecine, Hominina includes both Australopithecine AND Homo. In the older source I couldn't find the mention of Hominina. Hominina needs a separate page. 193.115.83.189 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest making Draft:Hominina first, and get it polished and approved and put into place, before making changes to this article. I've reverted your changes for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Question

This article is cobbled together from statements in the articles linked. It lacks direct sources. Is it really true that there are suggestions deriving Homo from Paranthropus? This seems improbable. If there aren't, it would seem undisputed that Homo branched off Australopithecus. Is this the case? If so, why doesn't the Australopithecus article state this plainly? dab (𒁳) 12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Kenyanthropus

Wouldn't Kenyanthropus also be an "australopithecine", and thus there would be three genera? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Kenyanthropus, as it stands, is not an australopithecine. By definition, only Australopithecus and Paranthropus are australopithecines. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What?

This article is unreadable to me as a layman. What is this? --Lajm (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at cleaning up the article and making it a bit more accessible. Cheers Jack (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Date range

Shouldn't we mention the temporal range for autralopthecine in the text near the top part of the lede since the "when" for A. helps people with understanding the setting for the rest of the article? It is shown in the info-box, but it is rather unobvious there (rather small print), and new readers may be tuning the box out of their vision (due to ad fatigue). Even if they do notice the text in the info-box, the words "temporal range" may be a bit over-the-heads of the latest generation of readers (no offense to them, but there are a lot of US new gens who seem a bit uneducated) and they may not realize it refers to a time range. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

the ending -ine gr: -ίνα (-ίνος as πιγκουίνος also exists, but that means penguin and in English it is an -in NOT and -ine) is feminine, thus not a fitting generic choice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410E:4E00:946:CAB9:C9D4:5599 (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Unintelligible, apparently incorrect and confused, inconsequential and directed to the wrong audience (Wikipedia is not the scientific community or a taxonomic naming authority). Modern Greek is irrelevant for Greco-Latinisms in English. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Dubious: All these related species are now sometimes[dubious] ... termed australopiths

See my talk page entry at REDIRECT Talk:Australopiths quoting an academic citation from 2010 claiming otherwise.

I have no opinion here, I'm merely trying to get the wires straight as an armchair pedant. — MaxEnt 21:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"More sexual dimorphism than H.Sapiens"?

How? What? Adult H.Sapien females have breasts, even when not lactating and do not experience estrus. Is "more" larger genitalia? 2603:6000:D7F0:8150:6191:B024:8315:7118 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)