User:Jpete17/Graecopithecus
 | This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
Article Draft
Response
In 2018, Böhme et al published a response to Benoit and Thackeray[1], claiming that their original publication had been misrepresented and misconstrued. The conclusion of the 2017 paper had not been that Graecopithecus was certainly a hominid, but that its status as a hominid could not be ruled out, and that more research and evidence would be needed to make a conclusion[2]—a conclusion that Benoit and Thackeray make in their own paper[3] as well. Böhme et al also point out that, contrary to what Benoit and Thackeray write, they did not judge canine root derivation of Graecopithecus and Salehanthropus against each other, stating that the differences between them were within the range of sexual variation. Additionally, when Benoit and Thackeray claim that the characteristics mentioned in the 2017 paper are not unique to Hominini, they do not mention that the 2017 paper discusses canine root size and premolar root complexity reduction, which are indications of Hominini. Benoit and Thackeray also refer to taxonomy that combines Graecopithecus and Ouranopithecus, despite the two generally being considered to be separate species, with Graecopithecus being more closely related to hominins than Ouranopithecus.
Böhme et al emphasize that they do not present Graecopithecus as being a hominid without question, but that it has traits similar to hominids, and that more evidence is needed before Graecopithecus's status as a homind can be confirmed or rejected.
References
- ^ Fuss, Jochen; Spassov, Nikolai; Böhme, Madelaine; Begun, David R. (2018-06). "Response to Benoit and Thackeray (2017): 'A cladistic analysis of Graecopithecus'". South African Journal of Science. 114 (5–6): 1–2. doi:10.17159/sajs.2018/a0267. ISSN 0038-2353.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Fuss, Jochen; Spassov, Nikolai; Begun, David R.; Böhme, Madelaine (2017-05-22). "Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from the Late Miocene of Europe". PLOS ONE. 12 (5): e0177127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177127. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5439669. PMID 28531170.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Benoit, Julien; Thackeray, Francis J. (2017-12). "A cladistic analysis of Graecopithecus". South African Journal of Science. 113 (11–12): 1–2. doi:10.17159/sajs.2017/a0238. ISSN 0038-2353.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)