Talk:Chororapithecus

Primates Unassessed

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates 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.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Split Apes from Humans??

I have yet to read the nature article but I would say the split indicates at Gorilla from Humans/Pan species not humans from other apes. The split for Homo/Pan is about 6 million years ago. --Cody.Pope 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue may have now been addressed with a tidy up of wording. Drop another note if it hasn't. --jjron 02:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorillas <-> Chimpanzees <-> Humans

Per Chimpanzee: "It is thought that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees as recently as four to seven million years ago", though we're still waiting on a cite for that. We may want to be sure that Chororapithecus abyssinicus clarifies the Gorilla/Chimpanzee/Human lineage. -- Writtenonsand 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text copied from Wikinews

Is there any reason for the Wikinews text to be in this article in a near-verbatim state? I realize that the article would be quite short without the additional commentary, but the tone/writing style of the last four paragraphs certainly isn't that of an encyclopedia article. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 19:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps complaints about unencyclopedic content should begin with the BMs that have been here for years, not breaking news that has yet to even pass through the usual "editors'" review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.251.227 (talk) 04:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

nearly indistinguishable

Just something I noticed when browsing. The source article says that the teeth "partly resemble" modern gorillas. The article says they are "nearly indistinguishable." Seems kind of misleading. 12.201.118.185 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush?

Seems very premature to restructure our entire thinking about the human/gorilla/ape/chimpanzee timeline based on nine little teeth. Very intriguing but hardly proof of anything. Mapjc 14:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for minor edits / clarifications

Previous research section - mentions problems with carbon dating. This should probably read as 'radiometric dating' as carbon dating exclusively used for several tens of thousand years period. I also saw the same error in a news story about the discovery. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.50.195 (talk) 21:03, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Logical whazzername: How can the 'failure to find a fossil' be 'due to the inaccuracy' of a dating method? This is nonsense. Please rewrite and say what you meant. Captainbeefart 02:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]