Talk:Pierolapithecus

Primates Start‑class Low‑importance

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Start‑class

	Paleontology portal 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Single-origin hypothesis

I removed the reference to the single-origin hypothesis from the Pierolaptihecus catalunicus article because the single-origin hypothesis refers to the idea that anatomically modern humans (homo sapiens) evolved from other species of homo in Africa rather than in Europe and/or Asia. It doesn't have anything to do with where the common ancestor of the gorilla and the chimp/human lines of great apes may have lived. Rusty Cashman 20:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13 million years ago

wouldn't it be a little better if the article said the the thing was believed to live 13 million years ago instead of it lived 13 million years ago? Carbon dating does fail sometimes doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.38.8 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon dating would certainly fail if used to date a fossil of this age, given that carbon dating is only effective to about 60,000 years. Fortunately, carbon dating wasn't used, so it's not a concern. --BRPierce (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]