Talk:Java Man/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll review this soon. I've recently been reading up on archaic humans, so I feel more up to the task now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I think a photo or illustration of fossil elements would be much better for the taxobox than an old reconstruction. See here for example, the actual holotype elements.[1] Reconstructions are prone to error, and are always mere hypotheses, so the actual bones are much more "citable", if you know what I mean. and especially these days, where our understanding of ancient humans has changed radically, I'm not even sure if the reconstruction matches modern opinions. But it could certainly be used in the article somewhere. The taxobox should show the most representative, and least controversial example of the subject.

I agree with your reasoning. I added the picture of the three bones to the taxobox and will think of where I can reinsert the 1922 reconstruction, if at all. Madalibi (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 1922 reconstruction may be more notable than the stamp. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done. Madalibi (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"After he failed to find the fossils he was looking for on Sumatra he moved on to Java in 1890." Needs citation.

Done. Madalibi (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little description of the actual subspecies which is within the scope of this article. It seems that the scope is a bit unclear, most of the article is about the first fossils found, though it should actually cover everything that has been referred to the taxon Homo erectus erectus.

This is a crucial point that I tried to raise on the talk page a few months ago, but the discussion never took off. See. Talk:Java Man#Scope of the article and Talk:Java Man#New article on a Javanese hominin fossil. Your comments suggest that you would like to see a broader page that discusses all specimens of Javanese Homo erectus, which would include Sangiran, Mojokerto, and Ngandong. If this is what we choose to do, then the article should also mention Homo floresiensis, which a few paleoanthropologists consider as a dwarf descendant of early Homo erectus. If we discuss Homo erectus erectus as a whole, we would even need more info on Peking Man. All this would mean a major rewriting, but if this is necessary then so be it. What do you think, FunkMonk? Madalibi (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think all Asian Homo erectus need discussion, only those specifically referred to H. e. erectus. Is that subspecies widely recognised? Is the name only applied to the first known fossil? FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I'm not completely certain of the scope of the species H. e. erectus, as that term is not widely used in the literature. On the other hand, paleoanthropologists often make a distinction between Homo erectus sensu stricto (= Asian Homo erectus) and Homo erectus sensu lato, which includes both Asian H. erectus and African H. ergaster, a species that share many of the characteristics of Asian H. erectus. But this article is titled “Java Man”, so we should probably leave this distinction to the Homo erectus article. Russell Ciochon and Frank Huffman's article on "Java Man" in the Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (2014) defines Java Man as “the informal name given to Pleistocene Homo erectus inhabitants of Java." This could be a good definition for us here, and it certainly justifies taking a broader view of this topic. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I'll proceed with this by reviewing what's already in the article, then we can talk about possible additions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll be looking forward to your comments! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, there is no mention of the evidence that indicates these were using fire, as is mentioned in Control of fire by early humans. That is a pretty significant omission, for one.

I just investigated this claim and found that the article cited in note 4 of Control of fire by early humans actually said that the "charred wood" that was found in the fossil-bearing layers of Trinil may have been the result of natural fires, as Central Java is a volcanically active region. This observation still deserves to be mentioned, probably in a new section on the material culture of Javanese H. erectus. Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is too little info in the Characteristics section, and the source is a bit weak. I'm sure some more authoritative and detailed articles can be found to flesh this out.

I agree. I didn't touch this section when I rewrote the article. One of its weaknesses is that it implies that all Homo erectus were about the same size, which is clearly not true. Let me find better sources... Madalibi (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The literature could be more well used, see for example all these papers published just since 2010: http://scholar.google.dk/scholar?q=%22java+man%22+erectus&btnG=&hl=da&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2010 Not all are relevant, of course, but some seems like it could flesh this article out considerably. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references. I will need a few days (because I'm busy in real life) to skim through these sources and think of how to integrate them into the article. Madalibi (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the stuff under background really need a separate section? Would logically fit as the beginning fo the discovery section, it is a rather small paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps right align the images under discovery, so they do not clash with the following heading?

I moved the double image up by one paragraph. If it still interferes with the subtitle (probably on a very large screen), let me know and I will right-align it as you request! Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be clashing again. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pithecanthropus erectus is listed as a synonym here, but it would rather be a synonym of the wider Homo erectus itself.

I think the synonym is sound. Until Ernst Mayr coined the term Homo erectus to refer to Asian fossils from Java and China (thus putting Pithecanthropus erectus into retirement), the Chinese finds had consistently been called Sinanthropus pekinensis. This suggests that P. erectus, when it was used, consistently referred to Javanese Homo erectus, even if these fossils turned out to belong to the same species as Zhoukoudian's Peking Man. Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is taxonomically incorrect. Yes, the name was based on these specific specimens, but the fossils are not a taxon, so the name cannot be a synonym of the specimen. Pithecanthropus erectus‎ is a binomial. The species erectus is now classified as Homo erectus. Therefore the genus name Pithecanthropus becomes a synonym of Homo, and P. erectus‎ becomes a synonym of H. erectus. It cannot be a synonym of "Java Man", because Java man is at best a subspecies of Homo erectus, H. e. erectus. A species cannot be a synonym of a subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point. Putting aside the issue of synonymy for now, I think the term H. erectus erectus is very misleading. The Trinil remains are the holotypes of Homo erectus as a whole, not only H. e. erectus. Almost all the sources I have read so far refer to H. erectus, not to the subspecies H. e. erectus. If we decide that the article is about Javanese hominins that are today classified as H. erectus (Dubois's Trinil finds (0.7-1.0 Ma), most of the Sangiran fossils (mostly 1.1-1.3 Ma, with a few older specimens dating to about 1.6 Ma), the Mojokerto child (ca. 1.43 Ma), and the remains of Solo Man (Middle to Upper Pleistocene), then we need to lose the H. e. erectus taxon altogether, because it is much narrower, and not widely used in reliable sources. P. erectus can then perhaps become an acceptable synonym for Javanese H. erectus in the taxobox. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"using a term that Ernst Haeckel had coined a few years earlier" What term? The genus name? Could perhaps be elaborated a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A second, more complete specimen was later discovered in Sangiran, Central Java, 18 km to the north of Solo." When? Is this Solo man? Should be linked then.

This is not Solo Man, just more H. erectus remains (mostly cranial) found at the Sangiran Dome, which also happens to be on the Solo River, just like Ngandong, the site where Solo Man (H. erectus from the Middle Plesitocene) was found from 1931 to 1933. I will explain this discovery in more detail the next time I edit the article (Monday at latest).

"that they should both belong to the same group." What is meant by "group"? Taxon?

Clarified: this group was the Hominidae family. I also explained Dubois's response in more detail. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"and attempted to name it Pithecanthropus modjokertensis" What bis meant by "attempted"? Either he named it, or he didn't. If he changed it later, she still named it.

Clarified. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the names of the various fossil "men" sometimes in quotes and sometimes not?
"on his suggestion that Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus interbred" How? Did he suggest they were the same taxon, or different taxa which interbred, or only able to interbreed? Based on what?

Explained more clearly on the basis of the source cited. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"reclassified them both as being part of the same species: Homo erectus" Need to stress that it was moved to a new genus, Homo, the same as modenr humans, and that the two genus name therefore became junior synonyms. Also that Duboi's species name was retained in the new binomial. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a more detailed explanation. Let me know if you find it clear enough. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use a photo of a gibbon that stand on two legs, if that is the important part of the photo?
The terms Trinil 1 and Trinil 2 should probably be mentioned earlier, and I think that article would actually be better off merged into here.
We discussed it a bit earlier, but at the very minimu, this article should at least state that the Java population of Homo erectus has been proposed to be a distinct subspecies, and attribute the idea to whoever made it. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Some critics claimed that the bones were those of a walking ape" Upright walking, surely?
"Others said they belonged to a primitive human." Attribution for all claims, please. Also goes for the sentence above.
"Trinil bones looked like those of a "giant gibbon"" Why is this bold? it shouldn't be.
"It was in fact an ingenious argument to support it." Ingenious is loaded, and I'd attribute this to Gould. Again, attribution wherever you can, much of it is opinion of individuals.
"Under Homo, he included not only Sinanthropus and Pithecanthropus" This could be reworded, "under Homo" could read as if they were subtaxa, whereas they were instead made invalid junior synonyms. Synonymised is the right word.
"And his thighbones show that he walked erect like modern humans." Why is Java Man referred to as "he" under the description section? Also, as before, this section is very inadequate, could be much more detailed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that the extensive quotes under references could be considered a copyright violation. In any case, they are not needed, as long as the correct pages are cited. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You there, Madalibi? FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]