Talk:Anthropopithecus
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Proper categories
Hi, @PRehse: I disagree with the replacement of category "Prehistory" with category "Prehistoric life":
- "Prehistoric life" refers to specific [taxonomically accepted] life forms. Kakabekia, for example, is a fossilised life form having been specifically and taxonomically accepted by scientists.
- "Prehistory", as a general category, refers to human discourse on Prehistory, not exclusively to specific fossilised life forms. Anthropopithecus has been proposed by different authors to designate too many different things until it was definitely abandoned in 1895/1905, so it cannot be considered as a specific life form, whether or not prehistoric.
If you read again the entire article you'll notice that:
- Referred to the Java Man, Anthropopithecus had been definitely abandoned in 1894.
- Referred to the chimpanzee, Anthropopithecus had been definitely abandoned in 1895.
- Referred to the specific prehistoric life forms, Anthropopithecus had been definitely abandoned progressively, by means of synonimysation with other genera.
- Referred to the hypothetical Tertiary man who authored the "eoliths", Anthropopithecus had been definitely abandoned in 1905.
Thus, we are facing a polysemous term that had been used in different domains in the history of zoology, anthropology and paleoanthropology. The term Anthropopithecus doesn't deal with a specific identified life form only, it is an obsolete taxon used by zoologists (to refer to the chimpanzee) and prehistorians (to refer to both hypothetical and specific fossils, not all of them belonging to fossilised humans). This is why the article doesn't fit properly in the category "Prehistoric life". It does fit properly in "Prehistory", which is a more general category. Regards, Kintaro (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Primate articles
- Mid-importance Primate articles
- WikiProject Primates articles
- Start-Class Anthropology articles
- Mid-importance Anthropology articles
- Start-Class mammal articles
- Low-importance mammal articles
- WikiProject Mammals articles
- Start-Class Palaeontology articles
- Low-importance Palaeontology articles
- Start-Class Palaeontology articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Palaeontology articles