Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates/category rework

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Listing and notes[edit]

brief analysis[edit]

  1. We have a good number of articles on different spots on the Homo line after the Pan/Homo split. From an anthropological perspective, I would guess these would be "early hominids"; primatologically, they are hominins.
  2. We have a good number of Homo sp and ssp articles. "Late hominids" perhaps?
  3. Included in the above are a number of stubs for synonyms of various other species or subspecies.
  4. We have a few other ancestral and archaic hominoid articles. "Archaic hominids and hominoids"?

Comments[edit]

The category uses the word "hominid" in its strictest (anthropological) sense - "early hominids" being recent human ancestors and their offshoots. In an effort to avoid confusion (mostly caused by anthropologists not agreeing with each other or with primatologists, as well as by the changes in the past few decades of primate taxonomy), perhaps the category (or categories) should use less formal terms ("prehistoric apes", "archeological findings", etc. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should note that many of these articles about near-ancestors of humans are written from the anthropological POV WRT the word "hominid", while the primatological POV would be to use words other than "hominid" to be more precise. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proconsul (genus) wasn't categorized so I added it to category:prehistoric mammals and to category:primates. This is a possible solution for Aegyptopithecus. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be reasonable to collapse some of the synonym stubs into a smaller number of articles, and turn the stubs into the appropriate redirects. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we do with Aegyptopithecus it won't be listed as a hominid—I moved it to prehistoric mammals as well. The articles in Cat:Primate are all families or sub-orders so I don't know about listing individual species in it. Marskell 18:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd suggested an "Individual primate fossils" sub-cat. Peking, Java, Mungo man etc. can be listed there. I don't know if we should collapse these—they have a good claim to be included distinct from their species. Marskell 10:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

possible actions[edit]

  1. Rename the category to "archeological findings" or something similar. All of these articles are about fossils, and generally found during excavations, intentional searches. However, the category would then be a subcategory of "archaeology". This is a possibility but doesn't solve the primatological category scheme problem.
  2. Rename the category to "prehistoric apes" and add subcategory "human ancestral relatives" or some such to indicate that some of these may be humanity's ancestors, while others are just very close relatives of the ancestral line. This subcategory would contain anything after the Pan/Homo split. Also add a super-category "prehistoric primates". Both Oreopithecus and Proconsul would be in both "prehistoric apes" and "prehistoric primates" because it is unknown if they were apes or not, while Aegyptopithecus would only be in "prehistoric primates" as it is indicated to represent the form before the ape and OW monkey split.
  3. Similarly, have "prehistoric primates", "prehistoric hominoids", "prehistoric hominids", "prehistoric hominines", and "prehistoric hominins". Oreopithecus would be in the prehistoric primates and hominids, while Proconsul would be in primates and hominoids.
  1. I think no here as if people notice it will get loaded with everything from Pterodyctal (sp?!) to King Tut. Archeological primates? "Prehistoric" seems better.
  2. Seems best. Primate category will have Apes (extant), Prehistoric Apes (extinct), Monkeys (extant) and perhaps for symmetry's sake Prehistoric Monkeys (extinct). We could place the 2nd and 4th in a super-category as you suggest or perhaps have an "Unranked Primates" category to deal with Aegyptopithecus (and anything else that comes along).
  3. The most correct but the least user friendly as people will have a hard time differentiating between categories. Marskell 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Option two would look something like this: 

                prehistoric mammals
                       |
                       V
           /--> prehistoric primates -----+--------------+--\ 
           |                              |              |  |
           |                              V              |  |
primates --+--> prosimians ----> prehistoric prosimians  |  |
           |                                             |  |
           +--> monkeys -------> prehistoric monkeys <---/  |
           |     |   |                                      |
           |     V   V                                      |
           |    OW  NW                                      |
           |                                                |
           \--> apes -----------> prehistoric apes <--------/

Maybe "prehistoric apes and human ancestors"? I'm looking for a category name that fully describes what's in there. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Extict Apes." It's simple, the only problem I see is laymen not expecting humans to be apes.--Dustin Asby 07:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After reading more, like I should have in the first place, I agree with both of you on option two. I wasn't thinking about prehistoric extant monkeys. Option two with Marskell's titling will be the most correct and user friendly.--Dustin Asby 07:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of laymen (such as myself!) not expecting humans to be apes was thrashed out on the Hominid disambig.
So option two then. "Prehistoric apes and human ancestors" is just too long. Make the latter a sub-cat. So:
  • Primates
    • Apes
      • Prehistoric apes
        • Human ancestoral apes.
We need to make sure not to treat all species after the Pan-Homo speciation as a human ancestor. For example, the Paranthropus species (as far as I understand) are cousins of Habilis and not actually an ancestor. This sort of begs the question of whether we need another sub-cat for this sort of species. Marskell 09:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but discluding divergent species will get convoluted. Also, we cannot be certain that any pre-Homo isn't of a divergent line. And, what makes something an ancestor? Is your great-great-grandfather's sister your ancestor? What about her children? I would say so on both accounts, but where do you draw the line? Similarly, a species can be an ancestor without being involved in our make-up. I'm sure you would agree that an individual was an ancestor even if their genetic lineage was bottlenecked out, but it is the same as "cousin" species. Regardless of semantics, people will only navigate catagories for so long before they give up. So long as the arcticles involved mention diveregence people should understand.--Dustin Asby 21:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions do largely have answers, even if meant rhetorically. My great-great-grandfather's sister is a relative but NOT an ancestor. This example only goes so far (or at least should be qualified): you're substituting an intuitive individual relationship for relationships between species. A sister species to Homo Habilis is not an ancestor if it did not contribute to our genetic pool, but an individual member of the Habilis species is an ancestor even if they didn't happen to procreate and pass on their genes. Lucy is an ancestor (as far as we know) but we don't know if she had kids. We should not give up on differentiating between actual ancestors and mere relatives just because it is difficult. Homo habilis is, as far as we know, an ancestor and should be differentiated in our categories from the Paranthropus species. Marskell 22:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to distinguish species after the Pan/Homo speciation from the prehistoric apes before that. "Human ancestral apes" can technically include species before the Pan/Homo split (eg. Proconsul when it is considereed an ape) which can be considered on the ancestral line back to the original ape/OW monkey split. "Human ancestors and close reltations" could include everything from Sahelanthropus through Homo, but is stil a bit wordy. Is there any good word for the species in the Pan/Homo split? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion?[edit]

I've gone ahead and updated the project page. I've kept "Early hominids" for now to represent the post-Pan/Homo split, and noted that the category name is using the anthropological sense. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to reply before. So you've re-cat'ed all species before the split as Prehistoric apes and not early hominids? Good job. Re, "Is there any good word for the species in the Pan/Homo split?", what about "Human (related and?) ancestral hominins?" This takes it one step back to any potential discovery of species after the gorilla split but seems ok. If we use "related and..." we'd actually have to include the chimps, but this would solve the problem of diversions from the main road (to us of course!).
Beyond that, what else needs doing? Marskell 16:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using Mikko's (with interpretation to match the more recent nomenclature) as a reference for extinct species. There's nothing between Gorilla and the Pan/Homo split, so that's a moot point; anything hominoid extinct before the Pan/Homo split is a prehistoric ape, and anything after is an early hominid.

"Ancestral and related hominins" could work, or just re-catting to "Early hominins" or "Prehistoric hominins" to use the primatological sense may be better. And neither would have to include the chimps as it's worded for extinct species. But that's really just coming up with the name... articles have been properly sorted out that didn't belong, new categories erected for good use, and several new articles discovered in the process that have been categorized, including 2 articles (one old, one new) about prehistoric monkeys: Victoriapithecus macinnesi & Homunculus patagonicus! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Primates/category_rework&oldid=24739626"