Talk:Homo gautengensis

Synonymous?

this article needs to be edited:

phillip tobias was not involved in the research Curnoe is the sole author and so it is only his opinion there is no postcranial material so they cannot give a height the paper illogically lists a holotype, and.... 17 paratypes.. the fact is that another species would have precedence since sk 847 was named Telanthropus capensis.. so even if the author was correct about a new species it would be Homo capensis and thus a nomen dubium. the author didnt compare his fossil to the very sample he removed it from - A. africanus

this article should be critically reviewed by an expert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossildog (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think SK 15 is the Telanthropus capensis holotype, but your point still holds. Compounding the issue is that Homo capensis Broom 1918 is already an existing name (a junior subjective synonym of Homo sapiens). 208.79.94.252 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Also, it would make Homo gautengensis a junior synonym, not a nomen dubium. 66.215.21.7 (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Looking into it further, according to ICZN rules, if Curnoe's type series does represent a distinct species of Homo, then it could not be referred to as Homo capensis Robinson 1949 because that is a junior homonym of Homo capensis Broom 1918. The earliest (and only) available name for the species would, I think, be Homo gautengensis Curnoe 2010. If, however, this species is placed in its own genus, then it would have to be called Telanthropus capensis. (And, if moved to another genus, e.g., Australopithecus, it could be called "Australopithecus capensis".) 208.79.94.252 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Premature?

The paper is still listed as being "in print". It's online early, but not in print form yet. Should this entry be up yet? 208.79.94.252 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Weight estimate

3 feet/one meter and 110 pounds/50 Kg [both estimates, it is appreciated]; that gives the same proportions as 6 foot (6 inches) [or 2 mwtres] and 880 pounds - about 400 Kg - as weight is proportional to volume and to the cube of height. It may be worth querying this estimate of weight from the paper's originating authors, as it appears to be rather too high for the quoted height . Autochthony wrote at 2230z 22 December 2010. 81.155.133.144 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 50lbs/23kg sounds much more reasonable than 110lbs/50kg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.55.192 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

So what makes gautengensis special?

I am so confused by the description of H. gautengensis. Since it didn't have an especially big brain, what sets it apart from an austrolopithecus? I mean why not just call it an austrolopithecus gautengensis? I personally usually take increase in cranial capacity as the crossing point between austrolopithecus and homo. I mean the description of reclassifying some fossils previously identified as erectus and habilis, and then saying its characteristics are basically those of an austrolopithecus is not very helpful. I don't have access to any papers on it, can someone who has access to them clarify this? Qed (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Synonymy

According to Anton & Middleton (2023), fossils attributed to this species, including the holotype cranium, do not represent a novel species and are attributable to several taxa, some not within the genus Homo. I've updated the article to include Anton & Middleton's study, but am questioning if this article should even exist because it is potentially misleading. Instead, I propose that the contents of this article should be moved to the corresponding species and Stw 53 should get it's own article. If this is reasonable, I would be willing to make the necessary changes. Clumsystiggy (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)