Talk:Homo luzonensis

Callao Man

I don't think there is much more information on Callao Man, besides what is already up here. I think we need to wait for more research to surface from that area in the Philippines. JiMatthies (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What story in callao man in Mindanao? 209.35.161.233 (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I added another way that Callao Man could have gotten to the Philippines - over a land bridge. JiMatthies (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to cite correctly? The help page is vague, and my teacher doesn't know either. JiMatthies (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't they know if it was human or not?Jetulacka (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

They don;'t know if it was human or not because it is too old to be able to tell. The bone could have been homo sapien or homo floriensis. JiMatthies (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

good job on page :) Learned something new on your page. I didn't know what Callao Man was. Anpatton (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)anpatton

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Callao Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100804040818/http://www.gmanews.tv/story/197541/researchers-discover-fossil-of-human-older-than-tabon-man to http://www8.gmanews.tv/story/197541/researchers-discover-fossil-of-human-older-than-tabon-man

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Snow support to move. I also hist-merged Neutrality's original start prior to redirect just in case. --Masem (t) 21:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Masem (t) 21:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Callao Man → Homo luzonensis – see below EdwardLane (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC) should this be renamed based on this BBC Article pushing the name into the public domain ?also not sure if there if that link is useful as a reliable source? EdwardLane (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The name of the genus Homo is derived from the Latin word homo [hɔmoː], engl. man or human. The epithet luzonensis is reminiscent of the location of the type specimen in a cave on the Philippine island of Luzon. Homo luzonensis thus means "Luzon man" (and not Callao Man). Please move the name to either "Homo luzonensis" or "Luzon man". --Hemeier (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I support moving to the published scientific name. Before the recent study was published, only 1 bone was found so "Callao Man" is a good title as any. But now that more bones have been found and belonging to 3 individuals, the current title is now outdated. In addition, none of the news articles I've read use the current title but instead use the scientific name. —seav (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to Homo luzonensis - seems sensible in light of the formal description in the Nature article. Neutrality^talk 15:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Even though the scientific name is tentative, it is more well known than "Callao Man". TomS TDotO (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support the name that is commonly used in reliable sources (WP:COMMONNAME) is Homo luzonensis. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - scientific and more common name. -Zanhe (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. Close and move as not controversial.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Also, the foreign language equivalents of "Callao Man" should probably be omitted per MOS:FORLANG: the subject is international, though located in the Philippines. Also, note WP:REFERSTO. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

sapiens?

"The scientific description of the fossil in 2010 identified the fossil as belonging to H. sapiens. In 2011, fossil phalanges from the finger and toe, along with five fossil molars, were discovered and were also attributed to H. sapiens." really? stefjourdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.210.233.241 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homo luzonensis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Homo luzonensis are an extinct – This is a species name, and these are always singular. I also suggest to add the word "species" to this first sentence; otherwise the definition is not clear, and it remains diffuse what this article is actually talking about. "An extinct pygmy archaic human" is not enough – readers can rightly assume this is would be about a single individual of modern human. Or something like Homo faber, which is also not a species. By writing "is a species of", we would also be consistent with most other Wikipedia articles on species, including the article Homo sapiens.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• In 2010, French anthropologist Florent Détroit and Filipino archaeologist Armand Mijares and colleagues identified them as belonging to modern humans – the lead states they were identified as such in 2007.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• The teeth of H. luzonensis are small and mesiodistally (the length from the left to the right side of the tooth) shortened. – this explanation of "mesiodistally" would only be true for the incisors, not for the molars!

"between the two ends of the tooth"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• What about the size of the teeth? It is good to start with general remarks, but important facts need to be included also.

Basically the describers emphasized two main points: the remains had both basal and derived characteristics, and were quite small. Now that I'm thinking about it, I really shouldn't have said they had short stature as a science fact because it's also technically possibly they were regular sized but just had strangely small teeth and phalanges   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• The molars are smaller than those of the pygmy H. floresiensis – H. floresiensis was already introduced, why introducing it again as "the pygmy"? This can only irritate the reader.

removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• They are dorso-palmarly (vertically) – "vertically" is too easy, as this depends on the orientation of the hand; therefore it is completely ambiguous and doesn't help. Instead "from the palm to the back of the hand" as the direct translation?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Australopithecus limbs are generally interpreted as being adaptations for bipedalism and suspensory behavior, – this is a bit short. Suspensory behavior could be explained (e.g., swinging in trees), and the respective evidence (curved finger bones) also, especially since this feature was already mentioned.

Added "potentially suspensory behavior in the trees". The only thing the source says about locomotion is "The morphologies of the hands and feet of Australopithecus, which are generally described as an intermediate between the morphologies of great apes and modern humans, are typically interpreted either as indicating adaptations to various degrees of bipedalism and climbing and/or suspension36 or as reflecting the retention of plesiomorphic features in obligatory bipeds35,37. However, the partial and fragmentary nature of the H. luzonensis postcranial elements presently limits further interpretation of its locomotor and manipulative abilities" I don't know what else I would add beyond what I've already put down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Body size estimation is missing (there are numbers in the Nature News source).

I don't see any numbers (I don't really understand how they'd get height or weight approximations considering all we have are some teeth and phalanges)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

My bad, I meant this news article. I agree that the assumption is vague, but at least it gives some idea. Readers of this article may not have any idea at all what size to expect and may assume something much smaller, so at least a vague assumption like "within the size range of small Homo sapiens" is definitely helpful. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would add that the fossils are stored at the National Museum of the Philippines.

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I see that this might be self-explanatory, but I would still offer a etymology of the genus and second part of the species name.

added species etymology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Short article, but if a few things (see above) are added, it seems to cover all important points. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Species articles written in singular form

This article is about a single species and therefore should be written in the singular form, not the plural. See Homo sapiens, Australopithecus afarensis, and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) for other hominin examples. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean there's no real prescribed policy on using singular vs plural (just that you stay consistent within the article), but if we're trying to set a precedent for archaic humans, Neanderthal, which just got to GA yesterday, uses plural   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've continued the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology#Species articles written in singular form. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)