Talk:Afrasia djijidae

fossil evidence for its existence in Libya and Burma may be a very weak form of argument that human ancestors could have evolved outside of Africa, rather than in the Great Rift Valley of western Africa.

Rather than? The Great Rift Valley is the area of origin of modern hominans, but that's something that happened in a time about 5 million years ago. Afrasia is from 37 million years ago. Is there any source that suggests that the Great Rift Valley was hitherto believed to be the main or sole distribution area of the ancestors of Homo in the Eocene? --::Slomox:: >< 08:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like someone's confusing the Africa vs. Asia simian origins debate with both the divergence between humans and chimpanzees as well as the controversy surrounding the human dispersal "out of Africa". – Maky ^« talk » 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes. The debate is over whether anthropoids evolved in Africa or Asia; that hominins like Australopithecus evolved in Africa much later is hardly if at all controversial now. (And besides that, the Rift Valley is in eastern, not western, Africa.) Ucucha (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Alright... thanks to Ucucha and Dr. Beard, who both sent me a copy of the journal article, I have completely re-written the article to clarify the issues. I haven't proofread my work, and although I'll try, I'm probably too tired to catch everything. Anyway, this should cover just about everything... except a review of the detailed dental morphology. If that gets added (and written well), the article could be submitted to WP:GAN. Otherwise I'm going to hold off a day or two on the WP:DYK nomination to see if the press picks up on this, in which case I'll nominate for WP:ITN. But since we're only talking about four isolated teeth, and not something as pleasing as a fully articulated skeleton, our sensationalist media may give it a pass. What a shame... – Maky ^« talk » 06:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it's looking like this hit the press a few days ago (and mostly bounced off). Oh well... Anyway, I'll try to nominated it on DYK when I wake up tomorrow. If anyone wants to make contributions about dental morphology, I'll include them in the DYK nom credits. – Maky ^« talk » 07:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Maky, I think this is ready for GAN, and probably FAC, now. I'll fill in some red links. It's a pity the authors don't at all discuss ecology; I'd assume Afrasia was a small insectivore like living tarsiers. Ucucha (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the excellent additions and fixes! Yes, I think it's ready for GAN, and once I'm a bit more rested tonight, I will submit it to both GAN and DYK. – Maky ^« talk » 23:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

Reviewer: Keilana (talk · contribs) 16:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nice job on this article. I'll do some copyedits - just a few minor things - but anything major I will leave down here.

Thank you very much for the review! I will try to have things patched up in the next couple of days. – Maky ^« talk » 02:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks for the comments! I've replied to some of your concerns below. Ucucha (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• The references and taxobox look good.
• You write that it is either 94 or 108 grams, can you clarify that they are either 2 separate estimates or a range of estimates?
  • It's two separate estimates, but I can't think of a good way to phrase that succinctly. Perhaps we should just say "around 100 g". Ucucha (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes, it's two estimates, per the source: "estimated body weight of 108 g on the basis of M2 length and 94 g on the basis of M1 area". Maybe Ucucha is right... an estimate may be better. Alternatively, we could treat it as a range. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you want to keep it brief in the lead, I'd personally go with "around 100 g", and then go into greater detail in the later paragraphs. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 14:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• When you say "if these affinities", do you mean "if this assumption/hypothesis/theory"?
  • I think just "this" works here. Ucucha (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm still confused about what this means. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Changed to "If this relationship is correct"... Not sure how else to clarify unless you can explain what you're not following. – Maky ^« talk » 14:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that makes so much more sense. <feels dumb> Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

• What is a stem simian?
  • They are simians from the stem group, and both of those terms are explained. Maky, what do you think?
    • Not only is this tough to define within paleoanthropology (since there's not much agreement), it would be very hard to gloss. As Ucucha points out, both "stem" and "simian" are already glossed and/or linked in the preceding sentences. It's not even like they are spread out across multiple paragraphs or sections. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • Oops, missed that. If it's that hard to define, then I'm good with just leaving the wikilinks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
• I think you glossed anthracotheres, can you gloss hystricognathus rodents also? I'm not a primate biologist, sorry!
  • They're rodents (not primates) in a particular group known as the hystricognaths. I don't think there's much to clarify here—it's not relevant to this article to explain more about hystricognaths. Ucucha (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes, this is where a link should be sufficient, I think. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • The reason I brought this up was that you explained one but not the other, would you both be okay with either explaining both or just linking both? I think either would help readability. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • I removed the glossed info for anthracotheres. It's just not possible to gloss hystricognaths, but I figured that at least one was explained while the other was paired with the word "rodents"... which is descriptive enough to give people a general idea. – Maky ^« talk » 14:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

If it's not possible then I can't ask you to do it! <grin> Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I didn't want to mess with the phrase for fear of giving an incorrect meaning, but "closely similar to those of Afrotarsius and Eosimiidae" is awkward and unclear.
  • I'm sorry, I don't see the problem here, and can't immediately think of a better wording. Ucucha (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Likewise, I don't see the difficulty. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • My problem was with the phrase "closely similar" specifically, now that I look at it again, I think either "close to those of Afrotarsius and Eosimiidae" or "similar to those of Afrotarsius and Eosimiidae" would work.
        • I went with the latter. Thanks for clarifying and offering a suggestion. – Maky ^« talk » 14:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

• The phrase "Afrasia is part of a diverse primate community" implies that it's still alive.
  • Fixed. Ucucha (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I know this may sound dumb, but what was the girl's name? Reader-me is totally curious about that.
  • I was curious about this too, but I think there is nothing else in the sources about this topic. Ucucha (talk)
    • Yes, I also wanted to know more, but the source simply doesn't say. Given that it's dedicated "in memory of" and not "in honor of", I suspect some privacy may be in order. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense, not an issue then. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• You already glossed simians in the lead, I think, so it's unnecessary here. Same goes for clades.
  • Removed for "simians", but I don't see where "clade" was glossed in this section. I do see where we try to clarify stem and crown clades. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That must have been what I noticed. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• However, glossing "affinities" and "crown" simians would be super helpful.
  • If "affinities" is too obscure, I'd prefer to swap it out for a more recognizable word—we don't need that particular term. I've glossed "crown", but am worried the explanation may be too technical. Those terms make sense when you think in terms of phylogenetic trees, but not much otherwise. Ucucha (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Affinities" has a different meaning, I think, for paleobiologists, what would you suggest as an alternative? The "crown simians" explanation is fine. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

We can say "relationship"... but I think the term affinities has a more subtle meaning. According to thefreedictionary.com, it means: "(Biology)—A relationship or resemblance in structure between species that suggests a common origin." In other words, the affinities suggest a close relationship and/or similarities in morphology (possibly due to convergent evolution). – Maky ^« talk » 14:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

If that's the more precise term then use that, no biggie. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I just noticed, while doing copyedits, that you use {{sfn}}. Did User:Br'er Rabbit get ahold of your articles too? Because he is awesome at references.
  • No, I've been using it for over 2 years now, and I believe I started when I re-wrote Lemur. It's a very useful referencing tool. But thanks. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I concur, it's most excellent. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I think an explanation of primitive and derived traits would be especially useful.
  • I've added "ancestral" in parentheses behind "primitive", but derived is harder to explain succinctly. Given what the word generally means in English, and given that these terms contrast each other, I think the general public should be able to get the picture for themselves. If not, there is a link. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK, if the definition doesn't differ too much it's fine. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Is "upper upper molars" a "department of redundancy department" thing or an actual scientific term?
  • It refers to the permanent dentition, as opposed to the milk dentition, which is located below the upper upper molars until it falls out. Or perhaps it's just a typo. Ucucha (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Lol! Yes, it was a typo. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Heh, looks good now. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Do you have an age on the younger deposits in Egypt?
  • I even put it in a comment, which is now actually in the text. Ucucha (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's what happens when I print articles out. Thanks! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I'm quite confused by the sentence that begins "Afrotarsiidae was recovered...". Could you clarify what that's all about?
  • I hope it's clearer now. Ucucha (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, I understand, looks good. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• When you write "at the time, both land masses would have been separated by the Tethys Sea", what time are you talking about? The 40-ish million years ago bit?
  • I believe so. Does it need clarification? Ucucha (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so - I assumed from the context that it was 40-ish million years ago, just wanted to make sure the right implication was there. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Could you clarify what "ascertain its true affinities" means in a scientific context?
  • Determine what it is related to—perhaps (it's unlikely) people will decide that it is a tarsier after all. We can't be sure. Ucucha (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I feel like you've wikilinked "dispersal" a whole bunch of times. Are they all necessary?
  • It was linked twice; I've removed the second link. Ucucha (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Are the "distinctive features" in the dentition you describe similarities to eosimiiforms/Afrotarsius, or features that distinguish A. djijidae from the other eosimiiforms? It's not quite clear in the text.
  • It's the latter; I've clarified. Ucucha (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Much better, thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• What does it mean for conules to be "stronger" or "weaker"?
  • More or less developed. Ucucha (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• On the whole, you've done a great job of glossing terms in this section. Not your fault there's a lot of redlinks not filled in. (No bearing on this GAN of course, but maybe consider writing some of those? I'm sure DYKs would be pretty easy to pick up there.)
  • It's actually fairly hard to write about those dental features, because information about them isn't as well compartmentalized as information about species. If you write about a species, especially a fossil, there is usually only a handful of papers that will supply almost all of the necessary information; for a dental feature, there will be lots of sources that mention the feature but few that actually discuss it in detail. I've written a couple of anatomical articles like interdigital webbing and posterolateral palatal pits, but it's hard to make them more informative than "this animal has them and this animal doesn't". Ucucha (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • I suspect that there is a good source, particularly "Mammal Teeth: Origin, Evolution, and Diversity". However, it's pricey and I may be moving out of the country soon, and I don't want another bulky book that I'll need to ship to myself. Not only that, but I'm not an expert on teeth, so I would need to learn the material first, before I start writing about it on Wiki. But otherwise, Ucucha is right—these are more general concepts (like "ecosystem" or "arboreal locomotion"), plus they are highly specialized, and therefore it is harder to find detailed information about them in a general context. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I totally understand, it'll be a massive project when someone chooses to take it on. It's funny - we've been at it for more than 11 years and there are still holes in our coverage. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I've done a quick copyedit, feel free to revert if I screwed something up. Otherwise it looks good - no issues with images or any of that. Between you and Ucucha, I'm learnin a lot about fossilized mammals! I've actually remembered to watchlist this one, so I'll check in and see where you're at when it pops up. Thanks for a great, educational article! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks! I'm glad you're finding this interesting and educational. – Maky ^« talk » 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it should be moved to the genus name, as it is monotypic. That's the naming convention used for most other articles about monospecific genera. FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The genus name is a disambig page, and Ucucha suggested the species name because there is only one species in the genus. He has used this approach before with some of his rodent FAs. Otherwise, I will try to address the remaining concerns in the next day or two... or when I get back in town this weekend. – Maky ^« talk » 19:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to pass this now, thanks for your great work and your patience with my poor understanding of biology! (Hopefully soon to be rectified, but that's another story entirely!) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Your review was very helpful. – Maky ^« talk » 12:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that the following be moved to Afrotarsius: an animal known from 38–39 million years old deposits in Libya (species Afrotarsius libycus)[8] and younger deposits in Egypt (A. chatrathi).[9] Afrotarsius was originally described as a tarsier, but later suggested to be related to primitive simians.[10] It is not about Afrasia djijidae and it is not directly related to what is written here about Afrasia djijidae. There are probably more passages that should be moved. Afrotarsius is mentioned 27 times. --Ettrig (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

If we are to give a comprehensive account of our knowledge of this animal, we'll have to place it in its context, and that means that Afrotarsius, currently considered the closest relative of Afrasia, will be mentioned a lot. Afrasia itself is mentioned more, as it should: 35 times. The article about Afrotarsius certainly needs expansion (I just wrote it as a quick stub), but that doesn't mean this article is not enhanced by giving some context. Ucucha (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I suspect that the above is meant as a counterargument. But there is no concrete content. It is of course good to provide a context. For a fact to be relevant it must in some way relate to the proper content of the article. The counterargument above does not in any way demonstrate such relevance. It is very difficult to demonstrate non-relevance. But look at this statement Afrotarsius was originally described as a tarsier. It reports a historic incorrect belief about another species. The article does not point out any relevance of this statement to "our" species. Since the belief itself is false it can be of no help in understanding "our" species. Since the belief does not relate the other species to "our" species, it is not about the history of science of "our" species. So therefore I think this statement is not relevant context in this article. --Ettrig (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

That statement you quote implies that there are some people in the field of paleoanthropology that might still favor tarsier affinities, not only for Afrotarsius, but also for Afrasia. Since the discovery is brand new and no one has had time to publish a counter argument, we need to put the debate into context. – Maky ^« talk » 00:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• In cases where the genus name is used elsewhere, the title would be Afrasia (genus) or similar, as in other palaeontology articles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

That is true. I'm not sure why this wasn't proposed or discussed. – Maky ^« talk » 17:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Seems the discussion was only open for two days, so there was little opportunity to chime in... FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afrasia djijidae. 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/20130308211417/http://www.carnegiemnh.org/assets/science/vp/Late%20middle%20Eocene%20epoch%20of%20Libya%20yields%20earliest%20known%20radiation%20of%20African%20anthropoids.pdf to http://www.carnegiemnh.org/assets/science/vp/Late%20middle%20Eocene%20epoch%20of%20Libya%20yields%20earliest%20known%20radiation%20of%20African%20anthropoids.pdf

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) 16:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply