Talk:Anthropopithecus

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Primates Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Mammals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

@Kintaro: Feel free to revert but I believe Prehistory to be too general with one of the available subcategories being acceptable. I think that is borne out by the current contents of the various categories by way of example.PRehse (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! @PRehse: you say with one of the available subcategories being acceptable. Well, the opposite of what you say is exactly what I was trying to clearly demonstrate: because of all the above reasons, your suggested category IS NOT an acceptable subcategory. But if you do not share my views, then let's leave the categories as they are. Indeed, I will not revert your decision as long as you don't accept the validity of my strongest arguments. Cheers! Kintaro (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this article barely makes mention of the historical concept of Pithecanthropus, which to my count, has around (and probably over) 21 different taxonomic combinations and has enough history as a genus and/or subgenus to sustain it's own article, at least. Clumsystiggy (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]