This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates 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.
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.
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.
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). 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, it would make Homo gautengensis a junior synonym, not a nomen dubium. 18.104.22.168 (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".) 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
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. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
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)