Talk:Lucy (Australopithecus)

Explanation...?

"Johanson was able to recover Lucy's left innominate bone and sacrum. Though the sacrum was remarkably well preserved, the innominate was distorted like a carnivorous child/ baby , leading to two different reconstructions." I know virtually nothing about anthropology but this surprised me. Surely not? 217.136.43.131 (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

this was simply vandalism that somehow had survived. I've removed it now. I would encourage you to be bold and remove things you think are obviously wrong in future. You will help us all. GameKeeper (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Improve by November 24? Material for front page?

(copying and editing from Origin talk page) I was just scrolling through the "On this day..."s at the top of the page, and it's funny, and oddly appropriate, that Lucy was discovered on November 24, 1974, 115 years, to the date, after the publication of On the Origin of Species [1]. As some of you know, there has been a concerted effort by a number of editors to get the Origin page up to FA standards (which it recently passed [2]) in order to have it featured on the main page on November 24. Since we still have a little time before then, it might be interesting to try and find some things to help make November 24 a real double-whammy, with both the publication of the Origin and the 35th anniversary of Lucy included as front-page items; Origin as the featured article for the day, and something for Lucy, especially since this November 24 will be the 35th anniversary of her discovery. One idea is to look around to see if there is anything interesting, like a recent book, or article, that we could use as a "newsworthy" tie in. I know that Lucy was on tour for a while, but that was last year, so not exactly newsworthy for this November 24. Any ideas? Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

Your last edit to Lucy (Australopithecus) was misspelt and did not appear to add anything useful to the article. Please explain the point you're trying to make on the talk page, and present a draft proposal for agreement and correction rather than repeatedly inserting poor quality text. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My additional information regard taphonomy 76.16.176.166 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note a lot of text in *discovery* section before (some still remain) is verbatim quote but not marked such (") by previous editor/s. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your additional information remains unclear, and suffers from misspellings. I'm pretty sure he "piked it up" is wrong. As suggested, please present a draft on this talk page and we'll try to sort out what you're trying to convey. . dave souza, talk 22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

After yet another attempt by the IP to insert incoherent and misspelt material, I've added some info to emphasise the scatter of fossils on the slope which seemed to be part of the aim. Presenting a draft of the proposed taphonomy section on the talk page for discussion would allow the bugs to be resolved, putting out of sequence quotes in a citation doesn't work. . dave souza, talk 09:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edit seem to steer in direction that "Lucy" come from chronometrically controlled stratigraphic sequences. D Johhanson honestly wrote <ref> that the fossil surfaced due to water erosion. There seem to be point behind changing D Johanson words (the man who discovered 'Lucy') to "grammar" which works for your intelligence. History show you did it not the first time. Will you reveal what your intelligence dictating you ? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)