|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peking Man article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The content of Sinanthropus was merged into Peking Man. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
- 1 Modern man
- 2 H.erectus yuanmouensis
- 3 Dragon bones cave
- 4 merge Sinanthropus here discussion
- 5 factoid
- 6 "Creationists"?
- 7 Lubenow
- 8 Weird recent edit
- 9 Mgiganteus v. IP
- 10 peking man
- 11 Homo Erectus Pekinensis evolved into the modern Han Chinese rather than from Homo Sapiens Sapiens
I read somewhere that Peking Man was actually a type of ape unrelated to humans. The book says that when Peking Man was found, the scientists thought it was a missing link between apes and men because it was discovered with various tools and bones. But according to the book, it turned out that Peking Man was hunted down by a modern human, and the tools were used on them, not by them. Could someone link this to the article? Charizardmewtwo (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Peking Man > Homo erectus yuanmouensis
--Shizhao 00:26, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Dragon bones cave
merge Sinanthropus here discussion
According to historian Tore Frängsmyr's book "Pekingmänniskan. En historia utan slut" ["Peking man. A never-ending history"] (Stockholm, 2006), Zdansky found one tooth on-site in 1921, recognized them as anthropoic, and took them with him along with the other stuff he'd excavated (which was in accordance with the agreement he had with Andersson, that he'd retain the right to work on what he'd excavated). Somtime between 1923-1926, working on the material he'd brought with him back to Uppsala, he discovered a second tooth. His findings, which did not include daring conclusions about what sort of human the teeth had belonged to, were published in 1926. Birger Bohlin was offered to head further excavations of the cave after the Rockefeller foundation had donated money for such work, and after Zdnasky had decline to take the job. In October 1927, Bohlin discovered a tooth from a hominid, and brought it with him to Davidson Black in Beijing, and Black concluded based on this tooth and Zdansky's two teeth that there really was a "Peking Man".
Being inexperienced in writing for Wikipedia, I didn't want to start messing with the text in the article, but I still wanted to offer these little factoids in the hope that they might be of use.
- It is not the last paragraph of the article, but the last paragraph of the lead. However, as to why the mention is there, it was inserted by an anonymous editor operating on IP address 126.96.36.199. It is open to debate whether it is notable enough to include: do you wish to argue for removal? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I will argue for removal and remove it. anon user 188.8.131.52 didn't just add that but in fact they cut and pasted and entire set of the current lead dealing with the specific skulls from another website. in fact if you google it you can see it here and if you go to archive.org it well predates the inclusion on wikipedia meaning it is the source of the wikipedia text and not visa versa
Article states: "... in recent years the view of Lubenow that they were humans has been gaining ground."
Who is Lubenow?
Weird recent edit
There is a weird recent edit calling for citations on the lead section note that additional Peking man material has been found since the pre war finds. In fact that is entirely supported by the subsequent section " Subsequent Research"User9933 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Mgiganteus v. IP
- Sigh. This has been going on for almost two years now. See Tim Vickers's comments here. mgiganteus1 (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey why didn't anyone put top of the skull found. As it shown in a BBC documentary, this anthropologist was aloud to look inside the collections and the chinese paleontologists showed her an actual remaining fossil of peking man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastronomer (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia would prefer a site more immediate than a documentary. Kortoso (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Homo Erectus Pekinensis evolved into the modern Han Chinese rather than from Homo Sapiens Sapiens
5.) Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.
6.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer
7.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals Global Patterns of Human DNA Sequence Variation in a 10-kb Region on Chromosome 1 by Ning Yu, Z. Zhao, Y.-X. Fu, N. Sambuughin, M. Ramsay, T. Jenkins, E. Leskinen, L. Patthy, L. B. Jorde, T. Kuromori and W.-H. Li
8.) BMC Biology Journal of Biology "Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations" by Shi H, Zhong H, Peng Y, Dong YL, Qi XB, Zhang F, Liu LF, Tan SJ, Ma RZ, Xiao CJ, Wells RS, Jin L, Su B.
10.) The Homo Sapiens Cave hominin site of Mulan Mountain, Jiangzhou District, Chongzuo, Guangxi, China with emphasis on its old age predating the arrival of African Homo Sapiens Sapiens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)