Talk:Ape: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Kim van der Linde (→Tree?) |
imported>Lee R. Berger No edit summary |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
[[User:Kim van der Linde|Kim van der Linde]] 13:32, 11 September 2007 (CDT) | [[User:Kim van der Linde|Kim van der Linde]] 13:32, 11 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Its a bit old - on my web page [[http://www.profleeberger.com/]] under "essays" I review the whole hominin - hominid thing - its where I developed the article from. Goodman was really pre-DNA in some respects and thus maybe you are right and an encyclopedic article should reflect both the earlier and maybe "conventional" opinions and the latest research. Your opinion? P.S. Keep going! | |||
[[User:Lee R. Berger|Lee R. Berger]] 13:53, 11 September 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 12:53, 11 September 2007
Tree?
Hominoidea |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Userboxbottom Is this a usefull tree? Kim van der Linde 12:40, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
Very much so - could you look at hominin, Hominid and Primate for suggestions on placing this appropriatly? I've tried to cover the debate adequatly but this is a big job!
Many thanks again!
Lee
- I think the discussion would be best suited in this article, and not in the others (hominin, Hominid). It is not an issue to refer to this article from those. I do not think we have to cover each detail of the debate, but the general lines. It seems that you have a slightly different tree in mind with Pan and Gorilla in a single clade, but Goodman et al seems to favor the one that I included. Is goodman generally accepted?
M. Goodman, D. A. Tagle, D. H. Fitch, W. Bailey, J. Czelusniak, B. F. Koop, P. Benson, J. L. Slightom (1990). "Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of hominoids". Journal of Molecular Evolution 30: 260–266.
Kim van der Linde 13:32, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
- Its a bit old - on my web page [[1]] under "essays" I review the whole hominin - hominid thing - its where I developed the article from. Goodman was really pre-DNA in some respects and thus maybe you are right and an encyclopedic article should reflect both the earlier and maybe "conventional" opinions and the latest research. Your opinion? P.S. Keep going!
Lee R. Berger 13:53, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
Categories:
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Anthropology Developing Articles
- Anthropology Nonstub Articles
- Anthropology Internal Articles
- Biology Developing Articles
- Biology Nonstub Articles
- Biology Internal Articles
- Anthropology Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Biology Underlinked Articles