A lot of these short specimen articles were created by a user almost 15 years ago (see merge discussion from 2006[1]), there are no specific rules for when to separate a specimen article, but in this case (and most cases), it is mainly duplicate info in a short article, so I have added a merge tag to the article. What needs to be said about the specimen which cant just be said here is what we need to ask ourselves. I remember the holotype and only known specimen of Darwinius was also split off at some point, which is utterly pointless because until more specimens are found, that one specimen is Darwinius. In the current case, there are at least more specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Mary had discovered the skull, OH 5 (the holotype), and Louis described it on August 15." Would probably make more chronological sense to write something like "Mary discovered a skull, OH 5, which Louis made the holotype of (insert original name) in his description published on August 15."
Info on the naming should come right after its description is mentioned. Now you have the following text, which is confusing "Because the skull was associated with the tools and processed animal bones, they presumed OH 5 was the toolmaker. Attribution of the tools was promptly switched to the bigger-brained H. habilis upon its description in 1964. OH 5 was clearly not in the genus Homo, and so was classified as an australopithecine." It would be best to get the naming out of the way, and then go on to other things.
"the first specimen with associated skull and jawbone" This is confusing, I thought it meant a skeleton with associated skull, but the text later states postcranial elements were only found later. Say the first skull with an associated jawbone if that's what you mean.
You do a good job of attributing claims and studies in the taxonomy section, but then this is completely given up under classification. But who suggested the various theories on classification and when, and who are the proponents today? You state a lot of extraordinary, probably controversial stuff as facts, though we need to know who has proposed it.
There are a lot of studies who bring in this taxon (even briefly) and some use A. boisei and others P. boisei, and some P. boisei s. l. and others P. aethiopicus and some just say KNM WT 17000 because they don't have any opinions on the taxonomy. Should I dig up every single one since 1959 and list every author? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk16:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So do you want something like "According to Bernard Wood, it is debated if Paranthropus is a valid natural grouping"? By stating specific people, it implies that other people believe there is no debate, or by saying this like "According to Bernard Wood, the species belongs in Paranthropus" this would imply that this was his idea, or "According to Bernard Wood, Paranthropus is a valid natural grouping" would imply that Wood is the overarching advocate for this classification User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk19:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is more about who first suggested each scenario. For example, "X first proposed in year Y that P. was an unnatural goruping. This was latercontested by Z, but supported by Å". Or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paranthropus = Australopithecus was first suggested in 1948 by Robinson, when Paranthropus was monotypic, because there were too many species and genera being defined with meager justification. Usage of P. robustus or A. robustus became quite unstandardized, and then we have boisei entering the field and it's debated (as discussed in Research history) if Zinjanthropus boisei (now no longer widely used) should go to Paranthropus boisei, and if P. boisei = P. robustus (abandoned in 1967) or if P. boisei = A. boisei or A. (Z.) boisei. Wood is trying to give a summary of the literature and describe where P. boisei taxonomy stands in current academia. As for the cladogram, A. africanus was assumed to have been the LCA between Homo and Paranthropus since it was the only Australopithecus species well-defined for some time, until the formal description of A. afarensis in 1978 when the describers proposed that A. afarensis was the LCA between Homo and Paranthropus and A. africanus was ancestral to one or all Paranthropus. A. afarensis' position as the LCA is debated, as the taxonomy of australopithecines has poor resolution. Should I add this in? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk22:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"P. boisei seems to have resided predominantly in wet, wooded environments, such as wetlands along lakes and rivers, wooded or arid shrublands, and semiarid woodlands" Based on what evidence? If because the fossils are found in what corresponds to such areas, it only shows their bodies ended up there after death.
I've put the cladograms in {{clade gallery}} which allows horizontal or vertical arrangements. The box borders can be changed if there is a format you'd prefer. An alternative is to use one cladogram like this:
One possible problem is display in Safari on Apple devices. Alone among the major browsers, it renders HTML tables (and thus {{clade}} cladograms) differently. I haven't been able to check cladograms mixing {{clade}} and {{cladeR}} in this way. Someone should check it. An alternative is to put the reverse cladogram in a seperate cladogram rather than embedded in the |grouplabel= paarameter. — Jts1882 | talk06:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I use Safari, and the cladogram posted here would look confusing to someone who doesn't know how you're supposed to look at it. With clade galler, it requires 3 cladograms, and since there're only 2, the footer will jut out or in awkwardly depending on the screen size no matter how you scale it (like, for Jts the one on the article probably look fine, but for my screen the footer juts out a lot), so I just put in a 3rd cladogram. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk14:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid Safari would look weird. Would it be possible to upload a screengrab the File section. It would be useful for documenting the features and deciding what to advise against using.
An alternative which might look better in Safari would be like the following, although I'm guessing what the Safari problem is, so I'm not sure if this will be different or the same.
Looks good, it's not like we're saving up on white space anyway. "(note, they are not absolute)" sounds a bit superfluous though, as the fact that there are three should make it clear. How about saying instead something like "based on Benson et al (1), Jonhson et al (2), and Chimpson et al (3)"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative is a general caption, with each clsadogram having an individual header or footer with the authors. There is a diagram showing the options in the {{clade gallery}} documentation. — Jts1882 | talk14:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd cladogram you put here looks the same as the first but missing the frame. I put the refs in the captions for each cladogram, so we should be good on attribution. The note is clarify that there are more than just 3 proposed family trees in existence, otherwise someone might get confused that this is a complete list User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk17:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It was also once thought P. boisei cracked open nuts and similar hard foods with its powerful teeth, giving OH 5 the nickname "Nutcracker Man"." Who said this and when? It is jarring because another claim right before is attributed to a writer.
"because of this, the predominant model of Paranthropus extinction for the latter half of the 20th century was that it was unable to adapt to the volatile climate of the Pleistocene, unlike the much more adaptable Homo." Proposed by who and when?
"Carbon isotope analysis reports a diet of predominantly C4 plants" When and by who? Look for more such cases without attribution and date throughout, since you'd want to be consistent.
"OH 80 was found associated with a mass of Oldowan stone tools and animal bones bearing evidence of butchery. This could potentially indicate P. boisei was manufacturing the Oldowan tradition and ate meat to some degree.[9]" THe article is very unclear whether this is accepted today. I the section after, it is implied that it is unlikely it was the toolmaker.
It is pretty hard to figure out from the article whether it is thought to have been mainly terrestrial or arboreal, or if this is not known.
that's because there are no solid opinions on P. boisei's locomotory behaviors, especially because postcranial remains are so poorly known, and because its taxonomic affinities to better known taxa are debated, and australopithecine locomotory behaviors may have been highly variable User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk16:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "This could either indicate that P. boisei used a combination of terrestrial walking as well as suspensory behaviour, or was completely bipedal but retained an ape-like upper body condition from some ancestor species due to a lack of selection to lose them." User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk19:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"However, they still retained Zinjanthropus and recommended demoting it to subgenus level as Australopithecus (Zinjanthropus) boisei, considering Paranthropus to be synonymous with Australopithecus." So how and when did conensus emerge that it would be placed in Paranthropus?
It would be nice to show a skull with a jaw attached under diet, for example:[2] That specimen doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article either. Also good to show it from the front because you only show the skull form the side otherwise.
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paranthropus_y_Australopithecus.jpg){kind=link}