Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there, I'll review this soon. I've recently been reading up on archaic humans, so I feel more up to the task now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• First off, I think a photo or illustration of fossil elements would be much better for the taxobox than an old reconstruction. See here for example, the actual holotype elements.[1] Reconstructions are prone to error, and are always mere hypotheses, so the actual bones are much more "citable", if you know what I mean. and especially these days, where our understanding of ancient humans has changed radically, I'm not even sure if the reconstruction matches modern opinions. But it could certainly be used in the article somewhere. The taxobox should show the most representative, and least controversial example of the subject.

• I agree with your reasoning. I added the picture of the three bones to the taxobox and will think of where I can reinsert the 1922 reconstruction, if at all. Madalibi (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 1922 reconstruction may be more notable than the stamp. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done. Madalibi (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• "After he failed to find the fossils he was looking for on Sumatra he moved on to Java in 1890." Needs citation.

• Done. Madalibi (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• There is very little description of the actual subspecies which is within the scope of this article. It seems that the scope is a bit unclear, most of the article is about the first fossils found, though it should actually cover everything that has been referred to the taxon Homo erectus erectus.

• This is a crucial point that I tried to raise on the talk page a few months ago, but the discussion never took off. See. Talk:Java Man#Scope of the article and Talk:Java Man#New article on a Javanese hominin fossil. Your comments suggest that you would like to see a broader page that discusses all specimens of Javanese Homo erectus, which would include Sangiran, Mojokerto, and Ngandong. If this is what we choose to do, then the article should also mention Homo floresiensis, which a few paleoanthropologists consider as a dwarf descendant of early Homo erectus. If we discuss Homo erectus erectus as a whole, we would even need more info on Peking Man. All this would mean a major rewriting, but if this is necessary then so be it. What do you think, FunkMonk? Madalibi (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think all Asian Homo erectus need discussion, only those specifically referred to H. e. erectus. Is that subspecies widely recognised? Is the name only applied to the first known fossil? FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I'm not completely certain of the scope of the species H. e. erectus, as that term is not widely used in the literature. On the other hand, paleoanthropologists often make a distinction between Homo erectus sensu stricto (= Asian Homo erectus) and Homo erectus sensu lato, which includes both Asian H. erectus and African H. ergaster, a species that share many of the characteristics of Asian H. erectus. But this article is titled “Java Man”, so we should probably leave this distinction to the Homo erectus article. Russell Ciochon and Frank Huffman's article on "Java Man" in the Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (2014) defines Java Man as “the informal name given to Pleistocene Homo erectus inhabitants of Java." This could be a good definition for us here, and it certainly justifies taking a broader view of this topic. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I'll proceed with this by reviewing what's already in the article, then we can talk about possible additions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll be looking forward to your comments! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question of scope is important, but in this case the group of Java Man fossils is notable independently of the collective group of early human fossils from Java. Although other related discoveries should be mentioned in the article, the scope of this article is really about the specific discovery. Another broader article could be made at some point, but it shouldn't detract from this article. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For example, there is no mention of the evidence that indicates these were using fire, as is mentioned in Control of fire by early humans. That is a pretty significant omission, for one.

• I just investigated this claim and found that the article cited in note 4 of Control of fire by early humans actually said that the "charred wood" that was found in the fossil-bearing layers of Trinil may have been the result of natural fires, as Central Java is a volcanically active region. This observation still deserves to be mentioned, probably in a new section on the material culture of Javanese H. erectus. Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section on Control of fire, linked to the relevant articles and provided 2 new citations on the subject. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• There is too little info in the Characteristics section, and the source is a bit weak. I'm sure some more authoritative and detailed articles can be found to flesh this out.

• I agree. I didn't touch this section when I rewrote the article. One of its weaknesses is that it implies that all Homo erectus were about the same size, which is clearly not true. Let me find better sources... Madalibi (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a significantly length of time and I have found no further information other than the one source. Attempts to find the sources used by Brittanica have been unsuccessful, as well as searching for various combinations of "Java Man", "Homo erectus erectus" and words like physical characteristics, appearance, size, etc. Nothing has appeared beyond what is already present here that is specifically about Java Man. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been able to double this section since funkmonk made this statement. There are no "authoritative" sources on that issue, I'm afraid. Homo erectus were a rare species and most of the general knowledge about it's hunter gatherer life style is not secured by evidence but only speculation ("probable") and the scientists are currently working on supporting it by reliable evidence.--^Melody _Lavender 08:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done the section is quite substantial by now.--^Melody _Lavender 20:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The literature could be more well used, see for example all these papers published just since 2010: http://scholar.google.dk/scholar?q=%22java+man%22+erectus&btnG=&hl=da&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2010 Not all are relevant, of course, but some seems like it could flesh this article out considerably. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the references. I will need a few days (because I'm busy in real life) to skim through these sources and think of how to integrate them into the article. Madalibi (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at some of the articles and abstracts in that link, and while some of the look like they might have more good content, I don't have access to any of those journals. At this point I could only make further contributions with freely available sources. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I went through these references and found about three or four that I could use. Many of them are primary sources for specific theories but there in some instances there was an abstract or some more general part that could be used. I went through theses sources until page 5 when they became very thin.--^Melody _Lavender 20:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the stuff under background really need a separate section? Would logically fit as the beginning fo the discovery section, it is a rather small paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed and done. Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• Perhaps right align the images under discovery, so they do not clash with the following heading?

• I moved the double image up by one paragraph. If it still interferes with the subtitle (probably on a very large screen), let me know and I will right-align it as you request! Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be clashing again. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• Pithecanthropus erectus is listed as a synonym here, but it would rather be a synonym of the wider Homo erectus itself.

• I think the synonym is sound. Until Ernst Mayr coined the term Homo erectus to refer to Asian fossils from Java and China (thus putting Pithecanthropus erectus into retirement), the Chinese finds had consistently been called Sinanthropus pekinensis. This suggests that P. erectus, when it was used, consistently referred to Javanese Homo erectus, even if these fossils turned out to belong to the same species as Zhoukoudian's Peking Man. Madalibi (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is taxonomically incorrect. Yes, the name was based on these specific specimens, but the fossils are not a taxon, so the name cannot be a synonym of the specimen. Pithecanthropus erectus‎ is a binomial. The species erectus is now classified as Homo erectus. Therefore the genus name Pithecanthropus becomes a synonym of Homo, and P. erectus‎ becomes a synonym of H. erectus. It cannot be a synonym of "Java Man", because Java man is at best a subspecies of Homo erectus, H. e. erectus. A species cannot be a synonym of a subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point. Putting aside the issue of synonymy for now, I think the term H. erectus erectus is very misleading. The Trinil remains are the holotypes of Homo erectus as a whole, not only H. e. erectus. Almost all the sources I have read so far refer to H. erectus, not to the subspecies H. e. erectus. If we decide that the article is about Javanese hominins that are today classified as H. erectus (Dubois's Trinil finds (0.7-1.0 Ma), most of the Sangiran fossils (mostly 1.1-1.3 Ma, with a few older specimens dating to about 1.6 Ma), the Mojokerto child (ca. 1.43 Ma), and the remains of Solo Man (Middle to Upper Pleistocene), then we need to lose the H. e. erectus taxon altogether, because it is much narrower, and not widely used in reliable sources. P. erectus can then perhaps become an acceptable synonym for Javanese H. erectus in the taxobox. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the synonyms from this article. They are already listed as synonyms in the main Homo erectus article, and the argument for them not being synonyms for Java Man is sound. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• "using a term that Ernst Haeckel had coined a few years earlier" What term? The genus name? Could perhaps be elaborated a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• "A second, more complete specimen was later discovered in Sangiran, Central Java, 18 km to the north of Solo." When? Is this Solo man? Should be linked then.

• This is not Solo Man, just more H. erectus remains (mostly cranial) found at the Sangiran Dome, which also happens to be on the Solo River, just like Ngandong, the site where Solo Man (H. erectus from the Middle Plesitocene) was found from 1931 to 1933. I will explain this discovery in more detail the next time I edit the article (Monday at latest).

I have reorganized this section and added some more sourced content to make this more clear. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• "that they should both belong to the same group." What is meant by "group"? Taxon?

• Clarified: this group was the Hominidae family. I also explained Dubois's response in more detail. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• "and attempted to name it Pithecanthropus modjokertensis" What bis meant by "attempted"? Either he named it, or he didn't. If he changed it later, she still named it.

• Clarified. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• Why are the names of the various fossil "men" sometimes in quotes and sometimes not?

 Done

• "on his suggestion that Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus interbred" How? Did he suggest they were the same taxon, or different taxa which interbred, or only able to interbreed? Based on what?

• Explained more clearly on the basis of the source cited. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• "reclassified them both as being part of the same species: Homo erectus" Need to stress that it was moved to a new genus, Homo, the same as modenr humans, and that the two genus name therefore became junior synonyms. Also that Duboi's species name was retained in the new binomial. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a more detailed explanation. Let me know if you find it clear enough. Madalibi (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded this a bit too, hopefully the change makes the idea more accessible. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• Why not use a photo of a gibbon that stand on two legs, if that is the important part of the photo?

 Done--^Melody _Lavender 19:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The terms Trinil 1 and Trinil 2 should probably be mentioned earlier, and I think that article would actually be better off merged into here.

 Done --^Melody _Lavender 12:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We discussed it a bit earlier, but at the very minimu, this article should at least state that the Java population of Homo erectus has been proposed to be a distinct subspecies, and attribute the idea to whoever made it. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is addressed in the current version of Java_Man#Reclassification_as_Homo_erectus, it covers the idea that Mayr reclassified everything as Homo erectus, with Java Man being a subspecies. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done

• "Some critics claimed that the bones were those of a walking ape" Upright walking, surely?

 Done

• "Others said they belonged to a primitive human." Attribution for all claims, please. Also goes for the sentence above.

 Done

• "Trinil bones looked like those of a "giant gibbon"" Why is this bold? it shouldn't be.

 Done--^Melody _Lavender 19:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was in fact an ingenious argument to support it." Ingenious is loaded, and I'd attribute this to Gould. Again, attribution wherever you can, much of it is opinion of individuals.

 Done

• "Under Homo, he included not only Sinanthropus and Pithecanthropus" This could be reworded, "under Homo" could read as if they were subtaxa, whereas they were instead made invalid junior synonyms. Synonymised is the right word.

Rewrote sentence, linked to Synonym (taxonomy). --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• "And his thighbones show that he walked erect like modern humans." Why is Java Man referred to as "he" under the description section? Also, as before, this section is very inadequate, could be much more detailed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pronoun here is appropriate, the voice of the writing changes so it is talking about Java Man as an individual, I think the masculine pronoun would be appropriate here. This section does need improving tho. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done

• I'm concerned that the extensive quotes under references could be considered a copyright violation. In any case, they are not needed, as long as the correct pages are cited. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

These footnotes (currently No. 29 and 35) deal with the exact relationship of the fossils to gibbons, which seems an important issue, but it would look out of place in the text. None of the direct quotes is longer than 2 or 3 sentences which is not considered a copyvio if attributed correctly. I would suggest to reduce it a little, cut some of the wordiness, maybe paraphrase most of it? --^Melody _Lavender 13:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some excessive verbage from the quotes, while (hopefully) retaining their meaning. If the concern persists, the quotes can be reworked out of the citations and readers can consult the original sources. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You there, Madalibi? FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FunkMonk, Madalibi's only edits since October 16 have been two reversions, one early in the day on October 26, and one on November 10, so I'd say Madalibi is not there. Unless Melody Lavender's contributions end up being sufficient to address the issues you've raised—I only see two of many having been addressed—you may need to close this nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since he has edited somewhat recently, I added a note on his talk page. If I get no response within a week, I'll have to fail this. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @FunkMonk: I would hate to see this nomination fail due to inactivity. I would like to take over the nomination and try to resolve the issues you have pointed out. I will comment on them shortly. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Beware that some issues require writing of additional text. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I have tried to address each of your concerns with the article. I have made specific comments below your concerns where applicable. If I can get some feedback about what progress has been made, then we can determine what future improvements might be necessary. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely won't fail now. I'll give it a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Melody and myself have given the article some expansion and polish over the last few days. Please let us know if there are any other deficiencies that should be addressed. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox image caption now says the three fossils are all part of the holotype, but is this true? Do they belong to a single specimen, or is it only the skull that is the holotype? Or do they form a syntype series? FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they have to belong to the same individual to form a holotype. According to the article on holotype even a drawing can be a holotype. It is not known if the three bones are from the same individual, which is mentioned in the Java Man article. But Dubois was certainly trying to describe a holotype and even though only few people believed him at the time, by now H. erectus is an established taxon and it is the Java Man that is considered the type specimen. --^Melody _Lavender 20:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you're confusing holotype with type specimen. There are different kinds of type "specimens", with holotype being one if them, this is formed by remains (or a depiction, if there is no specimen) of a single individual. Types formed by several individuals are called syntypes. In adittion, there is stuff like lectotypes, neotypes, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you are doubting it. I didn't find anything that says it has to be a single individual (and we don't know, it might be). The situation here is much like the situation in which a holotype is defined with locus classicus being Trinil and so on. The holotype of H. erectus was described by Dubois, even if it changed the name later. The need for an explicit statement by Dubois that he considers it a holotype (definition) might be the problem. So, I think we should stick with secondary sources, and the only thing that is currently available online is the definition of Trinil 2 (cranium) as a holotype. So we'll change it to series of syntypes, and mention Trinil 2 as the holotype in the text.--^Melody _Lavender 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Because Java Man is the type specimen of H. erectus, it is sometimes given the name Homo erectus erectus." This makes no sense.
• Can any source be found that mentions this Homo erectus erectus subspecies? What does it say? We need some clarification in the article.
• "Less than ten years after 1891, almost eighty books or articles had been published on Dubois's finds" There should be no info in the intro not found in the article. Also, the lead should not need citations.

@FunkMonk: I will address these issues in the next 48 hours, as well as do another round of polishing. Let me know of any other concerns. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The behaviour stuff could warrant its own section. Physical description should be kept by itself.

@FunkMonk: Melody has added some more information about the homo erectus erectus as a type specimine, I had adjusted the wording in the intro, as well as moved the cite about 80 books in 10 years into the main article text. I also split the behaviour section into its own area. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The subspecies stuff was still iffy, so I changed it myself. Any thoughts? Type specimens only represent taxa, they are not taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the corrections you have made it pretty clear. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, one last thing: Any info on where the fossils are now housed? I'm pretty sure it is at Naturalis, but it would be nice if the article explained when/how they ended up there, and even just that they are there. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this source [2] it looks like Trinil 2 is at the Smithonian. But then I've seen other conflicting pages, where it looks like the skullcap is at Leiden. It might have been a temporary exhibition.--^Melody _Lavender 20:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be specific, the description of the lead image says it's been photographed in Leiden. --^Melody _Lavender 20:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean more than what is in the description, if anything can be found. After all, this article is mainly about those three bones. FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Dutch paper says that the fossils have been in Leiden since 1900. I have added it as a source, and I suspect that the Smithsonian was a temporary exhibition. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. So before I pass this, that info should be in the article itself, since there should never be unique info in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is in the article text. It's in the Java_Man#Post-discovery_analysis section, on "Date of the fossils". It seemed like the most logical place to sneak that in there. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:14, 3 December 2014

Ah, that's because I searched for "Naturalis", which isn't mentioned in the article. Could it be linked? FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

In that case, passed! Nice that you two dropped by to save this. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]