This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.



This article reads more like a Meave Leakey press release than scientific reporting. Without attribution or support, it lists as facts many assertions still widely contested, such as that these fossils represent a new species, let alone a new genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I added some information to the Kenyanthropus platyops article. As it was, the article was short, and did not include the anthropological significance of the find. I attempted to create a re-direct from Flat-faced man to Kenyanthropus (a term with which the non-anthropologist individuals would be most familiar), but I couldn't get it to work. Would someone else give it a try? I'll check back later. Thanks! Firecircle (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. All you need to do is create a link someplace like this: Flat-faced man. then follow the link and add the redirect info. (Go here to see what it looks like.) - UtherSRG (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Firecircle (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Hey, great! I tried it and it works great. Thanks for the help and the info (as well as the fast response). Firecircle (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Auto writes.


The fossils of Kenyanthropus platyops indicate that hominins were more taxonomically diverse during the middle Pliocene."

Ummm - 'more taxonomically diverse - than - what, exactly, please? Possibly H. sapiens today, which may not indicate huge diversity . . . . .

Auto wrote. 2014 07 05 2141 Z. (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Australopithecus platyops

The justifications presented for sinking this into Australopithecus are terrible. Is there any primary literature that suggests this? (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenyanthropus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Its discoverers distorted science to prove speciation

It was a subspecies of Australopithecus afarensis. Due to climate change we had less species. Even if one actual evolutionalry branch survived, that doesn't look weird. Climate change had a huge impact because it forced plants also to change. Bottleneck phenomena can be explained. Skeleton differences doesn't mean that at rare occasions these species didn't copulate. If they copulated sparsely over millions of years... that isn't actually a sparce phenomenon, but a non immediate panmictic phenomenon. Non immediate panmixia which has some patterns, is an extremely crucial evolutionary tool, for example your particular subspecies that way, might get immunologically more robust, but without to become silly (by not getting the retarded brain genes = wrong timing of neuronal cell motions [because many cerebral cells travel inside the brain], and wrong timing of axonal branching in the brain, different patters of branching and slightly different neuroendocrinology) as the other species that finally got extinct. You get periodically extremely few genes of the other subspecies. But for millions of years (thus the impact is huge, but the rare patterns of mingling are beneficial - it acts as a sieve/a filter of non beneficial genes).

the partonizing part of the theory I mentioned (superior race of "us") is wrong but they created a patronizing theory against another patronizing theory

Things are probabilistic and statistical... After 3 million years of separation, species copulate extremely rarer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8453:800:75BA:931C:93AA:4BD1 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


No mention of the fact that some scientists think Homo rudolfensis should be assigned to Kenyanthropus? (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)