Talk:Ramapithecus

Hoax? Ancestor of the orangutan?

I'm having a hard time finding credible evidence that Ramapithecus was a hoax. A simple Google search seems to show that Ramapithecus was a real find, although enough evidence has shown that it's not in the direct human line. I'm removing the references to the hoax, and adding info from the links provided by the search. - UtherSRG 13:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

kminid" along w several other finds, some actual hoaxs, but many real creatures later found to have been accidentilly mislabeled as hominids. I'm not sure of the phrase "hoax homind" is the best either (maybe his book just happens to like the term, or maybe its a proper term, I don't know) but it is important to point out this beastie was once thought to be a homind (I restored that). I'd like it if you could put your link in the external links, since our book (and science digest ;) claim this thing has no living descendants. I assume your source is more recent (the internet usually is, and this is kind of an old book) but I'd like to have the "ancestor of the orangutan" info in any case. Thanks for the taxobox and research, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Well it's still a hominid... but the definition of hominid has changed. - UtherSRG 14:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, great... this really is not my area, lol. Do you think you could make that clear? I certainly don't want the article saying it was once thought to have been a hominid, w/o making clear that it is again thought to be a hominid... lol... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks good, thanx. Any luck w the "ancestor of the orangutan" info? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the Taxobox, since this name is no longer used by the majority of researchers (compare Pithecanthropus erectus article to Homo erectus). In the early 1980s IIRC it began to be believed that species assigned to Ramapithecus belonged in different genera (mostly Sivapithecus). This view now appears to be the predominant one.

I have never seen the species name Sivapithecus ramapithecus, I believe it is a mistake. --Cam 05:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

What has be slightly confused about Ramapithecus, and Sivapithecus, is that they both seem to have the same drawing of the jawbone. If I understand what I've seen thus far, that is all that was found. But in 1977 I'm informed that this jawbone was proven to be that of an orangutan. The truth on this needs to be found. -Blueravan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.216.219 (talk) 12:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Duane Gish?

Is it appropriate to include a quote by Duane Gish in this article? Gish practised as a biochemist, not as an archaeologist/palaeoantolist, and has conducted no original research in primatology. He is largely known as a controversialist, not as an authority on any particular matters scientific. --Iacobus 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article may have been started by a creationist. My understanding is that the name Ramapithecus is obsolete nowadays and that species once assigned to this genus are now assigned to Sivapithecus. In my opinion Ramapithecus should be a redirect to Sivapithecus. Future enhancements to Sivapithecus should include the history of the naming of the various Sivapithecus fossil finds. --Cam 07:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]