Talk:Proconsul (mammal)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proconsul (mammal) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Primates Mid‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancestors?[edit]

Who were its ancestors? - by User:kenallen

(More correctly: What were it ancestors?) The second paragraph says we don't know. The external link can show you some possibilities. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory information[edit]

I put the "Contradict" banner at the top of the page for the following 3 reasons:

First it is stated that there are 4 species of Proconsul, then later it says that there are "at least 5"
The time range given is "27 to 17 million years ago", and then later it is given as "22 and 14 million years ago"
The chimp who this genus was named after is given as "Consul" and then later "Pronconsul" (note the extra n).

I would encourage any experts on this subject to please edit this page as neccesary Iffykid 00:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed these issues... the contradictory information was pasted in from a different article, and was never properly massaged into the rest of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact needs verifying[edit]

"Ancestral Passions" Chapter 8 note 5 says:

"The first Proconsul fossil was found at another Lake Victoria site, Koru, in 1927 by H. L. Gordon, the medical officer there. Louis guided Hopwood to Koru in July 1931 with the hope that additional specimens would be found, and they were."

This information, which is backed up by the other reference I found and listed in the article, does not square with what the article has. Also under Proconsul africanus the discovery is basically attributed to Mary in 1948. After Louis left Mary too he was vilified by his ladies even more and everything he did was attributed to someone else, often Mary. Louis became in their repute a prevaricating philandering scoundrel of no scientific value around here or after his affair with Dian and his passes at Jane "besotted" and "pathetic." It is time to put a stop to that nonsense fomented by outraged ladies.

Anyway, whoever thinks the 1907 discovery is valid, do you have a reference for that? The issue will be coming up again.Dave 11:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

photo captions[edit]

From what I can tell, the skull in each photo is the same. That is, the nyanzae skeleton, the heseloni skull and the africanus skull at the bottom of the page are all different casts of the same fossil skull. I'm not sure what species it actually belongs to, but it can't belong to all three... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.212.29 (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you look closely, you will find several subtle differences. They are all three very similar, of course, because they are all from genus Proconsul. Look very closely and you will begin to see the differences. I brought all three up on different tabs in my browser. They were enlarged, so the diffs were much easier to detect. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 11:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are all the exact same specimen, @Pain Ellsworth it is highly unlikely that the fossil record would preserve three identical fossils from different species. It is definitely the same specimen which is classified as Proconsul heseloni. Kcorl23 (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do appear to be preserved in the exact same way, with the same breaks and distortions. Must have been some reclassifying going on. FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Contradictory Information[edit]

The article says, "Proconsul is an extinct genus of primates that existed from 23 to 5 million years ago during the Early Miocene epoch." The date "23 to 5 million years ago" and the term "Early Miocene epoch" are inconsistent. The entire Miocene ran from approximately 23 to approximately 5 million years ago whereas the Early Miocene epoch ran from approximately 23 to approximately 16 million years ago. See the WIKI article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Miocene

99.46.152.211 (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Mike Sarles[reply]

Not difficult. The taxobox said Miocene and 23-5mya, so we have 4 bits of info, and one of those four bits is in disagreement. Easy enough to see that removing "Early" fixes the problem. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More About the Chimp[edit]

The chimpanzee in the London Zoo for whom the genus was named was known as "Consul, the Almost Human Ape." This is also the source of a member of the Drones Club described by P. G. Wodehouse, "Consul, the Almost Human." J S Ayer (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]