Talk:Gigantopithecus blacki

Many issues

Why was this page moved from Gigantopithecus to here? Are there so many known species that we must subdivide it into different pages? Why no mention of the proposed Gigantopithecus giganteus, alternately thought to be a case of sexual dimorphism among Gigantopithecus blackii? Since when does Gigantopithecus blackii mean "Giant Ape" in Latin, and not "Black's Giant Ape"?

Also, the article seems heavily POV on the issue of locomotion. While it may only be a minority opinion that Gigantopithecus blackii was bipedal, this is also what is indicated by all the existing evidence. All those that claim quadrupedality for this species do so claiming that it's because it was related to the modern Orangutan, which is quadrupedal. Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that the hominid-like shape of the mandible is a good indicator of posture, as a shorter and broader mandible such as that of a Human or Gigantopithecus generally indicates that the skull sits atop a vertical spinal column, as opposed to the longer and narrower mandibles of Chimpanzees, Orangutans, and Gorillas. A truly NPOV article would not simply endorse the opinion of the majority, but would take into account the fact that this is one of those rare cases where the majority opinion is in direct opposition to all known evidence.

• While this should not be concluded in the article, I think it's safe to assume that, based on the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever in favor of Gigantopithecus' quadrupedality, and the fact that the only evidence known from the species strongly indicates bipedality, those who favor the quadruped "hypothesis" do so not because of which conclusion is actually the most likely, but instead do so only to discourage speculation regarding the Sasquatch and Yeti.

• A noteworthy exception to the general rule of jawshape-posture correlation comes with three extinct relatives of both Gigantopithecus and the Orangutan: Sivapithecus, Ramapithecus, and Lufengpithecus. It is in fact due to geographical distribution and jaw shape that Gigantopithecus was "identified" as a relative of the Orangutan; Sivapithecus, Ramapithecus, and Lufengpithecus were all quadrupedal, yet had mandibles shaped as though to indicate bipedality. Oreopithecus, on the other hand, also inhabited the Asia/Oceania area and both had the biped's mandible shape and was in fact bipedal. It is because of these examples that no definitive answer to the question of the animal's posture exists. (This does not however nullify the fact that the shape of the mandible is a strong -- albeit not 100% consistent --indicator of bipedality and that the mandible is the only thing we have to go on.) --Corvun 04:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

height

An anthropology book gives ten foot height I think 12

"Books" don't say things, their authors do. Please cite your source. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

What I wonder is how scientists can even begin to estimate a height, weight and a sketch of the Gigantopithecus blacki from the teeth and jawbones found in the cave. Doesn't it seem that there is a large amount of guessing and assuming in this, with no scientific proof whatsoever involved?

Please sign your "talk" edits with four tildes (~). Scientists compare the evidence they have (in this case teeth and jawbones) with those of existing skeletons or extant and extinct species of a similar nature, and extrapolated or interpolate to estimate unknown points of data. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

terrible

This is a terrible article. How about writing what is known about the speces, rather than speculation about sasquatch and pop culture references? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.58.246 (talk • contribs) .

Please be bold and do so! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really that terrible. First, it is about the animal itself, and this article can only have whatever information is available on the subject. As to "pop culture" and Bigfoot references, well we do have fossil evidence of a giant, 10-foot ape (Mr. Giganto), and we do have eyewitness reports of a giant, 10-foot ape (Mr. Bigfoot), and there is the very slim likelyhood that Mr. Bigfoot may be a bonafied, live animal who's grand pappy just might be the real Mr. Giganto. Carajou 22:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Should be merged with "Gigantopithecus blacki" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.85.115 (talk • contribs).

Why? There are multiple species of Gigantopithecus. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge - There are four articles about the three species of Gigantopithecus plus an article about the genus Gigantopithecus. There is extremely little information in the fossil record about this genus. At best, each species article duplicates information in the article about the genus. At worst the species articles are stubs or hatracks for speculation about Bigfoot. Lets go ahead and merge all four articles into an improved and expanded single article about the genus, with sub-headings for each named species. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Merged

Merger performed from Gigantopithecus blacki to Gigantopithecus. Merger of other two species to commence shortly. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gigantopithecus.jpeg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)