Talk:Dmanisi hominins

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dmanisi hominins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 16:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

Yeah, it's inconsistent with the others but it follows WP:COMMONNAME; "Dmanisi hominins" is used much more often than "Dmanisi Man" and is by far the most commonly used name for these fossils (possibly barring some of the scientific names, best to not use as titles since they are controversial). I get 34 hits for "Dmanisi man" on Google Scholar, 28 hits for "Dmanisi people" and 407 for "Dmanisi hominins". With Google Ngrams I can't even get "Dmanisi Man" to show up, but it shows that "Dmanisi hominins" beats ut "Dmanisi people" by a wide margin. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the best preserved fossils of early Homo from a single site with a comparable temporal context" you could also say "of similar age" or "so early in time"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Went with the second suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Dmanisi fossils are highly significant within research on early hominin migrations out of Africa since they represent the oldest fossil record of hominins in western Eurasia" you already said this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the latter part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • you should avoid the word "recent" if you're not giving a reference year to define it. It may be better to say "   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion didn't make it through but I've changed the instances of "recent" to "later", which should work better? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but their arms were likely more similar to the arms of Australopithecus than to later hominins" it may be more meaningful to add "of Australopithecus and modern non-human apes"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Dmanisi hominins would also have differed from later Homo in their small body" you should specify this is only non-insular species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more primitive than tools made and used by later H. erectus" I don't think the Acheulean was even invented at this time, and the Oldowan coexisted with the Acheulean for some time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed this part of the sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You switch between British and American English (for example archaeology vs archeology, and favor vs favour)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will go through the entire article at the end when all the other prose issues have been dealt with and fix this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the issues that I saw in an attempt to make all of it British English (since most of it already was). Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded this, maybe better now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""New excavations at Dmanisi have been undertaken since 1991, wherein Georgian palaeontologists have been joined by German specialists from the Romano-Germanic Museum in Cologne, Germany.[11] From 1991 to 1999, expeditions were completely funded by the Romano-Germanic Museum and carried out annually" you should be able to shorten this into 1 sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened to one sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "uncovered a bow-shaped bone.[11] Justus was immediately intrigued by the unusual shape of the bone and intuitively guessed that it was a mandible, which was confirmed once it was unearthed more clearly and its teeth were revealed" excessive detail, you should just say "uncovered a mandible"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This suggestion, and the significance of the fossils, was confirmed" it's unclear at this point in the article why the date would be significant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that part, think this sentence flows better; the significance can be introduced later. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean here?
is this the first metatarsal bone or the second metatarsal bone etc.?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. It was the third metatarsal bone, added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "convincing the scientists that there were more hominin remains to be found at Dmanisi" excessive detail   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1999; this comes right after the "further discoveries were made in 1999..." sentence and right before another discovery made that same year, do three sentences right after each other have to specify 1999? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source used here doesn't say but is this necessary to specify? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's kinda weird seeing "posterior molar teeth". What's the exact wording they used?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the source referenced here reads "In the year 2000 a new jaw appeared, but this time a large one with highly-developed posterior molars, which corresponded to an archaic representative of the Homo genus". Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bones, some of them confidently associated with Skull 3, are from both adolescent and adult individuals." so the material represents more than 5 individuals?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; the fossil material appears to account for more than five individuals, though only five skulls have been found so far. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who compared it to the mandibles of other early Homo; H. ergaster, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis in Africa, H. erectus in Africa and Asia and archaic H. sapiens in Europe. Out of all the other Homo, the Dmanisi jaw was determined to be the most similar to fossils attributed to H. erectus in Africa, such as OH 22, with fewer similarities to H. erectus fossils in Asia." more concise to just say, "who determined it was most similar to H. ergaster"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(moot point since paragraph was shortened). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Closer relation to early Homo such as H. habilis and H. rudolfensis was ruled out on account of the jaw clearly being smaller than those of these species, especially under the teeth in the cheeks." cheek teeth (teeth in general really) continually shrink as time progresses. This seems extraneous   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(moot point since paragraph was shortened). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reducing in size distally (away from the main mass)." you should instead link to the glossary of dentistry, and in dentistry, distal means towards the cheek. Also, double check to see if they said all teeth or just the molars. Also, this would be more relevant in Anatomy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(moot point since paragraph was shortened). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the many found similarities considered, Gabunia and Vekua concluded that 'the most reasonable interpretation of this jaw is that it belonged to a population of H. erectus'" the entire paragraph could be shortened down to just, "The D211 mandible was described in 1995 by Gabunia and Vekua, who classified it as H. erectus based on dental similarity especially with African specimens (sometimes called H. ergaster"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer have access to the source; where do the say this (page) and is it necessary if it's already specified that they think it's ergaster (as basal as you get without going into habilis and rudolfensis territory)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You imply it when you say "palaeoanthropologists Günter Bräuer and Michael Shultz made note of both basal and derived traits, and instead concluded the mandible came from a derived population"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added note that the original descriptors interpreted it as basal. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the next paragraph can be shortened down to "In 1996, palaeoanthropologists Günter Bräuer and Michael Shultz made note of both basal and derived traits, and instead concluded the mandible came from a derived population of H. erectus, despite being so old. In 1998, palaeoanthropologists Antonio Rosas and José Bermúdez De Castro pointed out that such a mosaic anatomy is also documented in H. ergaster, and suggested the classification Homo sp. indet. (aff. ergaster)" Also, do you mean H. erectus s.s.? The way you use H. erectus throughout the article is sort of vague to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened. I suspect the inconsistent use of H. erectus is because of the sources; as you are aware sources differ in regards to using H. erectus s.l. and H. erectus s.s, sometimes without specifying which. Since most of the sources use H. ergaster and H. ergaster is used a lot in this article, I think H. erectus s.s should be the one that is used here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gabunia and colleagues described Skulls 1 and 2 in 2000 and noted that though the facial skeleton of Skull 2 was fragmentary, its estimated proportions and reconstructed morphology were very similar to specimens of H. ergaster recovered at Koobi Fora in Kenya and that the dentition in particular was reminiscent in size and morphology to the dentition known from H. ergaster specimens such as KNM-WT 15000 and KNM ER 3733." You don't need to mention the specific specimens since those basically define the hypodigm of H. ergaster. You can just say "Gabunia and colleagues described Skulls 1 and 2 in 2000, and noted they were reminiscent of H. ergaster skulls."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the skulls differed from early Homo such as H. habilis and H. rudolfensis in a number of traits that more closely aligned the fossils with H. ergaster" you don't need to explain what it's not, it's much easier to say what it is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed this entire part since it's already said in the first sentence of the paragraph that they were similar to H. ergaster skulls. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Traits differentiating the Dmanisi hominins from early Homo were noted as including the well-developed brow ridge, the lack of cresting (otherwise present in early Homo and in other great apes), large orbits, the premolar teeth in the upper jaw having single roots and the angulation of the cranial vault." this seems more relevant to Anatomy. The following anatomical comparisons seem relevant enough to keep in Classification   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, moved. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on account of the combination of features which they perceived to align the fossils closer to H. ergaster than to earlier Homo or Asian H. erectus" you've already said this, and it sort of goes without saying anyways   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added explanation at the first (and only) time it's mentioned in the article text. Does it warrant an explanation in the lede as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
if that's what you're trying to go for, it'd be better to say the Dmanisi excavation team   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But they call themselves the Dmanisi research team. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore, most of the sites were these fossils were recovered preserved geological contexts that could be reliably dated. Because of this, there was some debate in regards to if archaic humans spread from Africa in the Late Pliocene or Early Pleistocene as the result of a web of ecomorphological factors, or around 1 million years ago as the result of technological innovations such as the Acheulean tool culture" are you missing a "not" here? Also, we have evidence of hominin activity outside of Africa well before a million years ago, unless your talking about hominin hardiness against colder climates, which is probably related to the spread of Acheulean technology. This starts around a million years ago with Homo antecessor, but these early migrations are generally thought of as isolated, failed attempts to colonize the continent until like 500,000 years ago   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a "not" missing here, added. I know there is evidence of hominin activity outside of Africa even before the Dmanisi hominins but did we have much evidence for this before the Dmanisi fossils were found (which I think is the point here - there was some debate prior to the Dmanisi finds). I notice for instance that Zhu et al. (2018) and much of what it cites as early hominin stuff outside of Africa is from 2011 or later. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we know that Homo erectus had reached Asia around the time the Dmanisi hominins existed, like the Yuanmou Man   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the date for Yuanmou man has been disputed historically though, with some getting it as young as 0.7 mya? I'm of course not doubting the age of fossils outside of Africa, or that Yuanmou Man is 1.7 million years old, and it might be possible to rephrase this, but that the Dmanisi finds were significant in establishing the earlier date is brought up in a lot of the sources. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yuanmou is now firmly dated to 1.7 mya, and that study did not cite the existence of the Dmanisi hominins as proof of the earliest date, Alsi I'm worred that "making the Dmanisi hominins the earliest well-dated hominin fossils in Eurasia" would be read as the earliest evidence of hominin activity beyond Africa   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but was Yuanmou firmly dated in the 90s and early 2000s? The Yuanmou article says that the wrong 0.7 mya date is from as late as 2002 so Yuanmou Man doesn't seem like it would be a "debate ender" in this case; this article specifies that the debate was "Before the discovery of the Dmanisi skulls...". I have moved up a sentence about Zhu et al's findings to right after this is talked about in the article text itself. As for the lede; I see what you mean. Do you have any suggestions in regards to how to rephrase that part? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
easiest way is to mention the actual earliest evidence of humans outside Africa   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned in the lede. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at a time when the magnetic polarity of the planet was reversed" this isn't a very good gloss of paleomagnetism. It'd be more specific to say what chron it is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added the chron. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The environment at Dmanisi would have been favorable to hominins due to the region's physical geography, its suitable biomes" that's sort of obvious, you could at least say what kind of biome it was without getting too into detail   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol yeah. I've replaced "suitable biomes" with "temperate and varied environment", sort of vague but otherwise I'd have to go into quite a lot of detail already here because there were quite a lot of different types of environments at the site. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Lordkipanidze mention [1] when giving the brain sizes of H. habilis and H. erectus? The 2015 study concludes 500–900 cc for both H. habilis and H. ergaster. Of course, if he was talking about H. erectus s. s., then [2] reports an average of 1,000 cc   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, he references some of his own prior papers for these numbers but explicitly mentions that the 800 to 1000 range applies to "'classic' H. erectus from Africa and Asia". The 2015 study you mention includes the Dmanisi finds for their range of variation within H. erectus - their lower "limit" (546 cc) is the brain size of Skull 5. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
then you should say "otherwise ascribed to H. erectus and H. ergaster"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The encephalization quotient (a measure of brain size relative to body size)" it might be easier to say brain-to-body-mass ratio   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the anatomy of its braincase is considerably more similar to later species, such as H. erectus." does later species also include heidelbergensis, modern humans, Neanderthals, etc.?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source says the braincase "is similar to that of the more recent early human species, H. erectus" rather than to earlier hominins, so there is no explicit mention of heidelbergensis and later; were the braincases of heidelbergensis, Neanderthals etc. very different from those of erectus? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
they are very different, mainly related to brain capacity and robustness   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turkana Boy
Peking Man
Neanderthal
Modern
Yeah, I see. I've changed this to just point to later H. erectus and nothing else. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shuffled this around a bit and merged paragraphs 3 and 4 here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe but it is difficult to explain why different researchers reach different conclusions without citing some of the anatomical features they talk about. If there are specific pieces of content that you feel should be moved down that can of course be done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, AL288-1 (Lucy). I see that there are far larger specimens of Australopithecus known so I'll follow your input here since you've worked on those. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Made it consistently Turkana Boy (except the first mention where I believe both the nickname and the catalogue name are warranted). Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Through calculations based on the size of their bones (no complete skeleton has yet been recovered)" which bones? Actually, which postcranial bones were even preserved?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there is a complete list of bones somewhere - a lot of them are fragmentary. The measurements here are derived from measurements of proximal and distal lower limb bones (D4167 and D3901) and a humerus (D4507). Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "environment". Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the angle formed between the proximal and distal articular axis of the humerus)" not a particularly elucidating gloss for non-anatomy people   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but it's a difficult term to explain without a lot of anatomical jargon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Humeral torsion is also low (or entirely absent) in H. floresiensis, which means that this might be a basal trait in Homo" it's unclear how basal H. floresiensis is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the fact that humeral torsion in floresiensis then indicate that it is a basal trait regardless? If both floresiensis and the Dmanisi hominis are basal, it is likely to be a basal trait, if floresiensis is more derived and still has low humeral torsion it is also seems likely that it is a basal trait? I've added that how basal floresiensis is is unclear. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
since floresiensis is so young it could be reversals, but moot point   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because fossils of the lower leg, from the femur down to the metatarsals" so are you talking about the shins?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything below the knee. Is that covered by the shins or are the shins just what corresponds to the tibia (shin bone)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can say shins and feet   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and load would have been distributed more evenly over the rays (the grooves separating the thicker areas of the foot) than in modern humans" are you talking about the toes?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Googled "rays of the foot" and "ray" appears to be synonymous with "toe" so I guess, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the dry and hot steppes of East Africa, where earlier (and contemporary) hominins lived" seems to imply australopithecines inhabited hot, dry steppes (which is probably not true)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "hominins" to "H. ergaster/H. erectus", which should be correct. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed cows all together and reshuffled stuff here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you first link bear, jaguar, etc. and then in the next sentence you give the correct link which is odd   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the animals that are more properly linked in the second sentence from the first sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lordkipanidze (2017) doesn't say anything about the temperature or how the hominins stayed warm. I agree that this would be interesting to include but I can't find anything. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved stuff around - now it is said that the tools are Oldowan first. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attributed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkleosteus77 Thank you for the review! As long as I don't interfere with your plans and work I'll be glad to return in the future Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let me stop you from doing anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Dmanisi_hominins"