I can't believe you've never seen this before. Looking up "fossils sit on million years old deposits" I find a book
[1] "... the age of the fossils, which come from deposits that sit directly atop a thick layer of volcanic rock radiometrically dated to 1.85 million years ago."
Dunkleosteus77(talk)17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
In response, anthropologist Fred Spoor and Meave and Louise Leakey produced much more detailed digital topographical scans – ok, but what do they conclude?
As formulated in the article, that was their objective before they started the study. This is not necessarily identical with the results, this is why I think it needs reformulation (if these are the results, place them at the end?). --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
11:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The problem is "in order to". This would be the objective, what they hope to find out, why they started the study. Instead, we need to state what they did find out. You could formulate like this: This allowed to more accurately correct the distortion and demonstrated the distinctness of Kenyanthropus. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
14:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Because there is no hint, no bracket, no "i.e.". If you don't know the term at all, you can't know that your explanation is an explanation rather than an independent, additional information. For example, "including dorsally between the eyes" – is "between the eyes" and explanation for "dorsally"? No! But in your very similar case it is. The reader can't know this. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
All I'm saying it's completely unnecessary since the entire time I've been comparing between other hominins, so when I now say something like "more like Paranthropus", it should be clear that it's relative to other hominins and not like orangutans or something weird. But whatever, added
Dunkleosteus77(talk)23:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for fixing. It was clear to me that you compare to other hominins, but it was not clear to which other hominins you compare. Just based on the formulation you used, you seem to compare to Kenyanthropus only. That doesn't seem to make sense when considering that the latter only has one skull, but even if the reader notices this and guesses that you compare with all the other hominins instead, it really disrupts reading flow. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
08:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
KNM-WT40000 retains the ancestral ape premolar tooth root morphology, – can the derived condition be mentioned as well, for comparison?
The braincase is too distorted to estimate brain volume, but it was probably similar to that of Australopithecus and Paranthropus – "it" refers to the braincase, or the brain volume?--
Jens Lallensack (
talk)
19:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply