Reading Response to White et al.: Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids.
In the article, Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids, by Tim D. White et al. , the Ardipithecus ramidus specimen ARA-VP-6/500 from the Aramis vertebrate paleontology locality 1 (ARA-VP-1) expedition is examined in depth. The ARA-VP-1 is located in the Middle Awash and expands into the Central Awash Complex (CAC) with different localities, numbered from 1 up. The Middle Awash and CAC are important because the Middle Awash has been dated from the Late Miocene to the Pleistocene, and the CAC has been dated with strata from about 5.55 to 3.85 million years ago. The article has an in-depth description about the site locality. Including …show more content…
2009). The article is split into sections, with a long discussion about the excavation of the partial hominoid skeleton that has the specimen number ARA-VP-6/500. In this section, the excavation dates of each individual specimen is discussed, along with the conditions and context data for each. Then, there is an explanation of how classification was conducted, the cranial and dental anatomy of ARA-VP-6/500 for Ardipithecus ramidus, the post-cranial anatomy and the locomotion type, the comparison of Ardipithecus ramidus and the great apes, hominoid phylogenics and how Ardipithecus ramidus falls in them, and finally a comparison of Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus. The methods and techniques are also discussed in great detail for dating, collecting, and processing of the specimens collected from the study-area of ARA-VP-6/500 and other specimens. Following this short and general summary of the article is a …show more content…
One instance of this for me was the < symbol, which I have only seen in math to represent ‘less than’. For the content of the text, I found the information about how the Ardipithecus ramidus genus was created and why to be interesting. It made me wonder if there were other minor differences that caused the creation of the new genus that were of less significance, but contributed to the creation. I found the details of the excavation useful because I was able to understand most of the context information. This also gave me an idea of where there could have been errors made when piecing the ARA-VP-6/500 specimen together from casts. I did find some of the content to a little bit too wordy at times, but the wordiness was needed in order to get the points across. I found the tables useful for the traits. I think they gave clarification to what White was saying in the text in an easy to read
In the article, Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids, by Tim D. White et al. , the Ardipithecus ramidus specimen ARA-VP-6/500 from the Aramis vertebrate paleontology locality 1 (ARA-VP-1) expedition is examined in depth. The ARA-VP-1 is located in the Middle Awash and expands into the Central Awash Complex (CAC) with different localities, numbered from 1 up. The Middle Awash and CAC are important because the Middle Awash has been dated from the Late Miocene to the Pleistocene, and the CAC has been dated with strata from about 5.55 to 3.85 million years ago. The article has an in-depth description about the site locality. Including …show more content…
2009). The article is split into sections, with a long discussion about the excavation of the partial hominoid skeleton that has the specimen number ARA-VP-6/500. In this section, the excavation dates of each individual specimen is discussed, along with the conditions and context data for each. Then, there is an explanation of how classification was conducted, the cranial and dental anatomy of ARA-VP-6/500 for Ardipithecus ramidus, the post-cranial anatomy and the locomotion type, the comparison of Ardipithecus ramidus and the great apes, hominoid phylogenics and how Ardipithecus ramidus falls in them, and finally a comparison of Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus. The methods and techniques are also discussed in great detail for dating, collecting, and processing of the specimens collected from the study-area of ARA-VP-6/500 and other specimens. Following this short and general summary of the article is a …show more content…
One instance of this for me was the < symbol, which I have only seen in math to represent ‘less than’. For the content of the text, I found the information about how the Ardipithecus ramidus genus was created and why to be interesting. It made me wonder if there were other minor differences that caused the creation of the new genus that were of less significance, but contributed to the creation. I found the details of the excavation useful because I was able to understand most of the context information. This also gave me an idea of where there could have been errors made when piecing the ARA-VP-6/500 specimen together from casts. I did find some of the content to a little bit too wordy at times, but the wordiness was needed in order to get the points across. I found the tables useful for the traits. I think they gave clarification to what White was saying in the text in an easy to read