This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation Unassessed This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article was accepted from this draft on 4 November 2023 by reviewer Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs). Anthropology C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Mammals C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Primates C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is also this, which has a "consensus cladogram".

• Begun, David R. (2023-08-22). "Behind the paper: A new ape from Türkiye and the radiation of late Miocene hominines". Ecology & Evolution Community. Retrieved 2023-08-27.

Peaceray (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, this exists in dewiki:

• de:Anadoluvius turkae

Peaceray (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An explainer of the paper, doesn't count as it is just regurgitating the paper's POV, and is written by one of the paper's authors. Different language wikis make decisions independently, and with different criteria. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As per my comment, I thought the cladogram might be useful.

Regarding articles in other language wikipedias, I do sometimes translate articles. I often find those articles to be useful. Of course, if you know more than the German editors...

Peaceray (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I know is that each language Wiki has its own policies on what is acceptable for an article and what isn't. So saying that the German Wiki has accepted the taxonomic change means very little if anything here on the English language Wiki. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both articles are for the same species; "Anadoluvius" was a recently-proposed new genus name for the species. Until there is widespread acceptance of the genus split, Anadoluvius should be merged and redirected to Ouranopithecus turkae (per normal practices). SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. There is no report that establishes them as "same species." In fact, the differences are appreciated (see this and this). Chhandama (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge. These are clearly one and the same taxon, I don't care about which title should be preferred. @Chhandama: Do you not understand what "Comb. nov" means? It means that a previously described species has been given a new genus name, and the paper clearly establishes that they are one and the same: In 2007, a new species of Ouranopithecus was described from Çorakyerler in central Anatolia28. Since then, thousands of vertebrate fossils have been recovered at Çorakyerler, including a well-preserved ape partial cranium29 (Fig. 1) The O. turkae holotype, a fragmented palate, was originally distinguished from O. macedoniensis in its shorter premaxilla, narrower palate, morphologically similar (homomorphic) upper premolars (as opposed to P3 being more triangular than P4), smaller male canines and possibly larger size28. However, recovery of the new cranium and our reanalysis of the published material requires a reassessment of this conclusion and justifies the naming of a new genus of Miocene hominine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the information. I was led into a misunderstanding that the two genus are the same as proposed. However, I still oppose the original suggestion of merging Anadoluvius→Ouranopithecus turkae; instead it should be the opposite, Ouranopithecus turkae→Anadoluvius as the latter taxon becomes valid. Chhandama (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is fairly standard to maintain status quo until the updated information has been accepted (ie, is used) by third-party sources; this is in keeping with preferring such sources over the primary and secondary sources. As things stand, I'm not seeing this being used by third party sources; I'm seeing the original paper published in nature.com, and I'm seeing some secondary sources reporting on the paper. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]