Talk:Homo erectus

Dr Brown
Someone has asked him about what has appeared in Lubenows book.but i I have not bothered to discuss the issue of whether H. erectus are deformed or not as from a biological perspective it is so obvious that they are not. For example while the Kow Swamp, Coobool and Nacurrie crania have flattened frontal bones the cranial vaults are high (unlike H. erectus), particularly those which are deformed (basion not preserved at Kow Swamp but mean basion-bregma at Coobool 141 mm, range 134-153). Curvature of the parietals (particularly those which are deformed) is MUCH greater than H. erectus and the occipitals are of modern Aboriginal morphology and not sharply angled at the torus like in H. erectus. Maximum cranial breadth is found high on the parietals, supraorbital region is NOTHING like H. erectus, particularly laterally, bone in the basal part of the vault is not thickened, etc, etc. All of the features which distinguish modern Aboriginal crania from H. erectus work with terminal Pleistocene Australian crania as well. Just happens that late Pleistocene Australians were about 8% larger and more robust than their contemporaries and a few of them had their heads deformed. Dr Brown says the above. And Xujiayao is in China which is way away from Australia or aborginals. I could not find about Dali. And there was no information on who Dr. Peter Brown was in the article. Nothing on Lubenow too. When quoting some authority it would be to tell who they are in the article like Dr. Peter Brown, an Australian evolutionary biologist, Lubenow a creation scientist. --EvilFlyingMonkey 16:09, 8 October 2011 (PDT)
 * TO does very briefly mention who Dr. Brown is, although admittedly there's not much detail. And I've just edited this article to include a link to Lubenow's article, although it too is lacking in much detail.  Philip J. Rayment 07:25, 10 October 2011 (PDT)
 * The page still just contain Brown summarizes the implications of the findings, it still does not contain his full name or it is difficult to find out who he is. It could not even be known if he is creationist or mainstream biologist and what authority he has to say on this matter. It is difficult to find out who he is from the article. The article should be edited so the readers will be able to find out further.--EvilFlyingMonkey 11:06, 19 October 2011 (PDT)
 * There's nothing unusual about simply referring to an author without providing details on who he is. Philip J. Rayment 06:31, 22 October 2011 (PDT)