text:
Kyzyl

Kyzyl (Кызыл, ; Кызыл, ) is the capital city of the republic of Tuva, Russia. The name of the city means "red" or "crimson" in Tuvan (and in many other Turkic languages). Its population was

History
The city was founded in 1914 as Belotsarsk (Белоцарск, ; "White Tsar's town"). In 1918, it was renamed Hem-Beldir (Хем-Белдир, ). In 1926 it was given its present name. When the city was the capital of Tannu Tuva, it was named Kizil Khoto. In September 2014, Kyzyl celebrated its 100th anniversary as a city.

The settlement was founded in 1914 by Russian settlers immediately after the entry of the then Uryankhay Krai under the protectorate of the Russian Empire called  Belotsarsk .

In 1918, in connection with the revolution and the antimonarchist movement, it was renamed to Khem-Beldyr, and in 1926 to Kyzyl (Tuv .: red).

In 1921–1944, the city was the capital of Tuvan People's Republic, from 1944 to 1961 the capital of the RSFSR's Tuvan Autonomous Oblast, from 1961 to 1991 of the Tuvan ASSR and since 1991 of the Republic of Tyva.

They began to lay a new city in the village of Vilany, in Tuvan – Khem-Beldyr, which means "confluence of rivers". Technological engineer K.V. Goguntsov and topographer M. Ya. Kryuchkov arrived here in February 1914. Kryuchkov drew a general plan of the city of Belotsarsk (fund 123, opis, 2, delo 21), which basically coincides with the plan of the central part of the city of Kyzyl. The city plan shows the numbers of the land plots and gives an explanation of who owns these plots. In May 1914, the head of the Russian population in Uryankhai approved the draft rules on the allotment of land plots and the organization of a committee for the improvement of the future city. The very first plots were allocated for houses of officials, administration, for honorary Uryankhs, treasury, post and telegraph office, state fire shed.

The city was built by recruited workers from Krasnoyarsk, Minusinsk, Tomsk and other cities of Siberia, Tuvan farm laborers, Russian workers who fled from gold mines because of difficult working and living conditions.

On July 4, 1915, the Commissioner for the Uryankhay Krai V. Yu. Grigoriev wrote a letter to the Head of the Russian population in the Uryankhay Krai, where the very important issue of creating a museum in the city of Belotsarsk was raised (fund 123, inventory 2, file 53, sheets 25–26).

At the IV Uryankhay regional congress on March 11, 1918, a decree was issued to rename Belottsarsk to Uryankhaysk. However, this name did not stick to the city, it was still called White Tsarsky.

The revolutionary events of 1917 in Russia did not pass by the new capital of Tuva. During a major battle (the White Tsarsky battle) between the red partisans of the detachment of P.E. Schetinkin and A.D. Kravchenko and the Kolchak men under the command of the captain G.K. Bologov at the end of August 1919, the city was almost completely burned down. The 10th congress of representatives of the Russian population of Tuva (September 16–20, 1920) gathered in the village of Turan, Uryankhai region. At this congress it was decided to restore the city and rename it the Red City.

On August 13, 1921, in the town of Sug-Bazhy (the village of Kochetovo), the Vsetuvinsky Constituent Khural of representatives of all khoshuns (khoshun was an administrative-territorial unit of that time) of Tuva gathered. Khural proclaimed the creation of an independent state – the Tuvan People's Republic. In March 1922, the Tuvan government, the Central Committee of the Tuvan People's Revolutionary Party (Central Committee of the TPRP), and the executive committee of the Russian Self-Governing Labor Colony (RSTK) were transferred to the restored Kyzyl. In the spring of 1922, the city of Kyzyl became the capital of the Tuva People's Republic (TPR).

In 1924, the Tuvan Central Cooperative (Tuvintsenkoop, TCC) was formed, which played a significant role in the development of industrial production, domestic and foreign trade. In 1925, the Tuvan National Bank (Tuvinbank) began its activity, which contributed to the development of all sectors of the national economy. In Kyzyl, enterprises for the processing of agricultural raw materials were organized, in 1928 a shoemaker's workshop was opened, in 1930-1931 – a sausage workshop, a pimokatny and tailoring workshop. In the early 1940s, a mill, a sawmill, a power station and a brick factory operated in Kyzyl, and sheepskin and fur production was organized. In 1929 the Kyzyl printing house was opened, the transport organization "Soyuztrans" was created. From that moment, the beginning of the development of the transport of the Tuvan People's Republic was laid. Two years later, the truck fleet consisted of 31 vehicles. In 1931, a telephone exchange for 30 subscribers was opened in the city of Kyzyl.

Geography
Kyzyl claims to be located exactly in the geographical center of Asia. Whether these coordinates are in fact the center of Asia is disputed (e.g., Ürümqi in China makes a similar claim). However, there is a monument labelled "Center of Asia" in Tuvan, Russian and English, which asserts this claim. Tos-Bulak is the area of open fields and mineral springs which lies immediately south of Kyzyl.

Kyzyl stands at the point where the Great Yenisey (Bii-Xem) meets the Little Yenisey (Kaa-Xem) river to form the Yenisey proper (Ulug-Xem). Most development takes place south of the Yenisey and Little Yenisey and follows the curves of the river, with the highest development centered just below the confluence of the Great Yenisey with the Little Yenisey. A monument was built in 1964 on the river bank to mark this..

Climate
The climate of Kyzyl has an extreme cool semi-arid variety (Köppen climate classification BSk) bordering humid continental climate (Köppen Dwb) , with average highs around 25 C in the summer and -20 C in the winter and only 218 mm of precipitation annually. Located far from any moderating bodies of water and at a relatively high latitude, temperatures can be extreme, though less so than the Sakha Republic. Nevertheless, the temperature has never risen above freezing from 22 November to 19 February, inclusive. On 20 February 2021 the temperature got above freezing in winter for the first time in recorded history. Temperature swings can be rapid. The transitional seasons of spring and autumn are short: only April and October average close to the annual mean of -1.2 C.

The city of Kyzyl is equated to the regions of the Far North. The climate of Kyzyl is dry and sharply continental. A significant influence on the climate is exerted by being in the basin, thanks to which in winter the air in the basin stagnates and is cooled under the influence of the Siberian anticyclone, forming a powerful temperature inversion. Winter (November-March) is exceptionally harsh for such latitude (the city is located at the same latitude with London, Kursk and Orenburg), snow-free (10-20 cm), windless. The average temperature in January is -28.7 °C (absolute minimum to -54 °C, the city is among the 10 coldest cities in Russia and the world). Spring is short. The daytime thaws that begin in the second half of March lead to a rapid descent of snow cover by the end of the month. However, even in April, in the absence of snow, with Arctic invasions, the temperature can drop at night to -27.3 °C.

In May, hot weather quickly sets in. Summers are almost always hot, sometimes there are prolonged droughts. Summer in Kyzyl begins in mid-May and ends in mid-September. In summer, the city is characterized by high daytime temperature maxima. The maximum temperature is one of the highest in the Russian Federation, and is among the ten hottest cities with a maximum of +40.7. The bulk of precipitation falls in the summer, in the second half of summer. Dust storms are possible in May and July. In August, heavy rainfall and severe thunderstorms are not uncommon. In the middle and at the end of September, the first frosts are observed, although the weather is still quite hot during the day. Leaf fall is observed until the beginning of October. In October, a rapid decrease in average temperatures begins. At the end of October, before the snow cover is established, the average daily temperature drops below 0 °C (in November to -20 ° and below C), which makes it impossible to grow winter and many fruit and berry crops. Snow cover is usually established in mid-November, followed by a sharp drop in temperatures to -20 °C and below.

Since the center of the Asian maximum atmospheric pressure (Siberian anticyclone) is located above Tuva in the cold season and Kyzyl is located at the bottom of a deep basin (compared to the mountains surrounding the basin) on a very large thickness of the atmosphere, up to the level of planetary winds to heights of 2-2.5 km, in winter a very powerful inversion is observed over the city. The temperature at an altitude of 2 km above the city can be 15-20 degrees higher than at the surface of the earth. Almost from the end of October to the beginning of March, there is windless, often clear weather. Because of this, the strongest smog is observed over the city and the basin, on some days visibility can drop to 500-1000 meters due to smog. Severe air pollution in winter is a big environmental problem. To solve it, the government of the region has taken measures for gasification.

The record high of 40.7 C was recorded on 15 July 2004. The record low of -54.0 C was recorded on 4 February 1945.

Administrative and municipal status
Kyzyl is the capital of the republic. Within the framework of administrative divisions, it is incorporated as a city under republic jurisdiction (urban okrug, an administrative unit with the status equal to that of the districts), as Kyzyl Urban Okrug.

Demographics
According to the 2020 All-Russian Population Census, as of October 1, 2021, in terms of population, the city was in 136th place out of 1117 cities of the Russian Federation.

 * National composition

According to the 2021 census, out of 125,241 residents of the city, Tuvans made up 81.3% (88,270 people), Russians - 16.4% (17,771 people), others - 2.3%.

Industry
Manufacturing plants include brickyards, sawmills, furniture manufacturing, and food-processing plants.

Road connection
The federal highway M54 "Yenisei" connects Kyzyl with Abakan and Mongolia via Erzin.

Air traffic
The city is served by the Kyzyl Airport. The airport provides regular flights to Moscow, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, as well as to remote localities of the republic. The airport is included in the list of reference airports in Russia.

The railway
There is a project of the Tuvan Railway with a railway terminal in Kyzyl. Kuragino–Kyzyl railway line is still being designed. The construction of the road started in 2011, but only 1 km of track was built near Kyzyl.

Sculpture complex Center of Asia
The obelisk, symbolizing the center of Asia, is located on the bank of the Yenisei River, in the city of Kyzyl of the Republic of Tuva. It was built three times — in 1964, 1984 and 2014. Today's monument is a whole sculptural ensemble. The new obelisk was built according to the project of the Buryat artist Dashi Namdakov. It is represented by an ensemble of three lions holding a globe topped with a spire. Externally, the monument is very similar to the previous obelisk. It depicts grandiose figures of oriental dragons and a high stele, the decor of which is made in the form of symbolic animals intertwined in a rush of ascent to the sky. In addition, people see twelve cosmogonic animalistic images that make up the Buddhist horoscope.

Ethnic and cultural complex of Aldyn-Bulak
It occupies the coastal zone of the Yenisei, to Kyzyl-45 km. It is built as a kind of model of the universe, where the roles of stars and luminaries are assigned to yurts of different sizes and purposes. Although the yurts are decorated as authentic as possible, Aldyn-Bulak has all the amenities, including places to stay, a restaurant, a sauna, a parking lot.

Tsechenling Temple
One of the most important Buddhist attractions of Kyzyl. Built in 1998, it consists of two floors: the first – as a residence, the second – for prayings. The corners of the building look more worn out, this is due to the tradition of walking around the temple in a circle and touching the corners. Classes on spiritual practices and languages are held inside, admission is free.

Buddhist Prayer wheel
It was officially opened in 2006. It is considered the largest prayer wheel in Russia. It came from an Indian monastery, where the monks worked on the wheel for several years. Millions of scrolls with mantras are stacked inside.

Kadarchy Monument
It was installed in 1997 in front of the Kyzyl airport. The monument is a shepherd with a staff in traditional Tuvan clothing. After the sculpture took its place on the hill, the locals considered that the hero did not have enough liverstock, so "sheep" were placed nearby in the form of boulders painted white.

Mineral spring "Bobry"
It is located 2 km from Kyzyl. The name is translated as "beavers": according to legend, people learned about the spring from these animals who came there to drink. There are more than 20 streams and springs, the water is collected in small natural and handmade bowls or spreads. According to legend, each of the streams treats different diseases, so tourists try the water from all of them.

National Museum of the Republic of Tyva

It was founded in 1929 in Kyzyl. Unique collections presented in the museum are: Archaeological collections of the Scythian mounds "Arzhaan" and "Arzhaan-2"; Tuvan ethnographic collections; Tuvan women's and men's silver jewelry; cult collections of Shamanism, Buddhism and Orthodoxy.

Dus-khol lake
A salty spring in the Republic of Tuva. In the Tuvan dialect, the name of the reservoir means "salt lake". Dus-Khol is a natural monument and is under state protection. The water in this spring has healing properties. Throughout the summer season, tourists and locals come to the reservoir.

International Festival of Live Music and Faith "Ustuu-Khuree"
The festival, which shows all the magnificence of indigenous cultures, has been held in the Republic of Tyva since 1999. The festival arose in line with the idea of restoring the ruins of a once majestic Buddhist temple in Chadan. The motto of the festival was live music and following the universal spiritual postulates of living faith (kindness, tolerance, unpretentiousness to the benefits of life).The simplicity of the living conditions of the tent city, the proximity to nature, the special atmosphere of the ruins of a Buddhist temple, the constant joint music playing of the participants — all these components created a unique image of the festival. Traditionally, the Ustuu-Khuree festival takes place in July.

International festival Khoomei in the Center of Asia"
The festival program traditionally includes competitions among throat singing performers, the consecration ceremony "Ovaa khoomei". It is held every two years. During the festival, the number of participants reached more than 600 people, including 31 foreign citizens from different countries, such as the US, China, Mongolia, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Brazil.

National holiday "Naadym"
Naadym is a Tuvan national holiday of shepherds, held annually in mid-August. It necessarily includes the national wrestling khuresh, horse racing, archery, competitions for the best national yurt, the best national costume and equipment of a horse.

Education

 * School No. 1 (Kyzyl) – first school in the city.
 * Tyvan State University – is the only university in Tyva.

In popular culture
In the late 1980s, Kyzyl was visited by Ralph Leighton, who had made it a quest to reach Tuva with his friend, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman. Though Feynman died before they reached Tuva, the journey is chronicled in the book Tuva or Bust!

The film Genghis Blues chronicles the pilgrimage of a blind blues performer, Paul Pena, who learned Tuvan throat singing by listening to his shortwave radio, to compete in the Tuvan throat singing competition.

Sister cities

 * 🇺🇸 Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
 * 🇺🇦 Rivne, Ukraine
 * 🇧🇷 Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil (both cities are claimed to be located in the exact center of their respective continents)
 * 🇨🇳 Erenhot, China
 * 🇷🇺 Yakutsk, Russia

title: Kyzyl


text:
Homo

Homo is a genus of great ape that emerged from the genus Australopithecus and encompasses the extant species Homo sapiens (modern humans) and a number of extinct species (collectively called archaic humans) classified as either ancestral or closely related to modern humans. These include Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. The oldest member of the genus is Homo habilis, with records of just over 2 million years ago. Homo, together with the genus Paranthropus, is probably most closely related to the species Australopithecus africanus within Australopithecus.  The closest living relatives of Homo are of the genus Pan (which includes chimpanzees and bonobos), with the ancestors of Pan and Homo estimated to have diverged around 5.7-11 million years ago during the Late Miocene.

Homo erectus appeared about 2 million years ago and spread throughout Africa (where it is called Homo ergaster) and Eurasia in several migrations. Being an adaptive and successful species, it persisted for more than a million years and gradually diverged into new species by around 500,000 years ago.

Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) emerged close to 300,000 to 200,000 years ago, in Africa, and H. neanderthalensis emerged around the same time in Europe and Western Asia. H. sapiens dispersed from Africa in several waves, from possibly as early as 250,000 years ago, and certainly by 130,000 years ago, with the so-called Southern Dispersal beginning about 70–50,000 years ago See:
 * leading to the lasting colonisation of Eurasia and Oceania by 50,000 years ago. H. sapiens met and interbred with archaic humans in Africa and in Eurasia. Separate archaic (non-sapiens) human species including Neanderthals are thought to have survived until around 40,000 years ago.
 * leading to the lasting colonisation of Eurasia and Oceania by 50,000 years ago. H. sapiens met and interbred with archaic humans in Africa and in Eurasia. Separate archaic (non-sapiens) human species including Neanderthals are thought to have survived until around 40,000 years ago.

Names and taxonomy

The Latin noun homō (genitive hominis) means "human being" or "man" in the generic sense of "human being, mankind". The binomial name Homo sapiens was coined by Carl Linnaeus (1758). Names for other species of the genus were introduced from the second half of the 19th century (H. neanderthalensis 1864, H. erectus 1892).

The genus Homo has not been strictly defined, even today. Since the early human fossil record began to slowly emerge from the earth, the boundaries and definitions of the genus have been poorly defined and constantly in flux. Because there was no reason to think it would ever have any additional members, Carl Linnaeus did not even bother to define Homo when he first created it for humans in the 18th century. The discovery of Neanderthal brought the first addition.

The genus Homo was given its taxonomic name to suggest that its member species can be classified as human. And, over the decades of the 20th century, fossil finds of pre-human and early human species from late Miocene and early Pliocene times produced a rich mix for debating classifications. There is continuing debate on delineating Homo from Australopithecus—or, indeed, delineating Homo from Pan. Even so, classifying the fossils of Homo coincides with evidence of: (1) competent human bipedalism in Homo habilis inherited from the earlier Australopithecus of more than four million years ago, as demonstrated by the Laetoli footprints; and (2) human tool culture having begun by 2.5 million years ago to 3 million years ago.

From the late-19th to mid-20th centuries, a number of new taxonomic names, including new generic names, were proposed for early human fossils; most have since been merged with Homo in recognition that Homo erectus was a single species with a large geographic spread of early migrations. Many such names are now regarded as "synonyms" with Homo, including Pithecanthropus, Protanthropus, Sinanthropus, Cyphanthropus, Africanthropus, Telanthropus, Atlanthropus, and Tchadanthropus.

Classifying the genus Homo into species and subspecies is subject to incomplete information and remains poorly done. This has led to using common names ("Neanderthal" and "Denisovan"), even in scientific papers, to avoid trinomial names or the ambiguity of classifying groups as incertae sedis (uncertain placement)—for example, H. neanderthalensis vs. H. sapiens neanderthalensis, or H. georgicus vs. H. erectus georgicus. Some recently extinct species in the genus have been discovered only lately and do not as yet have consensus binomial names (see Denisova hominin). Since the beginning of the Holocene, it is likely that Homo sapiens (anatomically modern humans) has been the only extant species of Homo.

John Edward Gray (1825) was an early advocate of classifying taxa by designating tribes and families. Wood and Richmond (2000) proposed that Hominini ("hominins") be designated as a tribe that comprised all species of early humans and pre-humans ancestral to humans back to after the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor, and that Hominin a be designated a subtribe of Hominini to include only the genus Homo — that is, not including the earlier upright walking hominins of the Pliocene such as Australopithecus, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus, or Sahelanthropus. Designations alternative to Hominina existed, or were offered: Australopithecinae (Gregory & Hellman 1939) and Preanthropinae (Cela-Conde & Altaba 2002); and later, Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003) proposed that the four genera Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus, and Sahelanthropus be grouped with Homo within Hominini (sans Pan).

Australopithecus and the appearance of Homo
Several species, including Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus afarensis, have been proposed as the ancestor or sister of the Homo lineage. These species have morphological features that align them with Homo, but there is no consensus as to which gave rise to Homo.

Especially since the 2010s, the delineation of Homo in Australopithecus has become more contentious. Traditionally, the advent of Homo has been taken to coincide with the first use of stone tools (the Oldowan industry), and thus by definition with the beginning of the Lower Palaeolithic. But in 2010, evidence was presented that seems to attribute the use of stone tools to Australopithecus afarensis around 3.3 million years ago, close to a million years before the first appearance of Homo. LD 350-1, a fossil mandible fragment dated to 2.8 Mya, discovered in 2013 in Afar, Ethiopia, was described as combining "primitive traits seen in early Australopithecus with derived morphology observed in later Homo. Some authors would push the development of Homo close to or even past 3 Mya. This finds support in a recent phylogenetic study in hominins that by using morphological, molecular and radiometric information, dates the emergence of Homo at 3.3 Ma (4.30 – 2.56 Ma). Others have voiced doubt as to whether Homo habilis should be included in Homo, proposing an origin of Homo with Homo erectus at roughly 1.9 Mya instead.

The most salient physiological development between the earlier australopithecine species and Homo is the increase in endocranial volume (ECV), from about 460 cm3 in A. garhi to 660 cm3 in H. habilis and further to 760 cm3 in H. erectus, 1250 cm3 in H. heidelbergensis and up to 1760 cm3 in H. neanderthalensis. However, a steady rise in cranial capacity is observed already in Autralopithecina and does not terminate after the emergence of Homo, so that it does not serve as an objective criterion to define the emergence of the genus.

Homo habilis
Homo habilis emerged about 2.1 Mya. Already before 2010, there were suggestions that H. habilis should not be placed in the genus Homo but rather in Australopithecus. The main reason to include H. habilis in Homo, its undisputed tool use, has become obsolete with the discovery of Australopithecus tool use at least a million years before H. habilis. Furthermore, H. habilis was long thought to be the ancestor of the more gracile Homo ergaster (Homo erectus). In 2007, it was discovered that H. habilis and H. erectus coexisted for a considerable time, suggesting that H. erectus is not immediately derived from H. habilis but instead from a common ancestor. With the publication of Dmanisi skull 5 in 2013, it has become less certain that Asian H. erectus is a descendant of African H. ergaster which was in turn derived from H. habilis. Instead, H. ergaster and H. erectus appear to be variants of the same species, which may have originated in either Africa or Asia and widely dispersed throughout Eurasia (including Europe, Indonesia, China) by 0.5 Mya.

Homo erectus
Homo erectus has often been assumed to have developed anagenetically from H. habilis from about 2 million years ago. This scenario was strengthened with the discovery of Homo erectus georgicus, early specimens of H. erectus found in the Caucasus, which seemed to exhibit transitional traits with H. habilis. As the earliest evidence for H. erectus was found outside of Africa, it was considered plausible that H. erectus developed in Eurasia and then migrated back to Africa. Based on fossils from the Koobi Fora Formation, east of Lake Turkana in Kenya, Spoor et al. (2007) argued that H. habilis may have survived beyond the emergence of H. erectus, so that the evolution of H. erectus would not have been anagenetically, and H. erectus would have existed alongside H. habilis for about half a million years, during the early Calabrian. On 31 August 2023, researchers reported, based on genetic studies, that a human ancestor population bottleneck (from a possible 100,000 to 1000 individuals) occurred "around 930,000 and 813,000 years ago ... lasted for about 117,000 years and brought human ancestors close to extinction."

Weiss (1984) estimated that there have been about 44 billion (short scale) members of the genus Homo from its origins to the evolution of H. erectus, about 56 billion individuals from H. erectus to the Neolithic, and another 51 billion individuals since the Neolithic. This provides the opportunity for an immense amount of new mutational variation to have arisen during human evolution.

A separate South African species Homo gautengensis has been postulated as contemporary with H. erectus in 2010.

Phylogeny
A taxonomy of Homo within the great apes is assessed as follows, with Paranthropus and Homo emerging within Australopithecus (shown here cladistically granting Paranthropus, Kenyanthropus, and Homo). The exact phylogeny within Australopithecus is still highly controversial. Approximate radiation dates of daughter clades are shown in millions of years ago (Mya). Sahelanthropus and Orrorin, possibly sisters to Australopithecus, are not shown here. The naming of groupings is sometimes muddled as often certain groupings are presumed before any cladistic analysis is performed.

Cladogram based on Dembo et al. (2016):

Several of the Homo lineages appear to have surviving progeny through introgression into other lines. Genetic evidence indicates an archaic lineage separating from the other human lineages 1.5 million years ago, perhaps H. erectus, may have interbred into the Denisovans about 55,000 years ago. See:
 * Fossil evidence shows H. erectus s.s. survived at least until 117,000 yrs ago, and the even more basal H. floresiensis survived until 50,000 years ago. A 1.5-million-year H. erectus-like lineage appears to have made its way into modern humans through the Denisovans and specifically into the Papuans and aboriginal Australians. The genomes of non-sub-Saharan African humans show what appear to be numerous independent introgression events involving Neanderthal and in some cases also Denisovans around 45,000 years ago. The genetic structure of some sub-Saharan African groups seems to be indicative of introgression from a west Eurasian population some 3,000 years ago.
 * Fossil evidence shows H. erectus s.s. survived at least until 117,000 yrs ago, and the even more basal H. floresiensis survived until 50,000 years ago. A 1.5-million-year H. erectus-like lineage appears to have made its way into modern humans through the Denisovans and specifically into the Papuans and aboriginal Australians. The genomes of non-sub-Saharan African humans show what appear to be numerous independent introgression events involving Neanderthal and in some cases also Denisovans around 45,000 years ago. The genetic structure of some sub-Saharan African groups seems to be indicative of introgression from a west Eurasian population some 3,000 years ago.
 * Fossil evidence shows H. erectus s.s. survived at least until 117,000 yrs ago, and the even more basal H. floresiensis survived until 50,000 years ago. A 1.5-million-year H. erectus-like lineage appears to have made its way into modern humans through the Denisovans and specifically into the Papuans and aboriginal Australians. The genomes of non-sub-Saharan African humans show what appear to be numerous independent introgression events involving Neanderthal and in some cases also Denisovans around 45,000 years ago. The genetic structure of some sub-Saharan African groups seems to be indicative of introgression from a west Eurasian population some 3,000 years ago.
 * Fossil evidence shows H. erectus s.s. survived at least until 117,000 yrs ago, and the even more basal H. floresiensis survived until 50,000 years ago. A 1.5-million-year H. erectus-like lineage appears to have made its way into modern humans through the Denisovans and specifically into the Papuans and aboriginal Australians. The genomes of non-sub-Saharan African humans show what appear to be numerous independent introgression events involving Neanderthal and in some cases also Denisovans around 45,000 years ago. The genetic structure of some sub-Saharan African groups seems to be indicative of introgression from a west Eurasian population some 3,000 years ago.

Some evidence suggests that Australopithecus sediba could be moved to the genus Homo, or placed in its own genus, due to its position with respect to e.g. H. habilis and H. floresiensis.

Dispersal
By about 1.8 million years ago, H. erectus is present in both East Africa (H. ergaster) and in Western Asia (H. georgicus). The ancestors of Indonesian H. floresiensis may have left Africa even earlier.

Homo erectus and related or derived archaic human species over the next 1.5 million years spread throughout Africa and Eurasia (see: Recent African origin of modern humans). Europe is reached by about 0.5 Mya by Homo heidelbergensis.

Homo neanderthalensis and H. sapiens develop after about 300 kya. Homo naledi is present in Southern Africa by 300 kya.

H. sapiens soon after its first emergence spread throughout Africa, and to Western Asia in several waves, possibly as early as 250 kya, and certainly by 130 kya. In July 2019, anthropologists reported the discovery of 210,000 year old remains of a H. sapiens and 170,000 year old remains of a H. neanderthalensis in Apidima Cave, Peloponnese, Greece, more than 150,000 years older than previous H. sapiens finds in Europe.

Most notable is the Southern Dispersal of H. sapiens around 60 kya, which led to the lasting peopling of Oceania and Eurasia by anatomically modern humans. H. sapiens interbred with archaic humans both in Africa and in Eurasia, in Eurasia notably with Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Among extant populations of H. sapiens, the deepest temporal division is found in the San people of Southern Africa, estimated at close to 130,000 years, or possibly more than 300,000 years ago. Temporal division among non-Africans is of the order of 60,000 years in the case of Australo-Melanesians. Division of Europeans and East Asians is of the order of 50,000 years, with repeated and significant admixture events throughout Eurasia during the Holocene.

Archaic human species may have survived until the beginning of the Holocene, although they were mostly extinct or absorbed by the expanding H. sapiens populations by 40 kya (Neanderthal extinction).

List of lineages
The species status of H. rudolfensis, H. ergaster, H. georgicus, H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, H. rhodesiensis, H. neanderthalensis, Denisova hominin, and H. floresiensis remain under debate. H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis are closely related to each other and have been considered to be subspecies of H. sapiens.

There has historically been a trend to postulate new human species based on as little as an individual fossil. A "minimalist" approach to human taxonomy recognizes at most three species, H. habilis (2.1–1.5 Mya, membership in Homo questionable), H. erectus (1.8–0.1 Mya, including the majority of the age of the genus, and the majority of archaic varieties as subspecies,  including H. heidelbergensis as a late or transitional variety   ) and Homo sapiens (300 kya to present, including H. neanderthalensis and other varieties as subspecies). Consistent definitions and methodology of species delineation are not generally agreed upon in anthropology or paleontology. Indeed, speciating populations of mammals can typically interbreed for several million years after they begin to genetically diverge, so all contemporary "species" in the genus Homo would potentially have been able to interbreed at the time, and introgression from beyond the genus Homo can not a priori be ruled out. It has been suggested that H. naledi may have been a hybrid with a late surviving Australipith (taken to mean beyond Homo, ed.), despite the fact that these lineages generally are regarded as long extinct. As discussed above, many introgressions have occurred between lineages, with evidence of introgression after separation of 1.5 million years.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Homo


text:
Talk:Homo/Archive 1

Flores man
Is Flores Man 100% for sure extinct, or is it still possible they'll be found?

 * I suppose there is always a possibility. But I'd say it is pretty unlikely. Is there any scientific paper or news article with this suggestion? If not, I would leave it as "(extinct)" until/unless new information is found. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'Knowing Man'
The list holding all the binomial Latin names and their English equivalents give Homo sapiens and 'Knowing Man'. I have never heard it given as this, only as 'Thinking Man'. I know it is a small matter, but 'Knowing Man' rings odd to me. Oswax 07:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See the discussion about "human", or its archives. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:12, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Chimps are human, gene study implies
"The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus." http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744 --OblivionXYZ 23:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Kenyanthropus platyops as last common ancestor
I'm a near-complete layman here (first-year anthropology student), but purely from what I've read and been taught this appears to be a NPOV statement, and isn't supported by the (referenced, as this declaration is not) article on K. platyops itself. As far as I can tell the ancestry of the genus Homo is still uncertain and controversial; should the article not reflect this, instead of making K. platyops' status as LCA an apparent statement of fact? 129.234.4.76 13:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So make the change. Even better, register a userid and mae the change. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat like the 'most ancient found yet, and a likely to be' -case, but that species is not yet well defined. I've seen some articles that put rudolphensis and even habilis to genus Kenyanthropus. A lot of speciation was going on back then. All scholars agree that erectus is a Homo-species and that it/he was the first out of Africa. 84.231.178.54 13:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Of course, all this depends on the definition of genus Homo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.230.246.101 (talk • contribs).

Ambiguous sentence
"analysis of mitochondrial DNA from H. neanderthalensis fossils shows that H. neanderthalensis is more closely related to chimps than Homo sapiens."

The above sentence could be read as either "more closely related to chimps than to Homo sapiens", or "more closely related to chimps than is Homo sapiens". I assume the latter meaning is the correct one? 217.155.20.163 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to flag it, but a busy body user Mgiganteus1 deleted my edit, telling me to put it here. I will make the edit again.Denn333 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mgiganteus1 did right by reverting your edits, since they were disruptive to the article. The talk page is the correct place to make queries. As for the issue itself, I believe the anon IP is correct, that an "is" is needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is edited, as requested. Denn333 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All other species of homo are NOT extinct
Several Years ago there were findings that what we THINK are all the same species of Homo Sapiens are actually not. There is a new evolve species,,,not sure it stated it was better, but it was different...almost totally in brain operations and processes...just slightly enough to make it a different species. I am still researching to find that data, as I cannot remember the "title" that was given to the species. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.37.216.214 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Kenyanthropus as our likely ancestor
Just out of curiosity, why was my edit undone? The article states that the Kenyanthropus platyops species is the likely ancestor of Homo, yet this is a hotly debated topic. My edit specifically stated that Humans descended from either Kenyanthropus, Australopithecus or Paranthropus. As there is still no general concensus, we should err on the side of caution by limiting our choices to these three taxa, rather than saying what we personally believe is true. To do otherwise somewhat clashes with the NPOV of the site, in my opinion. Granted, I've been out of the loop for the last 10 months, so things may have changed, but I believe I would have heard about it. Unless you can cite your source that this specimen is, in fact, generally accepted as our common ancestor, I believe it should be returned to the edit that I made.Drur93 05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the previous version stated there was no consensus on this, if you are going to make a change that states something more conclusive, you'll need to provide a citation for it. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the point, the previous version stated that Kenyanthropus was the likely ancestor. "Likely" suggests that a majority of experts in the field agree - that's not the case, as there is a lot of debate still. As there is no general consensus, stating this as factual is inaccurate at this time. The change I made explained that we still do not know whether we're the descendants of Kenyanthropus or Australopithecus. Ergo, we should stray on the side of caution by not labeling Kenyanthropus as our "likely Ancestor". - Drur93 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Typography: dagger and extinction
I have seen the dagger character (†) used to indicate an individual's death in German language source material, but have never seen it used in English or French sources. I do not believe it is standard encyclopedic usage. It is currently in use on the article page to indicate extinct species of homo. The article page for dagger claims "Since it also represents the Christian cross, in certain predominantly Christian regions, the mark is used in a text after the name of a deceased person or the date of death, as in Christian grave headstones." - and I have reason to doubt the neanderthals et al., were Christian. If noone justifies its use here, I shall remove it within the week. Cheers, samwaltz 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The dagger character is often used to denote extinct taxa (as mentioned in the article). Mgiganteus1 06:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if they're Jewish? Ah, well, that's what I get for searching the article for death/dead, rather than extinct. samwaltz 12:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Linnaeus's Wise man
Is there a 'Homo sapiens Linnaeus' Tho whole of WikiSpecies is confused. Does anyone on Wikipedia Know?
 * No, Linnaeus is the person who named the human species "Homo sapiens." Someone the Person 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Red links factual?
Homo in Greek means Same. Mom you are wrong and I was right. There are a lot of red links in the list of species and subspecies. There are a couple of species, and many more subspecies, which do not have an article on Wikipedia, are not in the table, and are not covered by the external links. For example, 14 subspecies of Homo erectus are listed. Four of them have an article on Wikipedia, and the remaining ten not only don't have an article, but also are not mentioned in the article Homo erectus. Also, there are 5 subspecies of Homo sapiens listed, and only 2 are mentioned anywhere else in Wikipedia. Note the information given for a couple of the extra subspecies: "Homo sapiens archaic (most ancient wise man) discovered 2003. Homo sapiens fossilis (fossil wise man) discovered 1869." Firstly, Homo sapiens idaltu is "the oldest representative of the H. sapiens species found so far," according to the article on it. Secondly, I don't think scientists would make fossilized humans a separate subspecies, because any living thing can be fossilized. What is going on here? Someone the Person 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not clear what's going on. I'm very confused by the dates for the various species as well.  Looks like h. ergaster went extinct long before most textbooks say that it did.Levalley (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Boskop Man?
Can anyone comment on and/or help with Boskop Man? Anthro Project assumes he is no longer used and was rolled into another species... Please help if you have a clue. Smilo Don 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Homo --- genus should be a category too
This topic should be a wiki CATEGORY too. Can someone working in this area categorize? Smilo Don 13:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Homo Technologicus?
Food for thought: I've always wondered if we should have a new category with something like "Homo Technologicus". After all, we all are now so dependent on nutrician, medicine, hygene, surgery (including Caesarean sections) that it might not be possible to continue without technology. --Neilrieck (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. That would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. The only things that are appropriate are those things we can cite with verifiable and reliable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 * My apologies. I never thought that Wikipedia should create this title. It was a suggestion for academia. In hindsight I can see that my thoughts might be more the realm of philosophy rather than biology. Thanks for catching my faux pas. --Neilrieck 22:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Homo/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Talisman Dungeon

Italics or quotes?
When I created this page, I was unsure about whether to use quotes or to italicize the name of the game, e.g. is it Talisman or "Talisman" or just Talisman? As a result, the markup is mixed in the article. I consulted the Manual of Style, but it doesn't cover game titles. Anyone know? —Frecklefoot 16:00, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Percy Snoodle suggested that this article—as well as all the other Talisman expansions—be merged with Talisman.

 * Oppose. When I wrote this article (as well as the main Talisman article), I created this as a separate article specifically to keep the main article from becomming bloated.  If you look at the main article, you'll see it is already fairly substantial.  Adding the content to the main article would bloat it and make it difficult to navigate.  The main article has a short summary of this expansion, which is all it should have.  While this article itself is not huge, I propose to keep it separate if for no other reason than preventing the main article from becoming bloated. Add in this expansion, as well as all the others, and then the 3rd edition expansions, and we'll have a huge mess.  Keeping the articles segmented in this fashion is the best way to keep it organized and bloat-free. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Over a decade later, I found two more reviews, and since this was not an unopposed merge, I went ahead and restored it. BOZ (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Talisman Dungeon


text:
Tuvan language

Tuvan or Tyvan is a Turkic language spoken in the Republic of Tuva in South Central Siberia, Russia. The language has borrowed a great number of roots from the Mongolian language, Tibetan and the Russian languages. There are small diaspora groups of Tuvan people that speak distinct dialects of Tuvan in China and Mongolia.

History
While this history focuses on mostly the people of Tuva, many linguists argue that language is inevitably intertwined with the socio-historical situation of a language itself. The earliest record of Tuvan is from the early 19th century by Wūlǐyǎsūtái zhìlüè, Julius Klaproth 1823, Matthias Castrén 1857, Nikolay Katanov, Vasily Radlov, etc.

The name Tuva goes back as early as the publication of The Secret History of the Mongols. The Tuva (as they refer to themselves) have historically been referred to as Soyons, Soyots or Uriankhais.

Classification
Tuvan (also spelled Tyvan) is linguistically classified as a Northeastern or Siberian Turkic language, closely related to several other Siberian Turkic languages including Khakas and Altai. Its closest relative is the moribund Tofa.

Although Tuvan has more speakers than endangered languages such as Seri in Mexico (est. 1000 speakers) or Nǁng in South Africa (fewer than 10 speakers), still Tuvan is endangered by global dialects around them like Russian or Mandarin.

Tuvan, as spoken in Tuva, is principally divided into four dialect groups; Western, Central, Northeastern, Southeastern.
 * Central: forms the basis of the literary language and includes Ovyur and Bii-Khem subdialects. The geographical centrality of this dialect meant it was similar to the language spoken by most Tuvans, whether or not exactly the same.
 * Western: can be found spoken near the upper course of the Khemchik. It is influenced by the Altai language.
 * Northeastern, also known as the Todzhi dialect, is spoken near the upper course of the Great Yenisey. The speakers of this dialect utilize nasalization. It contains a large vocabulary related to hunting and reindeer breeding not found in the other dialects.
 * Southeastern: shows the most influence from the Mongolic languages.

Other dialects include those spoken by the Dzungar, the Tsengel and the Dukha Tuvans, but currently these uncommon dialects are not comprehensively documented. Different dialects of the language exist across the geographic region in which Tuvan is spoken. K. David Harrison, who completed his dissertation on the Tuvan language in 2001, argues that the divergence of these dialects relates to the nomadic nature of the Tuvan nation.

One subset is the Jungar Tuvan language, originating in the Altai Mountains in the western region of Mongolia. There is no accurate number of Jungar-Tuvan speakers because most currently reside in China, and the Chinese include Tuvan speakers as Mongolians in their census.

Consonants
Tuvan has 19 native consonant phonemes:

Vowels
Vowels in Tuvan exist in three varieties: short, long and short with low pitch. Tuvan long vowels have a duration that is at least (and often more than) twice as long as that of short vowels. Contrastive low pitch may occur on short vowels, and when it does, it causes them to increase in duration by at least a half. When using low pitch, Tuvan-speakers employ a pitch that is at the very low end of their modal voice pitch. For some speakers, it is even lower and using what is phonetically known as creaky voice. When a vowel in a monosyllabic word has low pitch, speakers apply low pitch only to the first half of that vowel (e.g. 'horse'). That is followed by a noticeable pitch rise, as the speaker returns to modal pitch in the second half of the vowel.

The acoustic impression is similar to that of a rising tone like the rising pitch contour of the Mandarin second tone, but the Tuvan pitch begins much lower. However, Tuvan is considered a pitch accent language with contrastive low pitch instead of a tonal language. When the low pitch vowel occurs in a multisyllabic word, there is no rising pitch contour or lengthening effect: 'his/her/its horse'. Such low pitch vowels were previously referred to in the literature as either kargyraa or pharyngealized vowels. Phonetic studies have demonstrated that the defining characteristic of such vowels is low pitch. See Harrison 2001 for a phonetic and acoustic study of Tuvan low pitch vowels.

In her PhD thesis, "Long Vowels in Mongolic Loanwords in Tuvan", Baiarma Khabtagaeva states that the history of long vowels is ambiguous. While the long vowels may originate from Mongolic languages, they could also be of Tuvan origin. In most Mongolic languages, the quality of the long vowel changes depending on the quality of the second vowel in the conjunction. The only exception to this rule is if the conjunction is labial. The ancient Tuvan languages, in contrast, depended upon the first vowel rather than the second to determine the long vowels.

Khabtagaeva divided the transformation of these loanwords into two periods: the early layer and the late layer. The words in the early layer are words in which the Mongolic preserved the conjunction, the VCV conjunction was preserved but the long vowel still developed when it entered the Tuvan language, or the stress is on the last syllable and a long vowel in the loanword replaced a short vowel in the original word. The Late Layer includes loanwords in which the long vowel does not change when the word entered Tuvan.

Vowels may also be nasalized in the environment of nasal consonants, but nasalization is non-contrastive. Most Tuvan vowels in word-initial syllables have a low pitch and do not contrast significantly with short and long vowels.

Vowel harmony
Tuvan has two systems of vowel harmony that strictly govern the distribution of vowels within words and suffixes. Backness harmony, or what is sometimes called 'palatal' harmony, requires all vowels within a word to be either back or front. Rounding harmony, or what is sometimes called 'labial' harmony, requires a vowel to be rounded if it is a high vowel and appears in a syllable immediately following a rounded vowel. Low rounded vowels are restricted to the first syllable of a word, and a vowel in a non-initial syllable may be rounded only if it meets the conditions of rounding harmony (it must both be a high vowel  and be preceded by a rounded vowel). See Harrison (2001) for a detailed description of Tuvan vowel harmony systems.

Grammar
Tuvan builds morphologically complex words by adding suffixes. For example, теве teve is 'camel', тевелер teveler is 'camels', тевелерим tevelerim is 'my camels', тевелеримден tevelerimden is 'from my camels'.

Nouns
Tuvan marks nouns with six cases: genitive, accusative, dative, ablative, locative, and allative. The suffixes below are in front vowels, however, except -Je the suffixes follow vowel harmony rules. Each case suffix has a rich variety of uses and meanings, only the most basic uses and meanings are shown here.

Verbs
Verbs in Tuvan take a number of endings to mark tense, mood, and aspect. Auxiliary verbs are also used to modify the verb. For a detailed scholarly study of auxiliary verbs in Tuvan and related languages, see Anderson 2004.

Syntax
Tuvan employs SOV word order. For example, теве сиген чипкен (camel hay eat-PAST) "The camel ate the hay."

Vocabulary
Tuvan vocabulary is mostly Turkic in origin but marked by a large number of Mongolian loanwords. The language has also borrowed several Mongolian suffixes. In addition, there exist Ketic and Samoyedic substrata. A Tuvan talking dictionary is produced by the Living Tongues Institute.

In contrast with most Turkic languages, which have many Arabic and Persian loanwords that even cover some basic concepts, these loanwords are very few in Tuvan, if any, as Tuvans never adopted Islam like most Turkic peoples.

Cyrillic script
The current Tuvan alphabet is a modified version of the Russian alphabet, with three additional letters: ң (Latin "ng" or International Phonetic Alphabet ), Өө (Latin "ö", ), Үү (Latin "ü", IPA ). The sequence of the alphabet follows Russian exactly, with ң located after Russian Н, Ө after О, and Ү after У.

The letters Е and Э are used in a special way. Э is used for the short sound at the beginning of words while Е is used for the same sound in the middle and at the end of words. Е is used at the beginning of words, mostly of Russian origin, to reflect the standard Russian pronunciation of that letter,. Additionally, ЭЭ is used in the middle and at the end of words for the long sound.

The letter ъ is used to indicate pitch accent, as in эът èt 'meat'.

Mongol script
In the past, Tuvans used Mongolian as their written language.

Mongolian script was later developed by Nikolaus Poppe to suit the Tuvan language. This is the first known written form of the Tuvan language.

Tuvan Latin
The Latin-based alphabet for Tuvan was devised in 1930 by a Tuvan Buddhist monk, Mongush Lopsang-Chinmit (a.k.a. Lubsan Zhigmed). A few books and newspapers, including primers intended to teach adults to read, were printed using this writing system. Lopsang-Chinmit was later executed in Stalinist purges on 31 December 1941.

The letter Ɉ ɉ was excluded from the alphabet in 1931.

Examples

By September 1943, this Latin-based alphabet was replaced by a Cyrillic-based one, which is still in use to the present day. In the post-Soviet era, Tuvan and other scholars have taken a renewed interest in the history of Tuvan letters.

Transliteration
For bibliographic purposes, transliteration of Tuvan generally follows the guidelines described in the ALA-LC Romanization tables for non-Slavic languages in Cyrillic script. Linguistic descriptions often employ the IPA or Turcological standards for transliteration.

Status
Tuvans in China, who live mostly in Xinjiang Autonomous Region, are included under the Mongol nationality. Some Tuvans reportedly live at Kanas Lake in the northwestern part of Xinjiang, where they are not officially recognized, and are counted as a part of the local Oirat Mongol community that is counted under the general PRC official ethnic label of "Mongol". Oirat and Tuvan children attend schools in which they use Chakhar Mongolian and Mandarin Standard Chinese, native languages of neither group.

title: Tuvan language


text:
Home (magazine)

Home Magazine was a magazine published in the United States by Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S.

History and profile
Home was founded in 1981 and concluded publication with the October 2008 issue. The magazine appeared eight times a year and had a circulation of one million. In 2007 Olivia Monjo appointed the editor-in-chief of the magazine. Its website, PointClickHome.com, continued updating until 2009.

title: Home (magazine)


text:
Talk:Ammunition for infantry

Someone has created several of these "Ammunition for ..." and similar pages, from the 1911 Encyclopedia article on ammunition. (See the bottom of our ammunition page for links to some of them). All of them are of course quite obsolete. I think several of them could be salvaged with lots of work, but this one I'm not so sure of. Its sole use is as a historical reference, and for that the title is wrong, it needs to be surrounded by warnings, and some archaic terminology reworked. I suggest that some of this material might be paraphrased in a history section of a much improved ammunition or infantry article, and this page deleted? Securiger 16:11, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ammunition for infantry


text:
User:Wikigreat

I am Wikigreat, working to improve the future of Wikipedia. Submit any new ideas to me.

title: User:Wikigreat


text:
1872 Canadian federal election

The 1872 Canadian federal election was held from July 20 to October 12, 1872, to elect members of the House of Commons of Canada of the 2nd Parliament of Canada. Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald's Conservative Party remained in power, defeating the Liberals. However, the Liberals increased their parliamentary representation considerably, while the Conservative seat count remained static, giving them only six more seats than the Liberals. The election produced the country's first minority government. The support of two independent Conservative MPs functionally gave Macdonald an extremely slim majority that allowed it to survive for two years, until it fell due to scandal.

Edward Blake, who had a seat in both the House of Commons of Canada and the Ontario legislature, resigned as Premier of Ontario in order to run in the 1872 federal election as dual mandates had been abolished. Had the Liberals won the election, he likely would have been offered the position of Prime Minister of Canada. The party had no formal leader as such until 1873 when Alexander Mackenzie was given the title after Blake declined due to ill health. Blake was ill during much of the 1872 campaign, and it was Mackenzie who essentially led the Liberal campaign in Ontario, though not outside the province.

The 1872 general election was the first to include the new provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia, which had both joined Canada after the Confederation of 1867. By-elections had been held in both provinces to elect Members of Parliament in the newly created ridings, with Manitoba receiving four seats and British Columbia six. (In 1870 Canada had also expanded to include the current provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Territories, but no MPs were elected there until 1887.) In 1873, PEI joined Confederation and six more seats were added to the House of Commons, all filled by acclamations in by-elections.

Electoral system
Most of the ridings in this election elected just one member through First past the post, except for the ridings of: Ottawa, Victoria, the City and County of St. John, Cape Breton, Pictou, Hamilton, and Halifax; which elected two members, with each voter casting up to two votes (Plurality block voting).

National

Note: 1 Though identifying themselves as Liberal-Conservatives, these MPs and those identifying as Conservatives were both led by Sir John A. Macdonald (himself a Liberal-Conservative) and sat together in the House of Commons.

Acclamations

The following MPs were acclaimed:
 * British Columbia: 3 Liberal-Conservatives
 * Manitoba: 1 Liberal-Conservative
 * Ontario: 3 Conservatives, 3 Liberal-Conservatives, 10 Liberals
 * Quebec: 9 Conservatives, 5 Liberal-Conservatives, 5 Liberals
 * New Brunswick: 6 Liberals, 1 Independent
 * Nova Scotia: 1 Conservative, 4 Liberal-Conservatives, 2 Liberals

title: 1872 Canadian federal election


text:
Otto's Encyclopedia

Otto's Encyclopedia (Ottova encyklopedie or Ottův slovník naučný), published at the turn of the 20th century, is the largest encyclopedia written in Czech. For its scope and the quality of the writing, it is comparable to the greatest world encyclopedias of its time, such as Encyclopædia Britannica.

The first edition
At the beginning of the 1880s, Jan Otto, a Czech book-seller and publisher, began planning a new general Czech encyclopedia. He was inspired by the first Czech encyclopedia by F. L. Rieger, a fourteen-volume work published between 1860 and 1874, but wanted to go further. For a long time Otto could not find an eligible editor-in-chief until he began to cooperate with Jan Malý, a former co-editor of the Reiger's encyclopedia, who laid down a concept of the new work with a proposed name - Czech national encyclopedia (Národní encyklopedie česká) in 1884. After Malý's death the following year, Otto found a new editor-in-chief, Tomáš Masaryk later the president of Czechoslovakia, and in 1886 the actual work began (Masaryk himself leading subjects of psychology, sociology, philosophy and logic disciplines, but didn't contribute any text to published encyclopedias ). Work on encyclopedia then was slower than Masaryk promised. The next year, Masaryk got involved in a tempestuous dispute over the authenticity of the allegedly historical Zelenohorský and Královedvorský manuscripts and resigned from the editorship. Otto managed to establish a new editorial group from prominent technicians, theologians and representatives of Czech universities including figures such as Karel Boromejský Mádl. Their intensive work and the work of their collaborators lead to the publication of the first volume of the encyclopedia, under the name Ottův slovník naučný (Otto's Encyclopedia), in January 1888. From that point onwards, the work progressed without major problems and volumes were published regularly until the last (28th) one appeared in 1908.

Otto's Encyclopedia consists of 28 (27 regular plus one supplementary) volumes. It contains approximately 150,000 entries printed on 28,912 pages, using an estimated 130 million letters. There are nearly 5,000 images and illustrations and 479 pages of attachments in the encyclopedia. Around 55 main editors and 1,100 external collaborators participated in its creation.

Otto's Encyclopedia of the New Era
Immediately after finishing his encyclopedia, Otto began to plan a second, sixteen-volume revised edition and started to prepare its realization. The preparation was continued by others even after he died (1916) and during the World War I but it was never completed due to quickly rising expenses.

But the story does not end yet. Since the "Jan Otto Ltd." publishing company, which was led by Otto's son-in-law K. B. Mádl, began issuing supplements to the original encyclopedia - the so-called Otto's Encyclopedia of the New Era (Ottův slovník naučný nové doby) - in 1930. These supplements, of very broad conception, were supposed to reflect new pieces of knowledge arising since the first edition was published, new historical events and the new political reality of the freshly born Czechoslovakia. Most of the entries were completely new, only a minor part of them were revised entries from the first encyclopedia. The Jan Otto company continued to release the supplements until 1934, when it got into financial problems and the work was given over to the "Novina" publishing company. Although the supplements were laid out as a set of 16 volumes, the last two of them, although being ready for printing, never came out, as the whole project was stopped in 1943 by the Nazis. In 1945, an order not to publish the rest of the encyclopedia came, substantiated by a statement that volumes released during World War II were severely affected by the Nazi censorship. (This statement has been disputed since. Jan Havránek, a contemporary Czech historian, states that such censorship interference indeed took place, its range was much more limited than was thought at that time.) Thus, the last released entry of the Otto's Encyclopedia of the New Era was "Užok" (Uzsok - a village in Hungary). The text of the two last volumes disappeared and the letters V to Z are missing from the encyclopedia.

Otto's Encyclopedia of the New Era is about one third of the size of the original edition. It contains nearly 60,000 entries in 12 volumes printed on 8,585 pages.

The whole project has been re-released between 1996 and 2003. It has also been digitized and appeared in a CD-ROM version. Both, the paper and digital editions are 'reprints' of the original work, thus preserving the exact look and feel of Otto's Encyclopedia.

Otto's Encyclopedia demonstrated the progress of Czech society and greatly supported its rising national identity. Even today, it is a good source of information, mainly on historical subjects. Derek Sayer in his book says that "But it is Ottův slovník naučný that remains the greatest of Czech works of reference, unsurpassed by anything published since. In its time it was one of the largest encyclopedias in the world, second in the number of its entries and illustrations perhaps only to the Encyclopædia Britannica."

title: Otto's Encyclopedia


text:
Talk:List of delegates to the Maryland Constitutional Convention (1776)

Untitled
FYI: In creating this list I did not make links out of the names, unless there was already an article, or one is needed fron the Continental Congress list. We may never know enough about some of these men to make an article. Others can be linked as biographies are added. My reasoning was also worried about the form of the name, with or without middle names, etc. I am trying not to crete more poblems of the Danial Quinlan Redirect type with duplicate articles about the same person. Lou I 16:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Homo rudolfensis

Year of ref. 16 correct?
Please verify if pub year of ref. 16 (Tattersall, I. (2019). “Classification and phylogeny in human evolution”. Ludus Vitalis. 9 (15): 139–140.) is correct. The referred article seems to be from 2001, not 2019. My apologies if this is not the proper way to suggest a possible improvement: I'm very new to editing in Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.maryniak (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You were right, it was supposed to be 2001. In the future, I'd recommend being bold and fixing errors when you see them  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyright?
The first two paragraphs of this entry are identical with the first two paragraphs on Homo rudolfensis on this another site: something to do with the Smithsonian, perhaps. .

Does this constitute a breach of copyright? I don't know the author, perhaps they are one and the same.

Philip Lawton

p.d.lawton@dur.ac.uk
 * Yes, the first two paragraphs are nearly literal copies of other sources. The only thing that stops me from placing a copivio notice on the article is that it's not clear who owns the copyright (if any) on the original. Here is another source that has the same paragraphs:
 * http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/er1470.htm
 * Google gives about 90 hits for pages with nearly identical wording
 * Gene s 08:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Soft Tissue issues...
The article mentions a sophisticated sweating system, hair length, and noticeable whites of the eyes as characteristics not present in Homo rudolfensis. While it is perhaps unlikely that H. Rudolfensis would have exhibited these characteristics, is it not impossible to make such a determination given that the only existing evidence from this time consists of skeletal remains, as well as stone tools and a few footprints?

Charles Burgess

cb834214@albany.edu

 * There really is no scientific evidence to suggest any of this. In fact, we don't have the means to determine this at this point in time. Seems fabricated to me.Drur93 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Skull 1470
I think that both of these articles will always be rather small and, since one is talking about a specific find regarding the other, should be merged together here. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I belevie that this [Skull 1470] article is warranted. I think there is more to say about KNM–ER 1470 that will not (and probably shouldnt) fit in Homo rudolfensis - Por exemplo - how, when and by whom it was discovered; and considering that wikipedia has no size limits, there should be space for this scientifically important particularity. I hold no strong convictions on this issue, but considering that this is a subject that (I believe) is neglected on wikipedia, shouldnt we make some wriggle-space for extra article? --Ezeu 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC) minor edit by UtherSRG (talk)
 * Certainly wiki has no size limits, but that doesn't mean we can't put two things side-by-side and see if they should be combined or not and use potential growth as an issue. Look at Meganthropus and the recent expansion its gone through. This article would easily be a section in Homo rudolfensis. I'd rather have one nice-sized article that covers several aspects (findings, evolution, interpretation, etc.) than several small articles that I'd have to use to piece together the larger picture. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, if the "nice-sized article" covers the subject, and the issues in the "small article" are not neglected (which often is the case) — cool. Unforunately "nice-sized articles" usually ignore the nitty-gritty, leaving the seemingly unimportant details to stubs. I'd rather have several good stubs than none. --Ezeu 15:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I edited out the whites of the eyes, sophisticated sweating system, and naked apperance comments, as they are speculative, and there is no evidence to support them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rafe Kelley (talk • contribs).
 * There was no need. The statement was already tagged as unsourced. Meanwhile, we continue to search for a citation for the information. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The role of Skull 1470 in evolution-creation controversy
This skull has been haunting me for a while. Its name keeps popping up on creationst websites. Many of them claim scientists deliberately changed the dates from the originally estimated age of 3 million years simply to make it fit the evolution theory better. The fact that it was discovered under "impossibly" old vulcanic ashes is also brought up often. One instance of such incident can be found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp (scroll down to the segment titled "Bad dates", paragraph 3)

I have been wondering what is the scientific response to these creationist accusations. In what way are the later estimations more accurate than the 3 million years, and how are the "old" ashes explained?

And most importantly, should there be a segment in this article regarding this controversy, similar to the Nylon-eating bacteria? Or does this debate perhaps belong in the Creation-evolution controversy article?

- Henry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.214.9.63 (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC). {{subst:image source|Image:1470f.jpg)) Betacommand {{sup|(talk • contribs • Bot)}} 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC) {{missing rationale|Image:1470f.jpg

 * Creationists don't take science seriously. It's quite possible that the skull was mis-dated initially.  Sorry to say, while the Leakeys have built up quite a reputation and catalog of fossil finds, they don't have serious training as hard core scientists, other than their field experience.  So yeah, initially mis-identifying the date is par for the course for the Leakeys.  But sooner or later, real geologists get to look at their findings, fix their errors and we get a correct characterization of their finds.  Creationists just cherry pick all this nonsense and make up stories that are convenient to their anti-reality agenda.  Try not to pay too much attention to them.  The date is 1.9 ma old.  The new bones are 1.78 - 1.95 ma old.  So its a contemporary with habilis and early ergaster/erectus.  The creationists just have propaganda.

 * I have very harshly debunked the website you link to here: http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pnmxr/eli5_carbon_dating/c3r9tww Qed (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Hello. I was curious, Qed, what information has led you to believe Creationists "just cherry pick" all of their information? Did you read the information in the article Betacommand linked to?

 * It went into a very detailed analysis of the use of Carbon Dating. For example: based on the assumptions evolutionists have, carbon dating could not be accurate above 80,000 years, yet evolutionist scientist use this technique to chart the age of artifacts they believe to be millions of years old?

 * Also:

 * "Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed [the ratio of 14C to 12C] to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution...". Reasoning, based on... a theory?

 * Some very large and complex books have been written by creationist scientists. Such as the "Exploring Creation With" series, including Astronomy, Geology, Biology, etc. (i have Exploring Creating with Physical Science, and it has 500 pages filled with complex scientific material.)

 * Please do not think i am trying to start a riot, or turn this page into a forum, but I respectfully remind you the evolution theory was conceived of by a single man who had an idea. While creationists base their science on a basis that has been steady for thousands of years, evolutionists assume an idea conceived of only 2 centuries ago to be fact. I believe that is an error on the evolutionists part. Toanicky —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Creationists base their 'science' on a fairy tale. Their misguided ramblings have no place in this article. End of. 86.134.119.225 (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Please, don't just end this conversation, just listen to what i have to say.

 * I just want too see some hard, PURE, and ACCURATELY LABELED scientific PROOF that creation is a fairy tale.

 * I have seen lots of scientific evidence against evolution, but all i have heard from the evolutionists again creation, is ranting! "Their misguided ramblings" and "cherry pick all this nonsense" and the like, but on the creation side, i have seen that based on THE EVOLUTIONISTS OWN IDEAS, carbon dating couldn't be for inorganic matter, and INACCURATE past 80,000 years. How do YOU explain that?

 * What was taught in schools 100 years before Darwin? Creation. What about 1,000 years? Creation. What about 5,000 years ago? Creation. How could one man's theory change that?

 * Note, I am not harshly bashing evolution, but you evolutionists aggressively condemn creation. Why? Why are you guys so afraid of the idea? Toanicky —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since no one else is biting, I'll just leave these: Radiometric dating and Stratigraphy_(archaeology). C14 is only good for 50-60,000 years, but it's not the only radioactive element. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Truth can be unwelcome here, unless it's been properly sourced and cited.  Encyclopedias are funny, that way.--Robert Keiden (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I was going to write something, but then I remembered that the point of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. There has been no reliable attention paid to the creationist-manufactured "controversy", so there is nothing to go into the article. End of conversation. GDallimore (Talk) 22:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

{{hab}}

Fair use rationale for Image:1470f.jpg
Image:1470f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

add some useful information in external links
added external links71.232.93.212 (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

KNM-ER 1802
At the end of the 2012 fossil find section there is a mention to KNM-ER 1802, but there is no explanation in the article about that fossil.--Cattus talk 20:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I've added something.--Cattus talk 21:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Article was hit by a vandal, which got (partially) reverted.  I've restored the original content.--Robert Keiden (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

KNM-ER 1470 - Cranial size statements not consistent?
and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy.[4] Bromage said his team's reconstruction included biological knowledge not known at the time of the skull's discovery, of the precise relationship between the sizes of eyes, ears, and mouth in mammals.[4] A newer publication by Bromage has since further downsized the cranial capacity estimate from 752 cm³ to 700 cm³.[5] Jhall251 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Kenyanthropus?
Not one word about the fact that some have referred this species to Kenyanthropus? I don't have time to elaborate on this myself, but it should definitely be mentioned. There are 64 hits for "kenyanthropus rudolfensis" (with the quotation marks) on Google Scholar. David Marjanović (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Homo rudolfensis