This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palaeontology 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Archaeology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Evolutionary biology Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Primates 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mammals 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is this even real? Isn't it just a supposed classification for Bigfoot? Adam Bishop 05:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is real, and I doubt it was invented by Bigfoot fans: the only fossils of this species were found in Java, which is nowhere near the supposed Bigfoot habitat. — No-One Jones (talk) 05:45, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Meganthropus seems to be ignored by the entire mainstream scientific community. Is evidence of giant prehistoric men not popular within the scientific community because it goes against the dogmatic religious beleif that we were supposed to have been little ape-men?

Nonsense. Meganthropus is not ignored at all. It has a an accepted status of subspecies to Homo erectus, namely palaeojavanicus. I do not see how large-size hominids pose any problem to evolution theory at all. It is just variation as a result of isolation and natural selection. But of course creationists of course love to construe straw-man arguments to support their dogmatic beliefs. Yet evolution stands firm as a scientific theory with strong empirical support. Fedor 11:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are Scientists even agreed as to how tall Meganthropus was? Weidenreich in his "Apes Giants and Man" suggests a being twice the size of a Gorilla. Furthermore, have there been any very recent finds of Meganthropus?

Why don't you read the article, buddy, and leave the fairy tale books on the bed room dresser. It clearly states that they are an estimated 2,75 meter (9 feet). Tall, that's for sure, but nothing phenomenal. Fedor 19:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--Nothing phenomenal? 9 feet would be totally phenomenal.

No, 2,75 meters is within a conceivable range; e.g. 5 meters wouldn't be. Fedor 02:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW this 9-feet claim has long been corrected as a myth (see below) Fedor 03:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a few claims about this species in this article that are quite far-fetched. The claims that hominid species other than Homo Sapien have been found in Australia is really stretching it. Can we perhaps get any references here? Aggelophoros 00:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking through the literature for information on this species and I found nothing to indicate a possible stature for this species, nor was there any indication of the extent of fossil finds (particularly in relation to Australia). Apart from some mention on ufo and pseuod-history/science pages on the net there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of information about this species. Also, it is widely accepted by the scientific community that Homo Sapien were the first hominids to inhabit Australia. Aggelophoros 00:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth did the 9 foot, 750-1000 pound figure come from? Durband never mentions it, and I am very suspicious. It sounds similar to a size estimates from Gigantopithecus, which had far larger remains. Also, I can find no sources mentioning this as a subspecies, nor for any alleged Australian finds. I am challenging the factual nature of this article, and unless some good sources show up soon, I'm going to rewrite it. It may take me a while, since the journal articles on the species are not currently available to me.Cameron 23:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I oversaw your comments here on the talk page, but people usually leave them at the bottom of the page. Although I am sympathethic to your will to dig deeper and verify the claims of this article, I find it highly unusual that you yourself independently added the disputed-tag, without any prior discussion with others. Just because you do not agree or are sceptical of certain contents does not justify the whole article being branded like that right away. Some very knowledgable users, like UtherSRG, have gone over this article before you came along. So I suggest that you first find some evidence that supports your scepticism, and discuss this, before doing any major changes, or adding any tags. Fedor 10:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aggelophoros has made similar comments at least a month ago, and they attracted no discussion, so that's why I took the initiative. I'm sorry if I came across as arrogant, but the article is rather problematic and jarring with what is written about it in serious publications. There are still claims in the paper which need to be cited, and the 2nd reference made does not appear in [Durband's abstract] at all. I know that Uther is knowledgeable, but there are still very large gaps in the paper. Most notably is the total absence of the classification debate for the species, a majority of paleoanthropologists assign it to Homo erectus (implied to be the same subspecies), but Don Tyler classifies it as Homo paleojavanincus, and the late Grover Krantz asserted it was an Australopithecine. If or when I get the rewrite in, it will probably be subdivided like so: Fossil finds/history (maybe with a list of finds), Interpretations and Controversy, and maybe Claims (covering Australian finds, height claims, bigfoot, et cetera). I'm still getting my sources in order, Durband sent me a long list and I am still looking for the following publications: Tyler, D (2001) Two new "Meganthropus" mandibles from Java. Human Evolution 16: 151-158. Tyler, D (1991) A Taxonomy of Javan hominid mandibles. Human Evolution 6: 401-420. Tyler, D (1996) The taxonomic status of the "Meganthropus" cranium Sangiran 31, and the "Meganthropus" occipital fragment III. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 15: 235-241. Tyler, D (2001) "Meganthropus" cranial fossils from Java. Human Evolution 16: 81-101. Kramer, A & Konigsberg, L (1994) The phyletic position of Sangiran 6 as determined by multivariate analysis Courier Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg 171: 105-114.Cameron 19:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I look forward to the expansion and editting, as well as the updated sources. I wonder if you could find some GFDL or otherwise license compatible images as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No harms done and sorry for the miscommunication. It also a bit the fault of us the others for not being sceptical enough. Yet, in the face of creationist claims of 'evidence for giants' I thought that 2-and-a-half meters in height sounded possible and I did not think further about it. If you have the means and will to sort this mess out, we would all be very happy indeed! Fedor 21:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if anyone was confused during the day, I added each section at a time, and now I've reformatted the talk as well. Anyways, there are a few potential controversies I can see coming from this article. I kept the trinomial name, certainly not published by Weidenreich, but (even though I think it is the most logical solution) I had to add a question mark after it to show it was still under debate. I also took a negative stance on the 9 foot figure published earlier, due to a complete lack of evidence. I didn't state it in the article, but using Kramer's published pictures (with measurements attached) I calculated that Sangiran 6 (the largest and original Meganthropus) was around 115% larger than Sangiran 9, a fairly typical Homo erectus. This would probably yield a figure somewhere between 6 and 7 feet tall, but 9 feet would be a huge stretch. I did mention that Krantz's reconstruction was only 8.5" high as well, which was utterly dwarfed by his Gigantopithecus skull (15" high!). I think I have enough sources, but I will continue searching in case more interesting opinions show up. I also mentioned creationist opinions (not to bug Fedor), but I think I put it down as appropriately as I could. As for pictures, I think I may be able to upload some sketches any maybe pictures of Sangiran 6, and if not I could always attempt to draw my own. I think the number of citations in the article may be a bit high, I may simplify it in the near future. If anyone out there was any more sources, specifically any good ones with size estimates, please notify me! Cameron 03:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can vaguely remember having seen something on Discovery Channel... just kidding! ;-) Great work, keep it up! Fedor 19:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Sangiran 6 mandibular fragment, and considering the robustness of the species [aka more robust than even H. Erectus], I figure that Meganthropus may have had an average stature of about 1.8-2 meters without having too grotesqly out of proportioned of a head. I differ with Krantz concerning the skull height of Meganthropus, which he estimates at 8.5 inches, as I feel Meganthropus had a skull in excess of 10 inches tall.... If Meganthropus's mandible was in similar proportion to the rest of the skull as Homo Erectus, then I do conclude Meganthropus was about 7 feet tall. But taking into account the likelyhood of robustness, I figure 6ft to 6ft6 inches was the likely average stature of this giant, and probably a weight of 300-350 lbs.

There may have been some occasional 7 and 8 footers among the Meganthropus, but I feel they were averaging closer to 6'6. But that's just me.

Thanks for the information, but... er... who are you precisely and what are your credentials? This is to get an impression of the weight (authority) of your opinion. Fedor 19:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My authroity? Hmm... Well, I'm still in high school. Confidentially, I would say that my academic authority is close to worthless.

But I think common sense tells me that for a human like creature, as a general rule, the head is usually about one seventh the total stature, (Maybe 6 or 6.5 in some robust cases). And I belive Meganthropus had a head that was 10 to 11 inches tall (with the flesh), thus he stood approximately, 5 ft 10 to 6 ft 5. I'm basing this off the Sangiran 6 mandible.

I feel that Mr. Krantz conclusion of the 8.5 inch tall skull, indicates a Meganthropus stature of only about 5 ft 6 inches, which is perfectly common to a normal Homo erectus.--But if you look at the Sangiran 6 mandible fragment, the teeth, and the entire proportions are much greater than a common proportioned Erectus.

But those are just my opinions...

Please sign "talk" edits with four tildes (~). Ah... Wikipedia is not a place to espouse your own opinions or conclusions. We are to report on others' discoveries and information, not to perform original research and publish it. This is what your suppositions above amount to. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops... then I better delete what I wrote.

Na, I'll just let someone else delete it instead... besides it makes for good reading anyways... I mean, it's relevent to the subject.

It is not allowed to delete any comments on the discussion pages. And, again: please sign with ~~~~! Fedor 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The museum label for the infobox picture says Pithecanthropus modjokertensis. This happens to be the original name — given by its discoverer Ralph von Koenigswald — of fossil "Mojokerto 1" (aka "Perning 1"), which is commonly known as the "Mojokerto child". It is named after the town of Mojokerto about 10 kilometers from the site where it was excavated in 1936. I'm not a paleoanthropologist, so I may be missing some subtleties about how fossils are named, but the page Mojokerto child (which I just finished writing) seems to have enough references to support my judgment. What do you all think? Madalibi (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]