Editing Paranthropus (section)

===Validity===
In 1951, American anthropologists [[Sherwood Washburn]] and [[Bruce D. Patterson]] were the first to suggest that ''Paranthropus'' should be considered a [[junior synonym]] of ''Australopithecus'' as the former was only known from fragmentary remains at the time, and dental differences were too minute to serve as justification.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=S. L.|last1=Washburn|author-link=Sherwood Washburn|first2=B. D.|last2=Patterson|year=1951|title=Evolutionary Importance of the South African 'Man-apes'|journal=Nature|volume=167|issue=4251|pages=650–651|doi=10.1038/167650a0|pmid=14826894|bibcode=1951Natur.167..650W|s2cid=4207075}}</ref> In face of calls for subsumation, Leakey<ref name=Leakey1959/> and Robinson<ref>{{cite journal|first=J. T.|last=Robinson|author-link=John Talbot Robinson|year=1965|title=''Homo 'habilis''{{'}} and the Australopithecines|journal=Nature|volume=205|issue=4967|pages=121–124|doi=10.1038/205121a0|bibcode=1965Natur.205..121R|s2cid=4196031}}</ref> continued defending its validity. Various other authors were still unsure until more complete remains were found.<ref name=Constantino2004>{{cite book|first1=P. J.|last1=Constantino|first2=B. A.|last2=Wood|year=2004|chapter=''Paranthropus'' Paleobiology|title=Miscelanea en Homenaje a Emiliano Aguirre|volume=III|series=Paleoantropologia|publisher=Museo Arqueológico Regional|url=https://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&=&context=bio_sciences_faculty&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C44%2526q%253Dparanthropus%252Baethiopicus%2526oq%253DParanthropus#search=%22paranthropus%20aethiopicus%22}}</ref> ''Paranthropus'' is sometimes classified as a [[subgenus]] of ''Australopithecus''.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Cela-Conde|first1=C. J.|author-link=Camilo José Cela Conde|last2=Ayala|first2=F. J.|author-link2=Francisco J. Ayala|year=2003|title=Genera of the human lineage|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=100|issue=13|pages=7684–7689|bibcode=2003PNAS..100.7684C|doi=10.1073/pnas.0832372100|pmc=164648|pmid=12794185|doi-access=free}}</ref>

[[File:Paranthropus robustus top (University of Zurich).JPG|thumb|upright|''P. robustus'' ([[SK 48]])]]
There is currently no clear consensus on the validity of ''Paranthropus''. The argument rests upon whether the genus is [[monophyletic]]—is composed of a common ancestor and all of its descendants—and the argument against monophyly (that the genus is [[paraphyletic]]) says that ''P. robustus'' and ''P. boisei'' evolved similar gorilla-like heads independently of each other by coincidence ([[convergent evolution]]), as chewing adaptations in hominins evolve very rapidly and multiple times at various points in the family tree ([[homoplasy]]).<ref name=Wood2007>{{cite journal|first1=B.|last1=Wood|first2=J.|last2=Constantino|year=2007|title=''Paranthropus boisei'': Fifty Years of Evidence and Analysis|journal=Yearbook of Physical Anthropology|volume=50|pages=106–132|doi=10.1002/ajpa.20732|pmid=18046746|url=https://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty/37|doi-access=free}}</ref> In 1999, a chimp-like [[ulna]] forearm bone was assigned to ''P. boisei'', the first discovered ulna of the species, which was markedly different from ''P. robustus'' ulnae, which could suggest paraphyly.<ref name=McHenry2007>{{cite journal|first1=H. M.|last1=McHenry|author-link=Henry McHenry (anthropologist)|first2=C. C.|last2=Brown|first3=L. J.|last3=McHenry|year=2007|title=Fossil hominin ulnae and the forelimb of ''Paranthropus''|journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology|volume=134|issue=2|pages=209–218|doi=10.1002/ajpa.20656|pmid=17596856}}</ref>