Oh go on then, I will put and end to one of the games so you can pretend it never happened as I'll be away from the forum for a couple of days, so I won't be able to squeeze much more amusement out of this anyway.
On what grounds did you claim that this skull was of a female?
Well, for clarity, I never said it was
the skull of a female.
It's not actually a skull, JJ.
This is one of the deliciously funny things you state in full confidence while being abjectly, awfully, and wholly ignorant of the subject matter, yet somehow we're supposed to buy into the assertion that you know what kind of animal it was better than people who actually know what it really looked like, not just a poor replica composite.
It's not actually the skull of anything, JJ. The picture you posted is a composite with around 50-60% additions made, largely from the looks of it, by employing artistic license, and ALL of the dentition is just made up - not actually based on ANY finds at all. It's really not a very good replica at all. Funny eh? Funny for me, anyway!

Even with only an elementary level of knowledge, you should have questioned the accuracy of that replica given the ridiculous degree of maxilliary prognathism, and ironically, the particularly janky dentition.
Rather as I told you right away, I knew it was
meant to be a female skull because I know what fossils it's based on, and I know the morphological characteristics of those fossils (from many individuals, I might add) which went into the composite.
So a serious discussion, with someone equipped to engage in this topic would involve discussions about dimensions of various morphological features of those fossils. No one serious would be offering up a poorly wrought composite replica, though.
So given how little you know, and given that you've shown how little you know, am I supposed to have a discussion with you about those features? You apparently haven't even seen the fossils in question, and apparently wouldn't even know what you're looking at if I served them up to you on a platter.
But go on then, tell me why I would be wrong (actually, it's not me, but the original publishing scientists) in describing it as a female given the small mastoid process, the biconvex prognathism of the maxilliary subnasal surface, the small mediolateral diameter of the manidbular condyle, the occipital condyle's articular surface, the narrow interorbital block, the
very narrow canine breadth, the narrow extramolar sulcus, the steep inclination of posteroinferior facing nuchal plane, the proximity of the temporal lines to the superior nuchal lines, the low frontal squama saggital convexity, and the apparent scaling of occipital squama. I am sure someone who specializes in afarensis would be able to list a dozen more characteristics they could use to sex (and identify the species of, and the temporal distribution of) those fossils, and they'd almost certainly be able to point out examples of other afarensis fossils which still clearly fall within the type that don't exhibit some of those characteristics, which I am very nearly as ignorant of as you.
But anyway, you're still right because you say so, even when you don't know your arse from your elbow. You've taken Creationism to a narcissistic level of self-dogma, and you have the utterly nonsensical delusion that it's everyone else operating from within a blinkering ideology.
