Talk:Homo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A big revert...

In this edit a large number of new 'species' where added. This is an area of controversy as there are two groups of people; Lumpers: those that want to find as small as possible set of species within Homo: Splitters: those that every new skullcup constitutes a new species. My symapthies lie with the former. I don't think we should have any links here without a solid source or a blue link to a page.

The same user that added so many new species also added this edit quoting source 'homo hierarchy classification by systema naturae 2004, Taxonomicon'. I can not find any references to a version of systema naturae published in 2004. I can find a version from 2000 here which shows a far more limited and feasible homo tree here

Since I know I am biased towards the Lumper view I thought I should discuss before changing. GameKeeper (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done the revert now , I tried to keep the valid edits since the big addition, here are the edits I kept.GameKeeper (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL?

"Homo sapiens sapiens (Wise Man) discovered 1758". Is this some kind of joke? --212.247.27.5 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not a joke, its just the wrong word has been used. It should not say discovered it should say classified. 1758 was the date when Linnaeus published the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae which is the basis of zoological nomenclature. Most recently discovered creatures are classified and discovered on similar dates which is why the inconsistency has occurred. I am planning a big revert when I get time. So am not going to correct this now. GameKeeper (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How many species of homo are there?

Just curious, is this all the known species of homo? I noticed there's a tension between the "splitters" and the "lumpers" which complicates things, but are there any informed guesses on how many species of homo there may be in reality, including ones we haven't yet discovered?VatoFirme (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you see that tree outside your window? No, not that one, the other one. Yeah that one. How many leaves did it ever have and will ever have? You question is as meaningless as mine. There is not way to know if all of a genus' species are known. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There really aren't that many species of the Homo Genus. The ones known would be a rather low number, somewhere around 100. I don't see why it's a meaningless question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.180.46 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the Cro-Magnon man one of the sub-species of Homo sapiens? In high school, I had learnt that the Neanderthal Man was called Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Cro-Magnon man was called Homo sapiens fossilis, the present human species Homo sapiens sapiens & future man will be called Homo sapiens futuralis (or Homo sapiens futuris). Can anyone shed any light on this? 59.184.134.9 (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Any number we give would be artificial due to the difficulty of defining species, especially when all you have to go on are fragmentary bones. Who is to say where the color aquamarine ends and the color blue starts? The classifications are our best attempt to put categories on things that resist static categories. So like Uther said, the number is meaningless, it is just a tool to help us with the mathmatical way our brains are wired and it will always be changing and debated as more information is found. The more important question is how those species/individual fossils fit into the larger tree. Nowimnthing (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question we would need a very firm definition of species , which we simply do not have. See the Species problem for some discussion. See Ring species for an interesting example of a species problems. Those articles do not mention the problems when time separates organisms . The standard species definition 'a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring' becomes hard to interpret when the organisms concerned are separated by large time spans. It could be that 4 time separated organisms A,B,C,D could each interbreed with the next one but A and D could not. Indeed this must happen for separate species to share a common ancestor. GameKeeper (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

Someone included this image image:RussianRainbowGathering 4Aug2005.jpg as the image for this article, which I reverted as I did not think it was a sufficiently suitable image to illustrate homo as a genus. As i think more about it I could be wrong, we should be illustrating homo with its most common species the human . Image:PPlaqueB.png is used on the human article. Just to be different perhaps an example of Vitruvian Man wuld be good. I like this because it gives a sense of the physical proportions of a member of the homo(genus). I like this from commons Image:Homem Vitruviano - Da Vinci.jpg GameKeeper (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That was me. As I was patrolling the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Articles without images/Mammals, I noticed that hardly any of the Hominidae articles (prehistoric AND modern) had taxobox images. I purposely edited this article and none of the higher taxa because I wanted to see how the community would respond before adding the same image to those articles as well. I found it odd that these articles don't have an image, yet Human does. Since I find the image on Human a bit undignifying to members of both sexes, I was looking for an image of a clothed human. Because I was in a hurry, this was the best I came up with. However, that Da Vinci image is tempting...especially since it's such a well-known model and I think fewer people take offense to it. Is there another version that includes less detail? I know I've seen them with that section sort of blurred. (I think you know which details I'm talking about) Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice choice, I see you have used a Neanderthal skull. It's hard to offend others with a skull, so that should work very well. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It bothers me tremendously, though.Levalley (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Problems with the article that an expert should address

1. Bones are not the only evidence of a species' existence. Homo habilis, for example, is often dated to 2.6 MYA based on tool culture (Olduwan).
2. Species for which there is only one bit of fossil evidence should be excluded from the main discussion and treated in another section.
3. An overall discussion of how one gets into the genus (the cerebral rubicon, for example) needs to be added.
4. If molecular evidence is going to be referenced, it should get a little explanation.
5. The distinction between archaic Homo sapiens and FMHS (as used by many, many contemporary anthropologists like Alan Thorne and a whole crew of others) should be mentioned.Levalley (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Article move?

It's not a huge issue, but generally if one definition is particularly notable compared to the others, especially if there are few, it tends to live at the undisambiguated location. In this case Homo disambiguates here, to HOMO/LUMO, homogenised milk, homosexual, Swedish Ombudsman against Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation, and The Man Who Laughs. I recommend Homo be moved to Homo (disambiguation), Homo (genus) be moved to Homo and the otheruses template used. - BalthCat (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WHERE IS THE CORECT DATE?! LIKE B.C. OR A.D.?!?!?!?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.101.226 (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 

12 down 1 to go

12 spieces have already become extint and the 13th one will eventually face the inevitable soon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubanatorboo (talk • contribs) 04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly do you guys mean by "Many" or "Few?" Doesn't seem very informative... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubanatorboo (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 November 2009‎