Talk:Homo bodoensis

Merge Bodo cranium here

That short article is now pretty much redundant. But considering the seeming controversy over the name, we should perhaps see how it will unfold. FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

John Hawks video entitled "Species concepts in the hominin fossil record" is an ensightful discussion of the issues of human species names. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I doubt this name will catch on because it’s a junior synonym of rhodesiensis (which they say should be replaced for the same reason a beetle named after Hitler was renamed). Even if rhodesiensis is overturned, there’s still Homo saldanensis which was never addressed in the article. All the article really does is change the type specimen of rhodesiensis from the Kabwe skull to the Bodo skull. If the name does catch on, I’d say keep Bodo cranium and merge Homo rhodesiensis here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Anophthalmus hitleri has never been renamed, this was firmly rejected by the ICZN ages ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems more likely Homo rhodesiensis will be the valid name, yeah. But I still don't see the need for all these specimen articles being separate stubs/short, redundant articles. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the European Homo heidelbergensis (Schoetensack 1908) is ancestor to the Neanderthals and Denisovans, and an African sister species, called Homo rhodesiensis (1921), H. helmei (Dreyer 1935), H. mauritanicus (Arambourg 1954), H. saldanensis (Drennan 1955), or H. bodoensis (Roksandic et al 2021), is ancestor to Homo sapiens. I think it is best to wait until some African DNA from this period is analysed and then start to rearrange all the articles which are affected by the results. / Achird (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There's not gonna be any DNA frozen in Africa unless one of them died in some ice covered cave at the peak of Kilimanjaro   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Bodo cranium should stay where it is. Hominid type specimens are Notable and have their own article. Case in point: Neanderthal 1, Mauer 1 (Homo heidelbergensis), OH 7 (Homo habilis). If the Initial description section duplicates material in Bodo cranium, please remove or shorten Hb#Id but leave Bc alone. If there's any expectation that Homo bodensis may eventually be declared an invalid name, the Bodo cranium article will still need to exist. - Ahazred8 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that good justification. I know FunkMonk was trying to merge those articles into respective species articles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Support merge, on the grounds of short text, context and overlap. Klbrain (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Applying a liberal dose of WP:SILENCE,   Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)