Talk:Homo (genus)/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. | ||||||
| << 1 | Archive 1 | Archive 2 > | 1 >> | ||||
Contents |
Flores man
Is Flores Man 100% for sure extinct, or is it still possible they'll be found?
- I suppose there is always a possibility. But I'd say it is pretty unlikely. Is there any scientific paper or news article with this suggestion? If not, I would leave it as "(extinct)" until/unless new information is found. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
'Knowing Man'
The list holding all the binomial Latin names and their English equivalents give Homo sapiens and 'Knowing Man'. I have never heard it given as this, only as 'Thinking Man'. I know it is a small matter, but 'Knowing Man' rings odd to me. Oswax 07:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- See the discussion about "human", or its archives. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:12, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Chimps are human, gene study implies
"The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus." http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744 --OblivionXYZ 23:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Kenyanthropus platyops as last common ancestor
I'm a near-complete layman here (first-year anthropology student), but purely from what I've read and been taught this appears to be a NPOV statement, and isn't supported by the (referenced, as this declaration is not) article on K. platyops itself. As far as I can tell the ancestry of the genus Homo is still uncertain and controversial; should the article not reflect this, instead of making K. platyops' status as LCA an apparent statement of fact? 129.234.4.76 13:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- So make the change. Even better, register a userid and mae the change. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's somewhat like the 'most ancient found yet, and a likely to be' -case, but that species is not yet well defined. I've seen some articles that put rudolphensis and even habilis to genus Kenyanthropus. A lot of speciation was going on back then. All scholars agree that erectus is a Homo-species and that it/he was the first out of Africa. 84.231.178.54 13:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, all this depends on the definition of genus Homo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.230.246.101 (talk • contribs).
Ambiguous sentence
"analysis of mitochondrial DNA from H. neanderthalensis fossils shows that H. neanderthalensis is more closely related to chimps than Homo sapiens."
The above sentence could be read as either "more closely related to chimps than to Homo sapiens", or "more closely related to chimps than is Homo sapiens". I assume the latter meaning is the correct one? 217.155.20.163 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried to flag it, but a busy body user Mgiganteus1 deleted my edit, telling me to put it here. I will make the edit again.Denn333 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mgiganteus1 did right by reverting your edits, since they were disruptive to the article. The talk page is the correct place to make queries. As for the issue itself, I believe the anon IP is correct, that an "is" is needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- The article is edited, as requested. Denn333 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
All other species of homo are NOT extinct
Several Years ago there were findings that what we THINK are all the same species of Homo Sapiens are actually not. There is a new evolve species,,,not sure it stated it was better, but it was different...almost totally in brain operations and processes...just slightly enough to make it a different species. I am still researching to find that data , as I cannot remember the "title" that was given to the species. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.37.216.214 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
