Talk:Homo

Come on, some one else has had to of noticed the picture and it's racist propaganda. We go from Negroid looking to Caucasoid looking as Humans? Furthermore the last photo isn't even a "Human" it's a picture from American science regarding Neanderthals.

So the "final" step in the picture isn't even a Human, it's a Neanderthal.

Not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.38 (talk • contribs)

The article isn't about modern humans, it's about the genus to which we belong, which includes a number of extinct species. The image is a representation of all of those species. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Unsigned, I too am concerned. Could you give the exact citation for the Neanderthal images? Though given that you wrote over a year ago and things remain the same, I guess we shall just be talking to each other.

Nonetheless, I should like to say in addition that the Homo "Restoration" images seem to suggest that the African phenotype--broad nose, thick lips, kinky hair-- represent the early forms of Homo, whereas the European phenotype represents the Homo sapiens form. It is hard not to read the order of the images as suggesting that Homo evolved from pre-Homo sapiens who look very much like modern Africans and the African diaspora to Homo sapiens who look very much like light-haired Europeans. Perhaps, reviewing Stephen Jay Gould's discussion with images in,^[1] though written for a different purpose, might sensitize the original contributor as well as other readers to the nature of evolutionary anthropological transgressions involved in the "Restoration."Yurugu (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• The image is pretty bad for another reason, it isn't representative, and the choice of images is poor. Few species are represented. Why two Homo antecessor? Why a model of a modern human, instead of just a photo? In my opinion, a selection of skulls would be better, what we have now is too speculative. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

wait, so we now cannot show reconstructions of species of Homo by leading experts in the field because random people on the internet get the impression that it "looks racist"? Surely, this is beneath Wikipedia? I hope? Anyway, there is no problem with showing a photograph of a modern H. sapiens sapiens looking as "African" as you like, say a Kalahari bushman. But I am afraid it would be this choice that would be open to criticism of race-baiting with more justification than just showing pictures of reconstructions by experts. Seriously, how is this even an issue. --dab (𒁳) 10:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Melanin in black skin and hair absorbs ultraviolet light which might otherwise damage DNA and cause mutations. Those Homo sapiens that settled in colder north latitudes (as in Europe) the UV irradiation is lower and they had to dress better, so the environmental pressure to produce melanin in the skin and hair was greatly reduced. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Even though little is yet known of them, Homo Naledi should be added to the list of species, with a link to the article Homo naledi. Paulmlieberman (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Before we do that, don't we need an authoritative source that has accepted that they are correctly "assigned to the genus Homo" (and not Australopithecus)? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the metaphor of a 'braided stream' relevant to explaining human evolution?--99.231.194.14 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Undesignated, rather than start up an ugly edit war, let's refrain from the usual return to "status quo" and talk about your removal of a species that has been in this article, listed along with other human species (in or out of an actual infobox), since its inception more than eleven years ago. What the heck are you thinking??? Surely your edit does not take the newly discovered Homo naledi into consideration? And what about Homo heidelbergensis – sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis? Please do us the honor of explaining in detail about why you think it is so vital to go with the "mainstream thought", especially where a notable human species has been established in this encyclopedia for more than a dozen years! Painius  10:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

To editor Undesignated: Since nobody else has chimed in, then I suppose ergaster is "history". Joys! Painius  01:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"about 2.8 million years old;[1][2][3][4][5]" -- this isn't good style, and it is abominable style for the lead section. The important point is that the age of the genus is a matter of convention. There is no possible objective criteria, it is simply as old as we (the relevant taxonomists) want it to be. The convention is "H. habilis is the first member of Homo", so this boils down to the age of fossils accepted as belonging to H. habilis. That's all there is to it. So there have recently been some discoveries that slightly push back the age of "H. habilis". Big deal. Just say that H. habilis is estimated at something less than 3My, and cite a single good refenrece, if any!). Detailed debate on the age of H. habilis can very well go to the Homo habilis page, just as detailed estimates on the hybrid speciation of Hominini is perfectly at home at the Hominini page (because it doesn't concern Homo proper, at all). This is not a matter of "zomg scientists find humans are older than anyone thought". But unfortunately this seems to be the level this article is too often forced to deal with (see the "which species of Homo is the most racist" 'discussion' above; you could not make this up). --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree; as long as there isn't scientific consensus that the 2015 finds actually belong within the Homo genus proper, and are not just an intermediate form between Australopithecus and early Homo, this article has no business running in front and declaring that Homo is 2.8 million years old. There are lots of intermediate or disputed-status genera of hominins: Sahelanthropus, kenyanthropus etc, and the new finds might become one more of those intermediaries. Strausszek (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029211406/http://csueastbay-dspace.calstate.edu:9000/handle/10211.3/47490 to http://csueastbay-dspace.calstate.edu:9000/handle/10211.3/47490

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot has changed here since 2010. With the constant arrival of new results it was difficult to judge which of them would hold up, but now it seems that a new consensus is taking shape. Over the last ten years, our knowledge on early human lineages has increased dramatically. Taxonomy naturally lags behind, as it should, because it won't do to constantly switch around long-standing conventions. Homo is still defined as arising with H. habilis around 2.1 Mya. But, on one hand, we now know that tool use extends to 3.3 Mya or so, and that "transitional" forms (as there must have been) can be traced to 2.8 Mya. On the other hand, there is no longer any objective reason to begin Homo with H. habilis specifically. H. habilis is now just one of several transitional stages, it just happened to be discovered earlier than others. Apparently, the most "coherent" delineation of Homo is now thought to begin with H. erectus around 1.9 Mya (with H. ergaster being just an early African variant of H. erectus).

For the purposes of the infobox, it would be misleading to boost the age of the genus to 2.8 Mya just because transitional forms have been found, but it would also be misleading to cut it to 1.9 Mya just because H. habilis is no longer a Homo in good standing. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There will not be a coherent definition of genus Homo until genus Australopithecus is dissolved.Jmv2009 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Homo floresiensis, Neanderthal and Homo sapiens woman.Musée des Confluences.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This name has been chosen by the authors of this paper: pub. Apr 10, 2019. DOI: Related WP article: Callao Man. Related article . Twang (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It is possible that I simply don't understand how the chart in the Phylogeny section works, but it seems strange to be that Australopethicus sediba is listed within or under the Homo genus. If the chart is organized by taxonomic grouping, then it should be with the other Australopethicus species, I think. And if the chart is organized left-to-right by age of the classification, then it's branch should be between Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus, and certainly not after Homo floresiensis. I understand how the chart is coded and can make the corrections, but I want to make sure I understand what it should look like before I do. --Pauldebarros (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Australopithecus Sediba should be located between the "Homo" and "Australopithecus africanus/Paranthropus" clades. I'm not familiar with the clade format, I tried to do it but didn't succeed, @Pauldebarros:, @Jmv2009:. Azerty82 (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The "Neandersovans" clade featured in #philogeny is not peer reviewed. It comes from a pre-print article published on BioRxiv. Azerty82 (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"For other species or subspecies suggested, see below." Below links to non-existent section "List of species". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0w0 catt0s (talk • contribs) 07:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Fama Clamosa (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

of more biger Cosmos ?

May be so bad - that our place in the BigCosmos without future ?!

176.59.202.113 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Homo habilis.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Homo habilis.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Should Meganthropus be mentioned in this article as a possible member of the genus Homo? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That article begins: "Meganthropus is an extinct genus of non-hominin hominid ape" (emphasis added). So no, not obviously. Can you support your proposal with reference to a reliable source? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

According to some articles, archeological digs near the city of Ramla in Israel by a team from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem uncovered prehistoric remains that could not be matched to any known species from the Homo genus, which includes modern humans. Should this be included in the article. Soap Boy 1 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Soap Boy 1 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The species has not been formally named so shouldn't be in the infobox - notice how the Denisovans aren't there either. Cookersweet (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Does the Homo helmei/Florisbad Skull deserve a mentioned as a potential species?

The infobox only contains generally accepted or unchallenged species of Homo. The Florisbad Skull seems to be generally agreed to be Homo sapiens or Homo heidelbergensis. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm creating a bibliography for this article in order to implement short citations. I am doing this to ensure text-source integrity. I will use Harvp templates in creating the short citations because they are easier to use, but mostly because a format for short citations must be chosen in order to implement them. If there are any objections to this bold action, please let me know here at the talk page and we can work out something better for the article.

Also, I am consolidating duplicate references in the article. Moreover, I am splicing citations that serve as explanatory supplements into the explanatory footnotes section in order to enforce consistency within the article. As stated before, do not be afraid to object here if you disagree with this approach and we can work something out. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Applause. Indeed there are places in the source that could well do with moving down into the bibliography because the citation has so many contributing authors that the actual text becomes very hard to find. If we set out to discourage contributions from people unfamiliar with our markup, we couldn't do a much better job. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also bundled a lot of citations together in order to avoid overcrowding the text, although there is certainly more work to be done in that area. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The template Comparative table of Homo lineages is causing duplicate references in the text. If anyone knows how to fix this, and can, please help to resolve this problem. Thank you, Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you add names to the reference in the template and then use those names when citing the same sources in the article? You would have to choose 'non-obvious' names lest you choose one that has already been chosen for another article that contains the template too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that would work. Do you want to give it a try? Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

On further thoughts, maybe it would be wise to leave a message at help talk:templates first. I'll do that now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

One fix is deleting it, as not an article, a fork or OR. ~ cygnis insignis 13:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I put the transcluded content in the article, somewhat crudely. ~ cygnis insignis 13:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: The table is also transcluded in human taxonomy, so that will be out of sync now. You might also want to do a null edit noting the source of the transclusion explicitly, to preserve attribution in the (quite substantial) history of Template:Homo. – Joe (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: my position is that trancluding content is not a good idea, but what you say is worth noting, preserve attribution. ~ cygnis insignis 13:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The diagram of the migration of various homo species, shows homo sapiens going directly from Melanesia to New Zealand. The Polynesians migrated as far as Hawai'i before working their way back down to New Zealand around 1200-1300 CE. Based on the diagram, Polynesia was never populated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgerine (talk • contribs) 04:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

In the beginning of the article homo is defined as “man”, but in this case it means ‘human’, as in older English *man* meant human/person, not just an adult male of the species… Blu Moon (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Australopithecus sediba is in the wrong area and is most likely related to A. africanus and doesn't make sense to be a part of Homo on the evolutionary tree. It is stated by the Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program that "Australopithecus sediba bears a strong resemblance to Au. africanus, a fossil species that is also found in South Africa. They have similar skull, facial and dental features." (p. 6) I do think it is important to say that it is later stated that the two species also have differences but it is currently believed that it is descended from A. africanus as stated later in the same paragraph. 2601:40:C482:5600:2D28:358C:F9AF:8A9D (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If you can support a claim with a reference, then please make the edit. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the header says that H. habilis is the oldest species in Homo, the second graf calls H. erectus "this first human species".

While habilis is a disputed taxon, and there are family trees out there that place it in Australopithecus, (see the habilis section) the header should pick one approach and stick with it.

Suggestion, my changes bolded:

graf 1: The oldest member of the genus may be Homo habilis (some sources classify this species as belonging in Australopithecus), with records of just over 2 million years ago.[a]

graf 2: It is likely that this first widespread human species

Aliza250 (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence about H. erectus is rather meaningless and have removed it. [...] likely that this first human species lived in a hunter-gatherer society – we know nothing about their society, and to the extent that it makes sense to talk about hominids having a mode of production, of course they were 'hunter-gatherers', what else could they be? [...] was able to control fire – yes, but why pick this out of all the novel traits seen in H. erectus? – Joe (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(Of course, if this is an acceptable approach, I can cite sources.) Aliza250 (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Homo means "man" in Latin. Humano means "human" in Latin. Roy Robert Hay (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Archaic humans is an entirely superflous article. It doesn't say anything that shouldn't be included in this article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. We already have an article on Homo sapiens, the modern human, and we have Homo, which also includes the extinct ones, and is therefore focused on evolution. No point in having Archaic humans, which just discusses the very same topic again (but excluding Homo sapiens). I think WP:SAMETYPEFORK applies here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support, as noted the amount of not-duplicated information here is small enough to easily fit into this article, with a better and more coherent presentation of information created as a result.--Kevmin § 20:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agree ....on a side note ...for me as a Canadian the term has a different meaning. Moxy🍁 21:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per above, it's just Homo without sapiens Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. No need for separation. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)