Talk:Hominina

message: Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003) have devised a new taxonomy of the human family. Their paper recognizes the validity of five genera of hominids: Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo, Praeanthropus, and Sahelanthropus. They conclude that Kenyanthropus is a species of Homo, the earliest known to science, that Orrorin is an early species of Praeanthropus, and that Paranthropus is really not distinguishable from Australopithecus.
If Hominidae is to be monophyletic, some taxonomists restrict Pongidae to orangutans and their relatives, define Gorillidae to include only gorillas and their ancestors, and place chimpanzees in their own family, Panidae. In order for this four-family scheme to be accepted, scientists need to establish a definition like this:
unnamed clade (Pongidae+(Gorillidae+(Panidae+Hominidae)
By this definition, orangutans are related to a chimp/gorilla/human clade, gorillas are related to a chimp/human clade, and chimps are close to humans.
C. J. Cela-Conde and F. J. Ayala. 2003. Genera of the human lineage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(13):7684-7689. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New taxonomy of extinct and living humans 

message: The article says, "specialized in an herbivorous diet that required a stronger jaw and molars". I've seen a piece in the New York Times (21 Nov 2006?) suggesting no specialization existed.  Trekphiler 05:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't that special?

message: I have several disagreements with this illustration : 
* The links to Pan (chimpanzees) and Gorilla are controversial at best.  Nothing is gained by adding them, especially given that they appear to make Sahelanrthropus out to be the Homo/Pan/Gorilla MRCA.
* Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus anamensis exist almost at the same time.  This points to those species being on different lineages, especially given the substantial morphological differences between the two.
* pekinensis is Homo erectus.
* soloensis is another example of Homo erectus.
* Cro-Magnon is just Homo sapiens sapiens.
Overall, I call for this illustration to be cleaned up and condensed, as well as having the newly announced A. sebida added to it.
EMS | Talk 20:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part, I agree that it's time for a new image. I think your last 3 points are minor: they are instances where we can pin down something somewhere. Yes, pekinensis and soloensis are erectus, but we know where and when they were, to some degree. It's like saying "John Smith, 1986, Pennsylvania" vs "John Smith". Similarly for Cro-magnon. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions, I included the names that came to mind while doing the image, this led to most names being shortened. I included cro-magnon for it is a name that has significant amounts of book refs in the west. I included Panina and Gorillini only to illustrate the approximate time they've been separated from Hominina MRCA (timed by MtDNA), I actually didn't know their relation to Sahelanthropus, but wanted to keep them though... It was by no means intented to be definite, but only approximate according to WP articles, some books, and a couple of scientific articles (R.Leakey (if I remember correctly) on the differences between early Homo/Paranthropus/Australopithecus). If you know the datings of the fossils go ahead. Dreg743 from some 85.78.180.235 (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreements with the illustration of species and relationships 

message: Wikipedia currently follows the suggestion of Mann & Weiss (1996) in applying the name Hominina to total group of humans, while the group including chimps and humans is called Hominini.  While this is a workable system, it is not common in the literature.  The most common usage seems to use "Hominini" to the human total group,
while the total groups of gorillas and Pan get their own "tribes".  Other conventions have been suggested, such as including gorillas and chimps in Hominina, including chimps within Homo, or the traditional arrangement whereby Hominidae consists only of total group humans and excludes chimps and gorillas.  But this arrangement, such as illustrated in Harrison 2010, seems to be the most widespread:
  Homininae
     |--Gorillini
     |    '--Gorilla gorilla
     `--+--Panini
        |    `--Pan
        |        |--P. paniscus
        |        `--P. troglodytes
        `----Hominini
               |--various
               |--stem
               |--humans
               '--Homo
  Hominoidea
    Hylobatidae
    Hominidae
      Ponginae
      Homininae
        Gorillini
        Panini
        Hominini
          Orrorin
          Ardipithecus
          Australopithecus
          Paranthropus
          etc.
          Homo
I humbly suggest we switch to this arrangement, but am interested in hearing arguments for the existing Wikipedia classification.
Cephal-odd (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Hominoidea#Changes in taxonomy for the history of taxonomy. "-ina" is the ending for a subtribe, and "-ini" is the ending for a tribe. Family Hominidae = all great apes. Subfamily Ponginae = orangutans. Subfamily Homininae = Humans + chimps + gorillas. Next level down is Tribe, so use "-ini"... Tribe Gorillini = gorillas. Tribe Hominini = chimps + humans. Subtribe Panina = chimps. Subtribe Hominina = humans. To split it as Harrison suggests as a trichotomy suggest that it is unclear as to which branch split off first. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hominini vs Hominina 

message: There seems to be a problem with the function of Template:Automatic taxobox which is used here. It skips from order Primate to superfamily Hominidea, and neglects to mention the 2 classifications in between: the infraorder of Simiiformes then the parvorder of Catarrhini. These are important groupings that we share with old world monkeys and new world monkeys respectively. Is there a way to configure the taxobox to display these, or should we switch to simply using the manually entered Template:taxobox which is capable of displaying all the information? Y12J (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxobox

message: As well as inconsistent use of ‘hominid’, the descriptions of some taxons do not agree with those given in their respective linked articles. For instance, including Pan within Hominini. Grant (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy