Talk:Hominini

message: What's the group that homo and australopithecines are in that pan isn't in?--68.92.122.110 22:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Subtribe Himinina. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's outdated, by about 2-3 years now. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: UtherSRG, don't you mean subtribe Hominina? My question is, if members of Hominini (humans and chimps) are called hominins, what are members of Hominina (humans only) called? Humans? Homins? Homininans? Obviously, we can't call them hominins anymore, so what DO we call them? Help!
::Now I had to think of Houyhnhnms!! --FlammingoHey 12:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I meant "Hominina" and not "Himinina". The information presented in the articles is more up to date than what you are reading in your textbook. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you read Hominini? Here's one that pushes everything down one level, with all of the apes in Hominidae: http://www.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=66255 - UtherSRG (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is "Himinina"? 

message: Flammingo, members of the subtribe Hominina are technically called hominans, but as the clade contains only the genus Homo, they are also humans. The taxonomy from superfamily down regrettably comprises several similar sounding terms that not surprisingly have promoted confusion: Superfamily Hominoidea (hominoids, all apes); family Hominidae (hominids, great apes); subfamily Homininae (hominines, African great apes); tribe Hominini (hominins, chimps and all bipedal hominoids [Homo, Australopithecus, etc]); and finally subtribe Hominina (hominans, genus Homo only).
Uther, there remains some disagreement as to the placement of Pan within Hominini, or within its own subtribe Panini (no sandwich puns please!), which may be partly due to lag in rewrite and reassignment, but also may reflect a mild xenophobic reticence to place chimps in our tribe. (I suspect there would be far less reticence had the phylogenetic organizers introduced the clade "infrafamily" at the chimp/human level and tribe at the human level, and not introduced subtribe at all, or, to be completely consistent with the monophylogenic cladistics, introduce subtribe[s] to separate distal non-Homo genera [Paranthropus] from proximal genera [Australopithecus]). Regardless of the terms selected or the organization, the Hominini article contains a glaring contradiction between the first two sentences regarding the definition of hominini and hominin, and the placement status of chimps. I fully concur with the trichotomic resolving approach, but we should, one, be consistent in our definition within and across articles, and, two, ensure that the reader is aware of the somewhat unresolved state of taxonomy. RES2 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alignment and Clarification Required 

message: Uther, the only support you've offered for the idea that Hominini should include humans and chimps and all descendants of their common ancestor, is the Taxonomicon. But the Taxonomicon actually indicates that Hominini should include humans and gorillas and all descendants of their common ancestor. (http://www.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=109372). Meanwhile, we have an article published today in Science that states: "Bipedalism is a key human adaptation and a defining feature of the hominin clade." (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;319/5870/1662). A review of that article in the same issue says "The new study confirms that Orrorin walked upright - a defining characteristic of being a hominin, the primate group that includes humans and our ancestors but not other apes." (Ann Gibbons. 2008. Millenium ancestor gets its walking papers. Science 319:1599-1601. March 21). So either this wiki article is wrong and the Taxonomicon is right, or (as I expect) this wiki article is wrong and the Science articles are right, but either way this wiki article is wrong. (Cirbryn (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is incorrect 

message: The web page http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744 says that, based on the comparisons of chimpanzee DNA with human DNA shows that humans and chimpanzees share 98 percent of their DNA. This may suggest that Hominina and Panina should be abandoned. In this case, Pan and Homo should be considered descendants of Sahelanthropus and Orrorin.
The web page http://www.physorg.com/news9211.html shows that humans and chimps diverged from their common ancesotor about 7 million years ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of the genus Pan 

message: Textbooks never use the latest good information. It takes years for the best thoughts on these kinds of subjects to get into textbooks. Sometimes decades. Textbooks are *not* a good source of information. That said, I don't have full access to the Science Mag paper, so I can't tell if it lays out any cladistics regarding the various species it studies. If someone with access could report on that, that would be great. The New Scientist article is 5 years old. There have been several papers re-estimating the split time since then. The PhysOrg article is reporting on one of them. 
There does not seem to be a clear taxonomy for the tribe Hominini. Perhaps the subtribes should be abandoned, perhaps they shouldn't. I admit to not being very pedantic when I first created the articles, so I don't know what it is that made me believe that that was the right thing to do. I think the best is to take a guess and keep our articles consistent along that singular guess, but to describe the other possibilities where appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  replies to all of the above 

message: There are two species in the genus Pan. One is the Common Chimpanzee, the other is the Bonobo. Together, they are the chimpanzees. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that's based on old ideas with respect to bonobo and a failure in common usage to distinguish between them and common chimpanzees; Pan is the more precise term.  I'm pretty sure common usage has evolved; I'll look for some cites.  I don't really care about all that but did you have any problem with my rewrite of the lead regarding the two genera in this tribe.  The reference to two genera, Homo (incorrectly piped to "humans") and Pan and "their extinct ancestors" is incorrect.  The tribe includes all of those two genera, only three species of which are extant and many of the extinct ones aren't' ancestors of the ones that are around today.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about the extinct species, unfortunately. I stand by what I said about the two species of chimpanzees. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  chimps 

message: I'm adding a bit more about what makes it unusual--if it is and not just more closely studied than, say, goat lineages. I'd rather simply say what happened and note that the researchers think it's unusual. Monado (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unusual" process of speciation? 

message: :File:Hominini.PNG is not correct. Hominini is internationally only used for Homo and his precursors, but not for Homo and Pan. The precursors of Pan should be named as Panini. --De.Gerbil (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are partially correct, and partially not. For the most part, we follow MSW3 (2005) for terminology. MSW3 notes: "The genera are placed in two subfamilies by Groves (2001c): Ponginae (Pongo alone), and Homininae (Gorilla, Homo, Pan). McKenna and Bell (1997) included Hylobatidae in addition, as a subfamily, and within the Homininae recognized two living tribes, Pongini and Hominini; Goodman et al. (1998) recognized gibbons only as a tribe (Hylobatini), with the other three genera as a separate tribe (Hominini), divided into subtribes Pongina and Hominina; they included Pan in Homo, and Watson et al. (2001) included both Pan and Gorilla in Homo." Following this, the terminology in the image (and all of the hominid articles) follows. I have seen what you mention (today, in fact, at Border's in a book published in 2004, a year before MSW3), with Panini being composed solely of Pan, but that structure then places Panini & Hominini in Homininae, and Gorilla in Gorillinae. Homininae + Gorillinae = Hominidae, and Hominidae + Pongidae = Hominoidea, and Hominoidea + Hylobatoidea = (something I can't remember). It's the same structure, but with each taxon given a ranking 1 higher. (-oidea = super family, -idae = family, -inae = subfamily, -ini = tribe, -ina = subtribe) Since we follow MSW3, Hominini conatains Hominina and Panina, with Homo and its close ancestors in Hominina and Pan and its close ancestors in Panina. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seriously doubt that this nomenclature is up-to-date; this Nature review article, for instance, , p. 347, distinguishes "Tribe Panini (panins) / Genus Pan" vs. "Tribe Hominini (hominins) / Genus Australopithecus, Genus Kenyapithecus, Genus Homo". Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison are leading paleoanthropologists. --De.Gerbil (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong family tree 

message: Both terms are used in this article.  I'm guessing that they're just variant spellings but if so than it should be made clear.  Thanks. W.F.Galway (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a matter of noun vs adjective (and adjectival noun). "Hominoid" is an adjective (and adjectival noun), while "Hominoidea" is a noun, etc. "Members of Hominidae are hominids." (adjectival noun usage) "The orangutans are hominid primates." (adjective usage) the clades (families, etc) are all group nouns - terms that are always singular ("the family Hominidae") - which have one or more members (more typically more than one). The adjectives (or adjectival nouns, really) are the members of the clades, and can be plural or singular. "Gorillas are hominids." "The Bornean oranguatan is not a hominine." Your shorthand almost always works: -oidea is almost always an animal superfamily, -idae is almost always an animal family, -inae is almst always an animal subfamily, -ini is almost always a tribe, and -ina is almost always a subtribe. Things sometimes get confusing as taxonomy changes: subfamily Ponginae use to be the family Pongidae, and its members are still sometimes referred to as pongids instead of pongines. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the terms "hominini" and "hominins" variants of each other? 

message: I haven't been able to track down a proper citation for the (probable) fact, but apparently Jane Goodall says it in a DVD: "Jane Goodall: Return to Gombe".  Not a good enough source to cite as authoritative, but she got the idea from somewhere.  I suspect someone with access to bio or medical journals should be able find something pretty easily.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.25.128 (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for "Blood Transfusions between Homonini Species" 

message: 1. MSW3 only formally recognises families and genus, and discusses sub-families and tribes as terms which have no generally accepted classification. I think it should be made clear at the start of the article that hominini is a term which is used by researchers but is defined in different ways.
2. Uther above says that the article follows the MSW3 definition of hominini, but the quote he gives makes clear that this is only one 1997 view by McKenna & Bell. It also cites Goodman et al in 1998 as including gorillas in hominini. Reference 1 in the Wiki article also by Goodman from 1990 gives the same definition. These sources are all dated, and I do not see why one 1997 definition is regarded as authoritative, especially as Uther dismisses later alternative definitions as out of date. I cannot find any later sources which define hominini as homo + pan, although I do not have access to some of the sources cited.
3. The most recent sources I can find define hominini as the homo line. Chris Stringer & Peter Andrews in the 2005 The Complete World of Human Evolution p. 16 has tribes Panini and Hominini and genuses Pan and Homo. Dean Falk's 2011 The Fossil Wars uses it in the same sense. Merriam-Webster at  and About.com Archaeology at  have the same definition. This is the dominant modern usage so far as I can see - as editors above have also argued.
4. References 2, 6 and 7 are useless as the urls are missing. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further on definition 

message: I think it would be a good idea to create a new article titled "Hominoid taxonomies", similar to , and to merge this article there. Alternatively, to create "Hominoid taxonomies (disambiguation)".
The problem is that there are so many potentially-confusing terms in this area:
*There's the clades Hominoidea ("apes" suborder or superfamily), Hominidae ("great apes" family) and Homininae (subfamily including gorillas not orangutans). 
*Hominini is ambiguous (either meaning everything more human than chimps, or else meaning humans and chimps but not gorillas, probably depending on when you ask. Also note we are inconsistent about whether everything more chimpanzee than human should be called the Panini tribe or Panina subtribe). 
*Hominina (subfamily) apparently coined because Homo needed more synonyms?
*The adjectival nouns: Hominoids (may or may not include gibbons), hominids (either all great apes or else excluding even chimps), hominins (usually hominini sometimes homininae), and hominans/hominas (homos).
*Humanoids (which was applied to fossils in the past, but now usually robots and sci-fi aliens), homins (which may include giants and bigfoot), humans (whatever that term means, let alone humane/humanity/people, and then there's even races, and the controversy whether human population genetics can be separated from racism and eugenics).
Honestly, I'm not making these up.
With a bunch of separate stubs, it's difficult to keep them mutually consistent let alone to explain the ambiguity and avoid unwittingly confusing readers. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation/merging 

message: There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?
Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The body of this article has recently been amended to say that Hominini includes Chimpanzees.  And I think that's right.  But someone still needs to update the Genera section of the information box on the right.  And I suggest we add an article for the subtribe Hominina. - 173.171.162.145 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC that may affect this page 

message: The human clade links here but is only a part of this referent.  It is the most important referent that has no article on Wikipedia of its own.  Therefore, a new article about it should be split from this article.  Chrisrus (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003) recognize five genera within Hominina: Ardipithecus, Australopithecus (including Paranthropus), Homo (including Kenyanthropus), Praeanthropus (including Orrorin), and Sahelanthropus.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.
I believe hominina could be the clade to which you refer although paranthropus and australopithecus generally are considered to include individuals likely to be on the panina side of the divide as they were extant at the time. SPACKlick (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Human says: "Modern humans (Homo sapiens primarily ssp. Homo sapiens sapiens) are the only extant members of the hominin clade, a branch of great apes characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity and increased tool use, and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies." Chrisrus (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of "Hominini" throughout Wikipedia is a mess indeed: this article says it includes chimpanzees, in other places it says it doesn't. --JorisvS (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were inconsistencies. There is a user who has undertaken the project of trying to make wikipedia consistent on this matter. If you go to the above linked discussion at tree of life there is more discussion there. The use is not consistent between biologist and anthropologists. SPACKlick (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the "....branch of great apes characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity and increased tool use, and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies"? Chrisrus (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Usage on Wikipedia should be consistent, else it will only generate confusion. A possibility to be consistent without choosing one or the other is to explain differences clearly here and make sure that for every use it is clear which of the two is meant. In any case, the current mess is no good. --JorisvS (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the "....branch of great apes characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity and increased tool use, and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies" doesn't have a taxon doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article.  It doesn't matter what the taxon is or if there is no taxon for it.  There is not taxon for fish, but it still has an article.  Chrisrus (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The taxa of it is likely hominina. Whether or not it is, if you feel the article ought to exist, create one, called the human clade. Job done SPACKlick (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Human Clade 

message: Despite recent formatting work by Chiswick Chap on the modern cladogram (thank you), at some browser widths the article still displays a lot of white space to the left of the infobox and above the cladogram. Can anything be done (to the layout?) to avoid this? Thanks.   --Frans Fowler (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout: Cladogram and Adjacent Infobox 

message: Deleted white space in the lede by relocating the graphic (cladogram). Hate to be a scold, .. but it’s really “not ok” to install white space on  a page when usually it can be avoided, esp in the lede column; it foists distraction and mystery on the reader, and discredits Wiki- workmanship (or, page-composership? :-). Re the lede column,  graphics often create a problem there, which needn’t be, as they, graphics, logically should be introduced in the main-body narrative. 
Re the relocated cladogram: its presentation and narrative  need work---which I am doing now. Also, the paleo-dates need sources, for which I will rely others to provide. Regards all, Jbeans (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE "deleted white space" 

message: Modified Hominoidae cladogram, explaining its consituent clades with emphases on tribe Hominini and subtribes Hominina and Australopithecina. Provided sourced dates for two clades and will continue to look for more. Provided set-up narrative ("Recent molecular analyses ..."), for others to document refined paleo-dates---with sources, please.
(NB> Used italics on the taxon labels in the top of the section narrative---not because I thought rules required them; put them there to assist the reader in interpreting the cladogram).
There is problematic narrative at the top the lede-column, beginning with "Members of the human clade ..."; plus the use of the term "homininans". I'll be working there next. Regards,Jbeans (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified Hominoidae cladogram 

message: Restored terminology, to previous correct> "hominins"---from "homininans"---(see History 20:21, 23 Dec 2016). The referent "hominins" was exchanged but its original source citation was left in place on the new referent---as though: what a source cite actually says doesn't matter re the reliability/ reputation of Wikipedia narrative. PLEASE! (NB> title of the cite: Cameron, D. W. (2003). "Early hominin speciation at the Plio/Pleistocene transition."  ...). Regards,Jbeans (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   Hominin or Homininan?  

message: Issue 1:  This article for Hominini seems to say Chimps are included in Hominini but not Hominins.  But the article for Hominidae says a Hominin is just the term for a member of the tribe Hominini, in which case it wouldn't make sense to include Chimps in one term but not the other.  This article for Hominini admits that its usage of "hominin" does not conform to conventional rules for labeling taxa and affixing taxon-name endings to its members.  So I suspect the article for Hominidae is right, and the confusion in this article for Hominini is a result of relying on sources that have become outdated in a rapidly updating field.  Although I'm not an expert, so I'll leave it to someone else to fix whichever article is wrong.
Issue 2:  This article for Hominini also says that Hominina excludes Australopithecina.  But the articles for Hominidae and Australopithecine say Hominina includes Australopithecina (although on the Australopithecine article it misspells it as Homonina).  There again I suspect the article for Hominidae is right, and this article's mistake about Hominina is a result of confusion over issue 1.  But there again, I'll leave it to someone else to fix whichever article is wrong. - 173.171.160.127 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a crack at it. I tried to reduce confusing, vague, pedantic, or excessively nuanced language. Also tried to reduce Original Research, POV language, and modified outdated descriptions of views on taxonomy and relationships among species. It still needs some work. - Boneyard90 (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More inconsistencies 

message: This is a mess. If "Hominini (Gray 1824)" is used, then the definition by Gray needs to be adhered to, which includes Pan. 
If there is a new proposal excluding Pan, then a different authority from Gray needs to be cited. 
I believe the problem is that the term by design should include "humans, and the closest taxon of non-humans", which in Gray's time was human and chimps, but which in our time would be humans and australopithecine "proto-humans". But if there is serious support behind this change, then there needs to be an explicit citation of an authority proposing the change, it isn't enough to just cite books about "Why Evolution is True" hand-wavingly explaining that "scientists now tend to" use the term in a different sense. 
Arguing from the Principle of Priority, one could also take the position that any attempt to exclude Pan from Hominini is simply wrong. 
The introduction of a "common name" hominins which excludes Pan is not technically "wrong" (because it is a common name and can mean anything you want it to mean on any given day), but it seems misleading to say the least, and we should try to find someone who explicitly argues for using this (instead of just reporting that this usage has been seen in the wild).  --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Gray (1824)

message: I have reverted the addition of a lineage section. The main reason is that an article on Hominini, which includes pan, is not the place for the lineage of homo. Also it is not a lineage but an incomplete and unreferenced list of species. Some of the text is referenced, but the 2010 citation showing the split at 5 million years is out of date. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lineage section 

message: This article is already really in-depth but your additions to it are great from what I can see. I think breaking up the "Evolutionary history" section into two paragraphs or three smaller paragraphs would be helpful to the reader. There is a lot of information in a large paragraph there that I find harder to sift through. Great job though  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamRossmore (talk • contribs) 23:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Evidence of copyvio: https://www.google.com/search?q=linguistic+capabilities+existed+and+that+therefore+language+may+have+been+present+at+least+in+Neanderthals&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: I just made a relatively bold refactor of the lead more in line with the style of Simple Wikipedia. 
I was actually trying to deal with a much thornier problem concerning australopithecine, as expressed in the source cited below: 
Furthermore, the traditional term "australopithecine," which grouped Australopithecus and Paranthropus in the subfamily Australopithecinae, becomes invalid under this revised taxonomy; in the context of Linnaean taxonomy, one cannot nestle a higher-ranked subfamily (Australopithecine) within a lower-ranked tribe (Hominini) (see Figure 1).
Trying to sort this out I landed on this page, and it confused me a bit further, so I decided to simply the presentation, based on a solid source already in hand. 
The Hominini form a taxonomic tribe of the subfamily Homininae ("hominines"). Hominini includes the extant genera Homo (humans) and Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos), and in standard usage excludes the genus Gorilla (gorillas). 
The term was originally introduced by Camille Arambourg (1948).
Arambourg combined the categories of Hominina and Simiina due to Gray (1825) into his new subtribe. 
Traditionally, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans were grouped together as pongids, until genetic phylogeny determined that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas were more closely related to each other than to the orangutan. The former pongids were reassigned to the subfamily Hominidae ("great apes"), which already included humans, but the details of this reassignment remain contested; within Hominini, not every source excludes gorillas, and not every source includes chimpanzees. 
I pushed the scholarly citations about specific inclusions and exclusions down to the terminology section. 
Basically I know nothing about this field at all, and the only skill I bring to bear is my long history as an armchair pedant who favours direct exposition. 
Because I know nothing, I tried to crib from nature.com as literally as possible, but I know how hard it is to wade into this kind of professional turf and not get some crucial detail alarmingly incorrect. 
As a non-specialist, the historical reference to the defunct pongids helps me quite a bit, because it provides a scope for the subsequent disagreements. 
I do not take ownership in my contributions, and I'm generally off to the next thing anyway, so feel free to edit at will. — MaxEnt 22:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead simplification 

message: Homininan is misspelled twice as "homininian". The correct spelling can be seen in external references #7 and #9 as well as the Wikipedia page for Hominidae. Thuja (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homininan misspelled