Talk:Herto Man

message: (title added by Said: Rursus (☻) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How are these guys another subspecies when I see people (like Aboriginies) that look almost the same way? The rounded part of the skull in the back, the brow ridge up front, they are shared by many people today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.104.149 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: (confusions)

message: If it is a subspecies with a gene pole that was common with Homo sapiens2, can we then claim that this subspecies is extinct? Rather it would be disolved, obsoleted, or reevolved into us. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extinct?!

message: 1. The lede makes no mention of the (currently Jul 11, 2014) published work indicating that Idaltu may be the direct ancestor to modern H.S.Sap.
2. The Morphology section states:"their morphology has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens..."
:HOW does a subspecies have ANY feature "not typical" of the species??? Shouldn't this be:"their morphology has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens <B>sapiens</B>..." ??
:"archaic" indicates that the feature IS found in the ancestral H.S.S. line, correct? If so, which ancestor is it referring to?
:WHAT does "...(although modern human skulls do differ across the globe)." MEAN in this context? It must be obvious to anyone who has access to modern media and has thought about it that that modern human skulls do differ between geographical ethnic groups (since the evidence in the form of images saturates the media of the modern world). This parenthetical is confusing. does "across the globe" refer to the Earth or the skull? Very sloppy. The inclusion of this in the sentence can be taken to be critical of the claim that the skull morphology is outside of any likely Homo sapiens sapiens variation. Frankly, I don't understand it. I think it should be removed (or its meaning made clear).
Abitslow (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: Please translate to plain English:
: "The many morphological features shared by the Herto crania and AMHS, to the exclusion of penecontemporaneous Neanderthals, provide additional fossil data excluding Neanderthals from a significant contribution to the ancestry of modern humans..."
: I'm assuming this means that idaltu has archaic features that Neanderthal doesn't have, making idaltu our direct ancestor and not Neanderthal? Kortoso (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles says predating Neanderthals in the introduction but the timeline shows the opposite. Also the timeline does not contain H. sapiens sapiens, which is a bit of an omission? Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Please see a possible clarification in the discussions at the following => "Template talk:Human timeline#Homo idaltu appears to be in the wrong place" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penecontemporaneous? 

message: @Arboleh Please don't revert the edits and engage here in the talk page. Also don't describe other users' contributions as racist and biased when they are clearly not and don't accuse me of vandalizing the article when I am clearly not, otherwise I will report you. Ryanoo (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Arboleh

message: I noted there is some to and fro on the status of this taxon. Please expand on the classification as extinct here, a citation would be ideal. cygnis insignis 03:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  extinction status 

message: The "Morphology and taxonomy" section talks about Omo more than it does Herto.   216.255.165.198 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  More confusion 

message: Shouldn’t this be under the title of homo sapien idaltu as that is the scientific name.  Or at least have at the very beginning “Herto man aka homo sapien idaltu…” Solri89 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That name is mentioned in the lead, but it's almost never used except by the people who came up with the name. It's also more consistent with our other human subspecies articles, like Peking Man (and not Homo erectus pekinensis), Solo Man (and not Homo erectus soloensis), etc.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn’t this be under H.S Idaltu? 

message: The way the species is laid out in the infobox is pretty confusing. I think(?) its supposed to denote that there's debate over whether Herto Man is homo sapien sapien or homo sapien idaltu, but it reads as though they're different names for the same thing. Cyan-Prince (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean those're the same thing, "H. s. idaltu" has only really been applied to Herto Man Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  species in infobox