Talk:Homo rhodesiensis

message: Moved info from Rhodesian Man here to break up species info from fossil info and make the naming convention consistent with other human evolution articles. See Talk:Rhodesian Man for more info. Nowimnthing 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: Earlier H sapiens (very early modern human subspecies) are confirmed genetically at 300-330,000 years. The oldest sapiens tools are 330,000 years old. Safe to say the gap shows a possible decline of H rhodesiensis about 400 to 300,000 years ago with humans as an offshoot in Southern Africa. By 250,000 sapiens totally replaces rhodesiensis as the humanoid species in Africa apart from hominid apes. 
It’s not so much a real paleopopulation gap but rather a knowledge gap, an illusionary space.
*Also, Rhodesia is now called Zimbabwe officially. But species names do not change if the location they’re name after does. It may be prudent for scientists concerned with this species’ authenticity to review this. *My colleagues and I firmly support H. rhodesiensis as a natural species with modern humanity speciating from a subspecies of it 300-340,000 years ago, as suggested by genetic trends and mutations in our ancestry at the time.
Please contact my colleagues John S, Elijah S, Martin W or Whitney B for more information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.250.196.234 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Mind the Gap

message: Why does "Archaic Homo sapiens" link to Homo rhodiensis?
Kortoso (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This redirect is obviously wrong, particularly as rhodesiensis is now regarded by many palaeontologists as another name for heidelbergensis, which is considered pre-sapiens. However there is no good alternative so far as I can see. One possiblity would be Human#Evidence from the fossil record, which briefly mentions the (disputed) archaic homo sapiens species. Another would be to redirect to an disambig page which lists the candidates, such as Omo remains, Homo sapiens idaltu and Skhul and Qafzeh hominids. Best of all of course would be for someone to create a good article on archaic homo sapiens. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Sometimes they are considered to be a subspecies of Homo sapien still, much like H. heid. They're just similar and different from H. sapien sapiens that they can be considered either.137.118.104.149 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

text: H. Heid is not a sub species of H. sapiens, they are definitely distinct dental, cranial, and temporally. Any opinion otherwise is a fringe viewpoint. The. Bpod (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Homo sapiens?

message: Is mainstream paleontology agreed enough on this matter that the world can tolerate Wikipedia merging articles on Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis?      Kortoso (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No. (Even four years after your posting) It's useful in my opinion to keep the taxon/wiki active, with recognition of the redundancy with Heidelbergensis; it refers only to African finds; there may not be enough Heidelberg examples to distinguish the species — and in this regard the community is far from consensus — particularly in light of 2016 DNA results for the Sima de los Huesos hominins showing strong affinity for Neandertal (when they were previously assumed to be Heidelbergs) and casting doubt on how Heidelbergensis fits. Still a muddle in the middle. Bpod (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  So why is it now merged by someone that didn't even enter the discussion page? I'm removing the merging and hope it will not be reinstalled without proper concertation on this talk page. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

text: I think such a split would only be warranted if the combined article became too long. But as is, both are fairly short (or at least short enough that all information in them could be covered in one article). FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with H. heidelbergensis? 

message: Homo bodoensis → Homo rhodesiensis   02:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge ''[[Homo bodoensis]]''

message: Some of the article looks as though it has been written exclusively for erudite people—who don't really need Wikipedia anyway. I can imagine what an LCA might be, but it ought to be spelt out properly by somebody who actually knows. 
But Homo rhodesiensis s.s.? H. heidelbergensis s.s.? H. heidelbergensis s.l? 
Nulla virtus est in fumo et speculis! ----- Frans Fowler (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon