Talk:Homo/Archive 1

message: Is Flores Man 100% for sure extinct, or is it still possible they'll be found?
:I suppose there is always a possibility. But I'd say it is pretty unlikely. Is there any scientific paper or news article with this suggestion? If not, I would leave it as "(extinct)" until/unless new information is found. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flores man 

message: "The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus." http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744 
--OblivionXYZ 23:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chimps are human, gene study implies 

message: "analysis of mitochondrial DNA from H. neanderthalensis fossils shows that H. neanderthalensis is more closely related to chimps than Homo sapiens."
The above sentence could be read as either "more closely related to chimps than to Homo sapiens", or "more closely related to chimps than is Homo sapiens". I assume the latter meaning is the correct one? 217.155.20.163 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mgiganteus1 did right by reverting your edits, since they were disruptive to the article. The talk page is the correct place to make queries. As for the issue itself, I believe the anon IP is correct, that an "is" is needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is edited, as requested. Denn333 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous sentence 

message: Several Years ago there were findings that what we THINK are all the same species of Homo Sapiens are actually not.  There is a new evolve species,,,not sure it stated it was better, but it was different...almost totally in brain operations and processes...just slightly enough to make it a different species. 
I am still researching to find that data , as I cannot remember the "title" that was given to the species. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.37.216.214 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All other species of homo are NOT extinct 

message: Just out of curiosity, why was my edit undone? The article states that the Kenyanthropus platyops species is the likely ancestor of Homo, yet this is a hotly debated topic. My edit specifically stated that Humans descended from either Kenyanthropus, Australopithecus or Paranthropus. As there is still no general concensus, we should err on the side of caution by limiting our choices to these three taxa, rather than saying what we personally believe is true. To do otherwise somewhat clashes with the NPOV of the site, in my opinion. Granted, I've been out of the loop for the last 10 months, so things may have changed, but I believe I would have heard about it. Unless you can cite your source that this specimen is, in fact, generally accepted as our common ancestor, I believe it should be returned to the edit that I made.Drur93 05:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the previous version stated there was no consensus on this, if you are going to make a change that states something more conclusive, you'll need to provide a citation for it. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point, the previous version stated that Kenyanthropus was the likely ancestor. "Likely" suggests that a majority of experts in the field agree - that's not the case, as there is a lot of debate still. As there is no general consensus, stating this as factual is inaccurate at this time. The change I made explained that we still do not know whether we're the descendants of Kenyanthropus or Australopithecus. Ergo, we should stray on the side of caution by not labeling Kenyanthropus as our "likely Ancestor". - Drur93 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kenyanthropus as our likely ancestor

message: I have seen the dagger character (†) used to indicate an individual's death in German language source material, but have never seen it used in English or French sources. I do not believe it is standard encyclopedic usage. It is currently in use on the article page to indicate extinct species of homo. The article page for dagger claims "Since it also represents the Christian cross, in certain predominantly Christian regions, the mark is used in a text after the name of a deceased person or the date of death, as in Christian grave headstones." - and I have reason to doubt the neanderthals et al., were Christian.  If noone justifies its use here, I shall remove it within the week. Cheers, samwaltz 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dagger character is often used to denote extinct taxa (as mentioned in the article). Mgiganteus1 06:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if they're Jewish? Ah, well, that's what I get for searching the article for death/dead, rather than extinct. samwaltz 12:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Typography: dagger and extinction

message: Is there a 'Homo sapiens Linnaeus' Tho whole of WikiSpecies is confused. Does anyone on Wikipedia Know?
:No, Linnaeus is the person who named the human species "Homo sapiens." Someone the Person 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linnaeus's Wise man

message: Homo in Greek means Same.  Mom you are wrong and I was right. 
There are a lot of red links in the list of species and subspecies. There are a couple of species, and many more subspecies, which do not have an article on Wikipedia, are not in the table, and are not covered by the external links. For example, 14 subspecies of Homo erectus are listed. Four of them have an article on Wikipedia, and the remaining ten not only don't have an article, but also are not mentioned in the article Homo erectus. Also, there are 5 subspecies of Homo sapiens listed, and only 2 are mentioned anywhere else in Wikipedia. Note the information given for a couple of the extra subspecies: "Homo sapiens archaic (most ancient wise man) discovered 2003. Homo sapiens fossilis (fossil wise man) discovered 1869." Firstly, Homo sapiens idaltu is "the oldest representative of the H. sapiens species found so far," according to the article on it. Secondly, I don't think scientists would make fossilized humans a separate subspecies, because any living thing can be fossilized. What is going on here? Someone the Person 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear what's going on.  I'm very confused by the dates for the various species as well.  Looks like h. ergaster went extinct long before most textbooks say that it did.Levalley (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Red links factual?

message: Can anyone comment on and/or help with Boskop Man?  Anthro Project assumes he is no longer used and was rolled into another species...  Please help if you have a clue.  Smilo Don 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boskop Man?

message: This topic should be a wiki CATEGORY too.  Can someone working in this area categorize?  Smilo Don 13:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homo --- genus should be a category too 

message: Food for thought: I've always wondered if we should have a new category with something like "Homo Technologicus". After all, we all are now so dependent on nutrician, medicine, hygene, surgery (including Caesarean sections) that it might not be possible to continue without technology. --Neilrieck (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. That would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. The only things that are appropriate are those things we can cite with verifiable and reliable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies. I never thought that Wikipedia should create this title. It was a suggestion for academia. In hindsight I can see that my thoughts might be more the realm of philosophy rather than biology. Thanks for catching my faux pas. --Neilrieck 22:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homo Technologicus?