banner



Home  ›  Humans Belong To Which Domain

Humans Belong To Which Domain

Written By Sunday, October 30, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Nomenclature of the human being species

Homo ("humans")

Temporal range: Piacenzian-Present, 2.865–0 Ma

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

↓
Scientific nomenclature e
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Linnaeus, 1758
Type species
Human sapiens

Linnaeus, 1758
Species
  • Homo sapiens
  • † Homo antecessor
  • † Homo erectus
  • † Human being ergaster
  • † Homo floresiensis
  • † Homo habilis
  • † Human heidelbergensis
  • † Homo luzonensis
  • † Homo rudolfensis
  • † Homo naledi
  • † Homo neanderthalensis

other species or subspecies suggested

Synonyms

Synonyms

  • Africanthropus Dreyer, 1935
  • Atlanthropus Arambourg, 1954
  • Cyphanthropus Pycraft, 1928
  • Pithecanthropus Dubois, 1894
  • Protanthropus Haeckel, 1895
  • Sinanthropus Black, 1927
  • Tchadanthropus Coppens, 1965
  • Telanthropus Broom & Anderson 1949

Overview of speciation and hybridization within the genus Homo over the last ii million years (vertical axis). The rapid "Out of Africa" expansion of H. sapiens is indicated at the top of the diagram, with admixture indicated with Neanderthals, Denisovans, and unspecified archaic African hominins.

Human being taxonomy is the nomenclature of the human species (systematic name Man sapiens, Latin: "wise man") within zoological taxonomy. The systematic genus, Human, is designed to include both anatomically mod humans and extinct varieties of archaic humans. Current humans accept been designated as subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, differentiated, co-ordinate to some, from the direct ancestor, Human being sapiens idaltu (with another research instead classifying idaltu and current humans equally belonging to the same subspecies[ane] [2] [3]).

Since the introduction of systematic names in the 18th century, knowledge of human development has increased drastically, and a number of intermediate taxa have been proposed in the 20th and early 21st centuries. The almost widely accepted taxonomy grouping takes the genus Homo as originating between ii and three million years ago, divided into at least 2 species, archaic Homo erectus and modern Homo sapiens, with about a dozen further suggestions for species without universal recognition.

The genus Homo is placed in the tribe Hominini alongside Pan (chimpanzees). The two genera are estimated to have diverged over an extended time of hybridization spanning roughly x to 6 million years ago, with possible admixture as late every bit iv meg years ago. A subtribe of uncertain validity, grouping archaic "pre-human" or "para-human being" species younger than the Human-Pan split, is Australopithecina (proposed in 1939).

A proposal past Wood and Richmond (2000) would introduce Hominina equally a subtribe aslope Australopithecina, with Man the only known genus within Hominina. Alternatively, following Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003), the "pre-human" or "proto-human" genera of Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus, and possibly Sahelanthropus, may exist placed on equal footing alongside the genus Homo. An even more extreme view rejects the division of Pan and Homo as separate genera, which based on the Principle of Priority would imply the reclassification of chimpanzees as Homo paniscus (or similar).[4]

Categorizing humans based on phenotypes is a socially controversial bailiwick. Biologists originally classified races equally subspecies, only contemporary anthropologists reject the concept of race as a useful tool to agreement humanity, and instead view humanity as a complex, interrelated genetic continuum. Taxonomy of the hominins continues to evolve.[5] [6]

History [edit]

Human taxonomy on 1 manus involves the placement of humans within the taxonomy of the hominids (not bad apes), and on the other the division of archaic and mod humans into species and, if applicable, subspecies. Modern zoological taxonomy was developed past Carl Linnaeus during the 1730s to 1750s. He named the homo species equally Homo sapiens in 1758, as the just member species of the genus Homo, divided into several subspecies respective to the neat races. The Latin noun homō (genitive hominis) means "human being". The systematic name Hominidae for the family of the great apes was introduced by John Edward Greyness (1825).[vii] Gray also supplied Hominini as the proper noun of the tribe including both chimpanzees (genus Pan) and humans (genus Human).

The discovery of the first extinct primitive human being species from the fossil tape dates to the mid 19th century: Homo neanderthalensis, classified in 1864. Since then, a number of other archaic species take been named, but at that place is no universal consensus as to their exact number. After the discovery of H. neanderthalensis, which even if "archaic" is recognizable as clearly man, late 19th to early 20th century anthropology for a fourth dimension was occupied with finding the supposedly "missing link" betwixt Homo and Pan. The "Piltdown Man" hoax of 1912 was the fraudulent presentation of such a transitional species. Since the mid-20th century, knowledge of the development of Hominini has get much more detailed, and taxonomical terminology has been altered a number of times to reflect this.

The introduction of Australopithecus as a tertiary genus, aslope Homo and Pan, in the tribe Hominini is due to Raymond Dart (1925). Australopithecina as a subtribe containing Australopithecus also as Paranthropus (Broom 1938) is a proposal by Gregory & Hellman (1939). More than recently proposed additions to the Australopithecina subtribe include Ardipithecus (1995) and Kenyanthropus (2001). The position of Sahelanthropus (2002) relative to Australopithecina within Hominini is unclear. Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003) propose the recognition of Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus, and Sahelanthropus (the latter incertae sedis) as dissever genera.[eight]

Other proposed genera, now more often than not considered part of Human being, include: Pithecanthropus (Dubois, 1894), Protanthropus (Haeckel, 1895), Sinanthropus (Black, 1927), Cyphanthropus (Pycraft, 1928) Africanthropus (Dreyer, 1935),[nine] Telanthropus (Broom & Anderson 1949), Atlanthropus (Arambourg, 1954), Tchadanthropus (Coppens, 1965).

The genus Homo has been taken to originate some two meg years agone, since the discovery of stone tools in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, in the 1960s. Homo habilis (Leakey et al., 1964) would be the first "human being" species (member of genus Homo) by definition, its blazon specimen beingness the OH 7 fossils. However, the discovery of more fossils of this type has opened upwardly the fence on the depiction of H. habilis from Australopithecus. Particularly, the LD 350-1 jawbone fossil discovered in 2013, dated to 2.8 Mya, has been argued every bit being transitional between the two.[10] It is also disputed whether H. habilis was the offset hominin to use stone tools, as Australopithecus garhi, dated to c. 2.five Mya, has been constitute forth with stone tool implements.[xi] Fossil KNM-ER 1470 (discovered in 1972, designated Pithecanthropus rudolfensis past Alekseyev 1978) is at present seen every bit either a third early species of Homo (alongside H. habilis and H. erectus) at about ii million years agone, or alternatively equally transitional betwixt Australopithecus and Homo.[12]

Wood and Richmond (2000) proposed that Grey'due south tribe Hominini ("hominins") be designated as comprising all species after the chimpanzee-human terminal common ancestor by definition, to the inclusion of Australopithecines and other possible pre-homo or para-human being species (such as Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus) non known in Gray's time.[13] In this proffer, the new subtribe of Hominina was to exist designated as including the genus Homo exclusively, and then that Hominini would have 2 subtribes, Australopithecina and Hominina, with the only known genus in Hominina beingness Homo. Orrorin (2001) has been proposed every bit a possible ancestor of Hominina but not Australopithecina.[14]

Designations alternative to Hominina have been proposed: Australopithecinae (Gregory & Hellman 1939) and Preanthropinae (Cela-Conde & Altaba 2002);[15]

Species [edit]

Master article: Man

At to the lowest degree a dozen species of Homo other than Homo sapiens have been proposed, with varying degrees of consensus. Homo erectus is widely recognized every bit the species directly ancestral to Homo sapiens.[ citation needed ] Most other proposed species are proposed equally alternatively belonging to either Homo erectus or Man sapiens as a subspecies. This concerns Human ergaster in particular.[xvi] [17] 1 proposal divides Homo erectus into an African and an Asian multifariousness; the African is Homo ergaster, and the Asian is Human being erectus sensu stricto. (Inclusion of Human being ergaster with Asian Homo erectus is Homo erectus sensu lato.)[18] There appears to be a recent trend, with the availability of e'er more difficult-to-classify fossils such as the Dmanisi skulls (2013) or Man naledi fossils (2015) to subsume all primitive varieties under Homo erectus.[19] [twenty] [21]

Comparative table of Man lineages
  • view
  • talk
  • edit
Lineages Temporal range
(kya) 		Habitat Developed height Adult mass Cranial capacity
(cmiii) 		Fossil tape Discovery Publication
of name
H. habilis
membership in Human uncertain 		2,100–1,500[a] [b] Tanzania 110–140 cm (3 ft 7 in – 4 ft 7 in) 33–55 kg (73–121 lb) 510–660 Many 1960 1964
H. rudolfensis
membership in Human being uncertain 		1,900 Kenya 700 2 sites 1972 1986
H. gautengensis
besides classified equally H. habilis 		one,900–600 S Africa 100 cm (three ft 3 in) 3 individuals[24] [c] 2010 2010
H. erectus i,900–140[25] [d] [26] [e] Africa, Eurasia 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) 60 kg (130 lb) 850 (early on) – one,100 (tardily) Many[f] [thousand] 1891 1892
H. ergaster
African H. erectus 		1,800–i,300[28] East and Southern Africa 700–850 Many 1949 1975
H. antecessor ane,200–800 Western Europe 175 cm (5 ft 9 in) 90 kg (200 lb) 1,000 2 sites 1994 1997
H. heidelbergensis
early on H. neanderthalensis 		600–300[h] Europe, Africa 180 cm (v ft 11 in) xc kg (200 lb) 1,100–1,400 Many 1907 1908
H. cepranensis
a unmarried fossil, maybe H. heidelbergensis 		c. 450[29] Italian republic 1,000 1 skull cap 1994 2003
H. longi 309–138[30] Northeast Communist china 1,420[31] ane private 1933 2021
H. rhodesiensis
early H. sapiens 		c. 300 Zambia 1,300 Unmarried or very few 1921 1921
H. naledi c. 300[32] Southward Africa 150 cm (4 ft 11 in) 45 kg (99 lb) 450 15 individuals 2013 2015
H. sapiens
(anatomically modern humans) 		c. 300–nowadays[i] Worldwide 150–190 cm (four ft 11 in – 6 ft three in) 50–100 kg (110–220 lb) 950–ane,800 (extant) —— 1758
H. neanderthalensis
240–40[35] [j] Europe, Western asia 170 cm (five ft 7 in) 55–lxx kg (121–154 lb)
(heavily built) 		1,200–1,900 Many 1829 1864
H. floresiensis
classification uncertain 		190–l Indonesia 100 cm (iii ft 3 in) 25 kg (55 lb) 400 7 individuals 2003 2004
Nesher Ramla Homo
classification uncertain 		140–120 Palestine several individuals 2021
H. tsaichangensis
possibly H. erectus or Denisova 		c. 100[k] Taiwan 1 individual 2008(?) 2015
H. luzonensis
c. 67[38] [39] Philippines 3 individuals 2007 2019
Denisova hominin 40 Siberia 2 sites 2000
 2010[l]

Subspecies [edit]

Man sapiens subspecies [edit]

1737 painting of Carl Linnaeus wearing a traditional Sami costume. Linnaeus is sometimes named as the lectotype of both H. sapiens and H. due south. sapiens.[40]

The recognition or nonrecognition of subspecies of Human being sapiens has a complicated history. The rank of subspecies in zoology is introduced for convenience, and not by objective criteria, based on pragmatic consideration of factors such every bit geographic isolation and sexual selection. The informal taxonomic rank of race is variously considered equivalent or subordinate to the rank of subspecies, and the division of anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) into subspecies is closely tied to the recognition of major racial groupings based on human genetic variation.

A subspecies cannot be recognized independently: a species volition either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or at least two (including any that are extinct). Therefore, the designation of an extant subspecies Man sapiens sapiens merely makes sense if at least one other subspecies is recognized. H. due south. sapiens is attributed to "Linnaeus (1758)" by the taxonomic Principle of Coordination.[41] During the 19th to mid-20th century, it was mutual practice to classify the major divisions of extant H. sapiens every bit subspecies, following Linnaeus (1758), who had recognized H. s. americanus, H. s. europaeus, H. due south. asiaticus and H. s. afer every bit grouping the native populations of the Americas, W Eurasia, East asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively. Linnaeus also included H. s. ferus, for the "wild" class which he identified with feral children, and ii other "wild" forms for reported specimens at present considered very dubious (come across cryptozoology), H. south. monstrosus and H. south. troglodytes.[42]

In that location were variations and additions to the categories of Linnaeus, such equally H. s. tasmanianus for the native population of Australia.[43] Bory de St. Vincent in his Essai sur l'Homme (1825) extended Linné's "racial" categories to every bit many as fifteen: Leiotrichi ("smooth-haired"): japeticus (with subraces), arabicus, indicus, scythicus, sinicus, hyperboreus, neptunianus, australasicus, columbicus, americanus, patagonicus; Oulotrichi ("crisp-haired"): aethiopicus, cafer, hottentotus, melaninus.[44] Similarly, Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1899) besides had categories based on race, such every bit priscus, spelaeus (etc.).

Human sapiens neanderthalensis was proposed by King (1864) every bit an alternative to Homo neanderthalensis.[45] At that place accept been "taxonomic wars" over whether Neanderthals were a separate species since their discovery in the 1860s. Pääbo (2014) frames this as a debate that is unresolvable in principle, "since there is no definition of species perfectly describing the instance."[46] Louis Lartet (1869) proposed Homo sapiens fossilis based on the Cro-Magnon fossils.

In that location are a number of proposals of extinct varieties of Homo sapiens made in the 20th century. Many of the original proposals were not using explicit trinomial nomenclature, even though they are all the same cited as valid synonyms of H. sapiens by Wilson & Reeder (2005).[47] These include: Homo grimaldii (Lapouge, 1906), Homo aurignacensis hauseri (Klaatsch & Hauser, 1910), Notanthropus eurafricanus (Sergi, 1911), Homo fossilis infrasp. proto-aethiopicus (Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1915), Telanthropus capensis (Broom, 1917),[48] Human being wadjakensis (Dubois, 1921), Homo sapiens cro-magnonensis, Homo sapiens grimaldiensis (Gregory, 1921), Homo drennani (Kleinschmidt, 1931),[49] Human galilensis (Joleaud, 1931) = Paleanthropus palestinus (McCown & Keith, 1932).[l] Rightmire (1983) proposed Homo sapiens rhodesiensis.[51]

By the 1980s, the practice of dividing extant populations of Homo sapiens into subspecies declined. An early authority explicitly fugitive the division of H. sapiens into subspecies was Grzimeks Tierleben, published 1967–1972.[52] A late instance of an academic authority proposing that the human racial groups should exist considered taxonomical subspecies is John Bakery (1974).[53] The trinomial nomenclature Human being sapiens sapiens became pop for "modern humans" in the context of Neanderthals existence considered a subspecies of H. sapiens in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Derived from the convention, widespread in the 1980s, of because two subspecies, H. s. neanderthalensis and H. south. sapiens, the explicit claim that "H. s. sapiens is the but extant human subspecies" appears in the early on 1990s.[54]

Since the 2000s, the extinct Homo sapiens idaltu (White et al., 2003) has gained wide recognition as a subspecies of Homo sapiens, but fifty-fifty in this example there is a dissenting view arguing that "the skulls may not be distinctive enough to warrant a new subspecies name".[55] H. s. neanderthalensis and H. s. rhodesiensis proceed to be considered separate species by some authorities, simply the 2010s discovery of genetic bear witness of archaic human being admixture with modern humans has reopened the details of taxonomy of archaic humans.[56]

Homo erectus subspecies [edit]

Man erectus since its introduction in 1892 has been divided into numerous subspecies, many of them formerly considered private species of Homo. None of these subspecies have universal consensus among paleontologists.

  • Homo erectus erectus (Coffee Homo) (1970s)[57]
  • Homo erectus yuanmouensis (Yuanmou Man) (Li et al., 1977)
  • Homo erectus lantianensis (Lantian Man) (Woo Ju-Kang, 1964)
  • Man erectus nankinensis (Nanjing Man) (1993)
  • Homo erectus pekinensis (Peking Human being) (1970s)[57]
  • Homo erectus palaeojavanicus (Meganthropus) (Tyler, 2001)
  • Homo erectus soloensis (Solo Man) (Oppenoorth, 1932)
  • Homo erectus tautavelensis (Tautavel Man) (de Lumley and de Lumley, 1971)
  • Homo erectus georgicus (1991)
  • Human being erectus bilzingslebenensis (Vlček, 2002)[58]

See too [edit]

  • Names for the human species
  • Timeline of human evolution

Footnotes [edit]

  1. ^ Confirmed H. habilis fossils are dated to betwixt 2.i and 1.v million years agone. This date range overlaps with the emergence of Homo erectus.[22] [23]
  2. ^ Hominins with "proto-Homo" traits may have lived as early as 2.eight meg years ago, every bit suggested by a fossil jawbone classified equally transitional between Australopithecus and Homo discovered in 2015.
  3. ^ A species proposed in 2010 based on the fossil remains of iii individuals dated between 1.ix and 0.half-dozen million years ago. The aforementioned fossils were also classified as H. habilis, H. ergaster or Australopithecus by other anthropologists.
  4. ^ H. erectus may have appeared some ii 1000000 years agone. Fossils dated to as much as 1.8 million years agone have been found both in Africa and in Southeast Asia, and the oldest fossils past a narrow margin (1.85 to 1.77 million years ago) were found in the Caucasus, then that it is unclear whether H. erectus emerged in Africa and migrated to Eurasia, or if, conversely, it evolved in Eurasia and migrated back to Africa.
  5. ^ Homo erectus soloensis, found in Coffee, is considered the latest known survival of H. erectus. Formerly dated to every bit belatedly as fifty,000 to 40,000 years ago, a 2011 study pushed dorsum the date of its extinction of H. e. soloensis to 143,000 years ago at the latest, more likely before 550,000 years ago. [27]
  6. ^ At present also included in H. erectus are Peking Homo (formerly Sinanthropus pekinensis) and Java Homo (formerly Pithecanthropus erectus).
  7. ^ H. erectus is now grouped into various subspecies, including Man erectus erectus, Homo erectus yuanmouensis, Homo erectus lantianensis, Homo erectus nankinensis, Human erectus pekinensis, Human erectus palaeojavanicus, Homo erectus soloensis, Man erectus tautavelensis, Human erectus georgicus. The distinction from descendant species such as Man ergaster, Homo floresiensis, Human being antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis and indeed Homo sapiens is non entirely clear.
  8. ^ The type fossil is Mauer 1, dated to ca. 0.six million years ago. The transition from H. heidelbergensis to H. neanderthalensis between 300 and 243 thousand years ago is conventional, and makes use of the fact that there is no known fossil in this flow. Examples of H. heidelbergensis are fossils institute at Bilzingsleben (also classified as Homo erectus bilzingslebensis).
  9. ^ The age of H. sapiens has long been causeless to be shut to 200,000 years, but since 2017 there take been a number of suggestions extending this fourth dimension to every bit high as 300,000 years. In 2017, fossils found in Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) suggest that Homo sapiens may have speciated by as early as 315,000 years ago.[33] Genetic prove has been adduced for an age of roughly 270,000 years.[34]
  10. ^ The offset humans with "proto-Neanderthal traits" lived in Eurasia equally early on as 0.6 to 0.35 meg years agone (classified as H. heidelbergensis, likewise called a chronospecies considering it represents a chronological grouping rather than being based on clear morphological distinctions from either H. erectus or H. neanderthalensis). In that location is a fossil gap in Europe between 300 and 243 kya, and by convention, fossils younger than 243 kya are called "Neanderthal".[36]
  11. ^ younger than 450 kya, either betwixt 190–130 or betwixt 70–ten kya[37]
  12. ^ provisional names Homo sp. Altai or Man sapiens ssp. Denisova.

References [edit]

  1. ^ Stringer, Chris (June 12, 2003). "Human evolution: Out of Ethiopia". Nature. 423 (6941): 693–695. Bibcode:2003Natur.423..692S. doi:ten.1038/423692a. PMID 12802315. S2CID 26693109.
  2. ^ "Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)". talkorigins org. Retrieved June vii, 2016.
  3. ^ Stringer, C. (2016). "The origin and evolution of Man sapiens". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 371 (1698): 20150237. doi:ten.1098/rstb.2015.0237. PMC4920294. PMID 27298468.
  4. ^ Jared Diamond in The Third Chimpanzee (1991), and Morris Goodman (2003) Hecht, Jeff (19 May 2003). "Chimps are human being, gene written report implies". New Scientist . Retrieved 2011-12-08 .
  5. ^ K. Wagner, Jennifer (2016). "Anthropologists' views on race, ancestry, and genetics". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 162 (2): 318–327. doi:10.1002/ajpa.23120. PMC5299519. PMID 27874171.
  6. ^ "AAA Statement on Race". American Anthropological Association.
  7. ^ J. Due east. Gray, "An outline of an endeavor at the disposition of Mammalia into Tribes and Families, with a listing of genera obviously appertaining to each Tribe", Annals of Philosophy, new series (1825), pp. 337–344.
  8. ^ Cela-Conde, C. J.; Ayala, F. J. (2003). "Genera of the man lineage". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100 (13): 7684–7689. Bibcode:2003PNAS..100.7684C. doi:10.1073/pnas.0832372100. PMC164648. PMID 12794185.
  9. ^ Introduced for the Florisbad Skull (discovered in 1932, Homo florisbadensis or Homo helmei). Also the genus suggested for a number of archaic human skulls found at Lake Eyasi past Weinert (1938). Leaky, Periodical of the Eastward Africa Natural History Society (1942), p. 43.
  10. ^ Villmoare, B. (2015). "Early Homo at 2.8 Ma from Ledi-Geraru, Afar, Ethiopia". Science. 347 (6228): 1352–1355. Bibcode:2015Sci...347.1352V. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1343. PMID 25739410. . Some paleoanthropologists regard the H. habilis taxon as invalid, made up of fossil specimens of Australopithecus and Homo. Tattersall, I. & Schwartz, J.H., Extinct Humans, Westview Press, New York, 2001, p. 111.
  11. ^ De Heinzelin, J; Clark, JD; White, T; Hart, W; Renne, P; Woldegabriel, 1000; Beyene, Y; Vrba, E (1999). "Environment and behavior of 2.5-meg-yr-old Bouri hominids". Science. 284 (5414): 625–9. Bibcode:1999Sci...284..625D. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.284.5414.625. PMID 10213682.
  12. ^ Kaplan, Matt (8 August 2012). "Fossils bespeak to a big family for human ancestors". Nature . Retrieved 8 Baronial 2012.
  13. ^ Wood and Richmond; Richmond, BG (2000). "Human development: taxonomy and paleobiology". Journal of Anatomy. 197 (Pt 1): 19–threescore. doi:x.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19710019.ten. PMC1468107. PMID 10999270.
  14. ^ Reynolds, Emerge C; Gallagher, Andrew (2012-03-29). African Genesis: Perspectives on Hominin Evolution. ISBN9781107019959.
  15. ^ Brunet, M.; et al. (2002). "A new hominid from the upper Miocene of Republic of chad, primal Africa". Nature. 418 (6894): 145–151. Bibcode:2002Natur.418..145B. doi:10.1038/nature00879. PMID 12110880. S2CID 1316969. Cela-Conde, C.J.; Ayala, F.J. (2003). "Genera of the human lineage". PNAS. 100 (13): 7684–7689. Bibcode:2003PNAS..100.7684C. doi:10.1073/pnas.0832372100. PMC164648. PMID 12794185. Wood, B.; Lonergan, Due north. (2008). "The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades" (PDF). J. Anat. 212 (4): 354–376. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.00871.ten. PMC2409102. PMID 18380861.
  16. ^ Hazarika, Manji (16–30 June 2007). "Homo erectus / ergaster and Out of Africa: Recent Developments in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology" (PDF).
  17. ^ Klein, R. (1999). The Human Career: Human biological and cultural origins . Chicago, IL: Academy of Chicago Press. ISBN0226439631.
  18. ^ Antón, Due south.C. (2003). "Natural history of Man erectus". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 122: 126–170. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10399. PMID 14666536. By the 1980s, the growing numbers of H. erectus specimens, particularly in Africa, led to the realization that Asian H. erectus (H. erectus sensu stricto), in one case thought then primitive, was in fact more derived than its African counterparts. These morphological differences were interpreted past some as evidence that more than one species might be included in H. erectus sensu lato (due east.grand., Stringer, 1984; Andrews, 1984; Tattersall, 1986; Wood, 1984, 1991a, b; Schwartz and Tattersall, 2000) ... Unlike the European lineage, in my opinion, the taxonomic issues surrounding Asian vs. African H. erectus are more intractable. The issue was most pointedly addressed with the naming of H. ergaster on the basis of the blazon mandible KNM-ER 992, but also including the partial skeleton and isolated teeth of KNM-ER 803 amid other Koobi Fora remains (Groves and Mazak, 1975). Recently, this specific proper name was applied to well-nigh early on African and Georgian H. erectus in recognition of the less-derived nature of these remains vis à vis conditions in Asian H. erectus (run into Forest, 1991a, p. 268; Gabunia et al., 2000a). At least portions of the paratype of H. ergaster (e.m., KNM-ER 1805) are not included in almost current conceptions of that taxon. The H. ergaster question remains famously unresolved (e.thousand., Stringer, 1984; Tattersall, 1986; Wood, 1991a, 1994; Rightmire, 1998b; Gabunia et al., 2000a; Schwartz and Tattersall, 2000), in no small function because the original diagnosis provided no comparison with the Asian fossil tape.
  19. ^ "Skull suggests 3 early on man species were one". News & Comment. Nature.
  20. ^ Lordkipanidze, David; Ponce de Leòn, Marcia S.; Margvelashvili, Ann; Rak, Yoel; Rightmire, One thousand. Philip; Vekua, Abesalom; Zollikofer, Christoph P. E. (eighteen October 2013). "A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biological science of Early Homo". Science. 342 (6156): 326–331. Bibcode:2013Sci...342..326L. doi:10.1126/science.1238484. PMID 24136960. S2CID 20435482.
  21. ^ Switek, Brian (17 October 2013). "Beautiful skull spurs debate on homo history". National Geographic. Retrieved 22 September 2014.
  22. ^ Schrenk F, Kullmer O, Bromage T (2007). "The Earliest Putative Homo Fossils". In Henke Westward, Tattersall I (eds.). Handbook of Paleoanthropology. Vol. 1. In collaboration with Thorolf Hardt. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 1611–1631. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-33761-4_52. ISBN978-3-540-32474-4.
  23. ^ DiMaggio EN, Campisano CJ, Rowan J, Dupont-Nivet G, Deino AL, Bibi F, et al. (March 2015). "Paleoanthropology. Late Pliocene fossiliferous sedimentary record and the ecology context of early Human being from Distant, Ethiopia". Science. 347 (6228): 1355–9. Bibcode:2015Sci...347.1355D. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1415. PMID 25739409. S2CID 43455561.
  24. ^ Curnoe D (June 2010). "A review of early Homo in southern Africa focusing on cranial, mandibular and dental remains, with the description of a new species (Human being gautengensis sp. nov.)". Homo. 61 (3): 151–77. doi:10.1016/j.jchb.2010.04.002. PMID 20466364.
  25. ^ Haviland WA, Walrath D, Prins HE, McBride B (2007). Evolution and Prehistory: The Homo Challenge (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. p. 162. ISBN978-0-495-38190-vii.
  26. ^ Ferring R, Oms O, Agustí J, Berna F, Nioradze M, Shelia T, et al. (June 2011). "Earliest human occupations at Dmanisi (Georgian Caucasus) dated to 1.85-1.78 Ma". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences of the The states of America. 108 (26): 10432–vi. Bibcode:2011PNAS..10810432F. doi:10.1073/pnas.1106638108. PMC3127884. PMID 21646521.
  27. ^ Indriati E, Swisher CC, Lepre C, Quinn RL, Suriyanto RA, Hascaryo AT, et al. (2011). "The historic period of the twenty meter Solo River terrace, Java, Republic of indonesia and the survival of Homo erectus in Asia". PLOS ONE. vi (6): e21562. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...621562I. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021562. PMC3126814. PMID 21738710.
  28. ^ Hazarika M (2007). "Human erectus/ergaster and Out of Africa: Recent Developments in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology" (PDF). EAA Summer School eBook. Vol. 1. European Anthropological Association. pp. 35–41. Intensive Form in Biological Anthrpology, 1st Summer School of the European Anthropological Association, 16–30 June, 2007, Prague, Czech republic
  29. ^ Muttoni K, Scardia G, Kent DV, Swisher CC, Manzi G (2009). "Pleistocene magnetochronology of early hominin sites at Ceprano and Fontana Ranuccio, Italy". Globe and Planetary Science Letters. 286 (1–two): 255–268. Bibcode:2009E&PSL.286..255M. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.06.032.
  30. ^ Ji Q, Wu W, Ji Y, Li Q, Ni X (25 June 2021). "Late Middle Pleistocene Harbin cranium represents a new Human species". The Innovation. 2 (3): 100132. doi:ten.1016/j.xinn.2021.100132. PMC8454552. PMID 34557772.
  31. ^ Ni X, Ji Q, Wu Westward, Shao Q, Ji Y, Zhang C, Liang 50, Ge J, Guo Z, Li J, Li Q, Grün R, Stringer C (25 June 2021). "Massive cranium from Harbin in northeastern People's republic of china establishes a new Middle Pleistocene homo lineage". The Innovation. 2 (3): 100130. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100130. PMC8454562. PMID 34557770.
  32. ^ Dirks PH, Roberts EM, Hilbert-Wolf H, Kramers JD, Hawks J, Dosseto A, et al. (May 2017). "Homo naledi and associated sediments in the Ascension Star Cave, Southward Africa". eLife. vi: e24231. doi:10.7554/eLife.24231. PMC5423772. PMID 28483040.
  33. ^ Callaway, Ewan (vii June 2017). "Oldest Homo sapiens fossil merits rewrites our species' history". Nature. doi:x.1038/nature.2017.22114. Retrieved 11 June 2017.
  34. ^ Posth C, Wißing C, Kitagawa Chiliad, Pagani L, van Holstein Fifty, Racimo F, et al. (July 2017). "Deeply divergent primitive mitochondrial genome provides lower time purlieus for African gene flow into Neanderthals". Nature Communications. eight: 16046. Bibcode:2017NatCo...816046P. doi:x.1038/ncomms16046. PMC5500885. PMID 28675384.
  35. ^ Bischoff JL, Shamp DD, Aramburu A, et al. (March 2003). "The Sima de los Huesos Hominids Date to Beyond U/Th Equilibrium (>350 kyr) and Possibly to 400–500 kyr: New Radiometric Dates". Journal of Archaeological Science. thirty (3): 275–280. doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0834. ISSN 0305-4403.
  36. ^ Dean D, Hublin JJ, Holloway R, Ziegler R (May 1998). "On the phylogenetic position of the pre-Neandertal specimen from Reilingen, Germany". Journal of Human Evolution. 34 (5): 485–508. doi:10.1006/jhev.1998.0214. PMID 9614635.
  37. ^ Chang CH, Kaifu Y, Takai M, Kono RT, Grün R, Matsu'ura S, et al. (January 2015). "The first primitive Homo from Taiwan". Nature Communications. 6: 6037. Bibcode:2015NatCo...vi.6037C. doi:10.1038/ncomms7037. PMC4316746. PMID 25625212.
  38. ^ Détroit F, Mijares Equally, Corny J, Daver K, Zanolli C, Dizon E, et al. (April 2019). "A new species of Homo from the Late Pleistocene of the Philippines" (PDF). Nature. 568 (7751): 181–186. Bibcode:2019Natur.568..181D. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1067-ix. PMID 30971845. S2CID 106411053.
  39. ^ Zimmer C (10 April 2019). "A new human being species once lived in this Philippine cave – Archaeologists in Luzon Island have turned up the bones of a distantly related species, Homo luzonensis, farther expanding the human family tree". The New York Times . Retrieved 10 April 2019.
  40. ^ "as far as I know, there is no type cloth for Homo sapiens. To exist fair to Linnaeus, the practice of setting blazon specimens aside doesn't seem to have adult until a century or then later." Bob Ralph, "Conforming to blazon", New Scientist No. 1548 (19 February 1987), p. 59.
  41. ^ "ICZN glossary". International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th ed., commodity 46.1: "Statement of the Principle of Coordination applied to species-group names. A proper noun established for a taxon at either rank in the species group is deemed to have been simultaneously established by the same author for a taxon at the other rank in the group; both nominal taxa have the same name-bearing type, whether that blazon was fixed originally or after." Homo sapiens sapiens is rarely used earlier the 1940s. In 1946, John Wendell Bailey attributes the proper noun to Linnaeus (1758) explicitly: "Linnaeus. Syst. Nat. ed. 10, Vol. 1. pp. 20, 21, 22, lists v races of human being, viz: Man sapiens sapiens (white — Caucasian) [...]", This is a misattribution, but H. s. sapiens has since often been attributed to Linnaeus. In bodily fact, Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. ed. 10 Vol. 1. p. 21 does not take Homo sapiens sapiens, the "white" or "Caucasian" race being instead called Homo sapiens Europaeus. This is explicitly pointed out in Bulletin der Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Anthropologie und Ethnologie Book 21 (1944), p. 18 (arguing non confronting H. s. sapiens simply confronting "H. south. albus L." proposed past von Eickstedt and Peters): "dice europide Rassengruppe, als Subspecies aufgefasst, [würde] Human being sapiens eurpoaeus L. heissen" ("the Europid racial group, considered equally a subspecies, would be named H. s. europeaeus L."). See also: John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press (1974), 205.
  42. ^ Linné, Carl von (1758). Systema naturæ. Regnum animale (x ed.). pp. 18ff.
  43. ^ See e.k. John Wendell Bailey, The Mammals of Virginia (1946), p. 356.; Journal of Mammalogy 26-27 (1945), p. 359.; J. Desmond Clark (ed.), The Cambridge History of Africa, Cambridge University Printing (1982), p. 141 (with references).
  44. ^ Annals of Philosophy 11, London (1826), p. 71
  45. ^ Frederick S. Szalay, Eric Delson, Evolutionary History of the Primates (2013), 508
  46. ^ Pääbo, Svante (2014). Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes. New York: Basic Books. p. 237.
  47. ^ Groves, C. P. (2005). Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (third ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Academy Press. ISBN0-801-88221-iv. OCLC 62265494.
  48. ^ T. Harrison in: William H. Kimbel, Lawrence B. Martin (eds.), Species, Species Concepts and Primate Evolution (2013), 361.
  49. ^ M. R. Drennan, "An Australoid Skull from the Cape Flats", The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Neat Britain and Ireland Vol. 59 (Jul. - Dec., 1929), 417-427.
  50. ^ among other names suggested for fossils later subsumed under neanderthalensis, see: Eric Delson, Ian Tattersall, John Van Couvering, Alison Due south. Brooks, Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition, Routledge (2004).
  51. ^ Rightmire GP (June 3, 1983). "The Lake Ndutu cranium and early Man sapiens in Africa". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 61 (2): 245–54. doi:x.1002/ajpa.1330610214. PMID 6410925.
  52. ^ English translation (1972–1975): Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, Volume 11, p. 55.
  53. ^ John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press (1974).
  54. ^ "Nosotros are the but surviving subspecies of Man sapiens." Michio Kitahara, The tragedy of development: the man animal confronts modernistic society (1991), p. xi.
  55. ^ Stringer, Chris (June 12, 2003). "Homo evolution: Out of Ethiopia". Nature. 423 (6941): 692–3, 695. doi:10.1038/423692a. PMID 12802315. S2CID 26693109.
  56. ^ Hublin, J. J. (2009). "The origin of Neandertals". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (38): 16022–seven. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10616022H. doi:10.1073/pnas.0904119106. JSTOR 40485013. PMC2752594. PMID 19805257. Harvati, K.; Frost, S.R.; McNulty, K.P. (2004). "Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. United states of americaA. 101 (five): 1147–52. Bibcode:2004PNAS..101.1147H. doi:10.1073/pnas.0308085100. PMC337021. PMID 14745010. "Homo neanderthalensis King, 1864". Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. 2013. pp. 328–331.
  57. ^ a b In the 1970s a tendency developed to regard the Javanese multifariousness of H. erectus as a subspecies, Human erectus erectus, with the Chinese variety existence referred to as Homo erectus pekinensis. Run across: Sartono, S. Implications arising from Pithecanthropus VIII In: Paleoanthropology: Morphology and Paleoecology. Russell H. Tuttle (Ed.), p. 328.
  58. ^ Emanuel Vlček: Der fossile Mensch von Bilzingsleben (= Bilzingsleben. Bd. 6 = Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 35). Beier & Beran, Langenweißbach 2002.

Humans Belong To Which Domain,

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy

Posted by: hillpoetastords1990.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Humans Belong To Which Domain"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel