| Homo ("humans") | |
|---|---|
Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Chordata |
| Class: | Mammalia |
| Order: | Primates |
| Family: | Hominidae |
| Subtribe: | Hominina |
| Genus: | Homo Linnaeus,1758 |
| Type species | |
| Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 | |
| Species | |
other species or subspecies suggested | |
| Synonyms | |
Synonyms
| |
−10 — – −9 — – −8 — – −7 — – −6 — – −5 — – −4 — – −3 — – −2 — – −1 — – 0 — |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Human taxonomy is the classification of thehuman species withinzoological taxonomy. The systematicgenus,Homo, is designed to include bothanatomically modern humans and extinct varieties ofarchaic humans. Current humans are classified as subspecies toHomo sapiens, differentiated, according to some, from the direct ancestor,Homo sapiens idaltu (with some other research instead classifyingidaltu and current humans as belonging to the same subspecies[1][2][3]).
Since the introduction of systematic names in the 18th century, knowledge ofhuman evolution has increased significantly, and a number of intermediate taxa have been proposed in the 20th and early 21st centuries. The most widely accepted taxonomy grouping takes the genusHomo as originating between two and three million years ago, divided into at least two species, archaicHomo erectus and modernHomo sapiens, with about a dozen further suggestions for species without universal recognition.
The genusHomo is placed in thetribeHominini alongsidePan (chimpanzees). The two genera are estimated to havediverged over an extended time of hybridization, spanning roughly 10 to 6 million years ago, with possible admixture as late as 4 million years ago. A subtribe of uncertain validity, grouping archaic "pre-human" or "para-human" species younger than theHomo-Pan split, isAustralopithecina (proposed in 1939).
A proposal by Wood and Richmond (2000) would introduce Hominina as a subtribe alongside Australopithecina, withHomo the only known genus within Hominina. Alternatively, following Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003), the "pre-human" or "proto-human" genera ofAustralopithecus,Ardipithecus,Praeanthropus, and possiblySahelanthropus, may be placed on equal footing alongside the genusHomo. An even more extreme view rejects the division ofPan andHomo as separate genera, which based on thePrinciple of Priority would imply the reclassification of chimpanzees asHomo paniscus (or similar).[4]
Categorizing humans based onphenotypes is a socially controversial subject. Biologists originally classified races assubspecies, but contemporary anthropologists reject the concept of race as a useful tool to understanding humanity, and instead view humanity as a complex, interrelated genetic continuum. Taxonomy of the hominins continues to evolve.[5][6]
Human taxonomy on one hand involves the placement of humans within the taxonomy of thehominids (great apes), and on the other the division ofarchaic and modern humans intospecies and, if applicable,subspecies. Modern zoological taxonomy was developed byCarl Linnaeus during the 1730s to 1750s. He was the first to develop the idea that, like other biological entities, groups of people could too share taxonomic classifications.[7] He named the human species asHomo sapiens in 1758, as the only member species of the genusHomo, divided intoseveral subspecies corresponding to thegreat races. TheLatin nounhomō (genitivehominis) means "human being". The systematic nameHominidae for thefamily of the great apes was introduced byJohn Edward Gray (1825).[8] Gray also suppliedHominini as the name of thetribe including both chimpanzees (genusPan) and humans (genusHomo).
The discovery of the first extinct archaic human species from the fossil record dates to the mid 19th century:Homo neanderthalensis, classified in 1864. Since then, a number of other archaic species have been named, but there is no universal consensus as to their exact number. After the discovery ofH. neanderthalensis, which even if "archaic" is recognizable as clearly human, late 19th to early 20th century anthropology for a time was occupied with finding the supposedly "missing link" betweenHomo andPan. 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 become much more detailed, and taxonomical terminology has been altered a number of times to reflect this.
The introduction ofAustralopithecus as a third genus, alongsideHomo andPan, in the tribe Hominini is due toRaymond Dart (1925).Australopithecina as a subtribe containingAustralopithecus as well asParanthropus (Broom 1938) is a proposal by Gregory & Hellman (1939). More recently proposed additions to the Australopithecina subtribe includeArdipithecus (1995) andKenyanthropus (2001). The position ofSahelanthropus (2002) relative to Australopithecina within Hominini is unclear. Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003) propose the recognition ofAustralopithecus,Ardipithecus,Praeanthropus, andSahelanthropus (the latterincertae sedis) as separate genera.[9]
Other proposed genera, now mostly considered part ofHomo, include:Pithecanthropus (Dubois, 1894),Protanthropus (Haeckel, 1895),Sinanthropus (Black, 1927),Cyphanthropus (Pycraft, 1928)Africanthropus (Dreyer, 1935),[10]Telanthropus (Broom & Anderson 1949),Atlanthropus (Arambourg, 1954),Tchadanthropus (Coppens, 1965).
The genusHomo has been taken to originate some two million years ago, since the discovery ofstone tools inOlduvai Gorge,Tanzania, in the 1960s.Homo habilis (Leakeyet al., 1964) would be the first "human" species (member of genusHomo) by definition, its type specimen being theOH 7 fossils. However, the discovery of more fossils of this type has opened up the debate on the delineation ofH. habilis fromAustralopithecus. Especially, theLD 350-1 jawbone fossil discovered in 2013, dated to 2.8 Mya, has been argued as being transitional between the two.[11] It is also disputed whetherH. habilis was the first hominin to use stone tools, asAustralopithecus garhi, dated to c. 2.5 Mya, has been found along with stone tool implements.[12] FossilKNM-ER 1470 (discovered in 1972, designatedPithecanthropus rudolfensis byAlekseyev 1978) is now seen as either a third early species ofHomo (alongsideH. habilis andH. erectus) at about 2 million years ago, or alternatively as transitional betweenAustralopithecus andHomo.[13]
Wood and Richmond (2000) proposed that Gray's tribeHominini ("hominins") be designated as comprising all species after thechimpanzee–human last common ancestor by definition, to the inclusion of Australopithecines and other possible pre-human or para-human species (such asArdipithecus andSahelanthropus) not known in Gray's time.[14] In this suggestion, the new subtribe of Hominina was to be designated as including the genusHomo exclusively, so that Hominini would have two subtribes, Australopithecina and Hominina, with the only known genus in Hominina beingHomo.Orrorin (2001) has been proposed as a possible ancestor of Hominina but not Australopithecina.[15]
Designations alternative to Hominina have been proposed: Australopithecinae (Gregory & Hellman 1939) and Preanthropinae (Cela-Conde & Altaba 2002).[16][17][18]
At least a dozen species ofHomo other thanHomo sapiens have been proposed, with varying degrees of consensus. Most other proposed species are proposed as alternatively belonging to eitherHomo erectus orHomo sapiens as a subspecies. This concernsHomo ergaster in particular.[19][20] One proposal dividesHomo erectus into an African and an Asian variety; the African isHomo ergaster, and the Asian isHomo erectus sensu stricto. (Inclusion ofHomo ergaster with AsianHomo erectus isHomo erectus sensu lato.)[21] There appears to be a recent trend, with the availability of ever more difficult-to-classify fossils such as theDmanisi skulls (2013) orHomo naledi fossils (2015) to subsume all archaic varieties underHomo erectus.[22][23][24]
| Lineages | Temporal range (kya) | Habitat | Adult height | Adult mass | Cranial capacity (cm3) | Fossil record | Discovery | Publication of name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H. habilis membership inHomo 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 inHomo uncertain | 1,900 | Kenya | 700 | 2 sites | 1972 | 1986 | ||
| H. gautengensis also classified asH. habilis | 1,900–600 | South Africa | 100 cm (3 ft 3 in) | 3 individuals[27][c] | 2010 | 2010 | ||
| H. erectus | 2,000–140[28][d][30][e] | Africa,Eurasia | 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) | 60 kg (130 lb) | 850 (early) – 1,100 (late) | Many[f][g] | 1891 | 1892 |
| H. ergaster AfricanH. erectus | 1,800–1,300[32] | East and Southern Africa | 700–850 | Many | 1949 | 1975 | ||
| H. antecessor | 1,200–800 | Western Europe | 175 cm (5 ft 9 in) | 90 kg (200 lb) | 1,000 | 2 sites | 1994 | 1997 |
| H. heidelbergensis earlyH. neanderthalensis | 600–300[h] | Europe, Africa | 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) | 90 kg (200 lb) | 1,100–1,400 | Many | 1907 | 1908 |
| H. cepranensis a single fossil, possiblyH. heidelbergensis | c. 450[33] | Italy | 1,000 | 1 skull cap | 1994 | 2003 | ||
| H. longi | 309–138[34] | Northeast China | 1,420[35] | 1 individual | 1933 | 2021 | ||
| H. rhodesiensis earlyH. sapiens | c. 300 | Zambia | 1,300 | Single or very few | 1921 | 1921 | ||
| H. naledi | c. 300[36] | South Africa | 150 cm (4 ft 11 in) | 45 kg (99 lb) | 450 | 15 individuals | 2013 | 2015 |
| H. sapiens (anatomically modern humans) | c. 300–present[i] | Worldwide | 150–190 cm (4 ft 11 in – 6 ft 3 in) | 50–100 kg (110–220 lb) | 950–1,800 | (extant) | —— | 1758 |
| H. neanderthalensis | 240–40[39][j] | Europe, Western Asia | 170 cm (5 ft 7 in) | 55–70 kg (121–154 lb) (heavily built) | 1,200–1,900 | Many | 1829 | 1864 |
| H. floresiensis classification uncertain | 190–50 | Indonesia | 100 cm (3 ft 3 in) | 25 kg (55 lb) | 400 | 7 individuals | 2003 | 2004 |
| Nesher RamlaHomo classification uncertain | 140–120 | Israel | several individuals | 2021 | ||||
| Penghu 1 possiblyH. erectus or Denisova | c. 100[k] | Taiwan | 1 individual | 2008(?) | 2015 | |||
| H. luzonensis | c. 67[42][43] | Philippines | 3 individuals | 2007 | 2019 | |||
| Denisova hominin | 40 | Siberia | 2 sites | 2000 | 2010[l] |
_in_his_Lapland_costume_-_painting.jpg)
The recognition or nonrecognition ofsubspecies ofHomo 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 asgeographic isolation andsexual selection. The informal taxonomic rank ofrace is variously considered equivalent or subordinate to the rank of subspecies, and the division ofanatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) into subspecies is closely tied to the recognition ofmajor racial groupings based onhuman genetic variation.
A subspecies cannot be recognized independently: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or at least two (including any that are extinct). Therefore, the designation of an extant subspeciesHomo sapiens sapiens only makes sense if at least one other subspecies is recognized.H. s. sapiens is attributed to "Linnaeus (1758)" by the taxonomicPrinciple of Coordination.[45] During the 19th to mid-20th century, it was common practice to classify the major divisions of extantH. sapiens as subspecies, following Linnaeus (1758), who had recognizedH. s. americanus,H. s. europaeus,H. s. asiaticus andH. s. afer as grouping the native populations of theAmericas,West Eurasia,East Asia andSub-Saharan Africa, respectively. Linnaeus also includedH. s. ferus, for the "wild" form which he identified withferal children, and two other "wild" forms for reported specimens now considered very dubious (seecryptozoology),H. s. monstrosus andH. s. troglodytes.[46]
There were variations and additions to the categories of Linnaeus, such asH. s. tasmanianus for the native population of Australia.[47]Bory de St. Vincent in hisEssai sur l'Homme (1825) extended Linnaeus's "racial" categories to as many as fifteen:Leiotrichi ("smooth-haired"):japeticus (with subraces),arabicus,iranicus,indicus,sinicus,hyperboreus,neptunianus,australasicus,columbicus,americanus,patagonicus;Oulotrichi ("crisp-haired"):aethiopicus,cafer,hottentotus,melaninus.[48] Similarly,Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1899) also had categories based on race, such aspriscus,spelaeus (etc.).
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was proposed by King (1864) as an alternative toHomo neanderthalensis.[49] There have 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 case."[50]Louis Lartet (1869) proposedHomo sapiens fossilis based on theCro-Magnon fossils.
There are a number of proposals of extinct varieties ofHomo sapiens made in the 20th century. Many of the original proposals were not using explicittrinomial nomenclature, even though they are still cited as validsynonyms ofH. sapiens by Wilson & Reeder (2005).[51] These include:Homo grimaldii (Lapouge, 1906),Homo aurignacensis hauseri (Klaatsch & Hauser, 1910),Notanthropus eurafricanus (Sergi, 1911),Homo fossilisinfrasp. proto-aethiopicus (Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1915),Telanthropus capensis (Broom, 1917),[52]Homo wadjakensis (Dubois, 1921),Homo sapiens cro-magnonensis,Homo sapiens grimaldiensis (Gregory, 1921),Homo drennani (Kleinschmidt, 1931),[53]Homo galilensis (Joleaud, 1931) =Paleanthropus palestinus (McCown & Keith, 1932).[54]Rightmire (1983) proposedHomo sapiens rhodesiensis.[55]
After World War II, the practice of dividing extant populations ofHomo sapiens into subspecies declined. An early authority explicitly avoiding the division ofH. sapiens into subspecies wasGrzimeks Tierleben, published 1967–1972.[56]A late example of an academic authority proposing that the human racial groups should be considered taxonomical subspecies isJohn Baker (1974).[57] The trinomial nomenclatureHomo sapiens sapiens became popular for "modern humans" in the context of Neanderthals being considered a subspecies ofH. sapiens in the second half of the 20th century. Derived from the convention, widespread in the 1980s, of considering two subspecies,H. s. neanderthalensis andH. s. sapiens, the explicit claim that "H. s. sapiens is the only extant human subspecies" appears in the early 1990s.[58]
Since the 2000s, the extinctHomo sapiens idaltu (Whiteet al., 2003) has gained wide recognition as a subspecies ofHomo sapiens, but even in this case there is a dissenting view arguing that "the skulls may not be distinctive enough to warrant a new subspecies name".[59]H. s. neanderthalensis andH. s. rhodesiensis continue to be considered separate species by some authorities, but the 2010s discovery of genetic evidence ofarchaic human admixture with modern humans has reopened the details of taxonomy of archaic humans.[60]
Homo erectus since its introduction in 1892 has been divided into numerous subspecies, many of them formerly considered individual species ofHomo. None of these subspecies have universal consensus among paleontologists.
By the 1980s, the growing numbers ofH. erectus specimens, particularly in Africa, led to the realization that AsianH. erectus (H. erectus sensu stricto), once thought so primitive, was in fact more derived than its African counterparts. These morphological differences were interpreted by some as evidence that more than one species might be included inH. erectus sensu lato (e.g., 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 type mandible KNM-ER 992, but also including the partial skeleton and isolated teeth of KNM-ER 803 among other Koobi Fora remains (Groves and Mazak, 1975). Recently, this specific name was applied to most early African and Georgian H. erectus in recognition of the less-derived nature of these remains vis à vis conditions in Asian H. erectus (see Wood, 1991a, p. 268; Gabunia et al., 2000a). At least portions of the paratype of H. ergaster (e.g., KNM-ER 1805) are not included in most current conceptions of that taxon. TheH. ergaster question remains famously unresolved (e.g., Stringer, 1984; Tattersall, 1986; Wood, 1991a, 1994; Rightmire, 1998b; Gabunia et al., 2000a; Schwartz and Tattersall, 2000), in no small part because the original diagnosis provided no comparison with the Asian fossil record.
Intensive Course in Biological Anthrpology, 1st Summer School of the European Anthropological Association, 16–30 June, 2007, Prague, Czech Republic
as far as I know, there is no type material forHomo sapiens. To be fair to Linnaeus, the practice of setting type specimens aside doesn't seem to have developed until a century or so later.
Statement of the Principle of Coordination applied to species-group names. A name 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 type was fixed originally or subsequently.Homo sapiens sapiens is rarely used before the 1940s. In 1946, John Wendell Bailey attributes the name to Linnaeus (1758) explicitly: "Linnaeus. Syst. Nat. ed. 10, Vol. 1. pp. 20, 21, 22, lists five races of man, viz: Homo sapiens sapiens (white — Caucasian) [...]", This is a misattribution, butH. s. sapiens has since often been attributed to Linnaeus. In actual fact, Linnaeus,Syst. Nat. ed. 10 Vol. 1.p. 21 does not haveHomo sapiens sapiens, the "white" or "Caucasian" race being instead calledHomo sapiens Europaeus. This is explicitly pointed out inBulletin der Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Anthropologie und Ethnologie Volume 21 (1944), p. 18 (arguing not againstH. s. sapiens but against "H. s. albus L." proposed by von Eickstedt and Peters): "die europide Rassengruppe, als Subspecies aufgefasst, [würde]Homo sapiens eurpoaeus L. heissen" ("the Europid racial group, considered as a subspecies, would be namedH. s. europeaeus L.").See also:John R. Baker,Race, Oxford University Press (1974),205.
We are the only surviving subspecies ofHomo sapiens
| Taxonomy (Hominins) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ancestors |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Models |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Timelines | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Others | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
