Home  ›  Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species of Humans

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species of Humans

Written By Saturday 5 March 2022 Add Comment Edit

Classification of the homo species

Man ("humans")

Temporal range: Piacenzian-Present, 2.865–0 Ma

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

Due south

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

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

Linnaeus, 1758
Species
  • Homo sapiens
  • † Homo antecessor
  • † Human erectus
  • † Homo ergaster
  • † Human floresiensis
  • † Homo habilis
  • † Human being heidelbergensis
  • † Human being luzonensis
  • † Homo rudolfensis
  • † Human 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 two 1000000 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.

Homo taxonomy is the nomenclature of the human species (systematic name Homo sapiens, Latin: "wise man") inside zoological taxonomy. The systematic genus, Homo, is designed to include both anatomically modern humans and extinct varieties of archaic humans. Current humans have been designated as subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, differentiated, according to some, from the direct ancestor, Human being sapiens idaltu (with another research instead classifying idaltu and current humans as belonging to the same subspecies[1] [ii] [iii]).

Since the introduction of systematic names in the 18th century, knowledge of homo evolution has increased drastically, and a number of intermediate taxa have been proposed in the 20th and early 21st centuries. The most widely accepted taxonomy grouping takes the genus Homo as originating between ii and 3 million years ago, divided into at least two species, archaic Homo erectus and modern Human being sapiens, with virtually 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 10 to 6 million years ago, with possible admixture as belatedly as 4 million years agone. A subtribe of uncertain validity, group primitive "pre-homo" or "para-human" species younger than the Homo-Pan split, is Australopithecina (proposed in 1939).

A proposal by Forest and Richmond (2000) would innovate Hominina as a subtribe alongside Australopithecina, with Human being the only known genus inside Hominina. Alternatively, following Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003), the "pre-human" or "proto-human" genera of Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus, and possibly Sahelanthropus, may be placed on equal basis aslope the genus Homo. An even more radical view rejects the division of Pan and Homo as separate genera, which based on the Principle of Priority would imply the reclassification of chimpanzees every bit Human being paniscus (or like).[4]

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

History [edit]

Human taxonomy on one hand involves the placement of humans within the taxonomy of the hominids (great apes), and on the other the division of archaic and modern humans into species and, if applicative, subspecies. Modern zoological taxonomy was developed past Carl Linnaeus during the 1730s to 1750s. He named the human species as Man sapiens in 1758, as the just member species of the genus Homo, divided into several subspecies corresponding to the slap-up races. The Latin noun homō (genitive hominis) ways "homo being". The systematic name Hominidae for the family unit of the great apes was introduced by John Edward Grayness (1825).[seven] Gray also supplied Hominini as the proper noun of the tribe including both chimpanzees (genus Pan) and humans (genus Man).

The discovery of the first extinct archaic human being species from the fossil tape dates to the mid 19th century: Human neanderthalensis, classified in 1864. Since then, a number of other archaic species take been named, only there is no universal consensus as to their exact number. After the discovery of H. neanderthalensis, which even if "archaic" is recognizable equally clearly human, late 19th to early on 20th century anthropology for a time was occupied with finding the supposedly "missing link" between Man and Pan. The "Piltdown Human being" 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 contradistinct a number of times to reverberate this.

The introduction of Australopithecus as a 3rd genus, alongside Man and Pan, in the tribe Hominini is due to Raymond Dart (1925). Australopithecina as a subtribe containing Australopithecus as well as Paranthropus (Broom 1938) is a proposal past Gregory & Hellman (1939). More recently proposed additions to the Australopithecina subtribe include Ardipithecus (1995) and Kenyanthropus (2001). The position of Sahelanthropus (2002) relative to Australopithecina inside Hominini is unclear. Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003) propose the recognition of Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus, and Sahelanthropus (the latter incertae sedis) as separate genera.[8]

Other proposed genera, now more often than not considered part of Homo, include: Pithecanthropus (Dubois, 1894), Protanthropus (Haeckel, 1895), Sinanthropus (Blackness, 1927), Cyphanthropus (Pycraft, 1928) Africanthropus (Dreyer, 1935),[9] Telanthropus (Broom & Anderson 1949), Atlanthropus (Arambourg, 1954), Tchadanthropus (Coppens, 1965).

The genus Homo has been taken to originate some two meg years ago, since the discovery of rock tools in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, in the 1960s. Homo habilis (Leakey et al., 1964) would be the first "human" species (member of genus Homo) by definition, its type specimen being the OH vii fossils. Withal, the discovery of more fossils of this type has opened up the debate on the delineation of H. habilis from Australopithecus. Peculiarly, the LD 350-ane jawbone fossil discovered in 2013, dated to ii.8 Mya, has been argued as beingness transitional betwixt the two.[10] It is as well disputed whether H. habilis was the start hominin to use stone tools, as Australopithecus garhi, dated to c. two.5 Mya, has been found forth with rock tool implements.[11] Fossil KNM-ER 1470 (discovered in 1972, designated Pithecanthropus rudolfensis by Alekseyev 1978) is now seen as either a third early species of Homo (alongside H. habilis and H. erectus) at nearly two million years agone, or alternatively as transitional between Australopithecus and Homo.[12]

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

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

Species [edit]

Main article: Human

At least a dozen species of Human other than Homo sapiens have been proposed, with varying degrees of consensus. Homo erectus is widely recognized every bit the species directly ancestral to Man sapiens.[ citation needed ] Almost other proposed species are proposed as alternatively belonging to either Homo erectus or Homo sapiens as a subspecies. This concerns Homo ergaster in item.[xvi] [17] One proposal divides Homo erectus into an African and an Asian diversity; the African is Homo ergaster, and the Asian is Man erectus sensu stricto. (Inclusion of Homo ergaster with Asian Homo erectus is Human being erectus sensu lato.)[eighteen] There appears to be a recent trend, with the availability of ever more difficult-to-classify fossils such as the Dmanisi skulls (2013) or Human being naledi fossils (2015) to subsume all archaic varieties under Human being erectus.[19] [20] [21]

Comparative table of Man lineages
  • view
  • talk
  • edit
Lineages Temporal range
(kya) 		Habitat Adult elevation Adult mass Cranial chapters
(cmiii) 		Fossil record Discovery/
publication
of name
H. habilis
membership in Homo uncertain 		2,100–ane,500[a] [b] Tanzania 110–140 cm (3 ft seven in – iv ft 7 in) 33–55 kg (73–121 lb) 510–660 Many 1960
1964
H. rudolfensis
membership in Homo uncertain 		ane,900 Kenya 700 two sites 1972
1986
H. gautengensis
as well classified equally H. habilis 		i,900–600 South Africa 100 cm (iii ft 3 in) iii individuals[24] [c] 2010
2010
H. erectus 1,900–140[25] [d] [26] [e] Africa, Eurasia 180 cm (five ft 11 in) 60 kg (130 lb) 850 (early on) – 1,100 (belatedly) Many[f] [g] 1891
1892
H. ergaster
African H. erectus 		ane,800–1,300[28] Due 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 two sites 1994
1997
H. heidelbergensis
early on H. neanderthalensis 		600–300[h] Europe, Africa 180 cm (five ft 11 in) 90 kg (200 lb) 1,100–1,400 Many 1907
1908
H. cepranensis
a single fossil, mayhap H. heidelbergensis 		c. 450[29] Italy ane,000 i skull cap 1994
2003
H. longi 309–138[xxx] Northeast Cathay one,420[31] 1 individual 1933
2021
H. rhodesiensis
early H. sapiens 		c. 300 Zambia 1,300 Single or very few 1921
1921
H. naledi c. 300[32] South Africa 150 cm (iv 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 (four ft xi in – vi ft 3 in) 50–100 kg (110–220 lb) 950–1,800 (extant) ——
1758
H. neanderthalensis
240–forty[35] [j] Europe, Western Asia 170 cm (5 ft 7 in) 55–lxx kg (121–154 lb)
(heavily built) 		1,200–i,900 Many 1829
1864
H. floresiensis
nomenclature uncertain 		190–50 Indonesia 100 cm (3 ft 3 in) 25 kg (55 lb) 400 seven individuals 2003
2004
Nesher Ramla Homo
classification uncertain 		140–120 Israel 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 three individuals 2007
2019
Denisova hominin twoscore Siberia 2 sites 2000
2010[l]
Red Deer Cave people
possible H. sapiens subspecies or hybrid 		15–12[m] [40] Southwest Mainland china Very few

Subspecies [edit]

Human being sapiens subspecies [edit]

1737 painting of Carl von Linné wearing a traditional Sami costume. Linnaeus is sometimes named as the lectotype of both H. sapiens and H. southward. sapiens.[41]

The recognition or nonrecognition of subspecies of Human sapiens has a complicated history. The rank of subspecies in zoology is introduced for convenience, and not by objective criteria, based on businesslike consideration of factors such as geographic isolation and sexual choice. The breezy 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 exist 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 subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens only makes sense if at least ane other subspecies is recognized. H. s. sapiens is attributed to "Linnaeus (1758)" by the taxonomic Principle of Coordination.[42] During the 19th to mid-20th century, it was mutual practice to allocate 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 as grouping the native populations of the Americas, West Eurasia, Eastern asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively. Linnaeus also included H. s. ferus, for the "wild" grade which he identified with feral children, and two other "wild" forms for reported specimens at present considered very dubious (see cryptozoology), H. south. monstrosus and H. s. troglodytes.[43]

In that location were variations and additions to the categories of Linnaeus, such every bit H. southward. tasmanianus for the native population of Australia.[44] Bory de St. Vincent in his Essai sur 50'Homme (1825) extended Linné's "racial" categories to as many every bit fifteen: Leiotrichi ("shine-haired"): japeticus (with subraces), arabicus, indicus, scythicus, sinicus, hyperboreus, neptunianus, australasicus, columbicus, americanus, patagonicus; Oulotrichi ("crisp-haired"): aethiopicus, cafer, hottentotus, melaninus.[45] Similarly, Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1899) also had categories based on race, such every bit priscus, spelaeus (etc.).

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was proposed by King (1864) as an culling to Homo neanderthalensis.[46] There accept been "taxonomic wars" over whether Neanderthals were a dissever species since their discovery in the 1860s. Pääbo (2014) frames this as a fence that is unresolvable in principle, "since there is no definition of species perfectly describing the case."[47] Louis Lartet (1869) proposed Homo sapiens fossilis based on the Cro-Magnon fossils.

There are a number of proposals of extinct varieties of Man sapiens made in the 20th century. Many of the original proposals were not using explicit trinomial nomenclature, fifty-fifty though they are still cited as valid synonyms of H. sapiens past Wilson & Reeder (2005).[48] These include: Homo grimaldii (Lapouge, 1906), Homo aurignacensis hauseri (Klaatsch & Hauser, 1910), Notanthropus eurafricanus (Sergi, 1911), Man fossilis infrasp. proto-aethiopicus (Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1915), Telanthropus capensis (Broom, 1917),[49] Human being wadjakensis (Dubois, 1921), Homo sapiens cro-magnonensis, Man sapiens grimaldiensis (Gregory, 1921), Homo drennani (Kleinschmidt, 1931),[fifty] Human being galilensis (Joleaud, 1931) = Paleanthropus palestinus (McCown & Keith, 1932).[51] Rightmire (1983) proposed Human being sapiens rhodesiensis.[52]

By the 1980s, the practice of dividing extant populations of Homo sapiens into subspecies declined. An early say-so explicitly avoiding the division of H. sapiens into subspecies was Grzimeks Tierleben, published 1967–1972.[53] A late instance of an academic authority proposing that the human racial groups should exist considered taxonomical subspecies is John Baker (1974).[54] The trinomial nomenclature Human sapiens sapiens became pop for "modern humans" in the context of Neanderthals being considered a subspecies of H. sapiens in the 2d one-half of the 20th century. Derived from the convention, widespread in the 1980s, of considering two subspecies, H. s. neanderthalensis and H. s. sapiens, the explicit claim that "H. s. sapiens is the merely extant human subspecies" appears in the early on 1990s.[55]

Since the 2000s, the extinct Homo sapiens idaltu (White et al., 2003) has gained wide recognition as a subspecies of Man sapiens, but fifty-fifty in this case there is a dissenting view arguing that "the skulls may non be distinctive enough to warrant a new subspecies proper name".[56] H. s. neanderthalensis and H. s. rhodesiensis continue to exist considered dissever species by some regime, but the 2010s discovery of genetic evidence of archaic man admixture with modern humans has reopened the details of taxonomy of archaic humans.[57]

Man erectus subspecies [edit]

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

  • Homo erectus erectus (Coffee Human) (1970s)[58]
  • Human being erectus yuanmouensis (Yuanmou Man) (Li et al., 1977)
  • Human being erectus lantianensis (Lantian Human) (Woo Ju-Kang, 1964)
  • Human being erectus nankinensis (Nanjing Homo) (1993)
  • Homo erectus pekinensis (Peking Man) (1970s)[58]
  • Human being erectus palaeojavanicus (Meganthropus) (Tyler, 2001)
  • Homo erectus soloensis (Solo Homo) (Oppenoorth, 1932)
  • Homo erectus tautavelensis (Tautavel Human being) (de Lumley and de Lumley, 1971)
  • Human erectus georgicus (1991)
  • Homo erectus bilzingslebenensis (Vlček, 2002)[59]

See also [edit]

  • Names for the human being species
  • Timeline of human development

Footnotes [edit]

  1. ^ Confirmed H. habilis fossils are dated to between 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago. This appointment range overlaps with the emergence of Homo erectus.[22] [23]
  2. ^ Hominins with "proto-Homo" traits may have lived equally early as two.8 1000000 years agone, as suggested by a fossil jawbone classified as transitional between Australopithecus and Homo discovered in 2015.
  3. ^ A species proposed in 2010 based on the fossil remains of three individuals dated between ane.9 and 0.6 one thousand thousand years agone. The aforementioned fossils were also classified as H. habilis, H. ergaster or Australopithecus by other anthropologists.
  4. ^ H. erectus may take appeared some 2 million years ago. Fossils dated to as much as 1.viii one thousand thousand years ago have been found both in Africa and in Southeast Asia, and the oldest fossils past a narrow margin (i.85 to 1.77 million years ago) were found in the Caucasus, so that information technology 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 Java, is considered the latest known survival of H. erectus. Formerly dated to as tardily as l,000 to 40,000 years agone, a 2011 study pushed back the date of its extinction of H. east. soloensis to 143,000 years agone at the latest, more likely earlier 550,000 years ago. [27]
  6. ^ Now as well included in H. erectus are Peking Man (formerly Sinanthropus pekinensis) and Java Human (formerly Pithecanthropus erectus).
  7. ^ H. erectus is now grouped into various subspecies, including Human being erectus erectus, Human being erectus yuanmouensis, Homo erectus lantianensis, Man erectus nankinensis, Homo erectus pekinensis, Homo erectus palaeojavanicus, Human being erectus soloensis, Human erectus tautavelensis, Homo erectus georgicus. The distinction from descendant species such as Homo ergaster, Human floresiensis, Homo antecessor, Human being heidelbergensis and indeed Homo sapiens is not entirely clear.
  8. ^ The type fossil is Mauer 1, dated to ca. 0.half-dozen meg years ago. The transition from H. heidelbergensis to H. neanderthalensis between 300 and 243 thousand years ago is conventional, and makes utilize of the fact that in that location is no known fossil in this flow. Examples of H. heidelbergensis are fossils found at Bilzingsleben (besides classified as Man erectus bilzingslebensis).
  9. ^ The age of H. sapiens has long been assumed to be close to 200,000 years, only since 2017 there accept been a number of suggestions extending this time to as high as 300,000 years. In 2017, fossils found in Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) suggest that Human sapiens may have speciated past as early as 315,000 years ago.[33] Genetic prove has been adduced for an age of roughly 270,000 years.[34]
  10. ^ The first humans with "proto-Neanderthal traits" lived in Eurasia equally early as 0.6 to 0.35 meg years ago (classified every bit H. heidelbergensis, also chosen a chronospecies because information technology represents a chronological group rather than existence based on clear morphological distinctions from either H. erectus or H. neanderthalensis). There is a fossil gap in Europe betwixt 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 between 70–ten kya[37]
  12. ^ provisional names Human being sp. Altai or Homo sapiens ssp. Denisova.
  13. ^ Bølling–Allerød warming menses

References [edit]

  1. ^ Stringer, Chris (June 12, 2003). "Human development: Out of Ethiopia". Nature. 423 (6941): 693–695. Bibcode:2003Natur.423..692S. doi:x.1038/423692a. PMID 12802315. S2CID 26693109.
  2. ^ "Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)". talkorigins org. Retrieved June 7, 2016.
  3. ^ Stringer, C. (2016). "The origin and evolution of Homo sapiens". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Social club of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 371 (1698): 20150237. doi:10.1098/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, gene study implies". New Scientist . Retrieved 2011-12-08 .
  5. ^ M. Wagner, Jennifer (2016). "Anthropologists' views on race, beginnings, and genetics". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 162 (2): 318–327. doi:ten.1002/ajpa.23120. PMC5299519. PMID 27874171.
  6. ^ "AAA Argument on Race". American Anthropological Association.
  7. ^ J. E. Greyness, "An outline of an attempt at the disposition of Mammalia into Tribes and Families, with a listing of genera patently appertaining to each Tribe", Register of Philosophy, new serial (1825), pp. 337–344.
  8. ^ Cela-Conde, C. J.; Ayala, F. J. (2003). "Genera of the man lineage". Proceedings of the National University of Sciences. 100 (13): 7684–7689. Bibcode:2003PNAS..100.7684C. doi:ten.1073/pnas.0832372100. PMC164648. PMID 12794185.
  9. ^ Introduced for the Florisbad Skull (discovered in 1932, Homo florisbadensis or Homo helmei). Besides the genus suggested for a number of archaic human skulls found at Lake Eyasi by Weinert (1938). Leaky, Journal of the Due east Africa Natural History Club (1942), p. 43.
  10. ^ Villmoare, B. (2015). "Early Human at ii.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, G; Beyene, Y; Vrba, E (1999). "Environment and beliefs of 2.5-million-yr-old Bouri hominids". Science. 284 (5414): 625–ix. Bibcode:1999Sci...284..625D. doi:ten.1126/science.284.5414.625. PMID 10213682.
  12. ^ Kaplan, Matt (eight August 2012). "Fossils point to a big family unit for homo ancestors". Nature . Retrieved 8 August 2012.
  13. ^ Woods and Richmond; Richmond, BG (2000). "Human evolution: taxonomy and paleobiology". Journal of Anatomy. 197 (Pt 1): 19–60. doi:10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19710019.10. PMC1468107. PMID 10999270.
  14. ^ Reynolds, Emerge C; Gallagher, Andrew (2012-03-29). African Genesis: Perspectives on Hominin Development. ISBN9781107019959.
  15. ^ Brunet, Yard.; et al. (2002). "A new hominid from the upper Miocene of Chad, fundamental 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 man lineage". PNAS. 100 (xiii): 7684–7689. Bibcode:2003PNAS..100.7684C. doi:x.1073/pnas.0832372100. PMC164648. PMID 12794185. Wood, B.; Lonergan, Due north. (2008). "The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades" (PDF). J. Anat. 212 (four): 354–376. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.00871.x. PMC2409102. PMID 18380861.
  16. ^ Hazarika, Manji (16–30 June 2007). "Human erectus / ergaster and Out of Africa: Contempo Developments in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology" (PDF).
  17. ^ Klein, R. (1999). The Human Career: Man biological and cultural origins . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Printing. ISBN0226439631.
  18. ^ Antón, S.C. (2003). "Natural history of Human being erectus". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 122: 126–170. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10399. PMID 14666536. Past the 1980s, the growing numbers of H. erectus specimens, particularly in Africa, led to the realization that Asian H. erectus (H. erectus sensu stricto), once thought and then primitive, was in fact more derived than its African counterparts. These morphological differences were interpreted past some equally evidence that more than i species might exist included in H. 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 stance, the taxonomic bug surrounding Asian vs. African H. erectus are more than intractable. The issue was most pointedly addressed with the naming of H. ergaster on the basis of the type mandible KNM-ER 992, but besides including the partial skeleton and isolated teeth of KNM-ER 803 amid other Koobi Fora remains (Groves and Mazak, 1975). Recently, this specific name was applied to most 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 (see Wood, 1991a, p. 268; Gabunia et al., 2000a). At least portions of the paratype of H. ergaster (e.g., KNM-ER 1805) are non included in virtually current conceptions of that taxon. The H. ergaster question remains famously unresolved (e.k., Stringer, 1984; Tattersall, 1986; Forest, 1991a, 1994; Rightmire, 1998b; Gabunia et al., 2000a; Schwartz and Tattersall, 2000), in no pocket-size part considering the original diagnosis provided no comparison with the Asian fossil record.
  19. ^ "Skull suggests three early human 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. (18 October 2013). "A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology 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 fence on human being history". National Geographic. Retrieved 22 September 2014.
  22. ^ Schrenk F, Kullmer O, Bromage T (2007). "The Earliest Putative Homo Fossils". In Henke W, 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 Yard, Deino AL, Bibi F, et al. (March 2015). "Paleoanthropology. Late Pliocene fossiliferous sedimentary tape and the environmental context of early Human being from Afar, Ethiopia". Science. 347 (6228): 1355–nine. 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 clarification of a new species (Homo gautengensis sp. nov.)". Homo. 61 (3): 151–77. doi:x.1016/j.jchb.2010.04.002. PMID 20466364.
  25. ^ Haviland WA, Walrath D, Prins HE, McBride B (2007). Evolution and Prehistory: The Human Claiming (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. p. 162. ISBN978-0-495-38190-seven.
  26. ^ Ferring R, Oms O, Agustí J, Berna F, Nioradze One thousand, Shelia T, et al. (June 2011). "Primeval human occupations at Dmanisi (Georgian Caucasus) dated to i.85-1.78 Ma". Proceedings of the National Academy 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 Eastward, Swisher CC, Lepre C, Quinn RL, Suriyanto RA, Hascaryo AT, et al. (2011). "The historic period of the 20 meter Solo River terrace, Java, Indonesia and the survival of Man erectus in Asia". PLOS ONE. vi (half-dozen): e21562. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...621562I. doi:10.1371/periodical.pone.0021562. PMC3126814. PMID 21738710.
  28. ^ Hazarika Chiliad (2007). "Homo erectus/ergaster and Out of Africa: Recent Developments in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archæology" (PDF). EAA Summer School eBook. Vol. 1. European Anthropological Association. pp. 35–41. Intensive Grade in Biological Anthrpology, 1st Summer School of the European Anthropological Association, 16–xxx June, 2007, Prague, Czech Republic
  29. ^ Muttoni G, Scardia G, Kent DV, Swisher CC, Manzi Thou (2009). "Pleistocene magnetochronology of early on hominin sites at Ceprano and Fontana Ranuccio, Italia". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 286 (one–2): 255–268. Bibcode:2009E&PSL.286..255M. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.06.032.
  30. ^ Ji Q, Wu Westward, Ji Y, Li Q, Ni X (25 June 2021). "Tardily Middle Pleistocene Harbin attic represents a new Man species". The Innovation. 2 (3): 100132. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100132. PMC8454552. PMID 34557772.
  31. ^ Ni Ten, Ji Q, Wu W, Shao Q, Ji Y, Zhang C, Liang L, Ge J, Guo Z, Li J, Li Q, Grün R, Stringer C (25 June 2021). "Massive cranium from Harbin in northeastern Communist china establishes a new Middle Pleistocene human lineage". The Innovation. 2 (3): 100130. doi:ten.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 Rising Star Cavern, South Africa". eLife. half-dozen: e24231. doi:ten.7554/eLife.24231. PMC5423772. PMID 28483040.
  33. ^ Callaway, Ewan (7 June 2017). "Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22114. Retrieved 11 June 2017.
  34. ^ Posth C, Wißing C, Kitagawa Chiliad, Pagani L, van Holstein L, Racimo F, et al. (July 2017). "Deeply divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African gene flow into Neanderthals". Nature Communications. 8: 16046. Bibcode:2017NatCo...816046P. doi:ten.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 Perhaps to 400–500 kyr: New Radiometric Dates". Journal of Archaeological Science. 30 (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, Frg". Periodical of Human Development. 34 (v): 485–508. doi:10.1006/jhev.1998.0214. PMID 9614635.
  37. ^ Chang CH, Kaifu Y, Takai M, Kono RT, Grün R, Matsu'ura South, et al. (January 2015). "The showtime primitive Homo from Taiwan". Nature Communications. half-dozen: 6037. Bibcode:2015NatCo...6.6037C. doi:10.1038/ncomms7037. PMC4316746. PMID 25625212.
  38. ^ Détroit F, Mijares Equally, Corny J, Daver 1000, Zanolli C, Dizon East, 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:x.1038/s41586-019-1067-9. PMID 30971845. S2CID 106411053.
  39. ^ Zimmer C (x April 2019). "A new human being species once lived in this Philippine cave – Archaeologists in Luzon Island take turned up the bones of a distantly related species, Homo luzonensis, further expanding the human family tree". The New York Times . Retrieved x April 2019.
  40. ^ Curnoe D, Xueping J, Herries AI, Kanning B, Taçon PS, Zhende B, et al. (2012). "Human remains from the Pleistocene-Holocene transition of southwest Red china suggest a complex evolutionary history for East Asians". PLOS ONE. 7 (3): e31918. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...731918C. doi:ten.1371/periodical.pone.0031918. PMC3303470. PMID 22431968.
  41. ^ "as far as I know, there is no type material for Homo 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." Bob Ralph, "Conforming to type", New Scientist No. 1548 (nineteen February 1987), p. 59.
  42. ^ "ICZN glossary". International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th ed., commodity 46.i: "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 accounted to have been simultaneously established by the same author for a taxon at the other rank in the grouping; both nominal taxa have the same proper name-bearing blazon, whether that type was fixed originally or subsequently." Man sapiens sapiens is rarely used before the 1940s. In 1946, John Wendell Bailey attributes the proper name to Linnaeus (1758) explicitly: "Linnaeus. Syst. Nat. ed. 10, Vol. 1. pp. 20, 21, 22, lists five races of man, viz: Human sapiens sapiens (white — Caucasian) [...]", This is a misattribution, simply H. due south. sapiens has since often been attributed to Linnaeus. In actual fact, Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. ed. ten Vol. 1. p. 21 does not have 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 Volume 21 (1944), p. 18 (arguing non against H. s. sapiens simply against "H. southward. albus L." proposed by von Eickstedt and Peters): "die europide Rassengruppe, als Subspecies aufgefasst, [würde] Homo sapiens eurpoaeus L. heissen" ("the Europid racial grouping, considered every bit a subspecies, would be named H. s. europeaeus Fifty."). See also: John R. Baker, Race, Oxford Academy Printing (1974), 205.
  43. ^ Linné, Carl von (1758). Systema naturæ. Regnum animale (10 ed.). pp. 18ff.
  44. ^ Meet e.g. 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 Academy Press (1982), p. 141 (with references).
  45. ^ Annals of Philosophy 11, London (1826), p. 71
  46. ^ Frederick S. Szalay, Eric Delson, Evolutionary History of the Primates (2013), 508
  47. ^ Pääbo, Svante (2014). Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes. New York: Basic Books. p. 237.
  48. ^ Groves, C. P. (2005). Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the Earth: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN0-801-88221-4. OCLC 62265494.
  49. ^ T. Harrison in: William H. Kimbel, Lawrence B. Martin (eds.), Species, Species Concepts and Primate Evolution (2013), 361.
  50. ^ M. R. Drennan, "An Australoid Skull from the Cape Flats", The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Constitute of Great U.k. and Ireland Vol. 59 (Jul. - December., 1929), 417-427.
  51. ^ among other names suggested for fossils after subsumed under neanderthalensis, come across: Eric Delson, Ian Tattersall, John Van Couvering, Alison S. Brooks, Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: 2d Edition, Routledge (2004).
  52. ^ Rightmire GP (June 3, 1983). "The Lake Ndutu attic and early on Human being sapiens in Africa". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 61 (ii): 245–54. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330610214. PMID 6410925.
  53. ^ English translation (1972–1975): Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, Volume 11, p. 55.
  54. ^ John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press (1974).
  55. ^ "We are the but surviving subspecies of Homo sapiens." Michio Kitahara, The tragedy of development: the man creature confronts modern club (1991), p. xi.
  56. ^ Stringer, Chris (June 12, 2003). "Human evolution: Out of Ethiopia". Nature. 423 (6941): 692–3, 695. doi:10.1038/423692a. PMID 12802315. S2CID 26693109.
  57. ^ Hublin, J. J. (2009). "The origin of Neandertals". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (38): 16022–7. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10616022H. doi:x.1073/pnas.0904119106. JSTOR 40485013. PMC2752594. PMID 19805257. Harvati, K.; Frost, South.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 (5): 1147–52. Bibcode:2004PNAS..101.1147H. doi:10.1073/pnas.0308085100. PMC337021. PMID 14745010. "Homo neanderthalensis Male monarch, 1864". Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Development. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. 2013. pp. 328–331.
  58. ^ a b In the 1970s a tendency developed to regard the Javanese diverseness of H. erectus every bit a subspecies, Homo erectus erectus, with the Chinese diversity existence referred to as Human being erectus pekinensis. Come across: Sartono, S. Implications arising from Pithecanthropus VIII In: Paleoanthropology: Morphology and Paleoecology. Russell H. Tuttle (Ed.), p. 328.
  59. ^ Emanuel Vlček: Der fossile Mensch von Bilzingsleben (= Bilzingsleben. Bd. 6 = Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 35). Beier & Beran, Langenweißbach 2002.

kellermanbiles1972.blogspot.com

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

0 Response to "Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species of Humans"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel