Home  ›  Human Domain Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species

Human Domain Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species

Written By Monday 7 March 2022 Add Comment Edit

Classification of the human being species

Homo ("humans")

Temporal range: Piacenzian-Nowadays, 2.865–0 Ma

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

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

Linnaeus, 1758
Species
  • Homo sapiens
  • † Homo antecessor
  • † Human erectus
  • † Homo ergaster
  • † Homo floresiensis
  • † Human habilis
  • † Human heidelbergensis
  • † Human being luzonensis
  • † Homo rudolfensis
  • † Homo naledi
  • † Man 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 final two 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 taxonomy is the classification of the man species (systematic name Homo sapiens, Latin: "wise man") inside zoological taxonomy. The systematic genus, Human, is designed to include both anatomically modern humans and extinct varieties of primitive humans. Current humans have been designated every bit subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, differentiated, co-ordinate to some, from the direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu (with some other inquiry instead classifying idaltu and current humans equally belonging to the same subspecies[1] [2] [3]).

Since the introduction of systematic names in the 18th century, noesis of homo evolution has increased drastically, and a number of intermediate taxa accept been proposed in the 20th and early on 21st centuries. The almost widely accustomed taxonomy grouping takes the genus Homo as originating between ii and three 1000000 years ago, divided into at least two species, primitive Homo erectus and modern Homo sapiens, with almost a dozen farther suggestions for species without universal recognition.

The genus Homo is placed in the tribe Hominini alongside Pan (chimpanzees). The 2 genera are estimated to have diverged over an extended time of hybridization spanning roughly 10 to vi 1000000 years ago, with possible admixture every bit late as 4 million years agone. A subtribe of uncertain validity, grouping primitive "pre-homo" or "para-human" species younger than the Homo-Pan split, is Australopithecina (proposed in 1939).

A proposal by Wood and Richmond (2000) would innovate Hominina every bit a subtribe alongside Australopithecina, with Man the but known genus inside Hominina. Alternatively, post-obit Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003), the "pre-human" or "proto-human" genera of Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus, and possibly Sahelanthropus, may be placed on equal footing alongside the genus Man. An even more radical view rejects the division of Pan and Man as carve up genera, which based on the Principle of Priority would imply the reclassification of chimpanzees as Human being paniscus (or similar).[iv]

Categorizing humans based on phenotypes is a socially controversial subject area. Biologists originally classified races as subspecies, merely gimmicky anthropologists reject the concept of race every bit a useful tool to understanding humanity, and instead view humanity equally a circuitous, interrelated genetic continuum. Taxonomy of the hominins continues to evolve.[five] [vi]

History [edit]

Human taxonomy on i hand involves the placement of humans within the taxonomy of the hominids (nifty apes), and on the other the sectionalization of archaic and modern humans into species and, if applicable, subspecies. Modern zoological taxonomy was developed by Carl Linnaeus during the 1730s to 1750s. He named the human species as Man sapiens in 1758, as the only member species of the genus Man, divided into several subspecies corresponding to the smashing races. The Latin noun homō (genitive hominis) ways "human". The systematic proper noun Hominidae for the family of the great apes was introduced by John Edward Gray (1825).[seven] Gray besides supplied Hominini equally the name of the tribe including both chimpanzees (genus Pan) and humans (genus Human).

The discovery of the starting time extinct archaic human species from the fossil record dates to the mid 19th century: Homo neanderthalensis, classified in 1864. Since so, a number of other primitive species accept been named, but there is no universal consensus as to their exact number. After the discovery of H. neanderthalensis, which even if "primitive" is recognizable as conspicuously human, late 19th to early 20th century anthropology for a time was occupied with finding the supposedly "missing link" between Man and Pan. The "Piltdown Human" 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 than detailed, and taxonomical terminology has been altered a number of times to reflect this.

The introduction of Australopithecus every bit a third genus, alongside Human and Pan, in the tribe Hominini is due to Raymond Dart (1925). Australopithecina equally a subtribe containing Australopithecus also as Paranthropus (Broom 1938) is a proposal by 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) advise the recognition of Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus, and Sahelanthropus (the latter incertae sedis) as separate genera.[8]

Other proposed genera, now generally considered role of Homo, 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 million years ago, since the discovery of stone tools in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, in the 1960s. Homo habilis (Leakey et al., 1964) would be the starting time "man" species (member of genus Homo) by definition, its type specimen beingness the OH seven fossils. However, the discovery of more than fossils of this blazon has opened up the debate on the depiction of H. habilis from Australopithecus. Especially, the LD 350-1 jawbone fossil discovered in 2013, dated to 2.8 Mya, has been argued as beingness transitional betwixt the ii.[ten] It is besides disputed whether H. habilis was the first hominin to use rock tools, as Australopithecus garhi, dated to c. 2.v Mya, has been plant along with stone tool implements.[11] Fossil KNM-ER 1470 (discovered in 1972, designated Pithecanthropus rudolfensis by Alekseyev 1978) is now seen equally either a tertiary early species of Homo (alongside H. habilis and H. erectus) at nigh 2 meg years ago, or alternatively equally transitional between Australopithecus and Homo.[12]

Wood and Richmond (2000) proposed that Grayness'southward tribe Hominini ("hominins") be designated every bit comprising all species afterwards the chimpanzee-human last common antecedent by definition, to the inclusion of Australopithecines and other possible pre-human or para-human species (such every bit Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus) not known in Grey'southward fourth dimension.[xiii] In this proposition, the new subtribe of Hominina was to be designated as including the genus Man exclusively, so that Hominini would have 2 subtribes, Australopithecina and Hominina, with the simply known genus in Hominina existence Homo. Orrorin (2001) has been proposed equally a possible ancestor of Hominina but non Australopithecina.[14]

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

Species [edit]

Main article: Homo

At to the lowest degree a dozen species of Homo other than Human sapiens have been proposed, with varying degrees of consensus. Homo erectus is widely recognized equally the species directly ancestral to Homo sapiens.[ citation needed ] Most other proposed species are proposed every bit alternatively belonging to either Homo erectus or Human sapiens as a subspecies. This concerns Homo ergaster in particular.[16] [17] I proposal divides Homo erectus into an African and an Asian variety; the African is Human ergaster, and the Asian is Homo erectus sensu stricto. (Inclusion of Human being ergaster with Asian Homo erectus is Homo erectus sensu lato.)[xviii] There appears to be a recent tendency, with the availability of ever more difficult-to-allocate fossils such as the Dmanisi skulls (2013) or Homo naledi fossils (2015) to subsume all archaic varieties nether Homo erectus.[19] [20] [21]

Comparative table of Homo lineages
  • view
  • talk
  • edit
Lineages Temporal range
(kya) 		Habitat Developed elevation Adult mass Cranial capacity
(cm3) 		Fossil record Discovery/
publication
of proper name
H. habilis
membership in Homo uncertain 		2,100–1,500[a] [b] Tanzania 110–140 cm (three ft 7 in – 4 ft vii in) 33–55 kg (73–121 lb) 510–660 Many 1960
1964
H. rudolfensis
membership in Homo uncertain 		1,900 Kenya 700 2 sites 1972
1986
H. gautengensis
also classified equally H. habilis 		i,900–600 Southward Africa 100 cm (3 ft 3 in) 3 individuals[24] [c] 2010
2010
H. erectus 1,900–140[25] [d] [26] [e] Africa, Eurasia 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) sixty kg (130 lb) 850 (early) – one,100 (late) Many[f] [g] 1891
1892
H. ergaster
African H. erectus 		ane,800–1,300[28] East and Southern Africa 700–850 Many 1949
1975
H. antecessor i,200–800 Western Europe 175 cm (5 ft ix in) xc kg (200 lb) 1,000 2 sites 1994
1997
H. heidelbergensis
early H. neanderthalensis 		600–300[h] Europe, Africa 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) 90 kg (200 lb) i,100–1,400 Many 1907
1908
H. cepranensis
a single fossil, perchance H. heidelbergensis 		c. 450[29] Italian republic 1,000 i skull cap 1994
2003
H. longi 309–138[30] Northeast China 1,420[31] i individual 1933
2021
H. rhodesiensis
early H. sapiens 		c. 300 Zambia 1,300 Single or very few 1921
1921
H. naledi c. 300[32] S Africa 150 cm (4 ft 11 in) 45 kg (99 lb) 450 xv individuals 2013
2015
H. sapiens
(anatomically modern humans) 		c. 300–present[i] Worldwide 150–190 cm (4 ft xi in – 6 ft three 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 seven in) 55–seventy kg (121–154 lb)
(heavily congenital) 		1,200–1,900 Many 1829
1864
H. floresiensis
classification uncertain 		190–fifty Indonesia 100 cm (three ft 3 in) 25 kg (55 lb) 400 7 individuals 2003
2004
Nesher Ramla Homo
nomenclature uncertain 		140–120 State of israel several individuals 2021
H. tsaichangensis
peradventure H. erectus or Denisova 		c. 100[k] Taiwan one individual 2008(?)
2015
H. luzonensis
c. 67[38] [39] Philippines three individuals 2007
2019
Denisova hominin xl Siberia two sites 2000
2010[50]
Red Deer Cave people
possible H. sapiens subspecies or hybrid 		15–12[yard] [40] Southwest Cathay Very few

Subspecies [edit]

Human 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. due south. sapiens.[41]

The recognition or nonrecognition of subspecies of Homo 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 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 exist recognized independently: a species will either be recognized equally 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 i 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, information technology was common practice to classify the major divisions of extant H. sapiens as subspecies, post-obit Linnaeus (1758), who had recognized H. s. americanus, H. south. europaeus, H. s. asiaticus and H. southward. afer as group the native populations of the Americas, Westward Eurasia, Eastern asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively. Linnaeus too included H. south. ferus, for the "wild" form which he identified with feral children, and ii other "wild" forms for reported specimens now considered very dubious (see cryptozoology), H. s. monstrosus and H. s. troglodytes.[43]

In that location were variations and additions to the categories of Linnaeus, such as H. s. tasmanianus for the native population of Australia.[44] 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.[45] Similarly, Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1899) besides had categories based on race, such as priscus, spelaeus (etc.).

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was proposed by King (1864) as an alternative to Homo neanderthalensis.[46] At that place have been "taxonomic wars" over whether Neanderthals were a split up 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."[47] Louis Lartet (1869) proposed Man sapiens fossilis based on the Cro-Magnon fossils.

There are a number of proposals of extinct varieties of Human sapiens made in the 20th century. Many of the original proposals were not using explicit trinomial classification, even though they are all the same cited as valid synonyms of H. sapiens by 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] Homo wadjakensis (Dubois, 1921), Homo sapiens cro-magnonensis, Homo sapiens grimaldiensis (Gregory, 1921), Homo drennani (Kleinschmidt, 1931),[50] Man galilensis (Joleaud, 1931) = Paleanthropus palestinus (McCown & Keith, 1932).[51] Rightmire (1983) proposed Homo sapiens rhodesiensis.[52]

By the 1980s, the practice of dividing extant populations of Man sapiens into subspecies declined. An early on potency explicitly avoiding the segmentation of H. sapiens into subspecies was Grzimeks Tierleben, published 1967–1972.[53] A late example of an bookish authorization proposing that the human being racial groups should be considered taxonomical subspecies is John Baker (1974).[54] The trinomial nomenclature Man sapiens sapiens became popular for "mod humans" in the context of Neanderthals beingness considered a subspecies of H. sapiens in the second half of the 20th century. Derived from the convention, widespread in the 1980s, of considering ii subspecies, H. south. neanderthalensis and H. s. sapiens, the explicit merits that "H. s. sapiens is the simply extant human subspecies" appears in the early 1990s.[55]

Since the 2000s, the extinct Man sapiens idaltu (White et al., 2003) has gained broad recognition as a subspecies of Human being sapiens, but even in this case there is a dissenting view arguing that "the skulls may not exist distinctive enough to warrant a new subspecies proper noun".[56] H. s. neanderthalensis and H. s. rhodesiensis keep to be considered separate species by some authorities, only the 2010s discovery of genetic evidence of archaic homo 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 accept universal consensus among paleontologists.

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

See also [edit]

  • Names for the human species
  • Timeline of human evolution

Footnotes [edit]

  1. ^ Confirmed H. habilis fossils are dated to between 2.i and 1.v million years ago. This engagement range overlaps with the emergence of Homo erectus.[22] [23]
  2. ^ Hominins with "proto-Homo" traits may have lived as early as ii.8 meg years agone, as suggested by a fossil jawbone classified every bit transitional betwixt Australopithecus and Homo discovered in 2015.
  3. ^ A species proposed in 2010 based on the fossil remains of three individuals dated betwixt one.9 and 0.6 million years ago. The same fossils were also classified equally H. habilis, H. ergaster or Australopithecus by other anthropologists.
  4. ^ H. erectus may have appeared some two million years ago. Fossils dated to as much as ane.8 meg years agone have been found both in Africa and in Southeast Asia, and the oldest fossils by a narrow margin (1.85 to 1.77 one thousand thousand 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. ^ Human being erectus soloensis, found in Coffee, is considered the latest known survival of H. erectus. Formerly dated to as late equally 50,000 to xl,000 years ago, a 2011 study pushed back 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. ^ Now also included in H. erectus are Peking Human being (formerly Sinanthropus pekinensis) and Java Human being (formerly Pithecanthropus erectus).
  7. ^ H. erectus is at present grouped into diverse subspecies, including Homo erectus erectus, Homo erectus yuanmouensis, Homo erectus lantianensis, Man erectus nankinensis, Homo erectus pekinensis, Homo erectus palaeojavanicus, Homo erectus soloensis, Homo erectus tautavelensis, Homo erectus georgicus. The distinction from descendant species such equally Homo ergaster, Homo floresiensis, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis and indeed Homo sapiens is non entirely clear.
  8. ^ The type fossil is Mauer one, dated to ca. 0.six million years agone. The transition from H. heidelbergensis to H. neanderthalensis between 300 and 243 thousand years ago is conventional, and makes use of the fact that at that place is no known fossil in this catamenia. Examples of H. heidelbergensis are fossils found at Bilzingsleben (also classified as Human erectus bilzingslebensis).
  9. ^ The age of H. sapiens has long been causeless to be close to 200,000 years, but since 2017 there have been a number of suggestions extending this fourth dimension to as high every bit 300,000 years. In 2017, fossils found in Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) advise that Homo sapiens may take speciated past as early on as 315,000 years agone.[33] Genetic evidence 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 equally 0.6 to 0.35 million years agone (classified every bit H. heidelbergensis, likewise called a chronospecies considering information technology 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 past convention, fossils younger than 243 kya are called "Neanderthal".[36]
  11. ^ younger than 450 kya, either between 190–130 or between 70–10 kya[37]
  12. ^ provisional names Homo sp. Altai or Homo sapiens ssp. Denisova.
  13. ^ Bølling–Allerød warming menses

References [edit]

  1. ^ Stringer, Chris (June 12, 2003). "Human evolution: 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 Majestic Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 371 (1698): 20150237. doi:x.1098/rstb.2015.0237. PMC4920294. PMID 27298468.
  4. ^ Jared Diamond in The Tertiary Chimpanzee (1991), and Morris Goodman (2003) Hecht, Jeff (19 May 2003). "Chimps are human, gene study 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:x.1002/ajpa.23120. PMC5299519. PMID 27874171.
  6. ^ "AAA Statement on Race". American Anthropological Clan.
  7. ^ J. Eastward. Gray, "An outline of an attempt at the disposition of Mammalia into Tribes and Families, with a list of genera apparently appertaining to each Tribe", Register of Philosophy, new series (1825), pp. 337–344.
  8. ^ Cela-Conde, C. J.; Ayala, F. J. (2003). "Genera of the human 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 primitive homo skulls institute at Lake Eyasi past Weinert (1938). Leaky, Journal of the East Africa Natural History Society (1942), p. 43.
  10. ^ Villmoare, B. (2015). "Early Man 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 every bit 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, M; Beyene, Y; Vrba, E (1999). "Environs and behavior of 2.5-1000000-twelvemonth-erstwhile Bouri hominids". Science. 284 (5414): 625–9. Bibcode:1999Sci...284..625D. doi:ten.1126/science.284.5414.625. PMID 10213682.
  12. ^ Kaplan, Matt (8 Baronial 2012). "Fossils point to a large family for human being ancestors". Nature . Retrieved 8 August 2012.
  13. ^ Wood and Richmond; Richmond, BG (2000). "Human evolution: taxonomy and paleobiology". Journal of Anatomy. 197 (Pt i): nineteen–60. doi:10.1046/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, Chiliad.; et al. (2002). "A new hominid from the upper Miocene of Republic of chad, central 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. Woods, B.; Lonergan, N. (2008). "The hominin fossil tape: taxa, grades and clades" (PDF). J. Anat. 212 (iv): 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: Contempo Developments in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archeology" (PDF).
  17. ^ Klein, R. (1999). The Human Career: Human biological and cultural origins . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN0226439631.
  18. ^ Antón, S.C. (2003). "Natural history of Homo erectus". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 122: 126–170. doi:x.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), one time thought then primitive, was in fact more than derived than its African counterparts. These morphological differences were interpreted by some every bit evidence that more than ane species might exist included in H. erectus sensu lato (east.g., Stringer, 1984; Andrews, 1984; Tattersall, 1986; Wood, 1984, 1991a, b; Schwartz and Tattersall, 2000) ... Unlike the European lineage, in my stance, 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 ground of the blazon 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 nearly early African and Georgian H. erectus in recognition of the less-derived nature of these remains vis à vis weather in Asian H. erectus (see Wood, 1991a, p. 268; Gabunia et al., 2000a). At least portions of the paratype of H. ergaster (e.thousand., KNM-ER 1805) are non included in most electric current conceptions of that taxon. The H. ergaster question remains famously unresolved (east.g., Stringer, 1984; Tattersall, 1986; Wood, 1991a, 1994; Rightmire, 1998b; Gabunia et al., 2000a; Schwartz and Tattersall, 2000), in no pocket-sized part because the original diagnosis provided no comparing with the Asian fossil record.
  19. ^ "Skull suggests three early homo species were one". News & Annotate. Nature.
  20. ^ Lordkipanidze, David; Ponce de Leòn, Marcia South.; Margvelashvili, Ann; Rak, Yoel; Rightmire, Chiliad. Philip; Vekua, Abesalom; Zollikofer, Christoph P. E. (18 Oct 2013). "A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo". Scientific discipline. 342 (6156): 326–331. Bibcode:2013Sci...342..326L. doi:10.1126/science.1238484. PMID 24136960. S2CID 20435482.
  21. ^ Switek, Brian (17 October 2013). "Cute skull spurs debate on human history". National Geographic. Retrieved 22 September 2014.
  22. ^ Schrenk F, Kullmer O, Bromage T (2007). "The Primeval 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:x.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. Belatedly Pliocene fossiliferous sedimentary record and the environmental context of early on Human being from Afar, Ethiopia". Science. 347 (6228): 1355–9. Bibcode:2015Sci...347.1355D. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.aaa1415. PMID 25739409. S2CID 43455561.
  24. ^ Curnoe D (June 2010). "A review of early Human being in southern Africa focusing on cranial, mandibular and dental remains, with the description of a new species (Homo gautengensis sp. nov.)". Human being. 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. ISBN978-0-495-38190-7.
  26. ^ Ferring R, Oms O, Agustí J, Berna F, Nioradze M, Shelia T, et al. (June 2011). "Primeval human occupations at Dmanisi (Georgian Caucasus) dated to 1.85-1.78 Ma". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s.. 108 (26): 10432–half-dozen. Bibcode:2011PNAS..10810432F. doi:x.1073/pnas.1106638108. PMC3127884. PMID 21646521.
  27. ^ Indriati East, Swisher CC, Lepre C, Quinn RL, Suriyanto RA, Hascaryo AT, et al. (2011). "The age of the 20 meter Solo River terrace, Java, Indonesia and the survival of Human erectus in Asia". PLOS ONE. 6 (6): e21562. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...621562I. doi:10.1371/periodical.pone.0021562. PMC3126814. PMID 21738710.
  28. ^ Hazarika M (2007). "Homo erectus/ergaster and Out of Africa: Recent Developments in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archæology" (PDF). EAA Summer Schoolhouse eBook. Vol. 1. European Anthropological Association. pp. 35–41. Intensive Course in Biological Anthrpology, 1st Summer Schoolhouse of the European Anthropological Clan, 16–30 June, 2007, Prague, Czech Democracy
  29. ^ Muttoni One thousand, Scardia 1000, Kent DV, Swisher CC, Manzi G (2009). "Pleistocene magnetochronology of early hominin sites at Ceprano and Fontana Ranuccio, Italy". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 286 (1–2): 255–268. Bibcode:2009E&PSL.286..255M. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.06.032.
  30. ^ Ji Q, Wu West, Ji Y, Li Q, Ni X (25 June 2021). "Late Middle Pleistocene Harbin cranium represents a new Man species". The Innovation. two (three): 100132. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100132. PMC8454552. PMID 34557772.
  31. ^ Ni X, 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 China establishes a new Center Pleistocene human 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 Rising Star Cave, S Africa". eLife. 6: e24231. doi:x.7554/eLife.24231. PMC5423772. PMID 28483040.
  33. ^ Callaway, Ewan (seven June 2017). "Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history". Nature. doi:x.1038/nature.2017.22114. Retrieved 11 June 2017.
  34. ^ Posth C, Wißing C, Kitagawa M, Pagani L, van Holstein L, Racimo F, et al. (July 2017). "Securely divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African cistron menstruum into Neanderthals". Nature Communications. viii: 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/Thursday Equilibrium (>350 kyr) and Perhaps to 400–500 kyr: New Radiometric Dates". Journal of Archaeological Science. 30 (three): 275–280. doi:ten.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, Federal republic of germany". Periodical of Human Development. 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. (Jan 2015). "The first archaic Human from Taiwan". Nature Communications. 6: 6037. Bibcode:2015NatCo...6.6037C. doi:10.1038/ncomms7037. PMC4316746. PMID 25625212.
  38. ^ Détroit F, Mijares Every bit, Corny J, Daver G, Zanolli C, Dizon E, et al. (Apr 2019). "A new species of Homo from the Late Pleistocene of the Philippines" (PDF). Nature. 568 (7751): 181–186. Bibcode:2019Natur.568..181D. doi:ten.1038/s41586-019-1067-9. PMID 30971845. S2CID 106411053.
  39. ^ Zimmer C (x April 2019). "A new human species once lived in this Philippine cave – Archaeologists in Luzon Island have turned up the bones of a distantly related species, Homo luzonensis, further expanding the human being family tree". The New York Times . Retrieved 10 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 People's republic of china propose a complex evolutionary history for E Asians". PLOS I. 7 (3): e31918. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...731918C. doi:ten.1371/journal.pone.0031918. PMC3303470. PMID 22431968.
  41. ^ "every bit far as I know, there is no type material for Homo sapiens. To exist off-white to Linnaeus, the practice of setting type specimens aside doesn't seem to have adult until a century or so later on." Bob Ralph, "Conforming to blazon", New Scientist No. 1548 (nineteen February 1987), p. 59.
  42. ^ "ICZN glossary". International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th ed., article 46.1: "Statement of the Principle of Coordination practical to species-grouping names. A proper name established for a taxon at either rank in the species group is deemed to take been simultaneously established by the aforementioned 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. one. pp. 20, 21, 22, lists v races of human being, viz: Homo sapiens sapiens (white — Caucasian) [...]", This is a misattribution, but H. s. sapiens has since often been attributed to Linnaeus. In actual fact, Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. ed. 10 Vol. 1. p. 21 does not have Man 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. xviii (arguing not against H. southward. sapiens merely against "H. south. albus 50." proposed by von Eickstedt and Peters): "die europide Rassengruppe, als Subspecies aufgefasst, [würde] Homo sapiens eurpoaeus L. heissen" ("the Europid racial group, considered every bit a subspecies, would exist named H. s. europeaeus L."). See also: John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University 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.; Periodical of Mammalogy 26-27 (1945), p. 359.; J. Desmond Clark (ed.), The Cambridge History of Africa, Cambridge University Press (1982), p. 141 (with references).
  45. ^ Register of Philosophy xi, London (1826), p. 71
  46. ^ Frederick South. Szalay, Eric Delson, Evolutionary History of the Primates (2013), 508
  47. ^ Pääbo, Svante (2014). Neanderthal Human: 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 Globe: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Academy 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 Periodical of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Bang-up U.k. and Ireland Vol. 59 (Jul. - December., 1929), 417-427.
  51. ^ amid other names suggested for fossils subsequently subsumed under neanderthalensis, run across: Eric Delson, Ian Tattersall, John Van Couvering, Alison S. Brooks, Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second 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 (2): 245–54. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330610214. PMID 6410925.
  53. ^ English translation (1972–1975): Grzimek'south Beast Life Encyclopedia, Book 11, p. 55.
  54. ^ John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press (1974).
  55. ^ "Nosotros are the only surviving subspecies of Homo sapiens." Michio Kitahara, The tragedy of evolution: the man brute confronts modern society (1991), p. xi.
  56. ^ Stringer, Chris (June 12, 2003). "Human development: Out of Ethiopia". Nature. 423 (6941): 692–iii, 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–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. U.South.A. 101 (five): 1147–52. Bibcode:2004PNAS..101.1147H. doi:ten.1073/pnas.0308085100. PMC337021. PMID 14745010. "Homo neanderthalensis King, 1864". Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human being Evolution. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. 2013. pp. 328–331.
  58. ^ a b In the 1970s a trend adult to regard the Javanese variety of H. erectus as a subspecies, Homo erectus erectus, with the Chinese variety being referred to every bit Man erectus pekinensis. Encounter: Sartono, South. 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.

garciastrinter.blogspot.com

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

0 Response to "Human Domain Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel