Ape skulls? Human? Hominid?

What sidelined is saying (and I think I'm not putting words into his mouth, just restating what he has to say) is we only have the terms "apes" and "humans" and our language is stuck with those (in popular terms anyway).However, what we find fossils of are things that are not clearly either. That is where rough terms like "ape-man" come from.As I noted they aren't just showing aspects of both current apes and current humans but there is also a number of specimens that mark points in time that show more aspects of humans over time.I noticed one poster today commented that these simply show adaptations to changing conditions. These conditions were supposed to have changed from the flood (about 4500 years ago?) to a point in time when records should show these (the romans were into africa before 2,000?). The idea that these forms are laid out in this order (ignoring the real ages) and changed in just this way in only 100 generations seems a bit absurd to me.

Yes, IIRC, Linneaus did that at first.

yes I agree our language and classification are very flawed.
for instance Mammals in the fossil record.we have Reptiles then we have mammals... But it isn't that simple that’s where term Mammal-like reptile comes from... Although these creatures wouldn't be either they are one or the other really... I do wonder why they don't separate.They have started to do this though.Dinosaurs are now trying to be pushed out of reptile and just be Dinosaur, and birds are trying to be pushed into dinosaur as they really haven’t changed much.

---

My site The Atheist BibleMy New Debate Fourms!

I think flawed is a bit strong here. It is simply a reflection of the fact that we have a continuum and are trying to make it all tidy and boxed up. It is easier for us to handle things in neat little piles and if the edges get mixed together we don't like it. Tough! They are mixed.

Sorry to be nitpicky Nosy, but Pan troglodytes was originally named Simia troglodytes by Blumenbach in 1775. Apparently Blumenbach noted that Linnaeus didn't formerly describe the chimpanzee. As I understand it Linnaeus 'described' (not in a taxonomic sense, in the common usage) some species without formally describing them. So he mentions Homo troglodytes not as a specific epithat but to mention that there are two human types on the planet, real humans and subhumans. Blumenbach did the formal description in 1775 and kept the original Linnaeus' descriptor as a specific epithat. The same occured with Homo sapiens who were not formally described until 1994. Although, unlike Blumenbach, Bakker left Linnaeus' description as the original (although incomplete and non-descriptive) and did a revision.My question would be if it is decided that chimps and humans belong in the same genus (as an invert guy it makes perfect sense, if I tried to argue for a new genus of shrimp based on slight proportional differences...) Then it is arguable that the genus Pan would have priority because the genus was formally defined and the type species (P. troglodytes) designated in 1816 by Oken. I don't know when the genus Homo was formerly described, but certainly before the first fossil congeners were discovered. I know I am treading into areas outside of my expertise, so don't be to brutal...

the Problem with them jumping to our genius is still the thought that
"Humans are not apes" when we clearly are. Its hard for people to accept the fact that chimps are almost human.(and Humans are almosts chimps). Some reason humans think very highly of our speciesThis message has been edited by DC85, 05-17-2004 08:35 PM

---

My site The Atheist BibleMy New Debate Fourms!

There have been some pretty strong grumblings from the other side as well. Most of the Chimps I've talked to aren't all that happy about being included in Homo. They feel it's a real step down.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Although interesting, I'm a little puzzled why chimps would be considered for the genus Homo given that the common human-chimp ancestor predated the Australopithecenes. Why not A. troglodyte instead of H. troglodyte?

In taxonomy, as far as i am aware, it is not the oldest genus, name that is taken, but the first one to be named so, so the oldest name of a genus.Homo was classified long before Australopithecenes. The first one to name a species wins basically.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

" "Humans are not apes" when we clearly are. Its hard for people to accept the fact that chimps are almost human.(and Humans are almosts chimps). Some reason humans think very highly of our species"I think this point cannot be made strong enough. One example I like to make is from Johanson & Edey's "Lucy". In that book there is a chapter which describes Johanson and White's Plattian methodology for naming their new species (my term, not theirs). As a quick aside, for those not familiar with Platt, I offer a short explanantion. Platt (1964) outlined a method of scientific reasoning called "strong inference." You address a scientific question by describing all possible hypotheses and designing experiments to eliminate all of the them. The hypothesis that cannot be disproven stands as your strongest.Johanson and White start their analysis by describing all possible taxonomic categories that their new species may fit. They come down to three; Australopithecus, Homo, and something new. They then describe the methodology they use to categorize the species into the genus Australopithecus. All in all, an excellent analysis. BUT the question I had is why was Pan not included? I am not saying it should have been chosen, but in Plattian methodology you include all likely possibilities.Throughout the book (and the associated papers) Australopithecus afarensis is repeatedly called "chimpanzee-like" in multiple skull characteristics. I would think that this comparison would at least invite the consideration that the new species might fit this genus. But is was never considered. I argue that this is because what they had was a human, however primitive, and not an ape (semantics) so that an ape genus could not be considered.I think it was Roger Lewin who coined the term "pithecophobia" for paleoanthropologists who want to push apes as far away from human evolution as possible. I think I am in Jared Dimond's "third chimpanzee" camp. I think if we were an alien race of taxonomists studying the apes of Africa we would clearly categorize a chimpanzee clade spit into bipedal forms and non-bipedal forms. Again the opinion of an invertebrate zoologist who thinks all vertebrates look alike anyhow.
-AaronJohanson D and Edey M (1981) Lucy: The Beginnings Of Humankind. Simon and Schuster, New York, New York. 409 pp.Platt J (1964) Strong Inference. Science 146: 347-353.

This is basically why a lot of human paleontologists are against putting chimps into Homo (as H. troglodytes). It would force all of the fossil humans into Homo as well, so Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Ardipithecus would all be retired and subsumed into Homo. We could add subgenera to maintain the historical connection, but it would get confusing.I am against putting chimps into Homo for the above reason, but more so because the people who of late have been pushing it specifically want chimps, but not gorillas, into Homo. Gorilla would remain a valid taxon. Gorillas are only slightly less related to humans and chimps than the latter pair are to each other. If there is a 'natural' grouping, it should include all three into Homo.Mike

As a vertebrate guy, I am only capable of distinguishing among three 'types' of invertebrates: "bugs", "worms", and "calamari" Mike

quote:

---

This is basically why a lot of human paleontologists are against putting chimps into Homo (as H. troglodytes).

---

So what do the chimp paleontologists (like Bobo Leakey) think about it? But seriously, thanks for the reply. It makes more sense now.This message has been edited by Phobos, 05-27-2004 10:03 AM

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why not A. troglodyte instead of H. troglodyte?

---

​

This is basically why a lot of human paleontologists are against putting chimps into Homo (as H. troglodytes). It would force all of the fossil humans into Homo as well, so Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Ardipithecus would all be retired and subsumed into Homo. We could add subgenera to maintain the historical connection, but it would get confusing.

​

I am against putting chimps into Homo for the above reason, but more so because the people who of late have been pushing it specifically want chimps, but not gorillas, into Homo. Gorilla would remain a valid taxon. Gorillas are only slightly less related to humans and chimps than the latter pair are to each other. If there is a 'natural' grouping, it should include all three into Homo.

---

Yes, if we subsume genus Pan into Homo, everything between (at least) the Last Common Ancester and any of the above, automatically goes into genus Homo. To distiguish, sub genera might have to appear, for example Lucy could become Homo Australopithecus afarensis.Further, I agree that it's illogical to include genus Pan (chimpanzees) and exclude genus Gorilla.Further, the family Pongidae (Apes) would disappear as well, and might mean pushing Homo up from genus to family. This would leave Lucy as genus Australopithecus, species afarensis, but a member of the family Homo, and us as genus Sapiens, species sapiens, and also a member of the family Homo.Probabally a better way of sorting things out (if it's possible under the rules of species classification)

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.