Ape skulls? Human? Hominid?

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...

" "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.