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.
™ Version 4.2