Talk:Omo remains

Melillo and DeGusta, ʺBovid Ecomorphology: A Cautionary Tale from the Omoʺ  :: Detailed analysis of these data highlights several issues in using such predictions to reconstruct paleoenvironments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is it appropriate to to say that Homo sapiens idalthu were "previously thought to be the earliest humans"? After all, aren't habilis and erectus and all other members of Homo also humans?

90.196.178.210 (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The intent is probably "earliest anatomically modern human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens)"? 76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK, "human" is a species, rather than a genus.

Although it's not clear here that Omo is to be regarded as H sapiens idaltu or something else. Kortoso (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree, it is not clear from the article where Omo is being placed.Venqax (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

And Neanderthals are dated earlier than this, although the jury is still out regarding whether they are H sapiens or not. Kortoso (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The DNA evidence is that they interbred with h sapiens sapiens and their offspring was fertile, so the historic belief that they were a separate species must be highly questionable. But citation needed! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, homo (human) is a genus, sapiens is the species name. It is incorrect to say idaltu were "previously thought to be the earliest humans". Should read, "...anatomically modern humans (AMH) as said above. Venqax (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The name Homo Gracilis popped into my head from somewhere so naturally I went to Homo Gracilis to read about it. No such article. But surely it is at least mentioned at Homo, and I can create a redirect page... No. But a generalised search brings up List of World Heritage Sites in Ethiopia where, at Lower Valley of the Omo, there is a sourced (from UNESCO) reference that uses the term. But nowhere else?? Except a Google Books reference to 'Ecce Homo!: A Lexicon of Man' by Luigi Romeo which says that, unlike Homo Robustus ('a humanized Australopithecus), this name has not been adopted by Palaeontologists. So does anyone know what is intended in the UNESCO citatation? Homo sapiens idaltu?--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@ John Maynard Friedman:

The note1 unit now reads>

• (formerly named "hominid"). This article contains two competing terms, "hominin" and "hominid". The latter term was used historically in the scientific community to name the collected species of Homo plus Homo's closest relatives and ancestors; by the end of the 20th century the former term, meaning all the great apes, has become the norm. ... [emphasis added]

but, don't you mean>

• ...the former term ("hominin"), meaning the same as the historical use of 'hominid", has become the norm. And "hominid" has come to mean all the great apes. <<or something like? Please reply here. Jbeans (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@ JBeans

Yes, the note is still not clear enough and really needs to be rewritten rather than continuing to hack the original text. So I propose that we replace the opening section of the note with a straight copy of the text from hominidae:

• This article quotes historic texts that use the terms 'hominid' and 'hominim' with meanings that may be different to their modern usages. This is because several revisions in classifying the great apes have caused the use of the term "hominid" to vary over time. Its original meaning referred only to humans (Homo) and their closest relatives. That restrictive meaning has been largely assumed by the term "hominin", which comprises all members of the human clade after the split from the chimpanzees (Pan). The modern meaning of the term "hominid" refers to all the great apes, including humans. Usage still varies, however, and some scientists and laypersons still use the term in the original restrictive sense; the scholarly literature generally will show the traditional usage until around the turn of the 21st century. For further information, see Hominini (see hominins) and Hominidae (see discussion of the terms "hominid" and "hominin" in the lede section). In this article, hominid is italicized when the traditional term is necessary to keep as-is—as in a quotation, or a record, or a title, etc.

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Excellent idea! It's is exactly the right language to educate the reader---and clue the wp-editor of the problem and need. Thanks for clearing up my glitches. Please proceed---and Regards, Jbeans (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply