From Wikispecies

Some have suggested that Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes really belong in Homo because there is only 1.6% genetic difference between us and them, and Homo was coined before Pan. Discussion? Who decides? 83.71.50.82 14:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1.6 % of genetic difference is estimated considering only coding DNA sequences. more recent works report higher values when all the genome is compared. I don't think that this kind of data is useful to make resolution on taxonomy: Homo and Pan have typical skeletal features that drastically dicotomize the two genus and several million years separate the present day humans and chimps. sorry for my bad English. Ciao --Corneliae 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Included with Pan and the fossil taxon Australopithecus in subtribe Hominina by McKenna and Bell (1997). Includes Pan as a subgenus according to Goodman et al. (1998); according to Goodman et al. (2001c), all fossil representatives of the human lineage (including Australopithecus) would be synonyms of Homo.
• Many anthropologists believe Homo antecessor to be Homo heidelbergensis.
• Homo rhodesiensis (also known as Homo kanamensis) is widely regarded to be Homo heidelbergensis, although it has also been considered as Homo sapiens rhodesiensis.
• The species Homo leakeyi and Homo modjokertensis (also known as Pithecanthropus modjokertensis) have proved to be Homo erectus.

[edit] Taxonmy

This has been done by research. I have linked these by definitive/likely relation. Others havn't been listed due to their ancestry not being known

                           Homo rudolfensis
                                   |
                             Homo habilis
                                   |
                            Homo georgicus
                                   |
                             Homo Erectus  
                                   |  
    |---------------------|-------------------|------------|-------------|   
H.e. lantianensis  H.e. palaeojavanicus  H.Sapiens  H.e. pekinensis  H.e. soloensis
                                              |
                           |------------------|------------------|
                      Homo Sapiens Sapiens         Homo Sapiens Idaltu

                        Homo Sapiens Sapiens
                                   |
                Homo Sapiens Sapiens Africanus A (Black)
                                   |
        Homo Sapiens Sapiens Africanus B (North Africa + Middle East)
                                   |
                Homo Sapiens Sapiens Eurasia A (India...)
                                   |
                |------------------|----------------------|
Homo Sapiens Sapiens Eurasia B (China...Japan...) Homo Sapiens Sapiens Eurasia C (Europe)




or for thurther info that you can't realy add wrld wide as some consider it Racism if someone missinterpritates it.

I don't think that human subdivision diagram is particularly accurate. While I admit the actual cladistics of it are probably correct, different races of people are far too similar to actually warrant different taxanomic infraspecies (or races, depending on the term used). You also seemed to leave out some races entirely. This looks to be a very old classification.Eebster the Great 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)