Talk:Homo

Pan

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)

Wouldn't that be morphogenic classification instead of phylogenic? (skeletal details)

Ofcourse phylogenic classification also would keep them separate, unless you do a different cladistic breakdown...

76.66.197.2 11:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

Links

• BHL bibliography
• Homo – Taxon details on Encyclopedia of Life (EOL).
• Global Biodiversity Information Facility. 2019. GBIF Backbone Taxonomy. Checklist dataset. Taxon: Homo.
• ION
• Nomenclator Zoologicus