Recent developments in the field of palaeoanthropology necessitate the suppression of two hominin taxa and the introduction of a new species of hominins to help resolve the current nebulous state of Middle Pleistocene (Chibanian) hominin taxonomy. In particular, the poorly defined and variably understood hominin taxa Homo heidelbergensis (both sensu stricto and sensu lato) and Homo rhodesiensis need to be abandoned as they fail to reflect the full range of hominin variability in the Middle Pleistocene. Instead, we propose: (1) introduction of a new taxon, Homo bodoensis sp. nov., as an early Middle Pleistocene ancestor of the Homo sapiens lineage, with a pan-African distribution that extends into the eastern Mediterranean (Southeast Europe and the Levant); (2) that many of the fossils from Western Europe (e.g. Sima de los Huesos) currently assigned to H. heidelbergensis s.s. be reassigned to Homo neanderthalensis to reflect the early appearance of Neanderthal derived traits in the Middle Pleistocene in the region; and (3) that the Middle Pleistocene Asian fossils, particularly from China, likely represent a different lineage altogether.
Via Gizmodo.
I am a retired Professor of Anthropology; while Bio Anth was not my specialty, I had to teach an Intro course every other semester. When it came time to teach Hominin evolution, I would stress specimen numbers, which don't change, as opposed to species names, which can and do.
ReplyDeleteYour comment prompted me to find out something about "specimen numbers" -
Deletehttps://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/77518/the-meaning-of-and-standards-for-specimen-numbers
That's probably not the best example.
ReplyDeleteHere's the one I used: KNM-ER 1470 will always be KNM-ER 1470, whether it's called Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis.
The prefix, KNM-ER, stands for Kenya National Museum-East Rudolf. Of course, Lake Rudolf is now (since 1975)Lake Turkana, so subsequent finds, such as the "Turkana Buy", are KNM-WT 15000