type of Homo sapiens
Gomez Luis Diego
ldgomez at NS.OTS.AC.CR
Tue Jan 2 15:45:58 CST 1996
I suggest that it be Homo sapiens bibulis. By the way, Edward Drinker
Cope was quite a guy and I have nothing against his bones other that they
just do not fit into the Code for type of our species. Am I wrong or did
I once read in one of the editions of Kellog et al Mammals of North
America that the type specimen was indeed at Upssala?
On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Vid Strpic wrote:
> At 20:45 02.01.96, fortuner at math.u-bordeaux.fr wrote:
> >(too bad, our subspecies could have been renamed Homo sapiens bibimus -
> >pardon my Latin, I am a zoologist). The point is that Cope was certainly not
> >among the material used by Linnaeus.
> I think it should be _bibiens_, or better, _bibendus_.
> Anyone has ideas? Nice thing to talk about (many biologists I know, some
> zoologists like me, drink or have been drinking too much, latter also includes
> Vid Strpic email: strpic at faust.irb.hr www: http://faust.irb.hr/~strpic
More information about the Taxacom