[Taxacom] Homo sapiens

Stephen Thorpe stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Wed Jan 13 17:33:53 CST 2016

Also, given that (fossils aside) there is little difficulty in recognising Homo sapiens, it isn't a priority for redescription! The nomenclature remains problematic in some ways though, particularly the thorny issue of what, if anything is or can be the primary type.


On Thu, 14/1/16, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Homo sapiens
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Thursday, 14 January, 2016, 12:18 PM
 On 1/13/16 3:04 PM,
 Thomas McCabe wrote:
 > More recent
 publications of
 > primate taxonomy in
 English available to me refer to Linneaus’ definition.
 > Can anyone direct me to a more recent
 formal revision?
 species, including our own, have no "formal"
 description outside of 
 the original
 description. Given that we've only got descriptions for
 fewer than 2 million of the 10-50 million
 extant species, we've got a 
 lot of work
 yet to do before we can go around re-describing things a 
 second time. ;-)
 That being said, if you were to examine the
 descriptions, in the 
 literature, of *other species* in the genus Homo, you 
 are likely to find that when those other
 species are diagnosed, the 
 authors may have
 listed certain features in explicit contrast with the 
 same features as they appear in H. sapiens -
 you could accumulate a 
 number of formal
 characters used to recognize H. sapiens, in this manner.
 Doug Yanega      Dept.
 of Entomology       Entomology Research
 Univ. of California, Riverside, CA
 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
 phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are
 mine, not UCR's)
    "There are some enterprises
 in which a careful disorderliness
    is the true method" - Herman Melville,
 Moby Dick, Chap. 82
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 Celebrating 29 years of
 Taxacom in 2016.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list