Talk:Omo remains

Anthropology Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Melillo and DeGusta, ʺBovid Ecomorphology: A Cautionary Tale from the Omoʺ  :: Detailed analysis of these data highlights several issues in using such predictions to reconstruct paleoenvironments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to to say that Homo sapiens idalthu were "previously thought to be the earliest humans"? After all, aren't habilis and erectus and all other members of Homo also humans?

90.196.178.210 (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is probably "earliest anatomically modern human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens)"? 76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, "human" is a species, rather than a genus.

Although it's not clear here that Omo is to be regarded as H sapiens idaltu or something else. Kortoso (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is not clear from the article where Omo is being placed.Venqax (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Neanderthals are dated earlier than this, although the jury is still out regarding whether they are H sapiens or not. Kortoso (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The DNA evidence is that they interbred with h sapiens sapiens and their offspring was fertile, so the historic belief that they were a separate species must be highly questionable. But citation needed! --

talk) 20:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

No, homo (human) is a genus, sapiens is the species name. It is incorrect to say idaltu were "previously thought to be the earliest humans". Should read, "...anatomically modern humans (AMH) as said above. Venqax (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name Homo Gracilis popped into my head from somewhere so naturally I went to

• ...the former term ("hominin"), meaning the same as the historical use of 'hominid", has become the norm. And "hominid" has come to mean all the great apes. <<or something like? Please reply here. Jbeans (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ JBeans

Yes, the note is still not clear enough and really needs to be rewritten rather than continuing to hack the original text. So I propose that we replace the opening section of the note with a straight copy of the text from hominidae:

• This article quotes historic texts that use the terms 'hominid' and 'hominim' with meanings that may be different to their modern usages. This is because several revisions in classifying the great apes have caused the use of the term "hominid" to vary over time. Its original meaning referred only to humans (
  hominin", which comprises all members of the human clade after the split from the chimpanzees (Pan). The modern meaning of the term "hominid" refers to all the great apes, including humans. Usage still varies, however, and some scientists and laypersons still use the term in the original restrictive sense; the scholarly literature generally will show the traditional usage until around the turn of the 21st century. For further information, see Hominini (see hominins) and Hominidae (see discussion of the terms "hominid" and "hominin" in the lede section)
  . In this article, hominid is italicized when the traditional term is necessary to keep as-is—as in a quotation, or a record, or a title, etc.

Comments? --

talk) 21:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]