[Taxacom] Homo sapiens

[Scott Thomson]

If you are after characterization of modern Humans from a physical
perspective, ie nothing really to do with nomenclature, I would as has been
suggested look at the paleontological publications in regards to our
closest relatives, which should have differential diagnoses which will be
helpful. For example: *Homo sapiens idaltu* -  T. D. White, B. Asfaw, D.
DeGusta, H. Gilbert, G. D. Richards, G. Suwa, & F. C. Howel 2003:
Pleistocene *Homo sapiens* from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. *Nature*, *423*:
742-747. You could also look at the work done on *Homo*
*neanderthalensis* which
is debated as either a species or subspecies. Since this debate is ongoing
there should be some characters defining the issue. Since we are
effectively a monotypic species from a living perspective it is only going
to be by comparison to our fossil relatives you will finds detailed
analysis.

Cheers, Scott

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de>
wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> from the nomenclatural point of view there is no such thing, a currently
> valid definition. The usage of the name Homo sapiens is based on common
> acceptance and there have certainly been proposals in the more recent
> paleontological literature how to delimit sapiens against other species or
> subspecies. These proposals would reflect the current state of research,
> taxonomically. The Linnean 1758 publication has no taxonomic relevance
> today, it is only the nomenclaturally relevant source for the name and its
> description given there is certainly not the currently accepted taxonomic
> definition of H. sapiens. You would give an incorrect statement in saying
> that this one or Gmelin's would be the current definition.
> After 1800 more human species were discovered which would also have
> matched the Linnean description for sapiens, but which were regarded to
> represent different species. From this point on the Linnean description of
> sapiens was taxonomically outdated.
> Linnaeus did not need to give a description at all. Had Linnaeus only
> given a picture of a human and a name, this would have made the name Homo
> sapiens available without any word of a description or definition.
> From the nomenclatural point of view a name of a species established
> before 1931 does not need to have a description or a definition published
> at any time in history.
>
> Francisco
>
>
> Am 19.01.2016 um 04:26 schrieb Thomas McCabe:
>
>> Thank you all for your responses to my request for a current
>> definition for *Homo
>> sapiens*. Since no one has come up with a definition more recent than the
>> one in Linnaeus’ last edition of *Systema natura*, as modified by Gmelin
>> and translated by Kerr (http://dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.57940), I
>> shall
>> assume in my work that that is the current definition, while continuing to
>> look for a more recent accepted revision.
>>
>> Thomas McCabe, M.D., M.P.H.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Celebrating 29 years of Taxacom in 2016.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 29 years of Taxacom in 2016.
>



-- 
Scott Thomson
Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo
Divisão de Vertebrados (Herpetologia)
Avenida Nazaré, 481, Ipiranga
04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
http://www.carettochelys.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
<https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod=1E409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
Skype: Faendalimas
Mobile Phone: +55 11 974 74 9095