[Taxacom] Homo sapiens

Tue Jan 19 09:41:47 CST 2016

On a less scientific note: the fictional book "Les animaux dénaturés"
(English: "You shall know them"; German: "Das Geheimnis der Tropis") by the
French author Vercors describes the struggle of how to define a human
being. In the story, a new primate/hominid species, somewhere in between
Homo sapiens and Australopithecus, was found in the forest of New Guinea.
During a murder trial (one of the primates/hominids was murdered by a man)
the court is trying to establish the boundaries between humans and apes,
and thus if the defendant killed a human being or an ape. This turns out to
be a very difficult task. Even though this is a purely fictional story, it
beautifully describes the difficulty of establishing a neatly ordered
system with clear-cut categories in nature - even when it comes to humans.
On youtube, I found a great radio play (in German) based on the book.
Unfortunately, I was unable to find the French original or the English
version. But it is surely is a good read!

cheers,
Michael

*Michael Reuscher, **Ph.D.*

*Postdoctoral Research Associate*

*Ecosystem Studies & Modeling *

*Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies*

*Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi*

*6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5869*

*Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5869*

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>