[Taxacom] What is Homo sapiens

Thu May 31 17:40:09 CDT 2018

But it did not seem to me to be a scientific theory to define a species in
a certain way.

John Grehan

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:36 PM, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
wrote:

> No. You can’t derogate scientific theory as “subjective.” That is like
> postmoderns saying science is nonsense because Einstein proved all things
> are relative and Heisenberg proved all things are uncertain, and scientific
> papers are just snips of other people’s papers stuck together in different
> ways.
>
>
>
>
>
> -------
>
> Richard H. Zander
>
> Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. – St. Louis – Missouri –
> 63110 – USA
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=4344+Shaw+Blvd.+%E2%80%93+St.+Louis+%E2%80%93+Missouri+%E2%80%93+63110+%E2%80%93+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> richard.zander at mobot.org
>
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
>
>
>
> *From:* John Grehan [mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2018 9:54 AM
> *To:* Richard Zander
> *Cc:* Lynn Raw; taxacom
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] What is Homo sapiens
>
>
>
> This is another subjective criterion. If it works from a personal
> perspective is can be subject to subjective critique. It does not matter
> whether all hominid speciation need be dichotomous or not.
>
>
>
> John Grehan
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
> wrote:
>
> Gaps are okay, I suppose.
>
> But what about defining a genus as a center of radiation? Of adaptive
> and/or nearly neutral radiation? Thus, one might look for a central
> generalist species from which other hominid species diverged through some
> kind of at least occasionally multichotomous radiation. That is, must all
> hominid speciation be dichotomous from an unknown ancestor?
>
>
> -------
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. – St. Louis – Missouri –
> 63110 – USA
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=4344+Shaw+Blvd.+%E2%80%93+St.+Louis+%E2%80%93+Missouri+%E2%80%93+63110+%E2%80%93+USA&entry=gmail&source=g>
> richard.zander at mobot.org
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> John Grehan
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 9:26 AM
> To: Lynn Raw
> Cc: taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] What is Homo sapiens
>
> Lynn,
>
> This is criterion, like all others, is arbitrary. Of course if anyone
> finds it useful to use that choice is personal and therefore beyond
> objective criticism (but that does not preclude subjective criticism).
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Lynn Raw <lynn at afriherp.org> wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > Ernst Mayr's 1969 definition in Priciples of Systematic Zoology, p.
> > 92, seems pretty logical, especially his recommendation regarding the
> > size of the gap being in inverse ratio to the size of the taxon.
> >
> > Lynn
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > > On 30 May 2018, at 16:01, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ken's observation makes the point that the breadth of a genus and
> > > higher category is entirely arbitrary and irrational.
> > >
> > > John Grehan
> > >
> > >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Kenneth Kinman
> > >> <kinman at hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear All,
> > >>
> > >>      In the conclusions, he says: "By logical extension,
> > >> hypothetical neanderthalensis and heidelbergensis clades,
> > >> regardless of their relationship to a sapiens clade, should be
> regarded as separate genera."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>      I do not agree with that at all.  This is another example of
> > >> the oversplitting that many anthropologists have long practiced,
> > >> and it
> > should
> > >> be discouraged, not encouraged.
> > >>
> > >>                --------------Ken
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------
> > >> *From:* Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of
> > >> John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> > >> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2018 7:59 AM
> > >> *To:* taxacom
> > >> *Subject:* [Taxacom] What is Homo sapiens
> > >>
> > >> For anyone interested in such questions, see article at
> > >>
> > >> http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2016vol94/Schwartz/26963221.
> > >> pdf
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Abstract below
> > >>
> > >> What constitutes Homo sapiens? Morphology versus received wisdom
> > >>
> > >> Although Linnaeus coined Homo sapiens in 1735, it was Blumenbach
> > >> forty years later who provided the first morphological definition
> > >> of the
> > species.
> > >> Since humans were not then allowed to be ante-Diluvian, his effort
> > applied
> > >> to the genus, as well. After the Feldhofer Grotto Neanderthal
> > >> disproved this creationist notion, and human–fossil hunting became
> > >> legitimate, new specimens were allocated either to sapiens or new
> > >> species within Homo,
> > or
> > >> even to new species within new genera. Yet as these taxonomic acts
> > >> reflected the morphological differences between specimens, they
> > >> failed
> > to
> > >> address the question: What constitutes H. sapiens? When in 1950
> > >> Mayr collapsed all human fossils into Homo, he not only denied
> > >> humans a
> > diverse
> > >> evolutionary past, he also shifted the key to identifying its
> > >> species
> > from
> > >> morphology to geological age – a practice most paleoanthropologists
> > still
> > >> follow. Thus, for example, H. erectus is the species that preceded H.
> > >> sapiens, and H. sapiens is the species into which H. erectus
> > >> morphed. In order to deal with a growing morass of morphologically
> > >> dissimilar specimens, the non-taxonomic terms “archaic” (AS) and
> > >> “anatomically
> > modern”
> > >> (AMS) were introduced to distinguish between the earlier and later
> > versions
> > >> of H. sapiens, thereby making the species impossible to define. In
> > >> attempting to disentangle fact from scenario, I begin from the
> > beginning,
> > >> trying to delineate features that may be distinctive of extant
> > >> humans
> > (ES),
> > >> and then turning to the fossils that have been included in the
> species.
> > >> With the exception of Upper Paleolithic humans – e.g. from
> > >> Cro-Magnon, Dolni Vestonice, Mladeč – I argue that many specimens
> > >> regarded as AMS,
> > and
> > >> all those deemed AS, are not H. sapiens. The features these AMS do
> > >> share with ES suggest the existence of a sapiens clade. Further,
> > >> restudy of near-recent fossils, especially from southwestern China
> > >> (~11-14.5 ka), reinforces what discoveries such as H. floresiensis
> > >> indicate: “If it’s recent, it’s not necessarily H. sapiens”.
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Taxacom Mailing List
> > >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:
> > >> 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
> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> > >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > >> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >>
> > >> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
> > 1987-2018.
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: 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
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > >
> > > Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years,
> 1987-2018.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: 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 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web,
> visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
>
>
>