This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
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)
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)
I agree, it is not clear from the article where Omo is being placed. Venqax ( talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
The name Homo Gracilis popped into my head from somewhere so naturally I went to Homo Gracilis to read about it. No such article. But surely it is at least mentioned at Homo, and I can create a redirect page... No. But a generalised search brings up List of World Heritage Sites in Ethiopia where, at Lower Valley of the Omo, there is a sourced (from UNESCO) reference that uses the term. But nowhere else?? Except a Google Books reference to 'Ecce Homo!: A Lexicon of Man' by Luigi Romeo which says that, unlike Homo Robustus ('a humanized Australopithecus), this name has not been adopted by Palaeontologists. So does anyone know what is intended in the UNESCO citatation? Homo sapiens idaltu?-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@ John Maynard Friedman:
The note1 unit now reads>
but, don't you mean>
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
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)
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)
I agree, it is not clear from the article where Omo is being placed. Venqax ( talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
The name Homo Gracilis popped into my head from somewhere so naturally I went to Homo Gracilis to read about it. No such article. But surely it is at least mentioned at Homo, and I can create a redirect page... No. But a generalised search brings up List of World Heritage Sites in Ethiopia where, at Lower Valley of the Omo, there is a sourced (from UNESCO) reference that uses the term. But nowhere else?? Except a Google Books reference to 'Ecce Homo!: A Lexicon of Man' by Luigi Romeo which says that, unlike Homo Robustus ('a humanized Australopithecus), this name has not been adopted by Palaeontologists. So does anyone know what is intended in the UNESCO citatation? Homo sapiens idaltu?-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@ John Maynard Friedman:
The note1 unit now reads>
but, don't you mean>