Re: Homo sapiens.
- From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:41:28 +0300
António Marques wrote:
So let's see how the text of the 'Smithsonian Institution' you partially
quote continues:
'In hindsight, this seems strange since ER 1470 is now considered to
belong to a species distinct from _H. habilis_.'
And then it continues to discuss /Homo habilis/. I bet your other references do the same, contrary to your claim that /Homo habilis/ is not a valid species.
As for the early (and never abandoned) matter with _H. habilis_, it was
that it didn't look well inside _Homo_. Otoh, it didn't look well inside
_Australopithecus_ either. Now, if one considers it as _Homo_, then
Babble, babble.
The genus of the species, or the classification of specific fossils into it, might be debatable. Your statement was about the species itself not being valid. It was a pointless off-topic statement in this group. The only issue relevant to the question that was asked was that the species part of the name /Homo habilis/ might relate to the misunderstanding about the word "homo" - and this was something that I had already mentioned.
.
- References:
- Homo sapiens.
- From: Starbles
- Re: Homo sapiens.
- From: António Marques
- Re: Homo sapiens.
- From: Jukka K. Korpela
- Re: Homo sapiens.
- From: António Marques
- Re: Homo sapiens.
- From: Jukka K. Korpela
- Re: Homo sapiens.
- From: António Marques
- Homo sapiens.
- Prev by Date: Re: Loss of Tone
- Next by Date: Re: "par coeur" origin
- Previous by thread: Re: Homo sapiens.
- Next by thread: Re: Homo sapiens.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|