paperclippy: (Default)
[personal profile] paperclippy
[Poll #1403043]

According to wikipedia, "A human is a member of the genus Homo, of which Homo sapiens sapiens is the only extant subspecies." I agree with wikipedia. Apparently some people don't though, which is why I'm asking.

Date: 2009-05-20 10:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I always thought homo sapien was the Latin, while human was the common name for the same.

Date: 2009-05-21 12:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Yeah, I took "human" to be the common name of the species, not the genus. Especially I don't know any other common English name for Homo sapiens. In the few cases where the difference matters, it seems to be useful to say things like "Humans and Neanderthals" to name two different hominid species.

Wikipedia seems to contradict itself. Human says that it means a member of Homo sapiens. Archaic Homo sapiens and Homo (genus) carefully do not use the word "human" for any species or subspecies besides modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

Date: 2009-05-21 05:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Interesting: American Heritage thinks it's a candy mint and a breath mint. "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens."

Date: 2009-05-21 12:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I checked several dictionaries and got conflicting results as well. Some said any member of the genus Homo, some avoided any reference to scientific names for the species at all, some said things along the lines of "any member of the genus Homo which has the capacity for speech."

Date: 2009-06-16 04:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
A reasonable argument that h. neanderthalis was human could be made (I disagree but wouldn't think you're batty), but h. erectus? h. habilis?? Chimps are as close as those two.


paperclippy: (Default)

April 2017

161718 19202122

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 12:19 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios