Talk:Timeline of human evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Taxonomy[edit]

What is the source for the calling modern humans a sub species of Homo Sapiens? In the linked article on Sub species, it is stated that there must be two sub species or none. While their are other species in Homo, what are the other sub species in Homo Sapiens? 208.253.17.141 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Homo Sapiens Idaltu. --42.113.154.63 (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis[edit]

I removed entries for Homo floresiensis; as per its main article, "Whether the specimens represent a new species is a controversial issue within the scientific community." -- Limulus 21:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well a more important reason to remove it is that even if it is a new species it is not an ancestor to humans. It is a seperate descendent from something between australopithecus and ergaster. So it should not be in the list for the same reason that Neanderthal should not be on the list. Qed (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Neanderthal should not be on the list, but it is. "(Ancient) homo sapiens" is equated with Neanderthal which is plain wrong. Neanderthalensis is another subspecies that only contributed to ~3% of the genome of part of the modern human population. Certainly sapiens sapiens is not a subset of Neanderthal as the table suggests.--176.7.56.18 (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I concur with this. My best suggestion is to have the second column of the Species line read "Homo sapiens" and the third read "Anatomically modern humans": in the Subspecies line we could then have the third column read "Extant modern humans".
To accommodate the Neanderthals reference we could perhaps introduce a preceding line between Genus and Species – "Subgenus" is a valid term but I don't know if it's usually used in this particular context – whose third column reads Archaic humans, a term which is used to cover H neanderthalensis, H rhodesiensis, H Heidelbergensis etc, but this does not sit well with the preceding column entry of "Humans", so that could be changed to "Genus Homo". The fourth column figures might need rechecking. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Flatworm[edit]

Does the image at 550mya really show a flatworm, because that article apparently describes something a lot more complex-looking that appeared during the Permian. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 23:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)