Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MarsupialKing t1_iw5verg wrote

Someone educated on the topic please tell me. Do we consider other hominin species humans? These footprints likely weren't from homo sapiens they say. Is it correct for the post to say human or would hominin have been more appropriate?


notinferno t1_iw5w3qu wrote

from the article linked in the comments

>This new age implies that the possible track-makers are individuals more likely from the Neandertal evolutionary lineage. Regardless of the taxon attributed to the Matalascañas footprints, they supplement the existing partial fossil record for the European Middle Pleistocene Hominins being notably the first palaeoanthropological evidence (hominin skeleton or footprints) from the MIS 9 and MIS 8 transition discovered in the Iberian Peninsula, a moment of climatic evolution from warm to cool. Thus, the Matalascañas footprints represent a crucial record for understanding human occupations in Europe in the Pleistocene.


ryschwith t1_iw67073 wrote

I'm not sure there's an official delineation but I think anything in the genus Homo tends to be described as "human."


jumpsteadeh t1_iw7nvyc wrote

The title is paraphrased; the researcher's exact words were "some dude from 300,000 years ago"


Emergency-Nebula5005 t1_iw88l21 wrote

Somehow, this makes it even more fantastical. A dude just out for a walk. 300,000 years ago. Maybe he took his dog with him.


wbruce098 t1_iw87k8y wrote

The Dude abides. My Neanderthal guy was just looking for some milk for his Caucasians.


RandomStallings t1_iw7ywe7 wrote

Homo is Latin for human, so yes, that's correct.

Edit: apparently there are debates about this, too.

Not to be confused with homo in Greek, which means same.


BobWentToMars t1_iw6rzw9 wrote

I work in the field, basically where you want to draw the line is very variable depending on which academic groups you work with and what is classified as human comes down more to a discussion of behaviour than biology or genus.

Some people here say anything homo is human. But there are not many who would think of habilis and naledi as human. The Hobbit (can't be bothered spelling out the whole name) is often a more grey area. Denisovan, Neanderthal and Sapien are generally pretty safe to be considered as human, especially as we know we have genetic transgressions with them (i.e we fucked and made kids who also made kids). And atleast from a Neanderthal and Sapien stand point, much after the archaeological material contains evidence of behavioural traits we would say are human (Denisovan is harder as archaeology we think is denisovan probably shows the same, but we aren't sure the archaeology is denisovan linked).

Anyway big debate but short hand- most homo species of the middle Pleistocene onwards you can get away with calling Human with some major asterixs here and there.


MarsupialKing t1_iw70uu6 wrote

Gotcha. I'm somewhat involved in the biology field so it seems a bit like the debate of what exactly constitutes a species amongst animals. Grizzly bears and polar bears create fertile offspring but are clearly different animals, being the easiest example. Thanks for the info. Early humans is one of the most interesting fields of study to me, I just can't handle all the mystery and questions we will never have answers to!


xstoopkidx t1_iw7f1yt wrote

Didn’t think growler bears were fertile?


Rangifar t1_iw8di40 wrote

I am pretty sure I heard the biologists here in the NWT talking about how they had genetic evidence that there were multiple generations of growlars.


MarsupialKing t1_iw8rr39 wrote

My understanding is that they are. Quick Google search says so but I haven't Dove into any scientific journals on the topic


orincoro t1_iw69mnd wrote

Hominin = human. “Homo” Neanderthalensis, habillus, denisovans, etc are all human.

Edit: hominin, not hominid.


Ripcord t1_iw6fapl wrote

Hominids include humans. Not all hominids are humans.

Chimps are hominids, for example.


Chubbybellylover888 t1_iw6ufcq wrote

Yeah the correct term for human species is hominin. This includes the likes of neanderthals, denisovans etc but excludes other great apes.

Hominid is used to describe all the great apes.


gbRodriguez t1_iw72080 wrote

Hominins are human. Hominids includes all Hominidae including chimps.


LingQuery t1_iw7zegt wrote


Hominoidea (hominoid: those resembling man): All old-world apes

Hominidea (hominid: those akin to man): Great apes

Hominini (hominin: man-like): humans and chimps

Homo (man): humans and our closest cousins

The proposed subtribe homininan (very man-like) would exclude chimpanzees but include australopithecines.

The less-common hominineae (hominine: those very akin to man(?)) would sit just below the hominids and include gorillas, chimps, and folks while excluding orangutans.


kelteshe t1_iw82l74 wrote

Considering the fact that modern human fossils have been found at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, which date back some 360,000 years…. It’s quite possible it was anatomically modern humans. Or at least extremely close.

My bet is that the age of humanity will keep getting older and older the more we discover. And as archeology starts to explore the areas covered by water (but were not covered 12k+ years ago)… our understanding of human history will drastically change to include a lost civilization of modern humans in the last 100k years. A civilization that had the capacity to map the planet, had a understanding of the precessional cycle and the dimensions of the planet. As well as a vast understanding of astronomy and geometry.


affordableweb t1_iw7gt4n wrote

Hominin are ancient humans. The terms are loosely interchangeable. Right?


MarsupialKing t1_iw8s2ni wrote

Beats me! I think for a couple of laymen having a conversation on the topic, sure. I was asking in the context of academics and professional distinction between them


ilikepizza2much t1_iw6n9gb wrote

They are hominid, part of the wider family, not homo sapiens like us.


ihateusedusernames t1_iw6yjqs wrote

There is a distinction between hominID and hominIN. neanderthals and denisovans are frequently considered to be hominins, which implies a closer relationship with homo sapiens; hominids are more distant relatives. As noted above, chimps and bonobos are hominids.


Intelligent_Moose_48 t1_iw7fhqx wrote

Generally these days hominin are considered human. Basically all the species in genus Homo, but not older ones like Australopithecus, which would be more properly considered a human ancestor