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.