Jump to content

Talk:Human taxonomy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger

[edit]

This would work well as a table in human article, but doesn't really deserve it's own article. Fallsend 01:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's really already there with the taxobox, though this page does add to that by explaining what each of the sections means and what it relates to. It could be educational as an introduction to taxonomy and the evolutionary position of humans relative to other animals. This page could actually be expanded by incorporating a historical perspective on how humans were treated taxonomically in the past. It needs work, but it could be encyclopedic and worthwhile. If we keep it, it should be moved to Human taxonomy (lowercase t). --Aranae 06:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, even worse, this barely deserves to exist at all. There is no content, no value to this at all. So many unreferenced paragraphs, and only one reference in ref section. This should be a delete. Nothing here is not already in the Homo sapiens article. --Tallard (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A human possible classification

[edit]

Actually, I agree with that. Independently I got: Biota (All life) Magnodomain Cytota

Superdomain Neomura

Domain Eukarya

Subdomain Unikonta

Superkingdom Opisthokonts

Kingdom Animalia/Metozoa

Subkingdom Bilateria

[Branch] Deuterostomia

Infrakingdom Chordonia

Phylum Chordata

Subphylum Vertebrata

Infraphylum Gnathostomata

Superclass Tetrapoda

[Series] Amniota

Mammaliaformes

Class Mammalia

Subclass Theriiformes

Infraclass Holotheria

Superlegion Trechnotheria

Legion Cladotheria

Sublegion Zatheria

Infralegion Tribosphenida

Supercohort Theria

Cohort Placentalia/Eutheria

Magnorder Euarchontoglires

Superorder Euarchonta

Grandorder Archonta

Order Primata

Suborder Haplorrhini

Infraorder Semiiformes

Parvorder Catarrhini

Superfamily Hominoidea

Family Hominidae

Subfamily Homininae

Tribe Hominini

Subtribe Hominina

Genus Homo

Species Homo sapiens

Subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens

alexllew 11:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar article, merge?

[edit]

I've written a similar article in my user area: User:Johntobey/Human_evolutionary_pedigree. Perhaps its content could be included under Human_taxonomy#Extended_scientific_classification or published separately? (Under what name?) Differences from the hierarchy on this page:

  • Images, time estimates, and links to sister taxa.
  • Inline citations on times and alternative hypotheses.
  • Extinct taxa excluded; focus on relationship to extant taxa.
  • Reverse chronological order, starting with the familiar.

--Johntobey (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiens

[edit]

The Latin sapiens may mean wise, but it is more at palatable. Either way, we still consider it MISNOMER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

An... interesting observation. Indeed sapio primarily means "to taste"; but then sapiens is "tasting", not "tasty" (as in Homo edulis, which might have been the species name chosen if taxonomy had been developed by sabre-tooth tigers). --dab (𒁳) 06:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough Taxobox categories

[edit]

I think that the Taxobox needs to be altered, because there are not enough classifications for each to be used exactly once in the correct place. If the majority are "unranked", then we should be able to just use one "unranked" classification for all unranked ones. User:BrendanRizzo, at 2015 October 30, 23:29 UTC

Homo troglodytes

[edit]

Homo troglodytes redirects here, but is not mentioned in the body of the article.

I'd be willing to take a shot at integrating a sentence or two (at least to explain how scientific names are proposed), but would defer to someone with expertise in the field. ZeppoShemp (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Up-to-date taxonomic classification

[edit]

The taxonomic classification at the top of the article says that it is "following John Edward Gray (1825)." I have to wonder if that matches the currently conventional classification. If it is the same, the caption should say so. If it is not, we should get a figure which represents the current consensus and remove the existing one. Best, Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linnaeus as type specimen for H. sapiens

[edit]

Page watchers are invited to weigh in at the discussion at Talk:Carl Linnaeus#Type specimen regarding the type specimen of H. sapiens. Umimmak (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homo erectus

[edit]

The article states, "Homo erectus is widely recognized as the species directly ancestral to Homo sapiens." This contradicts the Homo erectus article that states, "If considering Homo erectus in its strict sense (that is, as referring to only the Asian variety) no consensus has been reached as to whether it is ancestral to H. sapiens or any later human species." The statement in the Homo erectus article has a "citation needed" tag. The statement in this article has no citation directly after it. Are the sources of a following sentence meant to be a source for the statement that Homo erectus is widely recognized as the direct ancestor of Homo sapiens? Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_taxonomy&oldid=1206776680"