←back to thread

273 points geox | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cpncrunch ◴[] No.40714063[source]
News article says humans, but earliest human (homo sapiens) was around 300kya. The actual paper uses the word hominids rather than humans.
replies(2): >>40714284 #>>40714924 #
AlotOfReading ◴[] No.40714924[source]
The word human is commonly used for both modern humans and members of the entire genus Homo. Hominids is a more general superset that isn't strictly correct here. The term hominin is more appropriate in this context and what they actually use in the abstract.

In my opinion though, "human" is the better word here for conveying the right mix of informality without implying the specific semantics of "Hominini sans Pan".

replies(2): >>40714996 #>>40718682 #
MattPalmer1086 ◴[] No.40714996[source]
Is it?

This is literally the first time Ive seen the word human applied to other hominids. I see many discussions about neanderthals and denisovians and so on. I have never seen them referred to as human.

replies(10): >>40715023 #>>40715084 #>>40715209 #>>40715271 #>>40715825 #>>40716020 #>>40716598 #>>40717417 #>>40718229 #>>40718380 #
jb1991 ◴[] No.40715023[source]
I think it’s not uncommon to refer to Neanderthals as early humans, I’m sure I’ve read that in many places.

Natural history museum, for example, refers to them as early humans: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-were-the-neanderthals.htm...

replies(3): >>40715030 #>>40715168 #>>40716691 #
graemep ◴[] No.40715168[source]
It is also reasonable to argue that they and we are subspecies of the same species not rather than separate species.
replies(1): >>40715511 #
acchow ◴[] No.40715511[source]
Of course we are not separate species since successful interbreeding did happen (when the populations interacted).
replies(3): >>40716296 #>>40717226 #>>40718254 #
1. Amezarak ◴[] No.40717226{5}[source]
That's not the definition of species. Many species can interbreed, sometimes even species that are pretty distantly related.