Talk:Herto Man

(confusions)
(title added by Said: Rursus (☻) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC))

erectus in Australia? Really? Could you give a reference for that claim? --Yak 15:06, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

You are right, there is not evidence of H. erectus in Australia. The maximum range of H. erectus was china. --Anonymous

So what it is that made them say H. s. idaltu is a subspecies anyways besides the "archaic features"? In fact, I'd like to know what these archaic features are since I suspect many of them are still present in the wide range of what can be considered H. s. sapiens. --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.210 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How is Idaltu pronounced? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How are these guys another subspecies when I see people (like Aboriginies) that look almost the same way? The rounded part of the skull in the back, the brow ridge up front, they are shared by many people today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.104.149 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Extinct?!
If it is a subspecies with a gene pole that was common with Homo sapiens2, can we then claim that this subspecies is extinct? Rather it would be disolved, obsoleted, or reevolved into us. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If the species as it is classified no longer exists, then it is extinct. Though it's genetic legacy may continue in other animals, those are separate but related species. Now, sometimes entire families go extinct, but they're not "more" extinct--they're just multiple extinct species. 217.120.178.21 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ref
McCall, ʺExamining the Emergence of the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort Industries in South Africa Using Behavioral Ecological Modelsʺ
 * In sum, critical re‐evaluation and re‐analysis of the available evidence fails to support the placement of BOU‐VP‐16/1 into its own subspecies. Instead, the early modern human remains from Herto, Ethiopia, should be considered part of a larger Pleistocene H. sapiens population that also includes remains from Irhoud, Skhul, Qafzeh, and Omo.

This article is a mess
1. The lede makes no mention of the (currently Jul 11, 2014) published work indicating that Idaltu may be the direct ancestor to modern H.S.Sap.

2. The Morphology section states:"their morphology has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens..."
 * HOW does a subspecies have ANY feature "not typical" of the species??? Shouldn't this be:"their morphology has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens sapiens..." ??


 * "archaic" indicates that the feature IS found in the ancestral H.S.S. line, correct? If so, which ancestor is it referring to?


 * WHAT does "...(although modern human skulls do differ across the globe)." MEAN in this context? It must be obvious to anyone who has access to modern media and has thought about it that that modern human skulls do differ between geographical ethnic groups (since the evidence in the form of images saturates the media of the modern world). This parenthetical is confusing. does "across the globe" refer to the Earth or the skull? Very sloppy. The inclusion of this in the sentence can be taken to be critical of the claim that the skull morphology is outside of any likely Homo sapiens sapiens variation. Frankly, I don't understand it. I think it should be removed (or its meaning made clear).

Abitslow (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Penecontemporaneous?
Please translate to plain English:
 * "The many morphological features shared by the Herto crania and AMHS, to the exclusion of penecontemporaneous Neanderthals, provide additional fossil data excluding Neanderthals from a significant contribution to the ancestry of modern humans..."
 * I'm assuming this means that idaltu has archaic features that Neanderthal doesn't have, making idaltu our direct ancestor and not Neanderthal? Kortoso (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles says predating Neanderthals in the introduction but the timeline shows the opposite. Also the timeline does not contain H. sapiens sapiens, which is a bit of an omission? Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - Please see a possible clarification in the discussions at the following => "Template talk:Human timeline" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Arboleh
@Arboleh Please don't revert the edits and engage here in the talk page. Also don't describe other users' contributions as racist and biased when they are clearly not and don't accuse me of vandalizing the article when I am clearly not, otherwise I will report you. Ryanoo (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

extinction status
I noted there is some to and fro on the status of this taxon. Please expand on the classification as extinct here, a citation would be ideal. cygnis insignis 03:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

More confusion
The "Morphology and taxonomy" section talks about Omo more than it does Herto. 216.255.165.198 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Oceania & Denisowa
"A later study found that Herto man and his contemporaries were cranially similar to Oceanians, with Northern Melenesians being the closest"

this is interesting because perhaps exactly over there in Paua is maximum of Denisovan inheritance. Puting a sentence mentionig this with Jacob &a recent papaer would be OK ? Or this inference will be considered as 'original research' ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be original research yes (very much so). And it would make little sense since Herto man is a type/branch of Homo sapiens (a.k.a. in the sense of anatomically modern humans) and has nothing to do with Denisovans, or no more than any other Homo sapiens/AMH do (Denisovans are a separate lineage that diverged in Asia and never lived in Africa.). The cranial similarities (between Oceanians and Herto/Idaltu) could easily be due to things such as convergent evolution and/or the retention of ancestral/early H. sapiens traits in Oceanians (and anyway, there is currently no evidence of/research on, as far as I know, suggesting Denisovan influence on the cranial morphology of Oceanians). Skllagyook (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming art true and it would be "OR". In which field of scientific pursuits would be this "oryginlal research"? Perhaps 'OR' on geography :) to realize that Paupa and Nothern Melanesia may have something in common regarding geographic areas . Compare A) map published in {doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.035} to B) other maps of marking Melanesia (north is up in our times) and maybe you could replicate my 'oryginal research'. If you would try and you could too what is then 'oryginal'.  . Looking on map do you see Denisovan descendants in 3 billion poeoples? There on the green or deep pink areas living peoples who can claim most faithful very old ancestry (prvovite prvi ljudi).
 * Assuming having 2 paper K, L.
 * Assuming having G
 * Object G is in K. Object G is in L.
 * OK i don't going (yet) do such 'WP:OR?' on ...  (i hope it is unnecessery:)


 * Therefore (or without there) addition of paper L is valid.99.90.196.227 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I propose (bolded text is my) following edit:

A later study found that Herto man and his contemporaries were cranially similar to Oceanians, with Northern Melenesians being the closest. 'Ancient DNA from Homo Idalu'' need yet to be recover while ancient DNA related to most cranially similar Northern Melanesian was found in Syberia"".
 * : Again, there is no reason to bring Denisovans into this, and there is no particular reason to believe (nor speculate nor imply, especially in an edit) that the possible cranial similarities between Oceanians/Melanesians and Herto have anything to do with Denisovans at all (as mentioned, Oceanians/Melanesians are only about 3-6% Denisovan; Oceanians/Melanesians are Homo s. sapiens). So again, this addition does not belong in the article. Skllagyook (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

differ from CM, Omo or itself

 * I'm sorry but this does not make sense at all and I do not understand what you are trying to express. It is understood and generally accepted that some Oceanian groups (like Papuans and Melanesians) have a small amount of Denisovan ancestry (about 3-6%), but, as I have tried to explain, that has nothing to do with the topic of this article — which is Herto man — (and, in addition, to assume or speculate in any article that the cranial morphology of Oceanians has anything to do with their very small amounts of Denisovan ancestry, if such a hypothesis has not been proposed by any scientific research/reliable source which one can cite, is indeed WP:OR/original research). But, again (more to the point), Denisovans were a Eurasian hominin (who lived in parts of Asia and possibly parts of Oceania and later bred with Homo sapiens when H. sapiens arrived there) and this Denisovans had nothing to do with Herto man — who was an early type of Homo sapiens who lived in Africa and is considered a likely ancestor (and/or close relative) of all modern humans/H. sapiens groups, not only those in Oceania —, so I'm afraid I do not see the relevance of any of what you have written to this page. Skllagyook (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you "I do not understand what you are trying to express" do you comment on my text or our your misunderstanding. Maybe i move your as flooding & not on subject? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ps im not going to say the Hs idalu == Hs denisova and if so migrated from Asia. And therefore differs from Omo remains (which you purged today) This would (or not) be conclusion the audience(readers) can self capacitate or can't.


 * Denisovans have nothing to do with Herto man. They are not relevant to this article. Skllagyook (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I undid your edit because you (for some reason) had edited the section to say "Omo" when the sources/citations and context (and most of the article itself) were talking about Herto, not Omo. Skllagyook (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * that interesting looking trough history it was first that differ from Homo cro-magnon later that from Homo omo and you did that it differ from itself. Isn't true that Herto is logically synonymous for Idalu ? ANd for the link rigt; i didnt suspect u can change subject of sentence so i linked it only back. (now i know i must double look on your edits to not be decived by common sense) 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Herto" refers to Idaltu (they are the same hominin/the same thing, as the lede explains). Omo is a different but closely related human, and also from Ethiopia but from another site (and both are types of H. sapiens/anatomically modern human/possibly early H. s. sapiens). Skllagyook (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So you know you changed from '"different but closely related"+"also from Ethiopia" to more ambiguous and tautological over-group. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OL we can get maybe explanation for expanding comparison to mammals. So why it is better to compare Idalu ideally to Homo Sapiens not good to early Homo sapiens and the worse to most 4d proximate Homo omo? 99.90.196.227 (talk)

Requested move 24 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Homo sapiens idaltu → Herto Man – The validity of H. s. idaltu is debated, so it's better to use the more neutral "Herto Man" instead. It'd also be more consistent with our other articles of a similar scope, such as Tautavel Man instead of Homo erectus tautavelensis, Peking Man instead of Homo erectus pekinensis, and so on.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shouldn’t this be under H.S Idaltu?
Shouldn’t this be under the title of homo sapien idaltu as that is the scientific name. Or at least have at the very beginning “Herto man aka homo sapien idaltu…” Solri89 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That name is mentioned in the lead, but it's almost never used except by the people who came up with the name. It's also more consistent with our other human subspecies articles, like Peking Man (and not Homo erectus pekinensis), Solo Man (and not Homo erectus soloensis), etc.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

species in infobox
The way the species is laid out in the infobox is pretty confusing. I think(?) its supposed to denote that there's debate over whether Herto Man is homo sapien sapien or homo sapien idaltu, but it reads as though they're different names for the same thing. Cyan-Prince (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean those're the same thing, "H. s. idaltu" has only really been applied to Herto Man Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)