Talk:Homo luzonensis

Callao Man
I don't think there is much more information on Callao Man, besides what is already up here. I think we need to wait for more research to surface from that area in the Philippines. JiMatthies (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What story in callao man in Mindanao? 209.35.161.233 (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I added another way that Callao Man could have gotten to the Philippines - over a land bridge. JiMatthies (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to cite correctly? The help page is vague, and my teacher doesn't know either. JiMatthies (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't they know if it was human or not?Jetulacka (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They don;'t know if it was human or not because it is too old to be able to tell. The bone could have been homo sapien or homo floriensis. JiMatthies (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

good job on page :) Learned something new on your page. I didn't know what Callao Man was. Anpatton (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)anpatton

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Callao Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100804040818/http://www.gmanews.tv/story/197541/researchers-discover-fossil-of-human-older-than-tabon-man to http://www8.gmanews.tv/story/197541/researchers-discover-fossil-of-human-older-than-tabon-man

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: '''Snow support to move. I also hist-merged Neutrality's original start prior to redirect just in case. --M asem (t) 21:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)''' M asem  (t) 21:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Callao Man → Homo luzonensis – see below EdwardLane (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC) should this be renamed based on this BBC Article pushing the name into the public domain ?also not sure if there if that link is useful as a reliable source? EdwardLane (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The name of the genus Homo is derived from the Latin word homo [hɔmoː], engl. man or human. The epithet luzonensis is reminiscent of the location of the type specimen in a cave on the Philippine island of Luzon. Homo luzonensis thus means "Luzon man" (and not Callao Man). Please move the name to either "Homo luzonensis" or "Luzon man". --Hemeier (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I support moving to the published scientific name. Before the recent study was published, only 1 bone was found so "Callao Man" is a good title as any. But now that more bones have been found and belonging to 3 individuals, the current title is now outdated. In addition, none of the news articles I've read use the current title but instead use the scientific name. —seav (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move to Homo luzonensis - seems sensible in light of the formal description in the Nature article. Neutralitytalk 15:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Even though the scientific name is tentative, it is more well known than "Callao Man". TomS TDotO (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the name that is commonly used in reliable sources (WP:COMMONNAME) is Homo luzonensis. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - scientific and more common name. -Zanhe (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Close and move as not controversial.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Also, the foreign language equivalents of "Callao Man" should probably be omitted per MOS:FORLANG: the subject is international, though located in the Philippines. Also, note WP:REFERSTO. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

sapiens?
"The scientific description of the fossil in 2010 identified the fossil as belonging to H. sapiens. In 2011, fossil phalanges from the finger and toe, along with five fossil molars, were discovered and were also attributed to H. sapiens." really? stefjourdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.210.233.241 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Species articles written in singular form
This article is about a single species and therefore should be written in the singular form, not the plural. See Homo sapiens, Australopithecus afarensis, and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) for other hominin examples. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean there's no real prescribed policy on using singular vs plural (just that you stay consistent within the article), but if we're trying to set a precedent for archaic humans, Neanderthal, which just got to GA yesterday, uses plural  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 12:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I've continued the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)