Talk:Homo rhodesiensis

Moved
Moved info from Rhodesian Man here to break up species info from fossil info and make the naming convention consistent with other human evolution articles. See Talk:Rhodesian Man for more info. Nowimnthing 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mind the Gap
Earlier H sapiens (very early modern human subspecies) are confirmed genetically at 300-330,000 years. The oldest sapiens tools are 330,000 years old. Safe to say the gap shows a possible decline of H rhodesiensis about 400 to 300,000 years ago with humans as an offshoot in Southern Africa. By 250,000 sapiens totally replaces rhodesiensis as the humanoid species in Africa apart from hominid apes. It’s not so much a real paleopopulation gap but rather a knowledge gap, an illusionary space.
 * Also, Rhodesia is now called Zimbabwe officially. But species names do not change if the location they’re name after does. It may be prudent for scientists concerned with this species’ authenticity to review this. *My colleagues and I firmly support H. rhodesiensis as a natural species with modern humanity speciating from a subspecies of it 300-340,000 years ago, as suggested by genetic trends and mutations in our ancestry at the time.

Please contact my colleagues John S, Elijah S, Martin W or Whitney B for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.250.196.234 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Homo sapiens?
Why does "Archaic Homo sapiens" link to Homo rhodiensis? Kortoso (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This redirect is obviously wrong, particularly as rhodesiensis is now regarded by many palaeontologists as another name for heidelbergensis, which is considered pre-sapiens. However there is no good alternative so far as I can see. One possiblity would be Human, which briefly mentions the (disputed) archaic homo sapiens species. Another would be to redirect to an disambig page which lists the candidates, such as Omo remains, Homo sapiens idaltu and Skhul and Qafzeh hominids. Best of all of course would be for someone to create a good article on archaic homo sapiens. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they are considered to be a subspecies of Homo sapien still, much like H. heid. They're just similar and different from H. sapien sapiens that they can be considered either.137.118.104.149 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * H. Heid is not a sub species of H. sapiens, they are definitely distinct dental, cranial, and temporally. Any opinion otherwise is a fringe viewpoint. The. Bpod (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge with H. heidelbergensis?
Is mainstream paleontology agreed enough on this matter that the world can tolerate Wikipedia merging articles on Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis? Kortoso (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No. (Even four years after your posting) It's useful in my opinion to keep the taxon/wiki active, with recognition of the redundancy with Heidelbergensis; it refers only to African finds; there may not be enough Heidelberg examples to distinguish the species — and in this regard the community is far from consensus — particularly in light of 2016 DNA results for the Sima de los Huesos hominins showing strong affinity for Neandertal (when they were previously assumed to be Heidelbergs) and casting doubt on how Heidelbergensis fits. Still a muddle in the middle. Bpod (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So why is it now merged by someone that didn't even enter the discussion page? I'm removing the merging and hope it will not be reinstalled without proper concertation on this talk page. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Quick merge - Taxonomic junior synonyms should not have articles under any circumstances. The short length of the Homo heidelbergensis article certainly doesn't warrant a split either. If you can't provide sources that indicate any modern scientists use this as a valid taxon, there is no argument for keeping the article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge. Kabwe 1 was the type specimen for rhodesiensis, but the Smithsonian at and Chris Stringer and Peter Andrews in The Complete World of Human Evolution, pp. 148-9, discuss it as heidelbergensis, while mentioning the older view. Alice Roberts' The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being and Steve Parker's Evolution: The Whole Story list heidelbergensis but not rhodesiensis in the index. A search of Google Scholar shows no 21st century source which treats rhodesienis as valid (apart from a passing remark in a 2007 PhD thesis). Scientific opinion is sufficiently settled for a merge. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No. As Bpod argues. I also think it is useful to have articles about hominin subspecies or regional variants of hominin species and their scientific history. / Achird (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge, of course. Technically, split, as Kabwe 1 can well be a separate page on the specific fossil, if anyone is willing to put in the work. It is tiresome when perfectly straightforward merges (which take work, I invested a couple of hours into doing it properly) is undone by editors who have no apparent interest in the topic, purely for some pointless ruleslawyering, which will leave the article broken for months after the problem has been looked at and fixed. If a knowledgeable user is unhappy with a change and is willing to specify the concern, fine, WP:BRD. This is different, it's pure disruption by editors who aren't even pretending to invest any time or effort. --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

So, what now? As far as I can see, this is not a content dispute, merely disagreement on an editorial decision. It would be possible to keep a separate page on "regional variants", if someone invested the work to supply sufficient detail to keep such a page. We do not need a separate page merely to state that this is the name given to the African variant. Could the people wishing to have a separate article please put in the effort to build said separate article? --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think such a split would only be warranted if the combined article became too long. But as is, both are fairly short (or at least short enough that all information in them could be covered in one article). FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears Rhodesiensis is more sapiens linked, while heidelbergensis is more neanderthal linked? 10.1073pnas.0904119106 Jmv2009 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge Homo bodoensis
Homo bodoensis → Homo rhodesiensis User:Dunkleosteus77 User talk:Dunkleosteus77 02:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * H. bodoensis was sketchy from its inception since it very clearly violates priority with H. rhodesiensis and "H. saldanensis", and doesn't take any steps to resolve any of the issues actually plaguing H. heidelbergensis or H. rhodesiensis. Now, we have published rebuttals which very strongly refuse to acknowledge it, Muddying the muddle in the middle even more and The naming of Homo bodoensis by Roksandic and colleagues does not resolve issues surrounding Middle Pleistocene human evolution User:Dunkleosteus77 User talk:Dunkleosteus77 02:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. I suggest merging Bodo cranium into that same article while you are at it. The dubiousness of H. bodoensis as a species seems pretty widespread, and I can't find any recent papers acknowledging it as something other than a junior synonym. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom and SilverTiger12. Deffo chuck the cranium into the merger. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks as though there is consensus for the merge, so if someone wants to complete it, I think you're clear. Joyous! | Talk 04:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Jargon
Some of the article looks as though it has been written exclusively for erudite people—who don't really need Wikipedia anyway. I can imagine what an LCA might be, but it ought to be spelt out properly by somebody who actually knows.

But Homo rhodesiensis s.s.? H. heidelbergensis s.s.? H. heidelbergensis s.l?

Nulla virtus est in fumo et speculis! - Frans Fowler (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)