Talk:Tchadanthropus uxoris

According to Nature it was a H. sapiens sapiens.--Dustin Asby 13:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The situation is really unclear for someone who is not a specialist, like me. It looks like T. uxoris is treated as a synonym of H. erectus, but that the skull which was found is said to be no more than a few hundred years old. I've changed the article to reflect this uncertain situation, but someone who is more knowledgeable should perhaps take a look. Eugene van der Pijll 18:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not going to check once again whether my correction was reverted again; therefore once again for people interested in correct information: Tchadanthropus uxoris is a typical Homo heidelbergensis as definded since appr. the mid-1990s. Earlier (and by older scholars up to today), Homo heidelbergensis (also called archaic Homo sapiens by some) as a whole, or parts of it, was considered part of Homo erectus, hence the confusion. As for Homo sapiens sapiens (today correctly Homo sapiens), the find cannot be part of Homo sapiens as defined since the mid-1990s because it is too old - 700 000 - 900 000 years. I know this sounds complicated, but you just have to distinguish between the old and the new taxonomy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.168.236.254 (talk • contribs).


 * Can you cite your source? There are two sources in the article now, supporting (a) a classification in H. erectus, and (b) in H. sapiens sapiens. AFAICT, the specimen is just too badly preserved even to measure its approximate age, but if there has been some recent development, we'd like to know. -- Eugène van der Pijll 00:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)