Talk:Human taxonomy
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Merger
[edit]This would work well as a table in human article, but doesn't really deserve it's own article. Fallsend 01:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's really already there with the taxobox, though this page does add to that by explaining what each of the sections means and what it relates to. It could be educational as an introduction to taxonomy and the evolutionary position of humans relative to other animals. This page could actually be expanded by incorporating a historical perspective on how humans were treated taxonomically in the past. It needs work, but it could be encyclopedic and worthwhile. If we keep it, it should be moved to Human taxonomy (lowercase t). --Aranae 06:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree, even worse, this barely deserves to exist at all. There is no content, no value to this at all. So many unreferenced paragraphs, and only one reference in ref section. This should be a delete. Nothing here is not already in the Homo sapiens article. --Tallard (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
A human possible classification
[edit]- Systema: Naturae
- Superdomain: Biota
- Domain: Eucytota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
- Branch: Bilateria
- Grade: Deuterostomia
- Infrakingdom: Chordonia
- Phylum: Chordata
- Subphylum: Vertebrata
- Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
- Superclass: Tetrapoda
- Clade: Amniota
- Subclade: Mammaliaformes
- Class: Mammalia
- Sublcass: Theriiformes
- Infraclass: Holotheria
- Superlegion: Trechnotheria
- Legion: Cladotheria
- Sublegion: Zatheria
- Infralegion: Tribosphenida
- Supercohort: Theria
- Cohort: Placentalia
- Magnorder: Epitheria
- Superorder: Preptotheria
- Grandorder: Archonta
- Order: Primates
- Suborder: Euprimates
- Infraorder: Haplorhini
- Parvorder: Anthropoidea
- Superfamily: Cercopithecoidea
- Family: Hominidae
- Subfamily: Homininae
- Tribe: Hominini
- Subtribe: Hominina
- Genus: Homo
- Species: Sapiens
- Subspecies: Sapiens
- Variety: Cro-magnon
- Form: (all the human forms (races) descanting from the Cro-magnon "strain"; like hispanic, caucasian, semitic, etc...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.3.168.101 (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
- Variety: Cro-magnon
- Subspecies: Sapiens
- Species: Sapiens
- Genus: Homo
- Subtribe: Hominina
- Tribe: Hominini
- Subfamily: Homininae
- Family: Hominidae
- Superfamily: Cercopithecoidea
- Parvorder: Anthropoidea
- Infraorder: Haplorhini
- Suborder: Euprimates
- Order: Primates
- Grandorder: Archonta
- Superorder: Preptotheria
- Magnorder: Epitheria
- Cohort: Placentalia
- Supercohort: Theria
- Infralegion: Tribosphenida
- Sublegion: Zatheria
- Legion: Cladotheria
- Superlegion: Trechnotheria
- Infraclass: Holotheria
- Sublcass: Theriiformes
- Class: Mammalia
- Subclade: Mammaliaformes
- Clade: Amniota
- Superclass: Tetrapoda
- Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
- Subphylum: Vertebrata
- Phylum: Chordata
- Infrakingdom: Chordonia
- Grade: Deuterostomia
- Branch: Bilateria
- Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Domain: Eucytota
- Superdomain: Biota
Actually, I agree with that. Independently I got: Biota (All life) Magnodomain Cytota
Superdomain Neomura
Domain Eukarya
Subdomain Unikonta
Superkingdom Opisthokonts
Kingdom Animalia/Metozoa
Subkingdom Bilateria
[Branch] Deuterostomia
Infrakingdom Chordonia
Phylum Chordata
Subphylum Vertebrata
Infraphylum Gnathostomata
Superclass Tetrapoda
[Series] Amniota
Mammaliaformes
Class Mammalia
Subclass Theriiformes
Infraclass Holotheria
Superlegion Trechnotheria
Legion Cladotheria
Sublegion Zatheria
Infralegion Tribosphenida
Supercohort Theria
Cohort Placentalia/Eutheria
Magnorder Euarchontoglires
Superorder Euarchonta
Grandorder Archonta
Order Primata
Suborder Haplorrhini
Infraorder Semiiformes
Parvorder Catarrhini
Superfamily Hominoidea
Family Hominidae
Subfamily Homininae
Tribe Hominini
Subtribe Hominina
Genus Homo
Species Homo sapiens
Subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens
alexllew 11:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Similar article, merge?
[edit]I've written a similar article in my user area: User:Johntobey/Human_evolutionary_pedigree. Perhaps its content could be included under Human_taxonomy#Extended_scientific_classification or published separately? (Under what name?) Differences from the hierarchy on this page:
- Images, time estimates, and links to sister taxa.
- Inline citations on times and alternative hypotheses.
- Extinct taxa excluded; focus on relationship to extant taxa.
- Reverse chronological order, starting with the familiar.
--Johntobey (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sapiens
[edit]The Latin sapiens may mean wise, but it is more at palatable. Either way, we still consider it MISNOMER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- An... interesting observation. Indeed sapio primarily means "to taste"; but then sapiens is "tasting", not "tasty" (as in Homo edulis, which might have been the species name chosen if taxonomy had been developed by sabre-tooth tigers). --dab (𒁳) 06:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Not enough Taxobox categories
[edit]I think that the Taxobox needs to be altered, because there are not enough classifications for each to be used exactly once in the correct place. If the majority are "unranked", then we should be able to just use one "unranked" classification for all unranked ones. User:BrendanRizzo, at 2015 October 30, 23:29 UTC
Homo troglodytes
[edit]Homo troglodytes redirects here, but is not mentioned in the body of the article.
I'd be willing to take a shot at integrating a sentence or two (at least to explain how scientific names are proposed), but would defer to someone with expertise in the field. ZeppoShemp (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Up-to-date taxonomic classification
[edit]The taxonomic classification at the top of the article says that it is "following John Edward Gray (1825)." I have to wonder if that matches the currently conventional classification. If it is the same, the caption should say so. If it is not, we should get a figure which represents the current consensus and remove the existing one. Best, Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Linnaeus as type specimen for H. sapiens
[edit]Page watchers are invited to weigh in at the discussion at Talk:Carl Linnaeus#Type specimen regarding the type specimen of H. sapiens. Umimmak (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Homo erectus
[edit]The article states, "Homo erectus is widely recognized as the species directly ancestral to Homo sapiens." This contradicts the Homo erectus article that states, "If considering Homo erectus in its strict sense (that is, as referring to only the Asian variety) no consensus has been reached as to whether it is ancestral to H. sapiens or any later human species." The statement in the Homo erectus article has a "citation needed" tag. The statement in this article has no citation directly after it. Are the sources of a following sentence meant to be a source for the statement that Homo erectus is widely recognized as the direct ancestor of Homo sapiens? Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- C-Class taxonomic articles
- Low-importance taxonomic articles
- WikiProject Tree of Life articles
- C-Class Evolutionary biology articles
- Low-importance Evolutionary biology articles
- WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
- C-Class Archaeology articles
- Low-importance Archaeology articles
- C-Class Anthropology articles
- Low-importance Anthropology articles
- C-Class Palaeontology articles
- Low-importance Palaeontology articles
- C-Class Palaeontology articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Palaeontology articles
- C-Class Primate articles
- Low-importance Primate articles
- WikiProject Primates articles