Between Sapiens and Neanderthalensis and Erectus

[morfrain_encilgar]

Some people may hear species names of Homo, that they mignt find confusing, so I have described them here. Many of these names for Homo are rarely used, and use of them can be interchangable between a species, a subspecies of erectus or a subspecies of sapiens. All these forms appear to be closer to us than to Asian erectus, but I have excluded moderns and neanderthals. Often soloensis, rhodesiensis and especially heidelbergensis are used to cover various, archaic forms, and the name "Homo sapiens archaicus" is used in a similar way. At least some of these show multiregionalism with each other, just as modern races interbreed. Since I am doing this list to help understand modern racial origins, I have not listed true Asian erectus (SNG, ZKD etc) or the early African Homo. I may be unaware of other names for these hominids.

helmei (Florisbad) Dreyer 1935
idaltu (Herto) White et al 2003
antecessor (Gran Dolina level TD6) Bermudez de Castro et al 1997
lantianensis or gongwanglingensis (Gongwangling) Wu/Woo 1964
daliensis (Dali) Wu Xinzhi 1981
mauretanicus (Ternefine) Arambourg 1954
tautavelensis (Arago) de Lumley and de Lumley 1979
paleohungaricus (Vertesszolos) Thoma 1966
steinheimensis (Steinheim) Berckhemer 1934
bilzingslebensis (Bilzingsleben) Vlcek 1978
petraloniensis (Petralona) Poulianos 1967
heidelbergensis (Mauer) Schoetensack 1908
soloensis (Ngangdong) Oppenoort 1932
narmadensis (Narmada) Sonakia 1984
rhodesiensis (Kabwe) Woodward 1921
palestinus (Qafzeh) McCown and Keith 1932
njarensis (Eyasi) Reck and Kohl-Larsen 1936
kanamensis (Kanam) Leakey 1935
caprensis (Ceprano) Callegni et al 2003
reilingensis (Reilingen) Czarnetski 1989

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

I want to see someone fit the Rhodesian skull and extra-cranial material into a framework of H. sapiens or erectus. Please, someone, make this monster make sense.

[morfrain_encilgar]

I want to see someone fit the Rhodesian skull and extra-cranial material into a framework of H. sapiens or erectus. Please, someone, make this monster make sense.

I think Kabwe represents a hybrid between a form on the lineage leading to moderns, with a more archaic race (or species) associated with the African early MSA. Kabwe is associated with Sangoan, which is derived from the Acheulian, tool industry.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

If the Rhodesian material is a hybrid between a sapiens and non-sapiens, to what species did the non-sapiens portion belong. Also, by what reasoning do you attribute sapiens ancestry to any of it?

[morfrain_encilgar]

If the Rhodesian material is a hybrid between a sapiens and non-sapiens, to what species did the non-sapiens portion belong. Also, by what reasoning do you attribute sapiens ancestry to any of it?

I would say that the non-sapiens ancestry is from an archaic of the grade that some call "heidelbergensis". But, I can't say properly at the moment why I attribute sapiens ancestry to Kabwe, sorry.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

As I recall, the Broken Hill skull has no jaw and the Heidelberg jaw is only a jaw. So, the question is: do they matchup or are they close? It seems to me that someone made this comparison somewhere.

[morfrain_encilgar]

As I recall, the Broken Hill skull has no jaw and the Heidelberg jaw is only a jaw. So, the question is: do they matchup or are they close? It seems to me that someone made this comparison somewhere.

I was referring to heidelbergensis as it is used to describe a "grade", not a lineage. In this sense all that is requied is a lack of shared characters with more modern lineages, and more shared characters than with erectus.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

This is the whole problem with "grades". If they don't imply genetic relationship, then of what use are they? Your word "linage" does imply genetic relationship, at least in my mind. Grade may imply a set of morphological characteristics but, again, if they have no basis or an unproven basis in an actual genetic relationship, then don't these grade designations only serve to confuse matters?

[morfrain_encilgar]

This is the whole problem with "grades". If they don't imply genetic relationship, then of what use are they? Your word "linage" does imply genetic relationship, at least in my mind. Grade may imply a set of morphological characteristics but, again, if they have no basis or an unproven basis in an actual genetic relationship, then don't these grade designations only serve to confuse matters?

Yes, but that is the only way to describe this in this case. A grade here shares common ancestry but does not include the descendants.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

I think the biggest problem in Anthropology is anthropologists who make distictions, using Latin wording, which have no meaning in biology. Somehow, Anthropology and Biology must come together. Recently, I saw Meve Leakey (or however her name is spelled) doing just what her husband and father-in-law did for years, this same trick of giving everything she finds a new Latin name. Latin names ought to mean something and that "something" means something phylogenetic.

An anthropologist once told me that "we" are trained to "follow along" (in her words) but not to do the research ourselves. This was in 1975. Everything which has happened since has only make her statement stronger. I love Anthropology, but if I had to do it over again, I would have followed a science of more rigor and used this to further anthropological work.