Re: More on British hominid fossil

Stanley Friesen (
Thu, 26 May 1994 04:49:50 GMT

In article <2rghvc$>, Pete Vincent <VINCENT@ERICH> wrote:
>`... The newspaper account I read said it was closely
>`related to Homo Hiedelburgis, as I've never heard ogf Heidelburgis,I suspect
>`a case of journalistic confusion. Sorry I don't know anymore, ...

Just a minor spelling error. The name should be H. heidelbergensis.
^ ^^^^^
It is the name given to what older literature tends to call
"archaic Homo sapiens", which at least some people are now
treating as a seperate species (for what I consider to be good
reasons). [The older literature also sometimes treats the
taxon as a subspecies - Homo sapiens heidelbergensis or
H. erectus heidelbergensis depending on biases].

This series of forms is known to be ancestral to the neanderthals,
and is presumed to be the ancestors of modern humans (Homo
sapiens in the strict sense).


May the peace of God be with you.