Re: Questions about Cro Magnon
Patricia Lynn Sothman (plsothma@artsci.wustl.edu)
14 Feb 1995 03:10:25 GMT
Phil Nicholls (pn8886@csc.albany.edu) wrote:
: In article <3hjgph$3t9@newsreader.wustl.edu>,
: Patricia Lynn Sothman <plsothma@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
: >Point of general interest: if you are referring to Neandertals in the
: >specific or subspecific sense, the proper term is "neanderthalensis" not
: >neandertalis. Neanderthalensis has taxonomic precedence over every other
: >subspecific or specific name.
: >
: Point of general interest. There is NOT universal agreement on the
: placement of neaderthals with Homo sapiens. As we find more and more
: materials in the 200,000 to 30,000 year range it seems reasonable that
: there many have been several species of Homo, neanderthals being one
: of the later ones.
: --
: Philip "Chris" Nicholls Department of Anthropology
: Institute for Hydrohominoid Studies SUNY Albany
: University of Ediacara pn8886@cnsunix.albany.edu
: "Semper Alouatta"
I fully recognize that many people do not place Neandertals within Homo
sapiens. If you fully read my post carefully, you will recognize that I
said "referring to Neandertals in the *specific* OR subspecific sense".
William King was the first person to taxonomically separate Neandertals
from Homo sapiens in 1864, his designation was Homo neanderthalensis.
Thus neanderthalensis has taxonomic precedence whether separating them
from H.sapiens or including them as a morphosubspecies within Homo sapiens.
It is apparent that Philip "Chirs" Nicholls and myself are going to
disagree on species questions, that doesn't bother me. What bothers me
is his lack of carefully reading the post to see that I included both
specific and subspecific, implying that there is a controversy over the
designation of Neandertals.
King W (1864) The reputed fossil man of the Neanderthal. Quart. J. Sci.
88-97.
Patricia L. Sothman
Dept. Anthropology
Washington University, St. Louis
|