|
|
Re: Genus names
Matthew Hill (mhill@watarts.uwaterloo.ca)
Fri, 24 Feb 1995 22:34:35 GMT
The best evidence I know for australopith tool-making is the Hadar tools
which are significantly older than any so-called Homo specimens.
There is nothing about so-called H. habilis which suggests gross adaptation
(locomotion, foodgetting, etc.) more complex than the other members of the
australopith grade. Why would we assume that the tools found with other
australopiths were made by anybody but those they were found with?
The amount of time wasted on arguing about number of species, genera, clades
lineages and other such stuff amongst hominids before about 1.5 million
years ago probably exceeds the amount of productive thought put into
considering how the variation present among them eventually got pruned into
one species.
If the money spent each year on flying megaegos into the desert to look for
fossils was held up until we have a comprehensive atlas of the specimens
now in hand the field of paleoanthropology would leap ahead.
Matthew Hill (MHILL@WATARTS.UWATERLOO.CA)
Since I'm not a paleoanthropologist, this suggestion has nothing in it for me
except making my survey of human and cultural evolution course a little
easier to teach.
|