Re: More on British hominid fossil

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Cameron Laird: "How did we become bipedal?"
• Previous message: Stanley Friesen: "Re: Early diets"
• Maybe in reply to: Pete Vincent: "More on British hominid fossil"

In article <2rghvc$cot@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, 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).

-- 

NAMES: sarima@netcom.com swf@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com


May the peace of God be with you.

• Next message: Cameron Laird: "How did we become bipedal?"
• Previous message: Stanley Friesen: "Re: Early diets"
• Maybe in reply to: Pete Vincent: "More on British hominid fossil"