Re: New Chinese fossil hominid at about 1.9 million ..

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: David Froehlich: "Re: Alex's gibbon-like CA"
• Previous message: Phillip Bigelow: "Re: Aquatic eccrine sweating ref request, was Re: tears"
• Maybe in reply to: Ralph L Holloway: "New Chinese fossil hominid at about 1.9 million .."
• Next in thread: Harry Erwin: "Re: New Chinese fossil hominid at about 1.9 million .."

Depends on who you ask. There is still a lot of controversy (even here
at the University of Michigan) about whether H. erectus should even be
a separate species. And if not, then the earliest specimen (which I
think you meant instead of latest) of H. erectus/H. sapien is around 1.8
myr. Granted it would not make sense for everyone to move out of Africa
and then back in, but I suppose deciding where the Homo line starts and
the Australopithecine line ends is going to be one of those long lasting
controversies in paleoanthropology. The problem as I see it is that now
with the newest finds in China (as in the new hominid teeth as well as a
new species of primate ancestral even to Eosimias) there will be little
to no specimens of relative importance coming out of Africa to either
prove or disprove any theories.

My 2 cents,
Jeremy Hill
University of Michigan

• Next message: David Froehlich: "Re: Alex's gibbon-like CA"
• Previous message: Phillip Bigelow: "Re: Aquatic eccrine sweating ref request, was Re: tears"
• Maybe in reply to: Ralph L Holloway: "New Chinese fossil hominid at about 1.9 million .."
• Next in thread: Harry Erwin: "Re: New Chinese fossil hominid at about 1.9 million .."