Comments on: Another Homo in the family! http://anthropology.net/2010/05/21/another-homo-in-the-family/ Beyond bones & stones Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:33:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: fred http://anthropology.net/2010/05/21/another-homo-in-the-family/#comment-18635 Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:44:56 +0000 http://anthropology.net/?p=3258#comment-18635 Loved the title!

]]> By: onix http://anthropology.net/2010/05/21/another-homo-in-the-family/#comment-18435 Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:15:03 +0000 http://anthropology.net/?p=3258#comment-18435 i lolled a bit at ‘in the same cave’. agree that the missing link and new species effects are obviously overrated. i think genetic and sexual variance has usually been greater then we tend to get scientifically clear. so i throw it on the increasing nr of finds of a few rare and old species. on a sidenote morphologic variance between the two sexes in fact is still greater then what anthropological research appears to regard as standard. it’s just not allways (..)

]]> By: Neuroview: Ralph Holloway « Nucleo di ricerca evoluzione cerebrale e paleoneurologia http://anthropology.net/2010/05/21/another-homo-in-the-family/#comment-17585 Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:48:31 +0000 http://anthropology.net/?p=3258#comment-17585 [...] del record fossile per Neandertaliani e Homo erectus, i nuovi Australopithecus/Homo (i.e., sediba, gautengensis), forse “Ardi”, e persino il dannato hobbit LB1, Homo floresiensis, erano basicamente [...]

]]> By: Josh Peabody http://anthropology.net/2010/05/21/another-homo-in-the-family/#comment-17569 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:31:12 +0000 http://anthropology.net/?p=3258#comment-17569 I wouldn’t call it a recent trend antrhopogentetics. From at least Piltdown forward it seems to be the way of things. The problem may have been exacerbated with the onset of goverment and other funding sources that highly prize the “missing link” approach to paleoanthropology. After the tenth habilene the money start to dry-up because no one wants to pay for more or better information on what we think we already know. On-the-other-hand these people are highly trained, the conflict between genetics and morphology aside, the debate has driven the question of defining species possibly more than any other.

]]> By: thew0lf http://anthropology.net/2010/05/21/another-homo-in-the-family/#comment-17485 Fri, 28 May 2010 05:08:59 +0000 http://anthropology.net/?p=3258#comment-17485 Sad but true. When people (or myself in general) read “new species” it doesn’t sound so attracting anymore.

- http://thew0lf.wordpress.com/

]]> By: Prancing Papio, FCD http://anthropology.net/2010/05/21/another-homo-in-the-family/#comment-17450 Sun, 23 May 2010 09:10:48 +0000 http://anthropology.net/?p=3258#comment-17450 Right. Variation should be taken into consideration when comparing fossils, especially when you only have one specimen (partial skull to say the least). However, I think in the academic/science circle, it is always a race to be the first to publish so that you get the credit for the years to come. So without a doubt, we will always see claims of “new species” or worse “missing link”.

]]> By: anthrogenetics http://anthropology.net/2010/05/21/another-homo-in-the-family/#comment-17448 Sun, 23 May 2010 02:19:29 +0000 http://anthropology.net/?p=3258#comment-17448 Clearly, the recent trend in Paleoanthropology is to claim a discovery of new species of our ancestors. However, STW 53 seems too incomplete to make such a big claim?

]]>