4 ms·

In the ongoing debate between the "lumpers" and the "splitters" the splitters are now looking well justified in their belief that you can't take every fossil an

In the ongoing debate between the "lumpers" and the "splitters" the splitters are now looking well justified in their belief that you can't take every fossil and lump into a broad category known as "homo erectus". Ian Tattersal has been a leader of the splitters for many years now, and the basic arguments of his books are looking fairly good right now: https://www.amazon.com/Extinct-Humans-Ian-Tattersall/dp/0813334829/ https://www.amazon.com/Extinct-Humans-Ian-Tattersall/dp/0813... Mind you, so many discoveries have been made recently that each of these books tends to go obsolete quickly in so far as they try to tell a specific story based on the fossils known in a particular year. However, the overall argument for the splitters, that the "homo" genus has many branches, just like any other successful genus, is a strong argument that is reinforced by these recent finds. I link to one of Ian Tattersal's books where he clearly made the argument for the splitters, and did a good job of it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Retric 5y ago
It’s arguable that many existing branches should be consolidated into Homo sapiens including Neanderthals and Denisovans based on generic information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_and_modern_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_... As such the lumpers have real support based on current generic information. Anatomically distinct branches aren’t enough to declare something a different species. Discovery however favors splitters as prestige follows from discovery of new branches of humanity.
- msrenee 5y ago
  I'd expect that kind of rhetoric from one of you lumpers. Seriously though, the more I learn about speciation, the more I realize how imperfect our system is at categorizing life. Obviously lots of cases are pretty clear-cut, but there's so many examples where you almost have to treat every population as its own distinct entity. My definition of species honestly changes depending on the context. For conservation efforts, if you don't look at the separation and genetic distinctness between populations which would happily interbreed if it weren't for geographical restraints, you're liable to lose both genetic diversity and location-specific genetic adaptations that may be present in one population. For human evolution, I don't know what it really matters whether we call it one species or twelve. It's a very artificial system that will never be 100% agreed upon by experts. Being hominid fossils, they'll be studied intently down to the tiniest sliver of bone no matter where they're placed taxonomically. We all like nice, neat categories, but life is much messier than our naming system wants it to be and I'm not sure I really care where we draw these lines. If I'm missing a good reason for it, please educate me.
  - Retric 5y ago
    IMO, experts will understand any popular system and are happy to use multiple systems in different contexts. So, really it’s non experts who benefit from clear an consistent labeling. In respect to species the least ambitious definition is groups of related organisms that exchange genetic information. Ring species for example can exchange beneficial mutations from the edges of each branch through intermediaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species In that context hominids may have had many distinct populations based on survival skills for their local environment and geographic barriers which is enough for adaption to local conditions to take place, but exchanges between groups would still genetically link distant populations across thousands of generations. A<>B<>C<> … Y<>Z For example it’s extremely unlikely that nobody crossed the Bering Strait even just from 1,000 BC to 1BC. Let alone 10,000 BC to 1492.
- beowulfey 5y ago
  What is “generic” information? You used this term twice but I am not sure what that means in this context.
  - czzr 5y ago
    They meant “genetic”

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Retric 5y ago

It’s arguable that many existing branches should be consolidated into Homo sapiens including Neanderthals and Denisovans based on generic information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_and_modern_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_... As such the lumpers have real support based on current generic information. Anatomically distinct branches aren’t enough to declare something a different species. Discovery however favors splitters as prestige follows from discovery of new branches of humanity.

msrenee 5y ago
I'd expect that kind of rhetoric from one of you lumpers. Seriously though, the more I learn about speciation, the more I realize how imperfect our system is at categorizing life. Obviously lots of cases are pretty clear-cut, but there's so many examples where you almost have to treat every population as its own distinct entity. My definition of species honestly changes depending on the context. For conservation efforts, if you don't look at the separation and genetic distinctness between populations which would happily interbreed if it weren't for geographical restraints, you're liable to lose both genetic diversity and location-specific genetic adaptations that may be present in one population. For human evolution, I don't know what it really matters whether we call it one species or twelve. It's a very artificial system that will never be 100% agreed upon by experts. Being hominid fossils, they'll be studied intently down to the tiniest sliver of bone no matter where they're placed taxonomically. We all like nice, neat categories, but life is much messier than our naming system wants it to be and I'm not sure I really care where we draw these lines. If I'm missing a good reason for it, please educate me.
- Retric 5y ago
  IMO, experts will understand any popular system and are happy to use multiple systems in different contexts. So, really it’s non experts who benefit from clear an consistent labeling. In respect to species the least ambitious definition is groups of related organisms that exchange genetic information. Ring species for example can exchange beneficial mutations from the edges of each branch through intermediaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species In that context hominids may have had many distinct populations based on survival skills for their local environment and geographic barriers which is enough for adaption to local conditions to take place, but exchanges between groups would still genetically link distant populations across thousands of generations. A<>B<>C<> … Y<>Z For example it’s extremely unlikely that nobody crossed the Bering Strait even just from 1,000 BC to 1BC. Let alone 10,000 BC to 1492.
beowulfey 5y ago
What is “generic” information? You used this term twice but I am not sure what that means in this context.
- czzr 5y ago
  They meant “genetic”