3 ms·
This is a very strange sentence: "Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m years ago and includes modern humans." That is not a normal way to
by lkrubner 13y ago
This is a very strange sentence:
"Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m years ago and includes modern humans."
That is not a normal way to describe the ancestry of humans. In between apes and humans were the Australopithecus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
The genus homo is usually said to have started with homo habilis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
Normally one doesn't refer to one genus as being part of another genus.
Also the date "2.4m years ago" is controversial. If homo habilis is reclassified as australopithecus, then the genus homo emerges much more recently than 2.4 million years ago.
- pygy_ 13y ago> "Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m years ago and includes modern humans." This implies that we are apes. Quoting Wikipedia: The composition of a genus is determined by a taxonomist. The standards for genus classification are not strictly codified, so different authorities often produce different classifications for genera.
- jswhitten 13y agoIt is correct. Homo is a genus of great apes. It emerged around 2.4 million years ago. And it does include modern humans (Homo Sapiens). I'm not sure which part you're taking issue with? > Normally one doesn't refer to one genus as being part of another genus. That's right. Australopithecus and Homo are different genera. > between apes and humans Not sure what you're saying here. Humans and Australopithecines are both apes.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]