Nomina

Details

Remarks

Bonde (2012) proposed a new genus, Afaranthropus with Homo antiquus Ferguson, 1984 as the type species. Homo antiquus is based on A.L. 288-1 as the type specimen. Homo antiquus is available but invalid because the name is pre-occupied by Homo antiquus Adloff, 1908. Article 67.2 of the Code indicates that a nominal species may be used as a type species for a genus if it is "cited in the original publication by an available name." Homo antiquus is so cited and available, thus Afaranthropus is potentially valid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Dryer (1935) established the sub-genus, Africanthopus as Homo (Africanthropus) helmei, with the Florisbad skull as the holotype. Campbell (1965) recognizes the genus as available, as does Groves (1989) who treats it as a subjective junior synonym to Homo. Keith (1938) provides an early description of the Florisbad specimen. Bruner and Lombard (2020) provide and updated review of the morphology and phylogenetic interpretations.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Reck & Kohl-Larsen (1936) established the name Paleoanthropus njarasensis for the Eyasi 1 specimen. Weinert (1938) proposed moving the species to a new genus as Africanthropus njarasensis (Reck & Kohl-Larsen, 1936) Wienert, 1938. However, the latter genus is a junior homonym to Homo (Africanthropus) helmei Dryer, 1935 established for the Florisbad skull. Africanthropus Wienert, 1938 is therefore available but objectively invalid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Blainville (1838) established Anthropopithecus troglodytes, in reference to chimpanzees.

Brinton (1885) uses the name "anthropopithecus" in reference to ape-man and in contrast to "anthropus" for man. Brinton uses the name informally and not as a proposal for a new taxon.

Dubois (1892) used the genus name Anthropopithecus in a quarterly field report describing the initial finds from Trinil, and especially the partial cranium (calotte) referred to as Trinil 2 or "Skull 1". Dubois (1894) subsequently moved erectus to the genus Pithecanthropus.

Campbell (1965) noted that Anthropopithecus is an objective junior synonym for Pan Oken, 1816, as determined by a decision of the ICZN in case 1368 (Tubbs, 1985). The genus name is therefore available but objectively invalid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Brinton (1885) uses the name "anthropopithecus" in reference to ape-man and in contrast to "anthropus" for man. Brinton uses the name informally and not as a proposal for a new taxon.

Dubois (1892) in a quarterly field report describes the discovery of a femur, and in that same report introduces the name Anthropopithecus erectus specifically for the partial cranium (calotte) referred to as Trinil 2 or "Skull 1".

Campbell (1965) lists the name as potentially valid and notes that the genus name Anthropopithecus was established by Blainville (1838) for the chimpanzee as Anthropopithecus troglodytes, but Anthropopithecus is an objective junior synonym for Pan Oken, 1816. Dubois (1894) subsequently moved erectus to the genus Pithecanthropus.

Meikle and Parker (1994) provide a full translation of Dubois's (1892) report.

Pithecanthropus erectus is widely considered a subjective junior synonym of Homo erectus (LeGros Clark, 1964; Groves, 1989; Maclatchey et al. 2010). The latter name, and thus the species epithet, 'erectus', is widely used today and generally considered valid.

See reviews by Rightmire (1981), Leonard (1997), Anton (2003) for opinions about the hypodigm for the taxon.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Boyd-Dawkins (1926) proposed Anthropus with Homo neanderthalensis as the type species. Campbell (1965) and Groves (1989) both list Anthropous neanderthalensis (King, 1864) Boyd-Dawkins, 1926 as an available, objective junior synonym of Homo neanderthalensis King, 1864.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Weinert (1937, p.112) established Anthropus to accommodate the Mauer mandible as Anthropus heidelbergensis (Shoetensack, 1908) Weinert, 1937. However, Anthropus Wienert, 1937 is a junior homonym to Anthropus neanderthalensis Boyd-Dawkins, 1926. The name is therefore available but objectively invalid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Arldt (1915) established the genus Archanthropus in reference to neanderthals (see below). The genus is an objective junior synonym of Homo neanderthalensis (King, 1864).

Arldt (1915, p. 46) writes, 

"Damit haben wir die in der lebenden Menschenwelt noch vertretenen Entwickelungsstuffen erledigt. Die Leukodermen gruppieren sich in ihren altesten Formen hauptsachlich um Vorderindien, Westasien und Europa, die Malanodermen um Africa, die Xanthodermen um Ostasien und in den altesten Formen um Hinterindien bzw. den ostindischen Archipel. In den entsprechenden Gegenden mussten wir auch am ehesten Angehorige dieser Stamme aus der Archanthropus-Stufe zu finden erwarten, in Euopa aber am ehesten Verwandte der Leukodermen und nachstdem der Melandodermen. Tatsachlich zeigt ja nun die diese Stufe in Europa vertretende Neandertalrasse eine besonders auffallige Aehnlichkeit mit den plattschadeligen Australiern, sodass wir sie recht wohl dem gleichen Phylum wie diese zuordnen konnen, wenn wir auch uber die Behaarung dieser Rasse leider nichts Naheres wissen. " (p. 46)

Loosely translated this passage reads...

"With this we have finished the stages of development still represented in the living human world. In their oldest forms, the leukoderms are mainly grouped around the Middle East, West Asia and Europe, the malanoderms around Africa, the xanthoderms around East Asia and in the oldest forms around the rear India and the East Indian archipelago. In the corresponding areas we had to expect most likely to find members of these tribes from the Archanthropus stage, but in Europe most likely relatives of the leukoderms and then of the melandoderms. In fact, the Neanderthal breed, which represents this stage in Europe, shows a particularly striking resemblance to the flat-skulled Australians, so that we can assign them to the same phylum as these, although unfortunately we do not know anything about the hairiness of this breed." (p. 46)

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Abel (1920) established the genus Archanthopus with the type species Archanthropus primigenius and La Chapelle-Aux-Saints as the holotype. Archanthropus is a junior homonym to Archanthropus Arldt, 1915; it is therefore available but objectively invalid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Abel (1920) established Archanthropus primigenius with La Chapelle-Aux-Saints as the holotype. The genus is a junior homonym to Archanthropus Arldt, 1915. The specific epithet primigenius is a secondary junior homonym to Homo javanensis primigenius Houzé, 1896 if La Chapelle and Trinil 2 are both placed in the genus Homo as is common. It is also an objective junior synonym to Homo chapellensis Buttel-Reepen, 1911, as both share the same holotype. Thus the name 'primigenius' is available but invalid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Ardipithecus ramidus was first described as Australopithecus ramidus sp. nov. in White, Suwa, and Aswfaw, 1994. A corrigendum was published in Nature by White, Suwa, and Asfaw (1995). This one-page corrigendum established the genus Ardipithecus with Australopithecus ramidus as the type species.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Haile-Selassie (2001) introduced Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba based on ALA-VP-2/10 as the holotype. Subsequently Haile-Selassie et al. (2004) added additional fossil material to the hypodigm and elevated kadabba from subspecies to species. In the process they provided an updated description and diagnosis.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Originally described as Australopithecus ramidus White, Suwa & Asfaw 1994, then updated to Ardipithecus ramidus in a one-page corrigendum in White, Suwa & Asfaw 1995. Kissel and Hawks (2015) sugget that the Tabarin mandible, KNM-TH 13150 may be part of the same hypodigm as ARA-VP-6/1 in which case the nomen Homo praegens Ferguson, 1989 or Afaranthropus praegens (Ferguson, 1989) Bonde, 2011 would have priority.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Arambourg (1954) established the genus and species Atlanthropus mauritanicus based on the mandibles recovered from Tighennif Quarry (Algeria) also known as Ternifine or Palikao. See species entry for additional details.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Arambourg (1954) described two mandibles from the Tighennif Quarry (Algeria) also known as Ternifine or Palikao. In this publication he established the name Atlanthropus mauritanicus, though he does not explicitly fix either mandible as the holotype. He writes, "Toutefois l'hominien de Ternifine ne paraît rigoureusement identique, ne aux Pithécanthropes, ni au Sinanthrope; il présente, dans certains détails de son corps mandibulaire, quelques traits qui lui paraissent propres, mais qui évoquent, dans une certain mesure, une tendance vers un stade plus progressif. Pour cette raison, et en attendant de le connaître plus complètement, je proposerai de désigner cet Hominien sous le nom provisoire de 'Atlanthropus mauritanicus'. " (p. 895).  Note that Article 15.1 governing the conditional assignment of names only applies to names published after 1960.

In all, there are three mandibular specimens recovered from Tighennif. Dolinar-Osole (1956) divided them into two taxa Homo (Pithecanthropus) atlanticus and Homo (Pithecanthropus) ternifinus.

Campbell (1965) listed Atlanthropus mauritanicus as available and valid. Note that the genus name is correctly spelled in the 1965 publication but misspelled as "Atlanthroprus" in the 1994 reprinting in Meikle and Taylor (p. 217).

Szalay and Delson (1979) listed Atlanthropus mauritanicus Arambourg, 1954 as a junior synonym to Homo erectus (Dubois, 1892).

Groves (1989) listed the species as available (p. 284) and asserted that the Ternifine 1 mandible is the type of this taxon, but offers no additional evidence for when a lectotype may have been established.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Dart 1925 establsihed the genus Australopithecus with Au. africanus as the type species and Taung as the holotype.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Johanson, White and Coppens (1978) coined the name Au. afarensis with L.H. 4 as the type and Garusi 1 as a paratype. Garusi 1 itself is a type specimen described by Weinert (1950) as Meganthropus africanus. Johanson, White and Coppens (1978) recognized Garusi 1 and the rest of the hypodigm as fitting within the genus Australopithecus, however transfering the name Meganthropus africanus to the genus Australalopithecus creates a homonym with Australpoithecus africans Dart, 1925, which prompted Johanson, White and Coppens (1978) to coin the new name Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, White and Coppens, 1978. While their paper was in press it was preempted by a scientific news announcement published by Hinrichsen (1978) in which the author announced the name Australopithecus afarensis and attributed it to Johanson alone. Day et al. (1980) argued that Hinrichsen (1978) meets the criteria for a valid nomenclatural act and thus the formal name for this taxon is Australpithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 (in Hinrichsen, 1978). 

Hinrichsen (1978) did not name a holotype, thus the subsequent type designation by Johanson et al. (1978) is a lectotype designation.

Groves (1996) formally requested that the ICZN suppress the name Meganthropus africanus and grant priority to Australopithecus afarensis. This appeal was made in case number 2998, with comments from White et al. (1998) and approved by ICZN in 1999 as opinion number 1941. In their final opinion, the ICZN ruled that the name africanus Weinert 1950 is formally suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. The same ruling also acknowledged the name afarensis, Johanson 1978 with the specimens L.H. 4 as the lectotype. Groves (1999) reviews the nomenclatural history.

Strait et al. (1997) and Strait and Grine (2004) advance a cladistic classification for the australopiths and place Australopithecus afarensis into its own genus, Praeanthropus Senyürek, 1955. 

Kimbel and Delezene (2009) review the history of Au. afarensis and include a footnote discussing its nomenclatural history. Harrison (2011) reviews the taxonomic history and nomenclature of Australopithecus afarensis in his description of new material attributed to this taxon from Laetoli. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

First named by Raymond Dart in 1925 based on the Taung specimen. There is some difference of opinion regarding the authorship year. Groves (1999) refers to Australopithecus africanus Dart, 1924. The first paragraph of Dart's 1925 article in Nature indicates the Taung skull was discovered "Late in 1924" so a 1925 publication and date for the name seems apprpriate. The Nature article is dated February 1925. Zoobank lists Australopithecus africanus Dart 1925.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Tobias (1980a, 1980b) argues that the Laetoli and Hadar samples are not distinct at the species level from Australopithecus africanus and that they should be designated as two separate subspecies, for which he proposed Australopithecus africanus tanzanensis for the Laetoli sample (Tobias, 1980a) and Australopithecus africanus aethiopicus for the Hadar sample (Tobias, 1980b).

Tobias (1980b) establshed the name Australopithecus africanus aethiopicus with no holotype fixed, though in Figure 3 (p. 6) he does explictily indicate specimen A.L. 200-1a as belonging to the newly named taxon. Generally, he regarded all the Hadar material as belonging to this taxon. Tobias (1980a; 1980b) also indicated that the name Au. africanus tanzaniensis is better than Au. afarensis because the former does not match the Ethiopian place name "afar" with a type from Tanzania.

In the years following the taxonomic proposals laid out in Tobias (1980b) there has been controversy regarding the availability of the name Au. africanus aethiopicus. The resolution of this controversy affects the validity of other taxonomic names proposed afterwards including Homo antiquus Ferguson, 1987 and Australopithecus aethiopicus (Arambourg and Coppens, 1968; Walker, 1986; Cela-Conde and Altaba 2002).

The abstract of Tobias (1980b) stated, "Since 'A. afarensis' is tied to a Laetoli specimen as holotype, only the Laetoli specimens should be designated A. africanus afarensis (though A. africanus tanzaniensis suggested by the author in 1978 would have been a more appropriate nomen) and the Hadar fossils A. africanus aethiopicus."

Tobias (1980b p. 14) states, "If further close morphological and statistcal analysts confirms the presence of these small marks of distinction, it may be necessary to recognize and name a separate subspecies within the evolving and polytypic lineage of A. africanus. As the name afarensis would be preoccupied by the Laetoli fossils: then it would be most appropnate to suggest an alternative regional or territorial soubriquet: I propose Australopithecus africanus aethiopicus as a suitable name for this Ethiopian taxon." 

Olson (1985) argued that Australopithecus africanus aethiopicus is available, and Olson applied the name as Homo (Australopithecus) aethiopicus. The "If" at the begining of the quote from Tobias (1980b) does suggest a conditional proposal of the name. However Olson (1985) argued that the final clause of the statement and the wording in the abstract both indicate a definitive and non-conditional proposal. Furthermore, Olson (1985) noted that Tobias (1980b) did not fix a holotype. and Olson fixes A.L. 288-1 Lucy as the lectotype. 

Ferguson (1987) presented a case for two Pliocene hominid species at Hadar, Homo antiquus Ferguson, 1984 and Au. africanus miodentatus Ferguson, 1987. In naming the latter Ferguson accepted Tobias's argument that at least a portion of the Hadar material is indistinguishable at the species level from Au. africanus. Ferguson (1987) however argued that Tobias's subspecies designation of Au. africanus aethiopicus for the Hadar material is proposed conditionally and therefore unavailable.

Groves (1989) concluded that Au. africanus aethiopicus Tobias, 1980 is conditionally proposed and unavailable. Later however, Groves (1999) reversed himself, and provides an argument favoring the availability of Au. africanus aethiopicus Tobias, 1980. Groves (1999) discussed potential homonymy with Paraustralopithecus aethiopicus Arambourg, 1968 when that taxon is transfered to the genus Australopithecus  and then conflicts with Australopithecus africanus aethiopicus Tobias, 1980.

Harrison (2011, Table 7.1 p. 142) listed Au. africanus aethiopicus as "nomen nudum, conditionally proposed," but did not discuss the prior determinations by Olson (1985) nor Groves (1999). Harrision (2011) also noted that Homo aethiopicus is pre-occupied by Bory de Saint-Vincent (1825 p. 314).

Much hinges on the avaiability of Au. africanus aethiopicus Tobias, 1980. If the name is available, then it precludes the combination Australopithecus aethiopicus (but does not preclude the combination Paranthropus aethiopicus) for robust australopiths such as KNM WT 17000. If available it would also precede Homo antiquus Ferguson, 1984 relegating the latter to an objective junior synonym since both use A.L. 288-1 as a type. The latter (H. antiquus) is further invalid because it is a secondary junior homonym of Homo antiquus Adloff, 1908.

We agree with the determination of Harrison (2011) and Groves (1989) that the name "Australopithecus africanus aethiopicus" is conditionally proposed and unavailable.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Ferguson (1987 p. 264) established the name Australopithecus africanus miodentatus, with A.L. 266-1 as the holotype for what he determined to be a second species of Pliocene hominid at Hadar. This nomen is available and potentially valid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Tobias (1980), at a talk delivered in 1979 and subsequently published in 1980, proposed that the Laetolil australopith fossils represent a subspcies separate from what is present in Ethiopia. He conditionally dubs the Laetoli specimens Australopithecus africanus tanzaniensis. He clearly refers to the Laetolil hominin sample but does not explicitly fix a type specimen, though this is not required for publications before 1999. Given that L.H. 4 from Laetoli is the lectotype of Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978  and presuming it is in the type series considered by Tobias then Australopithecus africanus tanzaniensis Tobias, 1979 is an objective junion synonym to afarensis.

Tobias (1980) states in the abstract, 

"The published data on fossils from Laetolil are analysed and it is concluded there is insufficient morphological distance between them and Transvaal samples to exclude the Laetolil specimens from A. africanus, though some differences of dental morphology, time and space, may justify our regarding them as representative of a new subspecies A. africanus tanzaniensis." (p. 86)

and further on in the text, 

"In short, the only dental evidence that serves to differentiate the Laetolil hominids from the Transvaal A. africanus populations is that the teeth of the former are, on average, slightly bigger, while the mandibular premolars of Laetolil, though larger, are longer and narrower than those of A. africanus. These teneuous differences are insufficient evidence on which to separate the laetolil hominids from Transvaal A. africanus at the species level. There may well be a case to separate them at the subspecies level, since, aside from their small dental differences, the are 1.0 to 0.6 million years earlier than Makapansgat Member 3 and Sterfontein Member 4, and because of their geographcial distance apart. In that event, as we already have two southern african subspecies, A. africanus africanus and A. africanus transvaalensis, it would perhaps be appropropriate to refer to this Tanzanian subspecies as A. africanus tanzaniensis." (p. 107).

Groves (1989, p. 193) notes that Au. africanus tanzaniensis Tobias, 1979 lacks a type specimen, but this does not preclude its availability. Groves (1989) does not remark on the conditional nature of the proposal.

Harrison (2011) argues Tobias's proposal was conditional and that Au. africanus tanzaniensis Tobias,1979 is unavailable.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Leakey et al. (1995) established Australopithecus anamensis based on the holotype KNM-KP 29281. Most of the hypodigm derives from Kanapoi localities situated about 36 deg, 04' E and 2 deg 19' N between the Kalabata and Kakurio rivers in Turkana District, northern Kenya.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Brunet et al. (1995) provided the original description of the site and fossils. Brunet et al. (1996) provided illustrations, differential diagnosis, and established the name Australopithecus bahrelghazali with specimen HT 12/H1 as the holotype. Bahr el Ghazal is classical arabic for River of the Gazelles. The holotype specimen is a mandible with R i2-p4 and Lc-p4 (Note origianl anatomical description in 1995 Nature paper Fig 2 is incorrect and ommits left p4). The locality is variably referred to as either KT 12 or KT12 (with and without a space). Paratype KT 12/H2 is an upper right P3.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Haile-Selassie et al.(2015) established Australopithecus deyiremeda, with the left maxiallary fragment BRT-VP-3/1 as the holotype, to accommodate Pliocene age (3.3 - 3.5 Ma) fossils discovered at Woranso-Mille in the Afar region of Ethiopia.

Haile-Selassie et al., 2015 concluded that  Au. deyiremeda shared features with Au. afarensis, Ar. ramidus, and K. platyops. Au. diyiremeda differs in having a zygomatic processes more anteriorly positioned (relative to that of Au. afarensis) and has thicker third molar enamel relative to Ar. ramidus. Haile-Selassie et al., 2015 noted that Au. deyiremeda possessed morphological similarities with P. robustus. The discovery of Au. deyiremeda strengthen the view of possible homoplasy among late Pleiocene and early Pleistocene hominins (Haile-Selassie et al., 2015). 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Aswfaw et al. (1999) established Australopithicus garhi with BOU-VP-12/130 as the holotype.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Dart (1948) proposed the name Australopihecus prometheus based on the MLD 1 occipital fracgement from Makapansgat as the holotype. The etymology of the name derives from Darts interpretation that the Makapansgat sediments held evidence of true hearths. For many years the name was treated as a junior synonym of Australopithecus africanus.

Campbell (1965) lists the name as valid (i.e. available)

Berger and Hawks (2019) argued that the nomen is unavailable because it is a nomen nudem and/or it is nomen dubium. Clarke (2019) rebutts this claim and argues that the nomen is available and valid. Clarke and Kuman (2019) resurected the name for the Sterkfontein skeleton recovered from the Silberberg Grotto, Stw 573.

Dart (1948) provides a limited description and differential diagnosis thus we conclude, with Clarke (2019) that the name is available and potentially valid. Further, the type specimen has not been lost and was well illustrated in the original manuscript, thus precluding the name from nomen dubium status. The name is perhaps better given as an example of a nomen vanum, a name that meets the technical conditiions of the Code but is difficult to apply in practice because the material is sparse and fragmentary.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Berger et al. (2010) establshed the name Australopithecus sediba, with the MH 1 partial skeleton as the holotype, to accommodate new fossil discovereis from the site of Malapa, South Africa. A paratype was designated MH2 from the same site in September of 2008. The name sediba itself comes from the local Sesotho word meaning “fountain” or “wellspring” (Berger et al., 2010). Berger and his team proposed that Au. sediba could be the immediate ancestor of the Homo genus based on the traits described above. However remains from the Drimolen cave in South Africa that have been attributed to Homo erectus and Paranthropus robustus were dated to be contemporaneous with the determined time frame of Au. sediba (Herries et al., 2020). 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Broom (1936) established the name Au. transvaalensis based on TM 1511 discovered at Sterkfontein. Later (Broom, 1938) he moved the species to a new genus, Plesianthropus transvaalensis. In 1947 the nearly complete creanium STS 5 was discovered and referred to Plesianthropus transvaalensis from which it gets the knickname "Mrs Ples". 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Ferguson (1989) establishes Australopithecus walkeri as a new species with specimen KNM-WT 17000 as the holotype. Ferguson (1989) argues that the holotype is not to be included in the same hypodigm as Omo-18-1967-18, the type specimen of Paraustralopithecus aethiopicus Arambourg and Coppens, 1968.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Pycraft (1928) provided a detailed description of E686 (Kabwe). On pp. 49-50 he proposed moving the species to a new genus, Cyphanthropus with the type species Homo rhodesiensis Woodward, 1921.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Woodward (1921) established the genus Eoanthropus for the species Eoanthropus dawsoni based on the Piltdown specimen. See species entry for further details.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Eoanthropus dawsoni Woodward, 1913 is the scientific name given to the temporal bone portion of the Piltdown specimen. Haddon (1913) described the announcement by Woodward of the discovery of the Piltdown partial cranium and partial mandible, and Woodward's proposal for the name Eoanthropus dawsoni. Piltdown was subsequently established to be a hoax comprised of a modern orangutan mandible and medieval Homo sapiens skull planted at the Piltdown site.

Woodward believed the mandible and skull fragments were associated. He did not fix a type specimen. Miller (1915) assigned the temporal bone (E.591) as the lectotype.

Following the revelation of the hoax, De Beer (1955) appealed to the ICZN to supress all taxonomic names associated with the Piltdown specimen on the grounds that the taxon is hypothetical and unavailable under Article 1.3.1. It is unclear whether the ICZN ever took up this proposal or acted on it.

Stringer (2012) provided a review of the Piltdown discovery and hoax.

Brandon-Jones et al. (2016) reviewed the taxonomic and nomenclatural status of the Piltdown specimens. They argued, contra De Beer (1955), that Woodward established the name based on real specimens and with the full belief that they represented real taxa. In their assessment, "The Commission cannot force a zoologist to abandon a conviction, however improbable, that all or part of the assemblage was genuine and the described taxa recognisable. Now that the remains have been re-identified, the names attached to them are available should they prove to represent recognisable taxa, such as a subspecies of orangutan." (p. 2079).

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Arambourg (1955) in the conclusion of this essay on problems in human origins, uses the genus name Euranthropus in reference to the Mauer mandible but offers no differential diagnosis. The name is thus nomen nudum.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Wust (1950) in discussing the history of the Mauer mandible and related finds suggests the name Europanthropus heidelbergensis. Roughly translated from the orignal German, he states on p. 8 "On the other hand, there are several names for the same fossil specimen, from which the tribal-historical connection with the anthropus stage is supposed to be recognizable. So one speaks of 'Palaeoanthropus heidelbergensis' a designation which H. Weinert characterized variously as tautological and for his part - also based on the old age of the lower jaw and based on the other anthropus finds - the name 'Europanthrous heidelbergensis' is here proposed."

Campbell (1965) lists the genus as an objective junrior synonym of Homo heidelbergensis, and hence available but objectively invalid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

von Koenigswald (1957) proposes changing the name Hemianthropus, which was occupied, to Hemanthropus (without an "i"). Campbell (1965) remarks that such changes are allowed under the ICZN, however Campbell also notes that the original taxonomic description for Hemianthropus peii does not include a description or characters differentiating the genus. Von Koenigswald (1957a) does provide a very brief description with a couple traits (cusp size and crenulations) that differentiate the taxon from Pongo, but does not distinguish traits that differentiate the species and those that differentiate the genus. If we allow that one description can serve for genus and species then the name is available and potentially valid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Von Koenigswald (1957a) established the genus Hemianthropus for isolated teeth recovered from Hong Kong apothocaries. Later, in a short note, von Koenigswald (1957b) indicated that the genus name as initally proposed (with an "i") is occupied by Hemianthropus Freudenberg, 1929 for the Bammental II material discovered at the site of Bammental (near Mauer), and so von Koenigswald (1957b) proposed changing the name to Hemanthropus (without an "i").

Campbell (1965) remarks that such changes are allowed under the ICZN, however the original taxonomic description lacked characters differentiating the taxon and is thus nomen nudum. The original publication does include a brief differential diagnosis and if we accept that a single diagnosis may server for the species and genus designations then the name is available.

Smith et al. (2018) concluded that the type specimen, CA 673, is likely a representative of Pongo.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Von Koenigswald (1957a) established the species Hemianthropus peii for isolated teeth recovered from Hong Kong apothocaries with specimen CA 674 (as designated by Smith 2018) as the holotype. Soon after von Koeningswad was alerted to the fact that Hemianthropus is an objective junior synonyms to Hemianthropus Freudenberg, 1929 leading him to publish an erratum (von Koeningwald, 1957b) changing the genus name to Hemanthropus (without the 'i' ).

Campbell (1965) remarks that the description lacks a differential diagnosis and the genera are nomina nuda.  However von Koeningswald (1957a) included brief descriptions that differentiate the new taxa from Pongo and noted similarities with Paranthropus. Assuming a single differential diagnosis may serve for both a new species and new genus the name is available.

Groves (1989, p. 203) suggests the type specimen is Pongo.

Smith (2018) refers the holotype specimen to Pongo.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Linnaeus (1758) established the genus Homo with the type species Homo sapiens.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Dryer and Kappers (1935 p. 124) established the name Homo (Africanthropus) helmei for the Florisbad cranium. Dryer and Kappers (1935) provided measurements and anatomical descripition of the cranium and its endocast with comparisons made to Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus and "the Rhodesian". 

Campbell (1965) listed the taxon as available and valid. Szalay and Delson (1979) listed the nomen as a junior synonym of Homo sapiens sapiens. Groves (1989) included the name as an available junior synonym of Homo sapiens heidelbergensis. Kuman et al. (1999) advocated for retaining the name for lack of a better in their discussion of the paleoenvironments and archaeology at Florisbad. McBrearty and Brooks (2000) invoked Homo helmei in their discussion on the origins of modern human behavior.

Rightmire (1978) argued for a close association between Florisbad and Kabwe. Any taxon that combines these specimens in the hypodigm to the exclusion of Mauer and European Homo heidelbergensis will have Homo rhodesiensis and Homo helmei as available names. If Homo rhodesiensis is shunned as has been suggested (Roksandic et al. 2022) then Homo helmei has priority over other names among African Middle and lower Upper Pleistocene fossils.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Oppenoorth (1932) established the name Homo (Javanthropus) soloensis based on Ngandong. Campbell (1965) listed the name as available and potentially available with Ngandong 1 as the lectotype, however the english summary included with the original Oppenoorth publication clearly indicated the Ngandong 1 calvaria as the holotype for the taxon. Oppenoorth (1932 p. 63) wrote, "I think it justifiable to separate the Ngandong skull and call it Homo (Javanthropus) soloensis, n. subg., n. sp." Zeitoun et al. (2010) review the systematics and morphological variation among Indonesian fossils.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Arambourg (1954) described two mandibles discovered at the Tighennif Quarry (Algeria) also known as Ternifine or Palikao, and based on these he established the new genus and species Atlanthropus mauritanicus.

Dolinar-Osole (1956) discussed the morphology of the Tighennif mandibles 1 and 2 and suggested that a genus-level distinction as proposed by Arambourg was premature. Dolinar-Osole (1956 p. 178) instead proposed the replacement name, Homo (Pithecanthropus) atlanticus.

A rough English translation of the original Slovenian paragraph reads, "In our view of the hominid system, the name of the new one should be Homo (Pithecanthropus) mauritanicus, atlanticus or ternifinus, where the first names indicated affiliation by signs, and the third the place of the site. Obviously Arambourg does not find it necessary to combine equally high levels of development into a generic name. It is not about transparency of the system and greater uniformity. Perhaps - according to Weinert's system - the nickname 'anthropus' with whichever prefix to indicate a certain stage of development (Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Africanthropus, Euranthropus, Atlanthropus)? From his three reports we cannot know exactly his point of view." (pp. 178-179)

Campbell (1965) lists the name as an available objective junior synonym of Atlanthropus mauritanicus Arambourg, 1954, whereas Groves (1989) lists the name as a junior synonym of Homo sapiens heidelbergensis,

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Dolinar-Osole (1956) discussed the morphology of the Tighennif (Ternifne) mandibles 1 and 2 and suggested that a genus level distinction such as Atlanthropus proposed by Arambourg was "premature". Dolinar-Osole proposed Homo (Pithecanthropus) atlanticus or ternifinus.

A rough English translation of the original Slovenian sheds light on Dolinar-Osole’s philosophy of nomenclature, 
"In our view of the hominid system, the name of the new specimen should read Homo (Pithecanthropus) mauritanicus, atlanticus or ternifinus, where the first names indicate affiliation by signs, and the third the place of the site. Obviously Arambourg does not find it necessary to combine equally high levels of development into a generic name.” (pp. 178-179)

Campbell (1965) listed the name as an available objective junior synonym of Atlanthropus mauritanicus Arambourg, 1954.
 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Bonarelli employed Protanthrous Haeckel, 1895 as Homo (Protanthropus) neanderthalensis (King, 1894) Bonarelli, 1895. Campbell (1965) listed Protanthropus Haeckel as nomen nudum, so Bonarelli (1909) becomes the first established use. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Hu (1973) established the subspecies Homo (Sinanthropus) erectus yuanmouensis based on two central incisors found in Yuanmou, China. A differential diagnosis is provided in comparision with material from Zhoukoutien Cave (Sinanthropus).  Groves (1989) lists the name as an available junior synonym of Homo erectus officinalis.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Thoma (1966) provides a description of the occiput recovered from the site of Vertesszöllös, Hungaria. A footnote on page 531 provisionally establishes the taxon Homo (erectus seu sapiens) palaeohungaricus. In the view of Thoma, the Verteszöllös occiipital fragment is distinct from Homo habilis and potentially related to Mauer and Ternifine (Tighennif) despite a lack of comparable anatomical material. The author writes, "Nous donnons à l'Homme de Vértesszöllös le 'nom de trouvaille' d' 'Euranthrope' et la dénomination systématique d'Homo (erectus seu sapiens) palaeohungaricus n. ssp. Ce taxon provisoire est nettement séparé de l'H. habilis (Tobias, 1964) mais en même temps ouvert vers les Hommes de Mauer et de Ternifine, vu l'ignorance où nous sommes de sa mandibule."  Thoma (1966) does not explicitly fix Verteszöllös I or II as a type and the provisional nature of the assignment in Thoma (1966) may warrant it as conditionally proposed and unavailable under the Code.

An unambiguous declaration is given in Thoma (1972, JHE) where Verteszöllös II is fixed as the holotype and the taxonomic proposal is made unconditionally.

Groves (1989 p. 205) lists Homo erectus (seu sapiens) palaeohungaricus Thoma, 1965 with no remarks that would indicate it is unavailable or conditionally proposed. On page 285 he ascribes the taxon to Thoma (1966) in L'Anthropologie (Paris), 530. This article was published in 1966 and the name appears on page 531 not 530.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Wiegers suggested the name Homo acheulensis moustieri for the remains from Le Moustier, France.  The relevant passage appears on page 70, (roughly translated from the german) "So the Acheulean age of Homo Mousteriensis is not in doubt; for the nomenclature it would have been better from the start to designate him Homo Acheulensis Moustieri or at least Homo Le Mousteriensis to be named because Hauser was aware of the real age of the skeleton and was by no means in the dark."

Campbell (1965) lists the subspecies as an available objective junior synonym to Homo transprimigenius mousteriensis.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Sergi (1908, p. 543) established Homo africanus as a variety of modern human. This same combination is later used by Eickstedt (1937) for extand humans and subsequently by Robinson (1972) in reference to Australopithicus africanus. According to Wood (2011), Robinson believed Australopithecus africanus belonged in Genus Homo, but recognizing Sergi's priority Robinson first proposed a new species, Homo transvaalensis. Later Robinson came to the opinion that Sergi's name was not available and since Eickstedt (1937) followed after Dart, Homo africanus (Dart, 1925) had priority. Wolpoff (1969) also employed the combination in reference to australopiths. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Krause (1909) suggested the fossils from Krapina represented a unique species, Homo alpinus. However, Campbell (1965) noted the species epithet, alpinus, is a primary junior homonym. The name alpinus was established in several prior publications to describe racialized populations of extant humans (e.g. Closson, 1897). The name is thus available but objectively invalid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Carbonell et al. (1995) provide the stratigraphic and faunal context of the finds from level TD6 at Gran Dolina, Atapuerca, Spain, and they hint at the taxonomic implications but do not name a new taxon. Bermudez de Castro et al. (1997) established Homo antecessor with ATD6-5 as the holotype. 

Details

Remarks

Adloff, 1908 "Das Gebiss des Menoschen und der Anthropomorphen" proposed the name Homo antiquus for the Krapania material. The name appears first on page 65, where Adloff writes, "Eine besondere Art würde der homo primigenius von Krapina repräsentieren, für welchen damit eine neue Bezeichnung erforderlich wäre (Homo antiquus)," which roughly translates to, "The Homo primigenius of Krapina would represent a special species, for which a new name would be necessary (Homo antiquus)."

There is potential confusion about the source citation, which is listed incorrectly in Campbell (1965).  Campbell referenced Adloff, 1908 "Die Zahne des Homo primigenius von Krapina". There is no mention of Homo antiquus in this publicaiton. However at the end of the paper Adloff mentions his latest work. He says (roughly translated), "For the rest, I refer to my detailed work 'The Gebiss des Menoschen und der Anthropomorphen' published by Julius Springer in Berlin, in which I discussed the facts again in detail."

 The name Homo antiquus is an objective junior synonym for Homo neanderthalensis var. krapinensis Gorjanovic-Kramberger 1902.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Ferguson (1984) argued that many specimens in the Hadar assemblage do not fit the diagnosis for Australopithecus and should instead be moved to Homo. Rather than move the species to Homo afarensis Ferguson establishes Homo antiquus with 'Lucy',  A.L. 288-1 as the holotype. However, Homo antiquus is preoccupied by Homo antiquus Adloff, 1908, for the Krapina 5 neanderthal skull, and thus Homo antiquus Ferguson, 1984 is a primary junior homonym.

Ferguson (2007) appealed to the ICZN for precedence over Adloff 1908 (case 3432), but the case was closed the following year with no opinion published. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/107007#page/227/mode/1up. The notice states, 

"The following Cases, for which receipts as new applications to the Commission were published though the cases were never published in full, are now closed:

Homo antiquus Ferguson, 1984 (Mammalia, hominidas): proposed precedence over “Homo antiquus Adloff, 1908”. W.W. Ferguson (Case 3432; acknowledgement of receipt published in BZN 64: 209)."

A possible explanation for the closure is that Ferguson may have based the appealed on the fact that Adloff, 1908 as cited in Campbell (1965) makes no mention of Homo antiquus. This is due to an error in Campbell (1965) where the wrong citation is listed. There are two publications for Adloff 1908, one is a short article in Anat. Anz. which is cited by Campbell (1965) but which does not contain the description of Homo antiquus. However, in that article Adloff mentions a book he published that same year (1908). That book, "Das Gebiss des Menschen und der Anthropomorphen Vergleichend-anatomische Untersuchungen Zugleich ein Beitrag zur menschlichen Stammgeschichte" contains the description for Homo antiquus. Thus, Adloff 1908 is the correct authorship for the name and has priority, but the correct citation is the book not the article.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Ferguson (1989) creates a new subspecies for Homo antiquus Ferguson, 1984 based on the Tabarin mandible described by Ward and Hill (1987). However, Ferguson gives the catalog number for the specimen as KNM-TI 13150, whereas Ward and Hill give the catalog number for the mandible as KNM-TH 13150. This difference notwithstanding it is clear from the text and context that Ferguson intends the Tabarin mandible to be the holotype for the subspecies Homo antiquus praegens. However, Homo antiquus, is a junior homonym with Homo antiquus Adloff, 1908. Thus, the nomen Homo antiquus is available but objectively invalid and Homo praegens is available and valid.  Bonde 2011 deploys the nomen antiquus as Afaranthropus antiquus with A. antiquus (Ferguson, 1984) as the type species. Kissel and Hawks (2015) include KNM-TH 13150 in the same hypodigm as the holotype for Aridipithecus ramidus, ALA-VP-6/1, for which the nomina Homo pragens Ferguson, 1989 or Afaranthropus praegens (Ferguson, 1989) would have priority. Pickford et al. (2022) invoked the name as Orrorin praegens (Ferguson, 1989), for material recovered from the Pelion Member of the Mabaget Formation, Tugen Hills, Kenya  

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Klaatsch and Hauser (1910) propose the name Homo aurignacensis hauseri for the adult skeleton from Roc de Combe-Capelle. Originally thought to be Pleistocene age, direct dating by Hoffman et al. (2011) have established the fossil is from the Holocene. This nomen is now widely regarded as a subjective junior synonym of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Campbell (1965) notes that it is not clear from the formatting of the original publication whether the name is intended as a new species with authorship, Homo aurignacensis Hauser, or as a new subspecies Homo aurignacensis hauseri. If the latter, Homo mousteriensis hauseri, Klaatsch and Hauser, 1909 has priority.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Drennan (1929) proposes the name Homo astraloideus africanus for the Cape Flats specimen. As noted by Campbell (1965) this combination of names is a primary junior homonym with Homo primigenius africanus Wiedenreich, 1928. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Roksandic et al. (2022 a) established Homo bodoensis with Bodo 1 as the holotype. They argued the taxon is necessary to represent the lineage leading up to Homo sapiens after the split from the last common ancestor with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Roksandic et al. (2022) included "Kabwe 1 (Broken Hill), Ndutu, Saldanha (Elandsfontein), Ngaloba (LH 18) and potentially Salé in Africa" in the hypodigm for the Homo bodoensis (p. 6). Of these specimens, Kabwe, and Saldanha are types for available names that would have priority over Homo bodoensis. Kabwe (Broken Hill, E686) is the type for Homo rhodesiensis Woodward, 1921, while Saldanha is the type for Homo saldanensis Drenan, 1955. Roksandic et al. (2022 a) specifically addressed the priority of Homo rhodesiensis, arguing the latter name should be suppressed because "(1) the taxon is poorly defined and variably understood and used; and (2) the taxon name is associated with sociopolitical baggage that our scientific community is trying to dissociate itself from." Specifically, Roksandic et al. (2022) argued that Homo rhodesiensis should not be used because of its association with the colonialist Cecil Rhodes. 

Delson and Stringer (2022) in a response, noted that the formal suppression of names should be accomplished by a petition to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). They further indicated that Homo rhodesiensis is named with reference to the territory of Rhodesia (Rhodesia was not recognized as a country until 1980 when it was internationally recognized as Zimbabwe) rather than the person Cecil Rhodes. In their view Homo bodoensis is a junior replacement name for Homo rhodesiensis under the Code.

In another response, Sarmiento and Pickford (2022) noted that if Homo rhodesiensis is bypassed then Homo saldanensis retains priority. 

In a later reply Roksandic et al. (2022 b) argued that Homo saldanensis is a nomen nudum because it fails to include apomorphic traits that diagnose the species. For additional comments see the entry for Homo saldanensis.

Homo bodoensis meets the requirements put forth by the Code however it is a junior replacement name to Homo rhodesiensis or Homo saldanensis both of which are available and potentially valid under the Code. Whether one chooses to acknowledge the propriety of the Code with regard to these names is another matter.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Nicolle and Sinel (1910) describe the initial discovery of the site and its histoyr. Keith (1911) first described the dental material from La Cotte de Saint Brelade, Jersey. Marett (1911) further describes the material from the site of La Cotte de St. Brelad and proposes the name Homo breladensis. The holotype includes 9 teeth of adult in (Marett 1911). Widely regarded as Homo neanderthalensis.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Keith (1911) is a letter to Nature, recounting portions of correspondence bearing on the discovery and naming of the Gibraltar 1 (Forbes Quarry) specimen. Keith (1911) recounts the date of discovery as 1948, nine years before the discovery of the type specimen. Calpicus is the ancient name for the rock of Gibraltar and is suggested by H. Falconer in a letter quoted from by Keith (1911). 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

In his 1917 letter in the American Museum Journal, Broom provides a brief, two-page account of the discovery of the Boskop 1 calvarium and other remains. In this work he coins the name Homo capensis for the Boskop 1 specimen and remarks that it is most similar to Cro-magnon. See also Gregory 1921 for comments on the same specimen, which Gregory names Homo sapiens Boskop (nomen numdem). 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Ascenzi et al. (1996) describe the Ceparano 1 cranium as Homo erectus. Manzi et al. (2001) present a morphometric analysis. Mallegni et al. (2003) establish the nomen Homo cepranensis. Manzi et al. (2010) review the geochronology but do not use the species name. Nomade et al (2011) review the geochronology. Gilbert et al. (2003) reference the name conditionally in quotes and comment on relations to the Daka specimen. Numerous subsequent publications refer to the Ceprano cranium in the context of Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis, (e.g. Stringer 2012; Rightmire 2012; Athreya and Hopkins 2021) but do not employ the nomen Homo cepranensis.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Buttel-Reepen (1911 p. 55) established the name Homo chapellensis based on the holotype skeleton described by Boule (1911-1913). Campbell (1965) lists the name as an available and potentially valid taxon.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Kleinschmidt (?1931 p. 104) referenced that he had established the name Homo drennani in a prior publication. Specifically, he states, 

"Nun ist aber in Sudafrika in einer Sandgrube bei Kap Flats (nahe Kapstadt) ein Schadel gefunden worden, der den Namen Homo australoides africanus (Drennan) erhalten hat. Da es schon einen Homo ‘Austro-Africanus’ und einen ‘Homo africanus’ gibt, habe ich den Namen in ‘Homo drennani’ geändert.2

2 Sitzungsberichte des Forschungsheims für Weltanschauungskunde 1931."

Campbell (1965) lists the nomen as available and potentially valid with the Cape Flats skull as a lectotype.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Paterson (1940) lists Homo ehringsdorfiensis in a table and briefly mentions the name in the text but nowhere provides a description or differential diagnosis. Campbell (1965) and Groves (1989) listed it as nomen nudum. Campbell listed the name as an objective junior synonym to Homo heringsdorfensis Moller, 1928 with the Wiemar-Ehringsdorf specimen as the type. Groves treated it as a junior synony of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis King, 1964.  Campbell (1965) and Groves (1989) both misspelled Paterson's name as 'ehringsdorfensis' (missing the last i).

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Vlcek 1978 established then name Homo erectus biltzinglabenensis with the specimens Bilzingsleben A1 + A2 and B1 + B2, presumed to come from the same individual, as the holotype. Vlcek provides a detailed description and comparison with African, Asian and European fossils.

Groves (1989) lists the taxon as an available junior synonym to Homo sapiens heidelbergensis.  

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Huang et al. (1982) proposed the name Homo erectus hexianensis based on the partial cranium from Longtan Cave, Hexian, China. Huang et al. (1982) provided a brief description and comparison with other taxa, including Pithecanthropus. The original text is written in Chines with an English language summary. The summary included the following lines proposing the new name, "Morphological features shown by the skull discovered in Longtan Cave suggest it belongs to the Pithecanthropus stage. In view that the main features of Hexian man make himself relate different with Java man and Peking man, it is reasonable to attibute the Longan Cave skull to a new subspecies and assign it the provisional name Homo erectus hexianensis" (p. 256). Huang et al. (1982) explicitly indicate the name is provisional and therefore unavailable. Groves (1989 p. 282) treated the name as an available junior synonym of Homo erectus pekinensis. Curiously, although Groves (1989 p. 202-3) noted the provisional nature of Homo lantianensis, in the following sentence he fails to note the provisiional status of Homo erectus hexianensis.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Kurth (1965, p. 382-3) proposed the name Homo erectus mapaensis based on the Maba (Ma-pa) cranium. Specifically, he states, 

"Es liegt dagegen weit näher und läßt sich auch morphologisch mindestens ausreichend begründen, in der Domäne der Frühmenschen ein weiteres Beispiel für die Polytypie dieses so überaus langlebigen (eu)homininen Formenkreises aufzufinden, das hier dann vielleicht als Homo erectus mapaensis einzustufen wäre. (p. 383)"

Kurth's use of the word "vielleicht" (=perhaps) indicates a conditional proposal and thus we regard the name as unavailable.

Groves (1989) invoked the taxon as H. sapiens mapaensis, and later (2017 p. 71) as Homo mapaensis while remarking on the possibility of the group being fossil representative of "Denisovans".

Howell (1999) invoked the epithet mapaensis (without genus) in describing affinities between Maba and Hathnora (narmadensis). 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Sonakia (1984) established Homo erectus narmadensis with the Hathnora specimen as holotype. Groves (1989) discussed the taxon and considered the name available and potentially valid. Kennedy et al. (1991) discusses systematics and relationships with Homo erectus. Howell (1999) discussed the nomenclature and possible affinities to Maba.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Laitman and Tattersal (2001) established the name Homo erectus newyorkensis with the Sambungmacan 3 cranium as the holotype. Though their account does not provide a differential diagnosis, it does clearly reference three publications that provide description and comparison (Marquez et al., 2001; Broadfield et al. 2001; Delson et al. 2001). Furthermore, Laitman and Tattersal (2002) specifically advance the idea that the Sm 3 specimen is intermeidate beetween Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens, providing the basis for naming the subspecies. Specifically they state, "Indeed, observations from these papers showing that Sm 3 exhibits a number of cranial characteristics at times intermediate between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, or features of the endocast (such as regions possibly related to language) which appear ‘advanced’ for Homo erectus, provide important data which will be… (p. 342).

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Sartono (1976) proposed dividing Homo (Pithecanthropus) erectus into several subspecies, one of which being Homo erectus ngandongensis.

Groves (1989 p. 201) included this taxon in his general discussion of Homo erectus but did not list the name as a synonym under any of the taxa he proposed.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Tobias (1968) tentatively proposed Homo erectus olduvaiensis with OH 9 as the holotype. As such it is a conditional proposal and unavailable (Article 15). Specifically, Tobias writes on p. 188, 

"We may tentatively conclude that, in Middle Pleistocene times, Homo erectus-like hominids were present all over the African continent, the representative in Southern Africa being from Swartkrans, while the earliest representative in east Africa is from Olduvai Bed II and in north Africa from Ternifine. On geographical grounds, as well as for convenience until more adequate material is discovered, the three African groups of pithecanthropines might appropriately be dubbed Homo erectus mauritanicus (Ternifine, Sidi Abderrahman and Rabat), Homo erectus olduvaiensis (Olduvai Bed II) and Homo erectus capensis (Swartkrans). The first and third terms follow from the former appellations, Atlanthropus mauritanicus and Telanthropus capensis, while the name H. e. olduvaiensis is a tentative new proposal, pending the full study and description of all the hominine remains from Beds II and IV at Olduvai."

See entry for Homo louisleakeyi Kretzoi, 1984 for additional details.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Murrill (1981) proposed the name Homo erectus petralonensis conditionally; it is therefore unavailable. Specifically, he writes, "consequently, the time factor becomes important. If the dating for Petralona 1 is as old as 700,000 years B.P., and if sub-specific names are most appropriately used geographically then I would say Petralona 1 should be classified as Homo erectus petralonensis, or given Petralona 1's similarity to Broken Hill 1, and the possibility Petralona 1 may have migrated from Africa--Homo erectus rhodesiensis." (p. 256) 

Groves (1989) listed Homo petralonensis Murrill, 1975 as an available subjective junior synonym of Homo sapiens heidelbergensis Schoetensack, 1908.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Czarnetzki (1991) established Homo erectus reilingensis with the Reilingen specimen from Germany as the type. Czarnetzki (1991) recounted the discovery of the fossil, its geological context, as best could be determined, and provided a morphological description of the fossil including an enumerated listing of purportedly primitve, Homo erectus-like traits as well as more derived, Homo sapiens-like traits. Carnetzki concluded the paper with the designation of a new taxon,

"Malgré sa mosaïque de caractères évolués ou uniuqes et archaïques, l'individu de Reilingen représente, selon Mayr (1965), une étape évolutive davantage Homo erectus que sapiens, différente de toutes les formes déjà connues de ce taxon. Ceci ne représente pas un critère de datation. Ainsi, il peut formellement être désigné sous le nom de Homo erectus reilingensis." (p. 110) 

This passage translates roughly to, 

Despite its mosaic of evolved or unique and archaic characters, the Reilingen individual represents, in accordance with Mayr (1965), an evolutionary grade more Homo erectus than sapiens, different from all the already known forms of this taxon. This does not represent a dating criterion. Thus, it can formally be referred to as Homo erectus reilingensis.

The last line positively established the subspcies name.

An earlier paper (Czarnetzki, 1989) in German provided a morphological description of the fossil and comparisons with other relevant taxa. This paper also included the first use of the name. The author wrote,

"Nach Abwägung der Art und der Anzahl der Merkmale sowie der daraus resultierenden Zahl von Generator- und Strukturgenen wird für die Bezeichnung derar- tiger Merkmalskombinationen und speziell für den hier untersuchten Fund die vorläu- fige Bezeichnung: Homo erectus reilingensis.” (Czarnetzski, 1989 p. 200)

which loosely translates as,

"After considering the type and number of characteristics and the resulting number of generator and structural genes, the provisional designation for such combinations of characteristics and especially for the find examined here is: Homo erectus reilingensis.”

The use of the phrase "vorläufige Bezeichnung" in the 1989 article signals a conditional proposal (Article 15), and thus the 1991 article is taken as the year of authorship. It should also be noted that the establishing nomenclatural act in the 1991 article does not use “sp. nov.” to explicitly indicate a novel species or subspecies name in accordance with Article 16 of the Code, however this requirement only affects names published in 2000 or later, and thus the name, reilingensis is available and potentially valid.

Adam (1989) interpreted the Reilingen specimen as an early representative of Homo sapiens and referenced the subspecies name in quotes. Condemi (1996) concluded the fossil to be more closely aligned with Neanderthals and discussed the history of interpretation, including an unquoted use of the subspecies name reilingensis. Dean et al. (1998) also interpreted the specimen as an early Neanderthal and mentioned Homo erectus reilingensis without quotes. Speed et al. (2006) referenced the subspecific name with quotes, whereas, Athreya and Hopkins (2021) listed the name, unqualified, i.e. without quotes.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Sartono (1980) summarizes his taxonomic reassessment of the Indonesian hominin fossils by stating “Recently, a reappraisal has been carried out on the taxonomic status of the Javanese Pleistocene hominids which suggests the existence of one genus of Homo only consisting of two species, these are Homo erectus (the former Pithecanthropus ) and Homo palaeojavanicus (the former Meganthropus palaeojavanicus ) (Sartono 1975b, 1976). Each of these species again consists of two subspecies. They are Homo erectus ngandongensis and Homo erectus trinilensis, while the second species comprises Homo palaeojavanicus sangiranensis and Homo palaeojavanicus modjokertensis (fig. 6a). If the various subspecies of the Pleistocene man are put in their respective stratigraphic positions, then the following scheme will be obtained, i.e. the progressive Homo erectus ngandongensis with the larger brain and fragile mandible was the late one evolving from the earlier primitive Homo erectus trinilensis having a smaller brain volume but a more robust mandible. This latter in turn may evolve from the earlier Homo palaeojavanicus modjokertensis with the more fragile mandibles than the more robust mandible of the earliest Homo palaeojavanicus sangiranensis (Sartono 1976 fig. 12, 1979a fig. 2)” (p. 125-126).

These taxonomic remarks are then qualified in the very next paragraph where Sartono (1980) states, “Author admits that the above taxonomic scheme is not a final one. Future discoveries on the Javanese Pleistocene hominids will surely add more to our knowledge of these early men.” (p. 126)

This last sentence appears to indicate a conditional taxonomic proposal, and thus the subspecies name “trinilensis” is unavailable.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Huang et al. (1991, original text in Mandarin) established the name Homo erectus wushanensis for specimen CV.939.1 a partial mandible with p4-m1 discovered in 1984 from the site of Longgupo. The name is then cited soon after in Huang et al. (1995). Wei et al. (2014) provided an updated account of the site location, stratigraphy and archaeological finds. Bonde (2012) referenced this name as a possible synonym to Homo georgicus.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Groves and Mazák (1975) established the name Homo ergaster based on the holotype KNM-ER 992, and included several other East Turkana specimens in the hypodigm. The original description of the holotype is to be found in Leakey et al. (1972).

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Wilser (1898 p. 3 footnote) listed Homo europaeus primigenius but nowhere else provides a description. Campbell (1965) lists this taxon as nomen nudum.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Brown et al. (2004) established Homo floresiensis, with the partial skeleton LB 1 as the holotype, to accommodate fossils excavated from Liang Bua cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia. The name appears in over 200 publications written a wide variety of authors, most of whom regard the taxon as valid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Dreyer (1935) provided the first description of the Florisbad skull and assigned it to a new species Homo (Africanthropus) helmei Dreyer, 1935. Writing shortly after, Drennan (1935) interpreted the skull as more closely resembling Neanderthals and thus offered an alternative name, Homo forisbadensis (helmei). As both names refer to the same type specimen, Drennan's is an objective junior synonym to Homo (Africanthropus) helmei Dreyer, 1935. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1915) established the species as Homo fossilis proto-aethiopicus based on the Combe Capelle specimen. Campbell (1965) lists this taxon as an objective junior synonym of Homo aurignacensis hauseri.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1915) established the subspecies proto-aethiopicus for Combe Capelle. Campbell (1965) lists this taxon as an objective junior synonym of Homo aurignacensis hauseri. Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1921) transfers the subspecies proto-aethiopicus to the species Homo meridionalis.

Under Article 32.5.2.3 the subspecies name proto-aethiopicus should be corrected to protoaethiopicus.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Joleaud (1931, p. 467) listed Homo galilensis in reference to Zuttiyeh 1 but does not provide a description or differential diagnosis. Campbell (1965) and Groves (1989) list the name as nomen nudum.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Curnoe (2010) established Homo gautengensis with Stw 53 as the holotype.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Gabunia and Vekua (1995) provided an early description of the site and initial discoveries. Gabounia et al. (2002) established Homo georgicus, with specimen D 2600 as the holotype, to accommodate subsequent fossils discovered at Dminisi, which they grouped together as a single, variable species.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Objective junior synonym of Hmo calpicus. Gibraltar (Forbes Quarry)

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Hilber (1922 p. 9) mentions Homo grimaldicus Verneau but provides no description nor reference. Campbell (1965) lists the name as nomen nudum. It is also an objective junior synonym of Homo grimaldii Lapouge, 1905-6.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Lapouge (1905 p. 18) established Homo grimaldii but does not fix a specific type specimen. Verneau (1906) established the young male skeleton from 7.75 m level at Grimaldi Cave I Grotte des Enfants, France as the lectotype. This species is widely regarded as early Homo sapiens.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

The species Homo habilis was established by Leakey et al. (1964) to accommodate new fossils discovered in 1960 from Olduvai Gorge, locality FLKNN 1 that were clearly distinct from the Zinjanthropus (now Australopithecus or Paranthropus) boisei material discovered in 1959. The type specimen of Homo habilis, Olduvai Hominid 7 (OH 7) was united with OH 4, OH 6, OH 8 and OH 13 as paratypes to erect the new species. The original diagnostic description highlights the presence of a strong, precision grip in Homo habilis, ostensibly part of an adaptation for tool use. The authors note an increased average cranial capacity in Homo habilis relative to Australopithecus (ca 600 vs 400 cc), but smaller than what is seen in Homo erectus (ca 800 cc). The skull of Homo habilis has reduced temporal lines that never converge in the midline and thus never form the sagittal crest seen in Australopithecus and the greatest breath of the skull is found between The molars are noted to be smaller than those of Australopithecus, especially in the bucco-lingual dimension. Throughout the 1960’s - 1990’s Homo habilis (sensu lato) became a widely defined taxon that included a very large number of specimens from Olduvai Gorge and Koobi Fora in Kenya. The taxon was revised by Wood (1992) and split into Homo habilis (sensu stricto) and Homo rudolfensis.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Schoetensack (1908) provides a monograph treatment of the Mauer mandible and proposes the nomen Homo heidelbergensis with the Mauer mandible as the holotype. Mounier et al. (2011) includes the Mauer mandible as part of a detailed morphometric analysis of mandibles. Stringer (2012) and Buck and Stringer (2014) argue for the continued usage of the nomen. Athreya and Hopkins (2021) provide an alternative view on the nomenclature of Middle Pleistocene Homo.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Werth (1928 p. 201) mentioned Homo heringsdorfensis and attributed the name to A. Moller in "Fuhrer durch das Museum in Weimar", but Werth provides no description. Campbell (1965) and Groves (1989) both listed this taxon as nomen nudum.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Blanc (1961) provided a detailed morphological description of a single upper M2 from a juvenile individual, designated Leuca 1 from Grotta delle Tre Porte, Italy. The author concluded the tooth is a Neanderthal but took the position that neanderthals are not a distinct species from Homo sapiens and so offers the synonym Homo homo var. neanderthalensis to emphasize this interpretation. The author included a detailed description, illustrations, and measurements of the tooth, all to illustrate how the tooth belongs to the neanderthal taxon and also that neanderthals are the same species as extant humans.

Campbell (1965) listed the name is nomen nudum for lack of any differential diagnosis to distinguish Homo homo neanderthalensis from any other taxon.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Houzé (1896) provided a description of the fossils from Trinil and suggested that if they represent the oldest humans then Pithecanthropus should be replaced with Homo javanensis primigenius. Houzé (1896) is the oldest use of the nomen primigenius in the species-group.

Campbell (1965) listed Homo javanensis primigenius as an objective junior synonym of Pithecanthropus erectus.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Leakey (1935) established the name Homo kanamensis with Kanam 1 as the holotype. Kanam 1 preserves the anterior portion of a mandible. The labial side of the symphysis is obscured by a pathological growth, interpreted by some as a cancerous sarcoma (Montegu, 1957; Tobias, 1960). Leakey (1935) interpreted the anterior portion of the mandible as preserving a mental eminence and he attributed the age of the fossil to the later Middle Pleistocene or early Upper Pliestocene. For Leakey the morphology of the chin and the age suggested a taxon presaging Homo sapiens. 

Campbell (1965) recognized Homo kanamensis Leakey, 1935 as available and potentially valid, and Groves (1989) included the taxon as an available junior synonym of Homo sapiens heidelbergensis.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Zeitoun (2000) established Homo kenyaensis with KNM-ER 3733 as the holotype. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Bonch-Osmolovskii (1941, p. 137 in russian, p. 168 of the French summary) established Homo kiik-kobensis (note the lack of "i") based on phalanges recovered from the site of Kiik-Koba, Crimea.

Campbell (1965) lists Kiik-kobiensis (with an "i") as available and valid. Groves (1989 p. 289) lists Homo kiik-kobensis as an available junior synonym for Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Based on the French summary it seems the initial proposal for the name is offered conditionally, citing limitations on establishing a species on hand bones and without the rest of the skeleton. Bonch-Osmolovskii writes, 

"Certains caractères ... sont si différents que sa séparation en une espèce génetique particulière, Homo kiik-kobensis, reçoit un fondement réel. Mais il serait imprudent de résoudre cette question si importante en principe sans tenir compte des indications fournies par les membres infériers d'autant plus que le matériel comparatif concernant la main est fort incomplet." (p. 168).

However, conditional proposals are allowed under the Code for names established prior to 1961 (Article 15)

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Pycraft (1925b) "Diagnosis of four species..." proposed Homo larterti based on Cro-Magnon. Pycraft (1925b) provided a brief description and also indicated a description in a prior report (apprarently intending Pycraft 1925a, "On the calavaria found...") but did not provide a reference to the report as required in Article 12. If the brief description in Pycraft is accepted and/or the reference to the earlier (1925a) report is considered a valid indication (as required in Article 12.2) then the name is available.

Pycraft (1925b) likely committed a lapsis calami in naming Homo larterti. He likely intending to name it after Eduard Lartet, who helped discover the Cro-Magnon fossils. Campbell (1965) listed the name as nomen nudem  and misspells it as 'laterti'.  Groves (1989 p. 291) emends it without note as 'larteti'.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Campbell (1965) lists this taxon as unavailable because the name is not a binomen. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Leakey (1935) describes modern looking fossils from Kanjera. Paterson (1949) lists Homo leakeyi (Kanjera) in a table but nowhere in the text discusses the taxon. Campbell (1965) lists the name as nomen nudem. Groves (1989) citing Campbell (1965) lists Homo leakeyi Paterson, 1949 (p. 291) among synonyms for Homo sapiens but does not comment on its availability. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Paterson (1940) included the name Homo leakeyi in a table but with no description and thus that name is nomen nudum.

Heberer (1963) introduced the name Homo leakeyi, with OH 9 as the holotype, to represent a taxon comprising African Pleistocene specimens formally lumped into Homo erectus.

Kretzoi (1984) established a new nomen for the taxon, Homo (Proanthropus) louisleakeyi , based on the holotype OH 9 because he concluded that Homo leakeyi Heberer, 1963 is preempted by Homo leakeyi Paterson 1940. However, it is not, because H. leakeyi Paterson, 1940 is nomen nudum and unavailable. Nonetheless, H. leakeyi Heberer was conditionally proposed and also unavailable, and thus Groves (1999; 2012) suggests the proper available name for the taxon including OH 9 is Homo louisleakeyi Kretzoi, 1984.

Groves (1989) does not mention Homo louisleakeyi, but Groves (1999) does, and it appeaers as a potentially valid taxon in a PhD thesis by Groves's student DD Argue (2006) and later by Groves (2012).

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

The species Homo longi Ji and Ni, 2021 was established by Ji et al. (2021) to accommodate the Harbin skull, a nearly complete hominin cranium found in northeastern China, dating to the Middle Pleistocene. Ji and Ni (2021) presented anaomical comparisions to Homo sapiens, neanderthals and to Homo heidelbergensis/Homo rhodesiensis. They concluded that "the Dali and Hualongdong crania should be referred to H. daliensis. The Harbin cranium, on the other hand, shows clear diagnostic features differing from Dali and Hualongdong crania." (p. 2) They further proposed that the Xiahe mandible (Chen et al., 2019) may also belong to H. longi.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Paterson (1940) included the name Homo leakeyi in a table but with no description and thus that name is nomen nudum.

Heberer (1963) introduced the name Homo leakeyi, with OH 9 as the holotype, to represent a taxon comprising African Pleistocene specimens formally lumped into Homo erectus.

Kretzoi (1984) established a new nomen for the taxon, Homo (Proanthropus) louisleakeyi , based on the holotype OH 9 because he concluded that Homo leakeyi Heberer, 1963 is preempted by Homo leakeyi Paterson 1940. However, it is not, because H. leakeyi Paterson, 1940 is nomen nudum and unavailable. Nonetheless, H. leakeyi Heberer was conditionally proposed and also unavailable, and thus Groves (1999; 2012) suggests the proper available name for the taxon including OH 9 is Homo louisleakeyi Kretzoi, 1984.

Groves (1989) does not mention Homo louisleakeyi, but Groves (1999) does, and it appeasers as a potentially valid taxon in a PhD thesis by Groves's student DD Argue (2006) and later by Groves (2012).

It is included as a valid taxon in Gyenis (2002) and mentioned as well in Derricourt (2009).

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Détroit et al. (2019) establish the species Homo luzonensis to accommodate fossil material discovered in 2010 on the island of Luzon in the Philippines. Despite its recent establishment the name has over a dozen usages in print and is widely considered a valid taxon.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

T. T. Paterson (1940) includes the entry "Homo marstoni (Swanscombe)" in a table outlining the main taxonomic groups of humans referenced in his discussion on paleolithic cultures. While numerous other taxa are mentioned, Homo marstoni is nowhere discussed in the text and appears only in the table. As best as can be determined this is the first published use of this name, however there is no description, no diagnosis, nor any reference to another published work containing a description of the taxon whatsoever. Thus, this act is an unambiguous nomen nudum and was noted as such by Campbell (1965).

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Campbell (1965) listed this taxon as a junior homonym to Homo fossilis proto-aethiopicus Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1915.

Behm established the nomen with Bonn-Oberkassel specimens 1 and 2 as syntypes. On page 164 he writes, 

"Wir haben es hier wohl, folgert letzterer, ahnlich wie bei den Gebeinen aus dem Hohlendfels im Frankishen Jura, mit alteren Verbreitungswellen des Lößmenschen (H. mediterraneus fossilis) zu tun, dieauf einer tieferen Entwicklungsstufe dene des Renntierjagers (H. europaeus fossilis) noch ziemlich nahe standen." 

Which loosely translates to 

"Here, the latter concludes, similar to the bones from the Hohlendfels in the Frankish Jura, we have to do with the older waves of the loess (H. mediterraneus fossilis), which at a lower stage of development are those of the reindeer hunter (H. europaeus fossilis) were close."

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1921) established the new species meridionalis and moved the subspecies proto-aethiopicus to it. Campbell (1965) lists the name as an available objective junior synonym to Homo aurignacensis hauseri Klaatsch and Hauser, 1910.

Under Article 32.5.2.3 the subspecies name proto-aethiopicus should be corrected to protoaethiopicus.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Ferguson (1995) established the name Homo microcranous with KNM-ER 1813 as the holotype. Ferguson (1995) mistakenly attributes Hominoidea to Simpson 1931 and Homininae to Simpson, 1945. Both should be attributed to Gray 1825.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Von Koenigwald (1936 p. 1007) established Homo modjokertensis with the Mojokerto child as the holotype. Campbell (1965) and Groves (1989) both recognize the name as available and potentially valid. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Klaatsch (1909) established the name Homo mousteriensis hauseri with the young skeleton from La Moustier as the holotype. Klaatsch provided anatomical description and diagnosis to support his assertion it is allied with Homo neanderthalensis.

Campbell (1965) listed the name as an available objective junior synonym of Homo transprimigenius mousteriensis Forrer, 1908. Campbell (1965) noted that it is unclear from the original publication whether the epithet "hauseri" was intended as a subspecies or to indicate authorship. Campbell elected to treat the epithet as a subspecies. 

Forrer (1908 p. 55) mentioned the name Homo mousteriensis hauseri Klaatsch as published in a newspaper article (frankfurt Zeitung), suggesting that Klaatsch's name may have priority over Homo transprimigenius mousteriensis Forrer, 1908. Forrer (1908) used 'houseri' as a subspecific epithet.

Groves (1989) listed Homo mousteriensis hauseri Klaatsch and Hauser, 1909, as an available junior synonym of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Berger et al. (2015) established the name Homo naledi, with the DH 1 partial skeleton as the holotype, to accommodate new fossil discoveries recovered from the Dinaledi (Rising Star) cave system, South Africa.

Homo naledi is characterized as having features of both australopiths as well as those more in line with the Homo genus (Berger, 2015). Berger classifies H. naledi as having a similar cranial, foot, and lower limb morphology to that of early Homo species, but a more australopith-like morphology in its torso and proximal femur. The original excavation was the largest collection of a single hominid species found, with 15 discovered individuals representing H. naledi, including the type specimen DH 1 and and paratypes DH 3, DH 4, DH 5, and U.W. 101-377. The name “naledi” itself refers to the Rising Star cave system the type specimen was first discovered in, translating to “star” in the Sotho language. The remains found at the Dinaledi Chamber have been dated to a period between 236 ka and 335 ka (Dirks et al., 2017). A 2017 excavation of the Lesedi Chamber of the Rising Star cave system found at least three additional H. naledi specimens, including the remains of both adults and juveniles (Hawks et al., 2017). 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Baudouin (1916) establised Homo naulettensis with the Naulette specimen as holotype. Baudouin provides a description and comparison with Homo heidelbergensis. Campbell (1965) listed this taxon as nomen nudum. Groves (1989) listed it as available and potentially valid. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

King (1864) established the name Homo neanderthalensis based on the Neanderthal 1 specimen recovered from Klein Feldhofer Grotto near Dusseldorf, Germany in 1856. Schmitz (2002) provided an analysis of the context of the original discovery site at Feldhofer Cave. Krings et al. (1997) established an early DNA record of neanderthals. Green et al. (2010) provided the first genomic analysis of neanderthals.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Sergi (1936) established Homo neanderthalensis var. aniensis based on Saccopastore 1 as the holotype. Campbell (1965) lists the taxon as available and valid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Gorjanovic-Kramberger (1902) suggested that the Krapina specimens are of the same general form as neanderthal but a different race. He writes,

"Wiewohl also der Mensch von Krapina -- wie gezeigt wurde -- zweifelshone dem Formenkreise des Homo neanderthalensis angehurt so scheint er uns doch, was den Langen-Breiten-Index anlangt, ein andere Rasse darzustellen. Homo neanderthalensis aus dem Neanderthale ist ein an der oberen Grenze stehender Mesocephalus, der Homo von Krapina aber ist -- wie schon bemerekt wurd -- ein Hyper-Brachycephalus, welcher auch demgemass ein andere Rasse oder Varietat des Homo neanderthalensis darstellt, welche man fuglich als Homo neanderthalensis var. Krapinensis bezeichnen und unterscheiden konnte." (pp. 204-205)

Which translates roughly to:

"Although the Krapina man - as has been shown - doubtlessly belongs to the circle of forms of Homo neanderthalensis, he seems to us to represent a different race as far as the long-width index is concerned. Homo neanderthalensis from the Neander valley is at the upper limit for mesocephalic, but the Homo from Krapina is - as has already been noted - hyper-brachycephalic, which accordingly represents another breed or variety of Homo neanderthalensis, which is suitably called Homo neanderthalensis var. Krapinensis in order to designate and differentiate them." 

Campbell (1965) assumed the holotype of this nomen to be associated with the parietal and occipital fragments described by Gorjanovic-Kramberger (1902) and belonging to Krapina D. Since that time the Krapina specimens have been resorted and that material is now identified as Krapina 5 (Caspari and Radovcic, 2006). 

Note that Article 45.6 of the ICZN states that the use of var. prior to 1961 is considered subspecific (as opposed to infraspecific) and thus coordinates at the species rank.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Wilser (1903) invoked the name Homo niger in discussing modern human races, but not in direct reference to the Grimaldi fossil remains.

Campbell (1965) lists Homo niger Wilser, 1903 as a junior homonym and also an objective junior synonym of Homo grimaldii Lapouge, 1906.

Further work is needed to fully establish the availability and status of this taxon.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Zeitoun (2000) provided a phylogenetic analysis that included several specimens African early Homo. Based on the analysis Zeitoun (2000 p. 104) proposed two new species for taxa occupying an intermediate position between the more plesiomorphic Homo rudolfensis and more derived Homo ergaster. One of the newly established species was Homo okotensis with KNM-ER 3883 as the holotype. An explicit differential diagnosis was not provided unless one considers the chracter state designations as a tacit diagnosis, in which case the name is available and potentially valid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Manouvrier (1896) provided a detailed review and interpretation of the Trinil fossils reported by Dubois (1982, 1894). On page 456 he presents an alternate name Homo pithecanthropus but he specifically indicates that while he thinks this name would be least controversial he is not proposing it and that he believe P. erectus to have priority. Specifically he states (p. 456),

"La question de dénomination n'a aucune importance. J'ai repoussé la formation d'une famille nouvelle, mais je ne vois pas
d'inconvénient à conserver le nom de P. E. qui représente l'opinion de M. Dubois sur le degré très inférieur d'évolution de la race
deTrinil,o pinion dont rien ne démontre la fausseté jusqu'à présent.

Si le nom de P. E. ne jouissait du droit de priorité, j'eusse accepté tout aussi volontiers le nom d'homme pliocène de Trinil ou même malgré sesdéfauts celui de Homo Javanensis primigenius proposépar M. Houzé.

Mais le nom quiré pondrait le mieux à mamanière devoiret qui, sans diminuer en rien les grands mérites des travaux de M. Dubois ni la haute portée de sa découverte,réunirait les opi nionslesmoins divergentes, serait Homo pithecanthropus. Ce n'est point là une proposition."

The last sentence clearly indicates Manouvrier does not intend to propose the name Homo pithecanthropus. The Code seems ambiguous regarding the treatment of names so offered (but not proposed). 

Also, as noted by Manouvrier (1896) and later by Campbell (1965), based as it is on the same type specimen, the alternate name is an objective junior synonym to Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Absolon (1920) established the name Homo predmostensis (p. 365). Campbell (1965) lists the name as an available objective junior synonym to Notanthropus eurafricanus archaius Sergi 1911.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Schwalbe, in a lecture delivered during a meeting of the Society of German Naturalists and Physicians, held at Cassel in 1903, and subsequently published in 1904, proposed the name Homo primigenius with the Neanderthal 1 specimen as the holotype. Both Campbell (1965 p. 22) and Groves (1989 p. 288) list this taxon as an objective junior synonym of Homo neanderthalensis King, 1864. It is also a primary junior homonym to Homo javanensis primigenius Houzé, 1896. Thus, the name is available but objectively invalid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Weidenreich (1928) proposed Homo primigenius africanus for the Kabwe (Broken Hill) specimen, however Homo primigenius is a primary junior homonym to Homo javanensis primigenius Houzé, 1896. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

In discussing the finds from Ngandong, Weidenreich (1932) suggested Homo primigenius asiaticus. Weidenreich (1932 p. 250) writes, 

"Die neuesten javanishen Funde (Oppenoorth 1932) aprechen dafür, dass der "Homo soloensis" trotz seines allgemeinen Primigenius typus wiederum eine Eigenform darstelte, die, weil sich seine Besonderheiten an allen gefundenen Schadeln in gleicher Weise zeigen, wohl nur rassich dedingt sein kann. 
Wir hätten es danach hier vielleicht mit einem Homo primigenius asiaticus zu tun. Bei jeder dieser Rassenformen konnten sich dann bestinmte primitivere Merkmale erhalten haben, die vielleicht bei einer anderen verloren gegangen sind."

which loosely translates to, 

"The latest Javanese finds (Oppenoorth 1932) suggest that the "Homo soloensis", despite its general Primigenius type, was again a peculiar form which, because its peculiarities are shown in the same way on all skulls found, can only be racially specific.
Given that, we might be dealing with a Homo primigenius asiaticus. With each of these race forms certain more primitive characteristics could then have been retained, which may have been lost in another."

Weidenreich's suggested name is given conditionally but because he is writing prior to 1961 the name is available. Campbell (1965) noted asiatics is a specific homonym (Linnaeus, 1758) and also that the taxon is an objective junion synonym to Homo (Javanthropus) soloensis Oppenoorth, 1932. Groves (1989) listed the taxon as an available subjective junior synonym to Homo erectus.  The nomen Homo primigenius asiaticus is thus available but objectively invalid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Hennig (1932) in a summary of (then) recent discoveries listed on p. 135 Homo primigenius Galilaeensis among other taxa but does not provide a description or diagnosis. Campbell (1965) indicated the taxon is nomen nudum.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Lapouge (1899) established Homo priscus in reference to pre-sapiens populations exemplified by Laugerie and Chancelade (footnote p. 16; figures 9 and 10 on pp. 169, 170; and text on p. 170 and after). Campbell (1965) fixed Chancelade as the lectotype and recognized Homo priscus Lapouge, 1899 as available and valid. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Krause (1909) provided detailed anatomical description of the human skeleton and comparative analysis of fossil forms including fossils from Neanderthal, Spy and Krapina, each of which he assigned to separate species in accord with his assertion that they each represented independent lineages rather than subspecies of Homo primigenius. On page 176 Krause proposed the names Homo priscus and Homo spyensis as alternate names based on the Spy 1 specimen.

Campbell (1965) noted that Homo priscus Krause, 1909 is a primary junior homonym to Homo priscus Lapouge, 1899. Krause's name is thus available but objectively invalid.
 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Woodward (1921) established Homo rhodesiensis with the Kabwe skull, E686, as the holotype. Pycraft (1928) provided a detailed morphological description and established rhodesiensis as the type species for a new genus, Cyphanthropus. Grun et al. (2020) provided updated geochronology for the holotype and commented on the taxonomy. Additional commentary on systematics and taxonomy can be found in Athreya and Hopkins (2021), Schwartz and Tatersal (2010).

While this name has clear priority over other names associated with Middle Pleistocene (Chibanian) hominids from Africa, Roksandic et al. (2022) made a compelling argument for suppressing or ignoring the name to decolonize paleoanthropology (but see Delson and Stringer, 2022; Sarmiento and Pickford, 2022). The ICZN has no mechanism for suppressing names on these grounds and has demonstrated a reluctance to do so in prior petitions brought before the commission (Seríaco et al., 2023). For additional discussion on this topic see the entry for Homo bodoensis.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Drennan (1955, p. 634) proposed Homo saldanensis with the skull from Hopefield (Saldanha) as the holotype.

Campbell (1965) listed the name as available but has the species epithet misspelled as 'saldenesis'. Groves (1989 p. 204) discussed the taxon but misspells it as 'saldanhensis'. It is, however, spelled correctly in the subject index and in the listing on p. 284.

Roksandic et al. (2022a) included the Saldanha specimen in the hypodigm for Homo bodoensis. In a reply, Sarmiento and Pickford (2022) noted that Homo saldanensis Drennan, 1955 has priority over Homo bodoensis. In response Roksandic et al. (2022b) argued that Homo saldanensis Drennan, 1955 is a nomen nudum because "Drennan (1955) admits that the Saldanha skull does not have any diagnotic traits," (Roksandic et al., 2022b) and therefor does not compley with Article 13 of the Code requiring proposed nomina include "a descripton or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon." (ICZN, 1999)

Drennan (1955) begins the article by saying "The Saldanha skull has no individual feature that is not found in one or other of the known human fossils, but it has an interesting combination of primitive characters that give it a distinctive position in the human pedigree." (p. 625). Drennan goes on to provide a comparative description of the Saldanha specimen relative to Kabwe, Pithecanthropus, Neanderthals and various "races" of Homo sapiens. Drennan argued that Saldanha has a diagnostic constellation of traits that is distinct from any other taxon. He concluded his paper by saying "When with this there is taken into account the great thickness of the bones and other distinctive features of the Sladanha skull, the author considers it logical to designate Saldanha man as Homo saldanensis." The comparative descriptions and concluding statements appear to conform to the requirements of Article 13, and hence we argue that Homo saldanensis is available and potentially valid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Homo nosce te ipsum. The species Homo sapiens was described by Linnaeus in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae (1758) but no holotype was designated as part of the original description, as was customary at the time. The question of what person should serve as the type specimen is addressed in a FAQ on the ICZN website by David Notton and Chris Stringer, where they argue Carl Linnaeus himself is the appropriate lectotype as designated by William Stearn in 1959. Norton and Stringer also refute the designation of Edward Cope as a type for Homo sapiens. Cope is unavailable as a lectotype because he was not alive in 1758 and therefore not among the specimens considered by Linnaeus. Spamer (1999) provides a full description of the history and context of the debate. Historically, biological anthropology is replete with numerous taxonomies that recognize subspecies and races of Homo sapiens but current consensus is that humans form a single species and prior racial classifications served largely colonial and imperial rather than biological or taxonomic interests. The fossil record of Homo sapiens extends possibly to 300 ka (Hublen et al. 2017) and includes several morphological subspecies such as Homo sapiens idaltu from Herto, Ethiopia (White et al. 2003). 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Gregory (1921 p. 180) lists Homo sapiens Boskop. Campbell (1965) lists as unavailable because name is not latinized as required by Article 11. Objective junior synonym of Homo capensis Broom, 1917.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Derevianko (2011) provided a monograph-length review of anatomically modern Homo sapiens that included reference to four geographic subspecies, "H. s. africanensis (Africa), H. sapiens orientalensis (East and Southern Asia), H. sapiens neanderthalensis (Europe) and H. sapiens altaiensis (Southern Siberia and Central Asia)," (p. 512). The monograph did not explicitly indicate the creation of a new subspecies names in accordance with Article 16.1 of the Code, nor explicitly fix type specimens as required by Article 16.4. Thus it is not clear that the author intended to propose a new scientific name.

Furthermore, Derevianko (2011) explicitly rejected naming a new species,
“Before publication, members of the paleogenetic team decided to refrain from deciding whether the Neanderthals and the Denisovans should be regarded as different species or as different subspecies. The name “Denisovans,” like the name “Neanderthals” merely points to the provenance of the respective fossils (Reich et al., 2010)…
During the preparation of the earlier article, addressing mtDNA from the hominid phalanx found in stratum 11, members of Pääbo's team considered the possibility of regarding the Denisovans as a distinct species (Homo altaiensis)(Krause et al., 2007), but it was decided to refrain from introducing a new species. The results of the nuclear genome sequencing suggest that the Denisovans were a subspecies, which, along with others, was ancestral with regard to modern humans" (p. 465).

The Derevianko (2011) monograph lacks a clear differential diagnosis in accord with Article 13.1 (nomen nudum), however it is possible to interpret the reference to Reich et al. (2010) as a reference to the genetic diagnosis of the taxon. The code is ambivalent as to the status of genetics for differential diagnosis and the use of ancient DNA to identify the Denisovan lineage marks a turning point in taxonomic practice. For the reasons mentioned above, we regard the name altaiensis Derevianko, 2011 as unavailable.

Zubova et al. (2017) presented a morphological analysis of isolated molars (Denisova 4 and Denisvoa 8) and attributed them to the taxon Homo altaiensis, citing Derevianko, 2011. Zubova et al. (2017) examined dental variation and concluded that H. altaiensis is distinct genetically and morphologically from H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis. The use of Homo altaiensis by Zubova et al. (2017) could constitute a proposal for the name, however these authors did not specifically indicate their intent to propose a new species nor did they fix a type specimen and thus the name in this usage remains unavailable.

Harvati and Reyes-Centeno (2023) list Homo altaiensis Derevianko, 2011 among potential names for Middle Pleistocene hominin taxa.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Gregory (1921 p. 179) suggested the name Homo sapiens Crô-Magnonensis in reference to the material from Cro Magnon as well as other sites in Italy. 

Campbell (1965) listed the name as an objective junior synonym of Homo aurignacensis hauseri

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Wu 1981 provided a description of the Dali cranium and proposed assigning it to the subspecies Homo sapiens daliensis. Specifically, Wu (1981 p. 539) stated, "It is suggested that Dali (sic) cranium probably represents a new subspecies, Homo sapiens daliensis. " The use of the words, “suggested” and “probably” signal a conditional proposal under Article 15 of the Code. However, in the abstract the intent is more clear. There the author stated, "The cranium differs from Neanderthals in a number of racial characteristics. It is therefore considered here a new subspecies: Homo sapiens daliensis.” The differences between the body of the text and the abstract raises the question of whether the Code should be applied to an entire publication or to segments of a publication. Unfortunately, this issue affects other hominin nomina as well, e.g. Australopithecus africanus aethiopicus Tobias, 1980b and Tchadanthropus uxoris Coppens, 1969. For consistency, any stated reservations are taken to apply to the entirety of the publication and thus Homo sapiens daliensis is unavailable, as are the other examples.

Groves (1989) listed Homo sapiens daliensis Wu, 1981 as a subjective synonym for Homo sapiens mapaensis Kurth, 1965. Groves (2017) treated Dali and Jinniushan as Homo heidelbergensis. Bae (2010) discussed the merits of invoking Homo mabaensis for Middle Pleistocene premodern Homo from southeast Asian and Homo daliensis for the taxon in northeast Asia, ulitmately concluding that it is best to retain the term, 'archaic Homo sapiens".  Manzi (2016) employed the nomen as Homo heidelbergensis daliensis. Multivariate analysis by Athreya and Wu (2017) indicated a mosaic pattern exhibiting derived features in the face and primitive features in the neurocranium. These authors refrained from making a taxonomic determination based on these results.  

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

White et al. (2003) described the Herto cranium from the Herto Member of the Bouri Formation of the Middle Awash Research Area and ascribed specimen BOU-VP-16/1 as the holotype to a subspecies of anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens idaltu.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Montandon has Homo sapiens proto-sapiens as the subtitle for chapter IX of his 1943 book. In this chapter Mantondon describes Piltdown and Swanscombe A and B. Swanscombe C was not yet discovered. Campbell (1965) listed the name as valid and fixed Swanscombe as the lectotype. Groves (1989) listed this taxon as available and potentially valid provided the name is corrected to remove the hyphen (Article 32.5.2.3).

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Senyurek (1957a) described a junvenile skeleton that the author considered to be distinct from European neanderthals, Pleistocene humans, and modern humans. Senyurek ascribed this fossil to Shanidar Man. in a subsequent publication (Senyurek, 1957b) the author provided additional comparison and statistical analysis. It is at the end of the second publication (p.117) where the author wrote, “I propose to name this new Mousterian race, represented by the Shanidar infant, Homo sapiens shanidarensis, after the cave in which it was found.”

Campbell (1965) cited Senyurek (1957) as the source for the name, but referenced the first publication in the bibliography rather than the second.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Montandon described fossils from Zuttyeh, Tabun, Skhul, Kafzeh as syntypes of Homo semiprimigenius palestinus. The name stems from Montandon's hypothesis that this taxon reflects hybridization between Neanderthals and modern humans. Chapter VIII concludes with,

"Il est vraisemblable que cet etre mixte (mais pluspres du Neandertalensis, tandis que le type de Brux, legerement neandertaloide tient tout de mem au Sapiens) se révélera en bien d'autres points que la Palestine. Systematiquement, ce sera soit un Homo primigenius palestinus, soit, en créant un terme spécificque pour l'échelon mixte, un Homo semiprimigenius, variete palestinus." (p. 215).

From the syntypes described, Campbell (1965), selected Skhul 1 as the lectotype. Campbell noted the name is an objective junior synonym to Palaeanthropus palestinus McCown & Keith, 1932. The name is thus available but objectively invalid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Lapouge (1899) established the name Homo spelaeus for pre-sapiens populations of southern Europe represented by Cro Magnon. Campbell (1965) fixed the adult male skeleton from Cro Magon as the lectotype. Campbell (1965) noted the name as available and potentially valid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Krause (1909) provided detailed anatomical description of the human skeleton and comparative analysis of fossil forms including fossils from Neanderthal, Spy and Krapina, each of which he assigned to separate species in accord with his assertion that they represented independent lineages rather than subspecies of Homo primigenius. On page 176 Krause proposed the names Homo priscus and Homo spyensis as alternate names, based on the Spy 1 specimen.

Campbell (1965) noted Homo priscus Krause, 1909 is an objectively invalid junior homonym, but that Homo spyensis is available and potentially valid.  Campbell (1965) noted the adult skeleton Spy 1 as the lectotype.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Berckhemer (1936) established the name Homo steinheimensis (caption to Figure 1 p. 349) for the Steinheim skull and provided description and comparison to neanderthals and modern humans.

Campbell (1965) noted Homo steinheimensis Berckhemer, 1936 as available and potentially valid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Zubova (2000) established Homo sungirensis based on the juvenile remains of Sungir 2 with Sungir 3 as a paratype.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Kennard (1942) is a brief caption that mentions Homo swanscombensis but does not provide a differential diagnosis; it is nomen nudem and thus unavailable.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Ambach et al. (1992) invoked the name Homo tirolensis in a brief description about the find and indicate that the name is given provisionally. Lubec et al. (1994) also invoke the name in their report on aminio acid racimation dating of the specimen. They too indicate the name is provisional. Given the provisional designation and the lack of description or a differential diagnosis in either publication the name is conditionally proposed and nomen nudem and thus unavailable.  Furthermore, the nomen is a junior primary homonym to Homo alpinus tirolensis Frizzi, 1909.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Forrer (1908, p. 53) established the name Homo transprimigenious mousteriensis with Le Mousterier as the type specimen. Forrer (1908) provided a brief descriptioin of Le Mousterir in comparision to specimens from Trinil and to Neanderthal and Spy. He interpreted Le Mousterier as being intermediate between Trinil and later Neanderthals.

Forrer (1908 p. 55) acknowledged the name Homo mousteriensis hauseri proposed by Klaatsch in a newspaper article in the 'frankfurter Zeitung' that first announced the discovery of Le Mousterier. It seems this article, or its mention by Forrer would serve to establish Homo mousteriensis hauseri Klaatsch, before Homo transprimigenius mousteriensis Forrer.  Determining which name has priority requires further investigation. For now, priority is given to Homo transprimigenius mousteriensis Forrer, 1908, following the lead of Campbell (1965).

Campbell (1965) and Groves both noted that Forrer (1908) established Homo transprimigenius mousteriensis based on Le Moustier.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Alsberg (1922 p. 165) established the name Homo trinilis. Campbell (1965) listed this name as an objective junior synonym, thus available but invalid.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Chang et al. (2015) described a partial mandible, Penghu 1, purchased from an antique dealer in Taiwan. The specimen was originally recovered by a fishing boat dredging the Penghu Straits off the coast of Taiwan. Similar vertebrate fauna recovered from the straits suggested a Pleistocene age. Chang et al. attributed the specimen to Homo sp. indet. 

McMenamin (2015), in what appears to be a self-published, 12-page book, proposed the name Homo tsaichangensis with the Penghu 1 mandible as holotype. It is not clear that print versions of the book were ever widely available in a manner that would fulfil the condition for numerous identical and durable copies set out in Article 8.1.3.1. It is available as a pdf online. The work is registered with Zoobank but the published work does not contain evidence that the name is so registered as required by Articles 8.5.3.1 and 8.5.3.2. For these reasons we list the name as unavailable.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Dubois (1921) established Homo wadjakensis with extensive description of remains from Wadjak, Indonesia includeing an adult cranium (Wadjak I) and a mandible (Wadjak II). The first fossil specimen was discovered in East Asia in 1888 by Mr. B.D. Van Rietschoten during marble prospecting mission. Remains given to Dubois who delayed publication till 1921.

Campbell (1965) listed the name as available and potentially valid, with the adult female cranium as the lectotype. Oakley, Campbell and Page (1975) listed Wadjak 1 skeleton as holotype.

Groves (1989 p. 291) listed Homo wadjakensis Dubois, 1921as an available junior subjective synonym of Homo sapiens cf. sapiens.
 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Campbell (1965) listed this taxon as an objective junior synonym for Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois, 1894.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Krause (1909) provided detailed anatomical description of the human skeleton and comparative analysis of fossil forms including fossils from Neanderthal, Spy and Krapina, each of which he assigned to separate species in accord with his assertion that they each represented independent lineages rather than subspecies of Homo primigenius.

Krause (1909) discussed his opinion that the Trinil material is a gibbon, Hylobates gigas. Specifically, he wrote (p. 176), 

“Die gemeinschaftlichen Vorfahren des Menschen und Affen, die zuweilen als kletternde Primaten bezeichnet werden, liegen im Eocan begraben. Pithecanthropus hingegen ist ein grosser Affe, Hylobates gigas, der mit der direkten Vorfahrenreihe des Menschen nichts zu tun hat, selbst wenn er sekundar das aufrechte Gehen gelernt hatte.”

The section above loosely translates to, 
The common ancestors of humans and apes, sometimes referred to as climbing primates, are buried in the Eocan. Pithecanthropus, on the other hand, is a great ape, Hylobates gigas, which has nothing to do with the direct line of human ancestors, even if it had learned to walk upright as a secondary step. 

Campbell (1965) noted that Hylobates gigas based as it is on Trinil 2, is an available though objectively invalid junior synonym to Pithecanthropus erectus.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Leakey et al. established this genus with Kenyanthropus platyops as the type species.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Leakey et al. (2001) establish a new genus and species, Kenyanthropus platyops,with KNM-WT 40000 as the holotype. Spoor et al. (2010) includes a quantitative analysis that found that K. platyops to be metrically distinct from contemporaneous Australopithecus and Paranthropus species.

This taxon is not widely utilized. It appears in rougly 10 article in the past 50 years.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Montandon (1943) established a new genus, Maueranthropus heidelbergensis (Schoetensack, 1908) Mantondon, 1943. Campbell (1965) listed the taxon as an available objective junior synonym to the genus Palaeanthropus heidelbergensis (Schoetensack, 1908) Bonarelli, 1909 as both share heidelbergensis as the type species.

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Weidenreich (1944) established Meganthropus with Meganthrpus palaeojavanicus as the type species, which in turn is based on Sangiran 6 as the type specimen. 

Authorship Reference

Details

Remarks

Weinert (1950, p. 139) established the name Meganthropus africanus for the Garusi I maxilla, based on similarities with forms of Meganthropus from Indonesia. Later, Johanson, White & Coppens (1978) erected Australopithecus afarensis and included Garusi 1 in the hypodigm. Johanson et al. (1978) considered the Garusi 1 specimen to belong to the genus Australopithecus and thus could not transfer Weinert’s name “africanus” without creating a homonym. For that reason, they established the new species name “afarensis”.

Groves (1996) formally requested that the ICZN suppress the name Meganthropus africanus and grant priority to Australopithecus afarensis. This appeal was made in case number 2998, with comments from White et al. (1998) and approved by ICZN in 1999 as opinion number 1941. In their final opinion, the ICZN ruled that the name africanus Weinert 1950 is formally suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. The same ruling also acknowledged the name afarensis, Johanson 1978 with the specimens L.H. 4 as the lectotype. Groves (1999) reviews the nomenclatural history.

See entry for Australopithecus afarensis.