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.
