https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13485234/
Towle I. Clades, Grades, and the Genus Problem: A Case for Revising Hominin Taxonomy. Am J Biol Anthropol. 2026 Aug;190(4):e70344. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.70344. PMID: 42612121; PMCID: PMC13485234.
All apes (superfamily): Hominoidea; great apes (family): Hominidae; African great apes (subfamily): Homininae; Pan‐Homo clade (tribe): Hominini; human clade (subtribe): Hominina. [0]
The potential for error seems enormous, and also imagine speaking those words without creating confusion, or try forming singulars and possessives that, in text and speech, unambiguously identify the clade.
Can anyone on the inside shed insight on why they do this to themselves, and to everyone else who has even less understanding? Is it self-hate? Imagine a large codebase that named variables like that - there would be a lynching late one night when the bug was found to be confusion.
Despite my reaction, I guess there is some good reason that all these smart, experienced people make this choice.
[0] From the paper the OP describes: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13485234/
Superfamily -oidea
Hominoidea | Feloidea | Canoidea |
Hominidae | Felidae | Canidae |
Homininae | Felinae (Small cats) | Caninae |
Hominini | Felini | Canini |
Hominina | Felina | Canina |[Sorry I never joke but surely the biologists were joking when they came up with that so it should be fair game]
Around 15 branches in 5,000,000 years and 0 in the last 10,000 years seems more likely statistical than ideological to me.
Humans of all kinds can breed and make new humans easily. Same for dogs... easily can breed with each other and increase diversity. So in both cases same species. But humans and chimpanzees? Probably not (albeit there are rumours? :) ), so different species.
It's my opinion that if aliens visited earth 30k years ago and used our definition of the word, they would classify us as different species. To be clear I'm not advocating that we should refer to humans as different species, just that because we're capable of such advanced thought we should abide by different rules than we hold other animals to.
All human beings from all over the world can interbreed and their children will be fertile themselves (with the same rate of accidental infertility they would find in their own populations). As such, it would be completely preposterous to claim that there is more than one species of human on the planet today.
If Aliens landed on our earth 20k years ago and used our definition of the word there's no doubt in my mind they'd consider us different species, we'd be like bears. As far as I can tell the only reason we don't classify people as different species is for the sake of society, as people would naturally then try to determine differences and rank them, which has an obviously bad long-term outcome.
There are Slavic white, who are in the same vertical slice (roughly, around water) as Arab brown and Ethiopian black, genetically.
Then there are western African black along another band that are closer to Irish and Scottish than some other black people.
There are white, black, and brown East Asians - the whole spectrum from North Korea and Japan down to Malaysia, Vietnam, and Samoan.
It’s not as simple as black, white, brown - this spectrum emerged multiple times in our evolution mostly due to climate patterns and differences in coastal vs inland, and cave vs outdoor, living conditions that relate to the weather.
Any large vertical region we inhabited in ancient times, with dark cold places in the north and hot sunny places along the equator with coastal and inland options, a racial spectrum like that would emerge over time.
“That’s where the mountains are,” Denise said. “Spaceships can hide from radar or whatever.”
“Why are the mountains upstate?” Steffie said.
“Mountains are always upstate,” Denise told her. “This way the snow melts as planned in the spring and flows downhill to the reservoirs near the cities, which are kept in the lower end of the state for exactly this reason.”
I thought, momentarily, she might be right. It made a curious kind of sense. Or did it? Or was it totally crazy? There had to be large cities in the northern part of some states. Or were they just north of the border in the southern part of states just to the north? What she said could not be true and yet I had trouble, momentarily, disproving it. I could not name cities or mountains to disprove it. There had to be mountains in the southern part of some states. Or did they tend to be below the state line, in the northern part of states to the south? I tried to name state capitals, governors. How could there be a north below a south? Is this what I found confusing? Was this the crux of Denise’s error? Or was she somehow, eerily, right?
The radio said: “Excesses of salt, phosphorus, magnesium.”