Reclassification of Homo sapiens.

Enmos

Enmos

Valued Senior Member
In my opinion the Genus Homo is a misnomer.
The latest studies found that 99.4 percent of important DNA sites are the same in chimps and humans.
Chimpanzees and Bonobo's are more closely related to us than to any other great ape.
In fact, they are so closely related to us that they should be in the same Genus as we are.
It has been proposed that Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and Bonobo's (Pan paniscus) be put in our Genus (Homo) in stead of the Pan Genus.
But it seems to me, that the Homo Genus is completely arbitrary and solely a product of our arrogance (or vanity if you will).
Therefor Humans should be reclassified as Pan sapiens in my opinion, rather than reclassifying Chimpanzees and Bonobo's as, respectively, Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus.

While we're at it, perhaps Pan monastica would be more fitting ;)
 
Last edited:
i agree, its very arrogant to think we are "wise men" and thats even ignoring the fact that if we were any other group we would be Pan. However because its us doing the clasification we want to seperate ourselves from "the animals"
 
Asguard said:
i agree, its very arrogant to think we are "wise men" and thats even ignoring the fact that if we were any other group we would be Pan. However because its us doing the clasification we want to seperate ourselves from "the animals"
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not very scientific ;)
 
I believe we share 50% of our genes with the humble banana. Perhaps you need to go further back and decide we are all fruitcakes.
 
S.A.M. said:
I believe we share 50% of our genes with the humble banana. Perhaps you need to go further back and decide we are all fruitcakes.
Click to expand...

Why ?
By current standards Humans, Chimpanzees and Bonobo's should all be in the same genus. Why aren't we ?
 
i agree with you, we SHOULD be pan.

personaly i like the term "pan naritive" (or whatever it was) "the story telling chimp"
 
Asguard said:
i agree with you, we SHOULD be pan.

personaly i like the term "pan naritive" (or whatever it was) "the story telling chimp"
Click to expand...

What about the one I suggested (Pan monastica) ? :D

Edit: Or Pan pestos. That one seems even more fitting.
Some others could be Pan pervasor or Pan nequam.
Sorry.. :p
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
I believe we share 50% of our genes with the humble banana. Perhaps you need to go further back and decide we are all fruitcakes.
Click to expand...
Is that the currant thinking Oh Great Sultana?
Humans pear up and have children, it's a grape thing for continuing the species.
 
translation?

but i do like that one (its not mine, came out of the terry prachett book "the science of the disc world) because it IS what seperates us from other chimps. The ability to tell stories allows culture to exist, we tell ourselves stories about culture and countries, religion, science ect ect
 
Asguard said:
translation?

but i do like that one (its not mine, came out of the terry prachett book "the science of the disc world) because it IS what seperates us from other chimps. The ability to tell stories allows culture to exist, we tell ourselves stories about culture and countries, religion, science ect ect
Click to expand...

Pan monastica - Religious Ape
Pan pestos - Destroying Ape
Pan pervasor - Invading Ape
Pan nequam - Vile Ape
 
Oli said:
Is that the currant thinking Oh Great Sultana?
Humans pear up and have children, it's a grape thing for continuing the species.
Click to expand...

Good one. I think I see the point in having chimpanzee, bonobo and humans separate. While we share a common origin, I don't think anyone here is pearing up with a chimp or bonobo. Lets keep the definitions that make sense.

Now fahrenheit on the other hand. :mad:
 
Are you arguing that inspite of belonging to the hominid family, there is not greater similarity between the chimp and bonobo than either shares with a human?
 
"There still is controversy, however. Scientists such as Morris Goodman [13] of Wayne State University in Detroit argue that the Bonobo and Common Chimpanzee are so closely related to humans, that their genus name also should be classified with the human genus Homo: Homo paniscus, Homo sylvestris, or Homo arboreus. An alternative philosophy suggests that the term Homo sapiens is the misnomer rather, and that humans should be reclassified as Pan sapiens. In either case, a name change of the genus would be problematic because it would complicate the taxonomy of other species closely related to humans, including Australopithecus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Taxonomy
 
S.A.M. said:
Good one. I think I see the point in having chimpanzee, bonobo and humans separate. While we share a common origin, I don't think anyone here is pearing up with a chimp or bonobo. Lets keep the definitions that make sense.

Now fahrenheit on the other hand. :mad:
Click to expand...

:confused:

Should we give all species their own Genus then ?
 
S.A.M. said:
Are you arguing that inspite of belonging to the hominid family, there is not greater similarity between the chimp and bonobo than either shares with a human?
Click to expand...

What difference does it make ? Humans, Chimpanzees and Bonobo's are so similar that they should belong to the same Genus. This is done with any other species if they are similar enough, why not with humans ? Why do we have to have our own little Genus ?
What is your aversion to this anyway ? It's clean genetic biology.
 
S.A.M. said:
Whats the basis of the Pan and Homo genus?
Click to expand...

There is no basis for the Homo genus, apart from our arrogance.
A particular level of genetic similarity is the basis for lumping species together in one genus. Chimpanzees and Bonobo's are genetically more like humans than they are like any of the of the members of the genus Pan. So why should they be in Pan and not in Homo, at least ?
And if they are sufficiently similar to the members of Pan, which they apparently are, why shouldn't we in Pan as well ?
 
Asguard said:
"There still is controversy, however. Scientists such as Morris Goodman [13] of Wayne State University in Detroit argue that the Bonobo and Common Chimpanzee are so closely related to humans, that their genus name also should be classified with the human genus Homo: Homo paniscus, Homo sylvestris, or Homo arboreus. An alternative philosophy suggests that the term Homo sapiens is the misnomer rather, and that humans should be reclassified as Pan sapiens. In either case, a name change of the genus would be problematic because it would complicate the taxonomy of other species closely related to humans, including Australopithecus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Taxonomy
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm arguing for the Pan sapiens case, as there really is no basis for the Genus Homo other than to artificially set us apart because we find ourselves so important..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top