386
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 91:
Line 91: + +
→Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is incorrect
:::: So wouldn't it be better to explain all that (or whatever the precise story is) in the body of the article, and not "take sides" by choosing one of the titles for the article title?
:::: So wouldn't it be better to explain all that (or whatever the precise story is) in the body of the article, and not "take sides" by choosing one of the titles for the article title?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::He meant "genus", not "genius".--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 00:43, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Homo is the genius, sapiens is the species. The way this article reads is Homo (genius) Sapiens (species), Neanderthalis (subspecies). That classification was changes upon DNA evidence and more understanding of physiological data. Look at my link to the Smithsonian's classification.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Homo is the genius, sapiens is the species. The way this article reads is Homo (genius) Sapiens (species), Neanderthalis (subspecies). That classification was changes upon DNA evidence and more understanding of physiological data. Look at my link to the Smithsonian's classification.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)