Why aren't Peking Man considered Heidelbergenssi?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Calpalned
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the classification of ancient hominids, particularly why Peking Man and Java Man are categorized as Homo erectus, while fossils from Europe from the same time period are classified as Homo heidelbergensis. Recent studies suggest that Peking Man fossils, previously thought to be younger, are actually around 750,000 years old. The classification differences stem from geographic locations and slight morphological variations among specimens. Some scientists propose splitting Homo erectus into three species based on their regions: H. ergaster in Africa, H. erectus in Asia, and H. heidelbergensis in Europe. The conversation highlights the complexities of hominid classification, noting that despite modern humans from different continents being classified as the same species, ancient Homo erectus remains distinct across regions.
Calpalned
Messages
297
Reaction score
6
7) Why are peking and java man considered homo

erectus, while the fossils of the same time period (600,000 BC) found

in Europe are considered Heidelbergensis? According to wikipedia,

peking man fossils had brain sizes from 1000 cc to about 1220 cc,

well within the range of Heidebergensis.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Hi Calpalned, sorry I couldn't reply earlier, I'm a bit swamped right now, but wanted to get you started. There have been differences of opinion over classification of older hominids. I'm going to start you off with an article that describes the revision in age, and hope to follow up shortly with more about what separates the species.

Peking Man' older than thought

Iconic ancient human fossils from China are 200,000 years older than had previously been thought, a study shows. The new dating analysis suggests the "Peking Man" fossils, unearthed in the caves of Zhoukoudian are some 750,000 years old.
Continued...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7937351.stm
 
Evo said:
Hi Calpalned, sorry I couldn't reply earlier
No worries, I'm actually thankful to even have a reply. I realized that my question is quite similar to the one here https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/perhaps-they-are-all-the-same-species.799820/ , where I asked about why erectus, ergaster, heidelbergensis and antecessor, despite having the same basic skull shape (except for increasing brain size) are labeled as different species.
 
They're good questions. It seems to come down to where specimens are found and slight differences.

Some scientists have split H. erectus into three separate species, based on the geographic region in which specimens have been found: H. ergaster (Africa), H. erectus (Asia), and H. heidelbergensis (Europe).

Generally, H. erectus (inclusive) is characterized by large molars, an unpronounced chin, heavy brow ridges, and a long, low skull, relative to modern Homo sapiens. The skeleton of H. erectus was heavier, or "more robust," than the average modern human skeleton. Body proportions vary greatly from individual to individual. "Turkana Boy" was tall and slender, like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of "Peking Man" indicate a shorter, sturdier build.
(See more below)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/k.html

Wikipedia actually collects information from different sources on Peking man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_Man
 
Evo said:
They're good questions. It seems to come down to where specimens are found and slight differences.

(See more below)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/k.html

Wikipedia actually collects information from different sources on Peking man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_Man

I see... In my opinion, it is rather interesting that modern humans from Asia, Europe and Africa are all classified as the same species while homo erectus from those three continents are seperate... Anyway, thanks for the reply, I understand this concept better now.
 
Popular article referring to the BA.2 variant: Popular article: (many words, little data) https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/health/ba-2-covid-severity/index.html Preprint article referring to the BA.2 variant: Preprint article: (At 52 pages, too many words!) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.14.480335v1.full.pdf [edited 1hr. after posting: Added preprint Abstract] Cheers, Tom

Similar threads

Back
Top