Nicholas Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I've been curious I've once heard that there is a distinct difference in Homo sapiens from Homo sapiens sapiens. This distinction comes from speciation, that modern humans are now genetically different enough from ice aged Homo sapiens that we could not produce a viable(non-sterile) offspring. I was under the assumption thats why we are Homo sapiens sapiens, and when we are talking about older forms of "modern" humans we refer to them as Homo sapiens. Any help on this would be appreciated. I just can't find a resource to confirm this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharks of SC Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I recently finished up with my anthropology class, but I am still a little unsure on this subject. My professor made a very clear distiction between the species homo sapiens and anatomically modern homo sapiens sapiens, but I cannot remember exactly what this distiction was. I will go through my class notes tomorrow...its too late tonight for me to try to make sense. CBK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 I recently finished up with my anthropology class, but I am still a little unsure on this subject. My professor made a very clear distiction between the species homo sapiens and anatomically modern homo sapiens sapiens, but I cannot remember exactly what this distiction was. I will go through my class notes tomorrow...its too late tonight for me to try to make sense. CBK Thanks, my Paleoanthropology books focus on all known Hominids and specifically paleo species from the Australopithecus and Homo genera but seem to exclude Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens. I know there are distinctions but what I'm primarily interested in is the genetic variation which would lead to speciation between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharks of SC Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Gotcha. Dont know if i can be much help - a semester worth of powerpoints on this stuff turns your brain to mush, im afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 Just so others know the context, my text books refer to Homo sapiens as the group which lived around the same time as Neanderthal, and later it is referred to as Homo sapiens sapiens. So I'm comparing the ice aged Homo sapiens to modern humans. My resources tend to name Homo sapiens as the human that walked with neanderthal, and reserves Homo sapiens sapiens as modern day humans.. us specifically. Anyway I don't know perhaps I studied too hard today and have my facts crossed. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 I believe I found my answer, and I was confused with terminology. Instead of "ancient modern human" I should have probably said Cro-Magnon, which is classed as Homo Sapiens Sapiens but apparently genetically distinct enough to be speciated.. To try to clear it up think of it as a modern human from today going back in time and attempting to procreate with "us" 90,000 years earlier... that's 90,000 years of genetic variation between them. Edit: Never mind it seems the name of Cro-Magnon is now Homo sapien cromagonensis. I was using aname which happened to be Homo sapien sapien like our own... so I'm completely lost now.. So many changes and different opinions in the scientific community have my head spinning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I believe I found my answer, and I was confused with terminology. Instead of "ancient modern human" I should have probably said Cro-Magnon, which is classed as Homo Sapiens Sapiens but apparently genetically distinct enough to be speciated.. To try to clear it up think of it as a modern human from today going back in time and attempting to procreate with "us" 90,000 years earlier... that's 90,000 years of genetic variation between them. Edit: Never mind it seems the name of Cro-Magnon is now Homo sapien cromagonensis. I was using aname which happened to be Homo sapien sapien like our own... so I'm completely lost now.. So many changes and different opinions in the scientific community have my head spinning. maybe you're really homo sapiens whirlygigensis p.s. - subspecies can interbreed. "anatomically modern humans" means just what it says, that there were visible/measurable anatomical differences but otherwise it's the same species. but don't get me started on lies, **** lies, and taxonomical "whimsies" of anatomically modern academics. (p.s. - i love it when i sound all authoritative on stuff i know absolutely nothing about. being mentally geared to realize it when you're being full of crayola is a hoot.) p.p.s. - whenever i get this way, it's usually when i'm under extreme stress and not sleeping much. this is due to my being a "psychologically archaic human" and having the "fight, flight, or fade-ten-and-punt" reaction going full blast. <giggle> p.p.p.s. - would it be wrong to just refer to amh as "sheeple", with a sub-sub-species of the group we could call sah, for "still-aggressive humans". when i'm crowned king of science, species are going to be determined by behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Well you have certainly impressed me again, Tracer!!! I am completely bamboozeled now.... I recall that other primates have 1 more chromosome than we do, but don't know if that has a bearing on your question here. If there were any beautiful, female representatives of those other hominids around I am sure that we could generate some real world data sets for you though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Personally I think it sounds like yet another Lumpers vs Splitters thing. From my own experiences observing the Herpetology wars the whole concept of subspecies vs race is a matter of how closely you want to define the species concept. At least with reptiles we have found that many 'so called' subspecies can produce fertile young when crossed with a near relative-even if that relative is found on the opposite side of the country with several divergent forms inbetween. So the question bounces back and forth as scientists looking to get published endlessly reverse opinions of their predecessors based on variation. Of course when comparing specimens of the exhaulted Human race it is a slippery slope. Because even if you looked at the various forms of modern man that we politely call races, there is enough differences for some to label them as subspecific-if they were any other species. Go back 200 years and there are differences in stature etc... to go back to neolithic times differences are quite pronounced. But enough to merit a subspecies? The human race is in a constant state of change. But where do we cross the line to something a little different? You got me... Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashcraft Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I find it unlikely that we "know" that cro-magnon and modern humans couldn't produce viable offspring. If you look at the Watusi versus the Pygmy tribes in Africa, there is considerable physical difference, but I assume that crossbreeding could still occur. If there is a chromosome anomoly, that would be a different story. Brent Ashcraft ashcraft, brent allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The whole sub-species thing exists solely to facilitate the cataloging of what we think we know. The entire "tree of life" was erected by the human mind in order to organize for better understanding: it's a tool. Once in a while, when I feel that the complexity of that tool is beginning to dominate my understanding, I have a mantra to ground my thoughts: "We are all the same in different ways". "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashcraft Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The whole sub-species thing exists solely to facilitate the cataloging of what we think we know. The entire "tree of life" was erected by the human mind in order to organize for better understanding: it's a tool. Once in a while, when I feel that the complexity of that tool is beginning to dominate my understanding, I have a mantra to ground my thoughts: "We are all the same in different ways". I had a similar discussion at a different place, about snakes. I was able to produce a record of a viable offspring from two distinct snake species. Species and subspecies are a man-made system, and the problem is that other animals can't read it, so they have ###### anyway, and then produce offspring that may or may not be viable. Brent Ashcraft ashcraft, brent allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 Thanks for the opinions folks. I actually called my prof about it earlier. She said that I need to remember that Cro-magnon is understood to be a modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens) but the name has been changed "by those darn splitters.". I did a little more research and it all points to me being generally correct that 90,000 years of variation in a group if you keep the group "just the same" should not naturally be able to produce a viable offspring. But probably be able to under lab conditions, this seems to be the motto of modern species vs paleo species when it comes to interbreeding. However there is still lots of speculation around this, so who knows really? I need a time machine! I ended up staying up til 3 am trying to figure out this answer, I'm captivated by Paleoanthropology, but unfortunately my work in it does not talk about us very much... they put emphasis on the rest of the Homo genus and the rest of the genera of the human linage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron E. Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Never mind it seems the name of Cro-Magnon is now homo sapien cromagonensis. I was using aname which happened to be homo sapien sapien like our own... so I'm completely lost now.. Cro-Magnon was the species to be named later in the trade for Lucy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Cro-Magnon was the species to be named later in the trade for Lucy... ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now