human taxonomy#Homo sapiens subspecies

{{see|History of hominoid taxonomy|Hominini|Anthropomorpha|Pithecanthropus}}

File:Hominoid taxonomy 7.svg (1825)]]

Human taxonomy on one hand involves the placement of humans within the taxonomy of the hominids (great apes), and on the other the division of archaic and modern humans into species and, if applicable, subspecies. Modern zoological taxonomy was developed by Carl Linnaeus during the 1730s to 1750s. He was the first to develop the idea that, like other biological entities, groups of people could too share taxonomic classifications.{{Cite journal |last=Marks |first=Jonathan |date=May 2007 |title=Long shadow of Linnaeus's human taxonomy |journal=Nature |volume=447 |issue=7140 |pages=28 |doi=10.1038/447028a |pmid=17476243 |bibcode=2007Natur.447Q..28M |s2cid=33066198 |doi-access=free }} He named the human species as Homo sapiens in 1758, as the only member species of the genus Homo, divided into several subspecies corresponding to the great races. The Latin noun homō (genitive hominis) means "human being". The systematic name Hominidae for the family of the great apes was introduced by John Edward Gray (1825).{{cite journal |id={{NAID|10026538759}} |first1=J. E. |last1=Gray |title=An outline of an attempt at the disposition of Mammalia into Tribes and Families, with a list of genera apparently appertaining to each Tribe |journal=Annals of Philosophy |series=New Series |year=1825 |pages=337–344 }} Gray also supplied Hominini as the name of the tribe including both chimpanzees (genus Pan) and humans (genus Homo).

The discovery of the first extinct archaic human species from the fossil record dates to the mid 19th century: Homo neanderthalensis, classified in 1864. Since then, a number of other archaic species have been named, but there is no universal consensus as to their exact number. After the discovery of H. neanderthalensis, which even if "archaic" is recognizable as clearly human, late 19th to early 20th century anthropology for a time was occupied with finding the supposedly "missing link" between Homo and Pan. The "Piltdown Man" hoax of 1912 was the fraudulent presentation of such a transitional species. Since the mid-20th century, knowledge of the development of Hominini has become much more detailed, and taxonomical terminology has been altered a number of times to reflect this.

The introduction of Australopithecus as a third genus, alongside Homo and Pan, in the tribe Hominini is due to Raymond Dart (1925). Australopithecina as a subtribe containing Australopithecus as well as Paranthropus (Broom 1938) is a proposal by Gregory & Hellman (1939). More recently proposed additions to the Australopithecina subtribe include Ardipithecus (1995) and Kenyanthropus (2001). The position of Sahelanthropus (2002) relative to Australopithecina within Hominini is unclear. Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003) propose the recognition of Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus, and Sahelanthropus (the latter incertae sedis) as separate genera.{{cite journal |last1=Cela-Conde |first1=C. J. |last2=Ayala |first2=F. J. |year=2003 |title=Genera of the human lineage |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=100 |issue=13 |pages=7684–7689 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0832372100 |pmid=12794185 |pmc=164648 |bibcode=2003PNAS..100.7684C |doi-access=free}}

Other proposed genera, now mostly considered part of Homo, include:

Pithecanthropus (Dubois, 1894),

Protanthropus (Haeckel, 1895),

Sinanthropus (Black, 1927),

Cyphanthropus (Pycraft, 1928)

Africanthropus (Dreyer, 1935),Introduced for the Florisbad Skull (discovered in 1932, Homo florisbadensis or Homo helmei). Also the genus suggested for a number of archaic human skulls found at Lake Eyasi by Weinert (1938). Leaky, Journal of the East Africa Natural History Society (1942), [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36831937#page/287/mode/1up p. 43].

Telanthropus (Broom & Anderson 1949),

Atlanthropus (Arambourg, 1954),

Tchadanthropus (Coppens, 1965).

The genus Homo has been taken to originate some two million years ago, since the discovery of stone tools in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, in the 1960s. Homo habilis (Leakey et al., 1964) would be the first "human" species (member of genus Homo) by definition, its type specimen being the OH 7 fossils. However, the discovery of more fossils of this type has opened up the debate on the delineation of H. habilis from Australopithecus. Especially, the LD 350-1 jawbone fossil discovered in 2013, dated to 2.8 Mya, has been argued as being transitional between the two.{{cite journal | doi = 10.1126/science.aaa1343 | volume=347 | title=Early Homo at 2.8 Ma from Ledi-Geraru, Afar, Ethiopia | year=2015 | journal=Science | pages=1352–1355 | last1 = Villmoare | first1 = B. | issue=6228 | pmid=25739410 | bibcode=2015Sci...347.1352V| doi-access=free }}. Some paleoanthropologists regard the H. habilis taxon as invalid, made up of fossil specimens of Australopithecus and Homo. Tattersall, I. & Schwartz, J.H., Extinct Humans, Westview Press, New York, 2001, p. 111. It is also disputed whether H. habilis was the first hominin to use stone tools, as Australopithecus garhi, dated to c. 2.5 Mya, has been found along with stone tool implements.{{cite journal |last1=De Heinzelin |first1=J |last2=Clark |first2=JD |last3=White |first3=T |last4=Hart |first4=W |last5=Renne |first5=P |last6 = Woldegabriel |first6=G |last7=Beyene |first7=Y |last8=Vrba |first8=E |title=Environment and behavior of 2.5-million-year-old Bouri hominids |journal=Science |volume=284 |issue=5414 |pages=625–9 |year=1999 |pmid=10213682 |doi=10.1126/science.284.5414.625 |bibcode=1999Sci...284..625D}} Fossil KNM-ER 1470 (discovered in 1972, designated Pithecanthropus rudolfensis by Alekseyev 1978) is now seen as either a third early species of Homo (alongside H. habilis and H. erectus) at about 2 million years ago, or alternatively as transitional between Australopithecus and Homo.{{cite journal |last1=Kaplan |first1=Matt |title=Fossils point to a big family for human ancestors |journal=Nature |date=8 August 2012 |doi=10.1038/nature.2012.11144 |s2cid=87482930 }}

{{anchor|Hominina}}Wood and Richmond (2000) proposed that Gray's tribe Hominini ("hominins") be designated as comprising all species after the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor by definition, to the inclusion of Australopithecines and other possible pre-human or para-human species (such as Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus) not known in Gray's time.{{cite journal |last1=Wood |first1=Bernard |year=2000 |title=Human evolution: taxonomy and paleobiology |journal=Journal of Anatomy |volume=197 |pages=19–60 |pmid=10999270 |last2=Richmond |first2=Brian G. |pmc=1468107 |doi=10.1046/j.1469-7580.2000.19710019.x |issue=Pt 1}} In this suggestion, the new subtribe of Hominina was to be designated as including the genus Homo exclusively, so that Hominini would have two subtribes, Australopithecina and Hominina, with the only known genus in Hominina being Homo. Orrorin (2001) has been proposed as a possible ancestor of Hominina but not Australopithecina.{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PrJ1lmjMakoC&pg=PA116 |title=African Genesis: Perspectives on Hominin Evolution |isbn=9781107019959 |last1=Reynolds |first1=Sally C |last2=Gallagher |first2=Andrew |date=March 29, 2012|publisher=Cambridge University Press }}

Designations alternative to Hominina have been proposed: Australopithecinae (Gregory & Hellman 1939) and Preanthropinae (Cela-Conde & Altaba 2002).{{cite journal |last1=Brunet |first1=Michel |last2=Guy |first2=Franck |last3=Pilbeam |first3=David |last4=Mackaye |first4=Hassane Taisso |last5=Likius |first5=Andossa |last6=Ahounta |first6=Djimdoumalbaye |last7=Beauvilain |first7=Alain |last8=Blondel |first8=Cécile |last9=Bocherens |first9=Hervé |last10=Boisserie |first10=Jean-Renaud |last11=De Bonis |first11=Louis |last12=Coppens |first12=Yves |last13=Dejax |first13=Jean |last14=Denys |first14=Christiane |last15=Duringer |first15=Philippe |last16=Eisenmann |first16=Véra |last17=Fanone |first17=Gongdibé |last18=Fronty |first18=Pierre |last19=Geraads |first19=Denis |last20=Lehmann |first20=Thomas |last21=Lihoreau |first21=Fabrice |last22=Louchart |first22=Antoine |last23=Mahamat |first23=Adoum |last24=Merceron |first24=Gildas |last25=Mouchelin |first25=Guy |last26=Otero |first26=Olga |last27=Campomanes |first27=Pablo Pelaez |last28=De Leon |first28=Marcia Ponce |last29=Rage |first29=Jean-Claude |last30=Sapanet |first30=Michel |last31=Schuster |first31=Mathieu |last32=Sudre |first32=Jean |last33=Tassy |first33=Pascal |last34=Valentin |first34=Xavier |last35=Vignaud |first35=Patrick |last36=Viriot |first36=Laurent |last37=Zazzo |first37=Antoine |last38=Zollikofer |first38=Christoph |title=A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa |journal=Nature |date=11 July 2002 |volume=418 |issue=6894 |pages=145–151 |doi=10.1038/nature00879 |pmid=12110880 |bibcode=2002Natur.418..145B |s2cid=1316969 }}{{cite journal |last1=Cela-Conde |first1=C.J. |last2=Ayala |first2=F.J. |year=2003 |title=Genera of the human lineage |journal=PNAS |volume=100 |issue=13 |pages=7684–7689 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0832372100 |pmid=12794185 |pmc=164648 |bibcode=2003PNAS..100.7684C |doi-access=free}}{{cite journal |last1=Wood |first1=B. |last2=Lonergan |first2=N. |year=2008 |title=The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades |journal=Journal of Anatomy |volume=212 |issue=4 |pages=354–376 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.00871.x |pmid=18380861 |pmc=2409102 }}

{{Main|Homo}}

At least a dozen species of Homo other than Homo sapiens have been proposed, with varying degrees of consensus. Most other proposed species are proposed as alternatively belonging to either Homo erectus or Homo sapiens as a subspecies. This concerns Homo ergaster in particular.{{cite news |last=Hazarika |first=Manji |title=Homo erectus / ergaster and Out of Africa: Recent Developments in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology |date=16–30 June 2007 |url=http://www.himalayanlanguages.org/files/hazarika/Manjil%20Hazarika%20EAA.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131015110311/http://www.himalayanlanguages.org/files/hazarika/Manjil%20Hazarika%20EAA.pdf|url-status=usurped|archive-date=October 15, 2013}}{{cite book |author=Klein, R. |year=1999 |title=The Human Career: Human biological and cultural origins |url=https://archive.org/details/humancareerhuman00klei_0 |url-access=registration |place=Chicago, IL |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=0226439631}} One proposal divides Homo erectus into an African and an Asian variety; the African is Homo ergaster, and the Asian is Homo erectus sensu stricto. (Inclusion of Homo ergaster with Asian Homo erectus is Homo erectus sensu lato.){{cite journal |last=Antón |first=S.C. |year=2003 |title=Natural history of Homo erectus |journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology |volume=122 |pages=126–170 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.10399 |pmid=14666536 |quote=By the 1980s, the growing numbers of H. erectus specimens, particularly in Africa, led to the realization that Asian H. erectus (H. erectus sensu stricto), once thought so primitive, was in fact more derived than its African counterparts. These morphological differences were interpreted by some as evidence that more than one species might be included in H. erectus sensu lato (e.g., Stringer, 1984; Andrews, 1984; Tattersall, 1986; Wood, 1984, 1991a, b; Schwartz and Tattersall, 2000) ... Unlike the European lineage, in my opinion, the taxonomic issues surrounding Asian vs. African H. erectus are more intractable. The issue was most pointedly addressed with the naming of H. ergaster on the basis of the type mandible KNM-ER 992, but also including the partial skeleton and isolated teeth of KNM-ER 803 among other Koobi Fora remains (Groves and Mazak, 1975). Recently, this specific name was applied to most early African and Georgian H. erectus in recognition of the less-derived nature of these remains vis à vis conditions in Asian H. erectus (see Wood, 1991a, p. 268; Gabunia et al., 2000a). At least portions of the paratype of H. ergaster (e.g., KNM-ER 1805) are not included in most current conceptions of that taxon. The H. ergaster question remains famously unresolved (e.g., Stringer, 1984; Tattersall, 1986; Wood, 1991a, 1994; Rightmire, 1998b; Gabunia et al., 2000a; Schwartz and Tattersall, 2000), in no small part because the original diagnosis provided no comparison with the Asian fossil record.|doi-access=free }} There appears to be a recent trend, with the availability of ever more difficult-to-classify fossils such as the Dmanisi skulls (2013) or Homo naledi fossils (2015) to subsume all archaic varieties under Homo erectus.{{cite journal |last1=Perkins |first1=Sid |title=Skull suggests three early human species were one |journal=Nature |date=17 October 2013 |doi=10.1038/nature.2013.13972 }}{{cite journal |title=A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo |first1=David |last1=Lordkipanidze |first2=Marcia S. |last2=Ponce de Leòn |first3=Ann |last3=Margvelashvili |first4=Yoel |last4=Rak |first5=G. Philip |last5=Rightmire |first6=Abesalom |last6=Vekua |first7=Christoph P. E. |last7=Zollikofer |journal=Science |date=18 October 2013 |volume=342 |issue=6156 |pages=326–331 |doi=10.1126/science.1238484 |pmid=24136960 |bibcode=2013Sci...342..326L |s2cid=20435482}}

{{cite news |last=Switek |first=Brian |date=17 October 2013 |title=Beautiful skull spurs debate on human history |url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131017-skull-human-origins-dmanisi-georgia-erectus/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017184738/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131017-skull-human-origins-dmanisi-georgia-erectus/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=October 17, 2013 |publisher=National Geographic |access-date=22 September 2014}}

{{Homo}}

{{See|Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans|Early modern human|Race and genetics}}

File:Naturalis Biodiversity Center - Martin Hoffman - Carl von Linné (Linnaeus) in his Lapland costume - painting.jpg wearing a traditional Sami costume. Linnaeus is sometimes named as the lectotype of both H. sapiens and H. s. sapiens.{{cite magazine |quote=as far as I know, there is no type material for Homo sapiens. To be fair to Linnaeus, the practice of setting type specimens aside doesn't seem to have developed until a century or so later. |first=Bob |last=Ralph |title=Conforming to type |magazine=New Scientist |number=1548 |date=February 19, 1987 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J2Q36p345CAC&pg=PA59 |page=59}}]]

The recognition or nonrecognition of subspecies of Homo sapiens has a complicated history. The rank of subspecies in zoology is introduced for convenience, and not by objective criteria, based on pragmatic consideration of factors such as geographic isolation and sexual selection. The informal taxonomic rank of race is variously considered equivalent or subordinate to the rank of subspecies, and the division of anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) into subspecies is closely tied to the recognition of major racial groupings based on human genetic variation.

A subspecies cannot be recognized independently: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or at least two (including any that are extinct). Therefore, the designation of an extant subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens only makes sense if at least one other subspecies is recognized. H. s. sapiens is attributed to "Linnaeus (1758)" by the taxonomic Principle of Coordination.{{Cite book |title=ICZN glossary |url=http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?booksection=glossary&nfv= |publisher=International Code of Zoological Nomenclature |edition=4th |chapter=article 46.1 |quote=Statement of the Principle of Coordination applied to species-group names. A name established for a taxon at either rank in the species group is deemed to have been simultaneously established by the same author for a taxon at the other rank in the group; both nominal taxa have the same name-bearing type, whether that type was fixed originally or subsequently. |access-date=2018-06-04 |archive-date=2016-03-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303201210/http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?booksection=glossary&nfv= |url-status=dead }}

Homo sapiens sapiens is rarely used before the 1940s. In 1946, John Wendell Bailey attributes the name to Linnaeus (1758) explicitly: "Linnaeus. Syst. Nat. ed. 10, Vol. 1. pp. 20, 21, 22, lists five races of man, viz: Homo sapiens sapiens (white — Caucasian) [...]", This is a misattribution, but H. s. sapiens has since often been attributed to Linnaeus. In actual fact, Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. ed. 10 Vol. 1. [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/80764#page/31/mode/1up p. 21] does not have Homo sapiens sapiens, the "white" or "Caucasian" race being instead called Homo sapiens Europaeus. This is explicitly pointed out in Bulletin der Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Anthropologie und Ethnologie Volume 21 (1944), p. 18 (arguing not against H. s. sapiens but against "H. s. albus L." proposed by von Eickstedt and Peters): "die europide Rassengruppe, als Subspecies aufgefasst, [würde] Homo sapiens eurpoaeus L. heissen" ("the Europid racial group, considered as a subspecies, would be named H. s. europeaeus L.").

See also: John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press (1974), [https://archive.org/stream/Race_John_R_Baker/Race#page/n111/mode/2up 205]. During the 19th to mid-20th century, it was common practice to classify the major divisions of extant H. sapiens as subspecies, following Linnaeus (1758), who had recognized H. s. americanus, H. s. europaeus, H. s. asiaticus and H. s. afer as grouping the native populations of the Americas, West Eurasia, East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively. Linnaeus also included H. s. ferus, for the "wild" form which he identified with feral children, and two other "wild" forms for reported specimens now considered very dubious (see cryptozoology), H. s. monstrosus and H. s. troglodytes.Linné, Carl von (1758). [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/80764#page/34/mode/1up Systema naturæ. Regnum animale] (10 ed.). pp. 18ff.

There were variations and additions to the categories of Linnaeus, such as H. s. tasmanianus for the native population of Australia.

See e.g. John Wendell Bailey, The Mammals of Virginia (1946), p. 356.;

Journal of Mammalogy 26-27 (1945), p. 359.;

J. Desmond Clark (ed.), The Cambridge History of Africa, Cambridge University Press (1982), [https://books.google.com/books?id=Y8iiqIZRhQoC&pg=PA141 p. 141] (with references). Bory de St. Vincent in his Essai sur l'Homme (1825) extended Linnaeus's "racial" categories to as many as fifteen: Leiotrichi ("smooth-haired"): japeticus (with subraces), arabicus, iranicus, indicus, sinicus, hyperboreus, neptunianus, australasicus, columbicus, americanus, patagonicus; Oulotrichi ("crisp-haired"): aethiopicus, cafer, hottentotus, melaninus.Annals of Philosophy 11, London (1826), [https://books.google.com/books?id=mX9KAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA71 p. 71] Similarly, Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1899) also had categories based on race, such as priscus, spelaeus (etc.).

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was proposed by King (1864) as an alternative to Homo neanderthalensis.Frederick S. Szalay, Eric Delson, Evolutionary History of the Primates (2013), [https://books.google.com/books?id=jE7gBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA508 508] There have been "taxonomic wars" over whether Neanderthals were a separate species since their discovery in the 1860s. Pääbo (2014) frames this as a debate that is unresolvable in principle, "since there is no definition of species perfectly describing the case."{{cite book |last=Pääbo |first=Svante |author-link=Svante Pääbo |title=Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes |publisher=Basic Books |location=New York |year=2014 |page=237}} Louis Lartet (1869) proposed Homo sapiens fossilis based on the Cro-Magnon fossils.

There are a number of proposals of extinct varieties of Homo sapiens made in the 20th century. Many of the original proposals were not using explicit trinomial nomenclature, even though they are still cited as valid synonyms of H. sapiens by Wilson & Reeder (2005).{{MSW3 Groves | pages = | id = 12100795}} These include: Homo grimaldii (Lapouge, 1906),

Homo aurignacensis hauseri (Klaatsch & Hauser, 1910),

Notanthropus eurafricanus (Sergi, 1911),

Homo fossilis infrasp. proto-aethiopicus (Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1915),

Telanthropus capensis (Broom, 1917),{{cite book |first=T. |last=Harrison |editor1-first=William H. |editor1-last=Kimbel |editor2-first=Lawrence B. |editor2-last=Martin |title=Species, Species Concepts and Primate Evolution |date=2013 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Knb1BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA361 |page=361|publisher=Springer |isbn=9781489937452 }}

Homo wadjakensis (Dubois, 1921),

Homo sapiens cro-magnonensis, Homo sapiens grimaldiensis (Gregory, 1921),

Homo drennani (Kleinschmidt, 1931),M. R. Drennan, "An Australoid Skull from the Cape Flats", The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. 59 (Jul. - Dec., 1929), 417-427.

Homo galilensis (Joleaud, 1931) = Paleanthropus palestinus (McCown & Keith, 1932).among other names suggested for fossils later subsumed under neanderthalensis, see: {{cite book |first1=Eric |last1=Delson |first2=Ian |last2=Tattersall |first3=John Van |last3=Couvering |first4=Alison S. |last4=Brooks |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=D4wk-6xjgjkC&pg=PT1027 |title=Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory |edition=Second |publisher=Routledge |date=2004|isbn=9781135582272 }}

Rightmire (1983) proposed Homo sapiens rhodesiensis.{{cite journal |title=The Lake Ndutu cranium and early Homo sapiens in Africa |date=June 3, 1983 |pmid=6410925 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.1330610214 |volume=61 |issue=2 |journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology |pages=245–54 |last=Rightmire |first=GP}}

After World War II, the practice of dividing extant populations of Homo sapiens into subspecies declined. An early authority explicitly avoiding the division of H. sapiens into subspecies was Grzimeks Tierleben, published 1967–1972.English translation (1972–1975): Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, Volume 11, p. 55.

A late example of an academic authority proposing that the human racial groups should be considered taxonomical subspecies is John Baker (1974).John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press (1974). The trinomial nomenclature Homo sapiens sapiens became popular for "modern humans" in the context of Neanderthals being considered a subspecies of H. sapiens in the second half of the 20th century. Derived from the convention, widespread in the 1980s, of considering two subspecies, H. s. neanderthalensis and H. s. sapiens, the explicit claim that "H. s. sapiens is the only extant human subspecies" appears in the early 1990s.{{cite book |quote=We are the only surviving subspecies of Homo sapiens |first=Michio |last=Kitahara |title=The tragedy of evolution: the human animal confronts modern society |date=1991 |page=xi}}

Since the 2000s, the extinct Homo sapiens idaltu (White et al., 2003) has gained wide recognition as a subspecies of Homo sapiens, but even in this case there is a dissenting view arguing that "the skulls may not be distinctive enough to warrant a new subspecies name".{{cite journal |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/423692a |title=Human evolution: Out of Ethiopia |journal=Nature |date=June 12, 2003 |first=Chris |last=Stringer |volume=423 |issue=6941 |pages=692–3, 695 |doi=10.1038/423692a |pmid=12802315 |bibcode=2003Natur.423..692S |s2cid=26693109 |author-link=Chris Stringer}} H. s. neanderthalensis and H. s. rhodesiensis continue to be considered separate species by some authorities, but the 2010s discovery of genetic evidence of archaic human admixture with modern humans has reopened the details of taxonomy of archaic humans.{{cite journal |doi=10.1073/pnas.0904119106 |title=The origin of Neandertals |year=2009 |last1=Hublin |first1=J. J. |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=106 |issue=38 |pages=16022–7 |pmid=19805257 |jstor=40485013 |bibcode=2009PNAS..10616022H |pmc=2752594 |doi-access=free}}

{{Cite journal |title=Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences |pmid=14745010 |last1=Harvati |first1=K. |last2=Frost |first2=S.R. |last3=McNulty |first3=K.P. |date=2004 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0308085100 |pmc=337021 |volume=101 |issue=5 |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |pages=1147–52|bibcode=2004PNAS..101.1147H |doi-access=free}}

{{cite encyclopedia |title=Homo neanderthalensis King, 1864 |encyclopedia=Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution |year=2013 |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |location=Chichester, West Sussex |pages=328–331}}

{{see|Homo erectus#Descendants and subspecies}}

Homo erectus since its introduction in 1892 has been divided into numerous subspecies, many of them formerly considered individual species of Homo. None of these subspecies have universal consensus among paleontologists.

• Homo erectus erectus (Java Man) (1970s)In the 1970s a tendency developed to regard the Javanese variety of H. erectus as a subspecies, Homo erectus erectus, with the Chinese variety being referred to as Homo erectus pekinensis. See: {{cite book |last=Sartono |first=S. |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ejsyIZMsC9oC&pg=PA327 |chapter=Implications arising from Pithecanthropus VIII |title=Paleoanthropology: Morphology and Paleoecology |date=12 May 2011 |editor1-first=Russell H. |editor1-last=Tuttle |page=328|publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=9783110810691 }}
• Homo erectus yuanmouensis (Yuanmou Man) (Li et al., 1977)
• Homo erectus lantianensis (Lantian Man) (Woo Ju-Kang, 1964)
• Homo erectus nankinensis (Nanjing Man) (1993)
• Homo erectus pekinensis (Peking Man) (1970s)
• Homo erectus palaeojavanicus (Meganthropus) (Tyler, 2001)
• Homo erectus soloensis (Solo Man) (Oppenoorth, 1932)
• Homo erectus tautavelensis (Tautavel Man) (de Lumley and de Lumley, 1971)
• Homo erectus georgicus (1991)
• Homo erectus bilzingslebenensis (Vlček, 2002)Emanuel Vlček: Der fossile Mensch von Bilzingsleben (= Bilzingsleben. Bd. 6 = Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 35). Beier & Beran, Langenweißbach 2002.

• {{annotated link|Names for the human species}}
• {{annotated link|Timeline of human evolution}}

{{notelist|1}}

{{Reflist|25em}}

{{Human Evolution}}

{{Taxonomy of...}}

{{Taxonbar|from=Q17146890}}

Taxonomy