Talk:Homo sapiens sapiens

No piccy?

Vandalism

From France: Paul-Sabatier university, life and earth sciences department, "Evolution et diversité biologique" laboratory.
I had corrected the French vernacular name "humain" into "homme", "humain" being a French adjective, not a noun, according to the latest version of the official dictionnaire de l'Académie française, which does not accept "humain" even as an argotic noun. Admittedly, some people now use "humain" as a noun for ideological and practical reasons: as the English noun "man", "homme" means both the species and a male. But it cannot be seriously alleged that "humain" has become the usual vernacular term in science or in life. It's regarded as a barbarism by most French, specially arts teachers.
I had also added the translations into malagasy and mongolian.
My summary was very clear.
Lycaon, who admits on his page having only an intermediate level in French language, deleted the whole thing, with no argument and the summary "vandalism" ! and an unfriendly comment on my page. You'll judge yourself who is the vandal, and restore the previous version if you wish. --Henri de Solages 20:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my french! I may not be able to write french fluently, but I can understand it 100%. The original entry on your user page, was POV and religious advertising: (http://solages.site.voila.FR/index.html), which i.m.o. warranted the comment.

Concerning the use of humain versus homme, this may indeed be debatable: The french wikipedia is not very clear at that point. Humain is indeed an adjective but homme points at a disambiguation page. Homme or être humain maybe the two correct expressions, but the only proper link in this case would be fr:Homo_sapiens. Lycaon 08:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Also in Spanish is "Hombre" not "Humano"

I must agree with this French user. In Spanish the word "humano" is just an adjectiv not a noun, as it is said by the --[http:www.rae.es|Real Academia de la Lengua Española]. I have only heard the word "humano" meaning "man" in fiction-science movies. "Humano" is not accepted as a noun in the Spanish languaje. The translation for "Homo sapiens" in Spanish is "hombre", wich means both human being and also a male man. In Spanish there is not a specific word for both men and women. I have not dared to change the Spanish name, as I asume that this is a polemic issue, but I think that it should be changed. user:Nanosanchez — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nanosanchez (talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 September 2006.

In case of vernacular names, it is wise to follow the naming of the wiki "at the other side". My Spanish is not good enough to start a discussion about that. I leave that to Spanish speaking contributors Ffrench is anpother kettle of fish). I took the liberty to change "Humano" to "Ser humano", as that is where the taxonomic place for humans seems to be found on es:wikipedia. Lycaon 10:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens sapiens

The first word of double names subspecies (Sapiens sapiens) must be written with a capital letter. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.41.176.248 (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2006

You are misinformed. The names of taxons higher than species level are written with capitals (Homo) species names and subspecies for that matter lower case. Homo sapiens sapiens is the correct name, I reverted your edit. --Kempm 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture

Why the rather cheesy line drawing when practically all other macroscopic species (and many microscopic too) here get a photo? 196.207.32.38 12:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Whose picture should we put? Which race? Which sex? Naked or not? How should the hair be? Which body type? I could go on and on... This one is fine. 70.80.113.243 04:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The hair and body type could maybe be as it is on this picture. xDDDDDDDDDD --212.247.27.185 20:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Which race? Obviously the human race. Obviously naked, clothes aren't a part of humans. The most normal body type of the species. Seriously, stop thinking of humans as something else than other animals. The sex could be either - why not both? 81.226.215.80 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not this one as it was used to introduce mankind to the universe? [1] It was the images drawn by Dr. Carl Sagan for the Pioneer 10 spacecraft plaque.

Errr... The current picture on this article is from the Pioneer plaque. 98.111.150.16 06:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses a picture of two (clothed) Akha people from Thailand as their "main" (sidebar) image. According to studies, the San people of Africa ("bushmen") are one of the most diverse people genetically from the rest of the world, implying a link to early man. Maybe an image of one or two of them would be acceptable? I am neutral on this issue, but I do believe that the Sagan's Pioneer image was drawn to be a little vague on the "characters" ethnicity/race (they don't necessarily look "white" to me).--Tim Thomason (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who drew it; we have actual photos, we can use them. They are way more accurate and representative. Pikolas (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A line drawing is just odd. If need be, someone could put together some sort of collage similar to the one seen here: http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Homo

This is a nice image from wikimedia commons: [2]. naked, shows us as a social animal, with evidence of pair bonding, and a juvenile. similar in spirit to the line drawing. just a thought. (Mercurywoodrose)76.245.46.57 03:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of those questioning the line drawing. It's not only odd, it's quite bizarre to work one's way through the taxonomy with all it's great photos of life, and then to come across an almost stick-figure representation of our own species. I guess it says a lot about our species though :(

Another idea: how about an image of the lectotype for homo sap? we have a nice painting of Carl Linnaeus, [3]? I still do see why we have the etching.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.26 02:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That human lectotype stuff is all bogus ... there are nomenclatural problems which prevent valid lectotype designation ... Stho002 (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone should mention that at the article on linnaeus, and lectotype, on the english wikipedia. it may be a discredited idea, but its somewhat widely "known", thus notable. If you are correct, then i agree of course. the articles here are so effing terse, i cant understand what is meant by no type. this is not a good article for the layman, educated or otherwise.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.26 03:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just my feminist two cents, but I think a picture of Sara Elisabeth von Linné (Sara Lisa Linnaea) would be helpful as well for lectotypy, especially since females are more common than males in Homo sapiens sapiens. http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/life/8_2.html Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I could not find online an uncopyrighted photograph of the 1739 portrait by Johann Henrik Scheffel shown on Uppsala University's webpage. A low-resolution copy (such as the JPG file on Uppsala University's webpage) should be allowable for upload to Wikipedia/Wikispecies though under US law. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Tribus and subtribus

Would it be appropriate to add tribus and subtribus? I think it would lead to a fuller article. Lighthead ^þ 02:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna add it. If anyone objects please state the reason why; here that is. Lighthead ^þ 02:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! How did that automagically appear! I didn't even see that it was already there.. Weird. Never mind. Lighthead ^þ 02:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages

I don't like the fact that the talk page for Homo sapiens is constantly being redacted and revised, rather than archived. It gets less traffic than this page, and falls under the radar. I may revive the history and archive it.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.26 03:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Linnaeus 1758

It turns out that Linnaeus 1758 does not have H. s. sapiens. He does have subspecies such as H. s. ferus, H. s. europeaeus etc., but not sapiens. [4] It is unclear when the term was first used. Google books does not find it used in the 19th century, it may be of early 20th century coinage. The earliest positive evidence I have dates to 1924[5], there apparently attributed (misattributed?) to Linnaeus. --Dbachmann (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless we can cite an actual reference to the taxon this will need to be flagged as unsubstantiated. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 1 external links on Homo sapiens sapiens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20190514111833/http://iczn.org/content/who-type-homo-sapiens to http://iczn.org/content/who-type-homo-sapiens

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)