The Genus Homo: Origin, Speciation and Dispersal

Naming Homo erectus: A review

Following the discovery of hominin fossils at Trinil (Java, Indonesia) in 1891 and 1892, Eugène Dubois named a new species, now known as Homo erectus. Although the main historical events are well-known, there appears to be no consensus regarding two important aspects of the naming of the species, including what constitutes the original publication of the name, and what is the name-bearing type specimen. These issues are addressed in this paper with reference to original sources and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Our review confirms earlier studies that cite the published quarterly fieldwork report covering the 3rd quarter of 1892 as the original publication naming the species erectus. However, until recently, the correct publication year of 1893 has consistently been cited as 1892, and it has rarely been recognized that the author of the publication was anonymous, even though the author of the species is specifically named. Importantly, Dubois assigns all three hominin fossils found at Trinil up to that moment to the new species, explicitly stating that they belong to a single individual. The three fossils, a molar, a calotte, and a femur, therefore jointly constitute the original holotype. However, the femur most likely derives from younger strata than the other hominins and shows fully modern human-like morphology, unlike subsequently discovered H. erectus femora. Moreover, there is no consensus over the affinities of the molar, and if it is H. erectus rather than an extinct ape, there is no evidence that it belongs to the same individual as the calotte. Excluding these two fossils from the holotype, the calotte is the appropriate fossil to retain the role as name-bearing specimen.

Conceptual issues in hominin taxonomy: Homo heidelbergensis and an ethnobiological reframing of species

Efforts to name and classify Middle Pleistocene Homo, often referred to as "Homo heidelbergensis" are hampered by confusing patterns of morphology but also by conflicting paleoanthropological ideologies that are embedded in approaches to hominin taxonomy, nomenclature, and the species concept. We deconstruct these issues to show how the field's search for a "real" species relies on strict adherence to pre-Darwinian essentialist naming rules in a post-typological world. We then examine Middle Pleistocene Homo through the framework of ethnobiology, which examines on how Indigenous societies perceive, classify, and name biological organisms. This research reminds us that across human societies, taxonomies function to (1) identify and classify organisms based on consensus pattern recognition and (2) construct a stable nomenclature for effective storage, retrieval and communication of information. Naming Middle Pleistocene Homo as a "real" species cannot be verified with the current data; and separating regional groups into distinct evolutionary lineages creates taxa that are not defined by readily perceptible or universally salient differences. Based on ethnobiological studies of this kind of patterning, referring to these hominins above the level of the species according to their generic category with modifiers (e.g., "European Middle Pleistocene Homo") is consistent with observed human capabilities for cognitive differentiation, is both necessary and sufficient given the current data, and will allow for the most clear communication across ideologies going forward.