4.4 Editorial Material

Resolving the muddle in the middle: The case for Homo bodoensis sp. nov.

Journal

EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 20-29

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/evan.21929

Keywords

hominin taxonomy; Homo bodoensis; Homo heidelbergensis; Homo rhodesiensis; Middle Pleistocene

Categories

Funding

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB26000000]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPIN-2019-04113]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent developments in palaeoanthropology suggest the abandonment of Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis in favor of introducing a new species, Homo bodoensis, to better classify Middle Pleistocene hominins. Fossils from Western Europe may need to be reassigned to Homo neanderthalensis, while those from Asia may represent a distinct lineage altogether.
Recent developments in the field of palaeoanthropology necessitate the suppression of two hominin taxa and the introduction of a new species of hominins to help resolve the current nebulous state of Middle Pleistocene (Chibanian) hominin taxonomy. In particular, the poorly defined and variably understood hominin taxa Homo heidelbergensis (both sensu stricto and sensu lato) and Homo rhodesiensis need to be abandoned as they fail to reflect the full range of hominin variability in the Middle Pleistocene. Instead, we propose: (1) introduction of a new taxon, Homo bodoensis sp. nov., as an early Middle Pleistocene ancestor of the Homo sapiens lineage, with a pan-African distribution that extends into the eastern Mediterranean (Southeast Europe and the Levant); (2) that many of the fossils from Western Europe (e.g. Sima de los Huesos) currently assigned to H. heidelbergensis s.s. be reassigned to Homo neanderthalensis to reflect the early appearance of Neanderthal derived traits in the Middle Pleistocene in the region; and (3) that the Middle Pleistocene Asian fossils, particularly from China, likely represent a different lineage altogether.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available