Talk:Q171283

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Autodescription — Homo (Q171283)

description: genus of mammals
Useful links:
See also


Homo (Q171283) is a lower taxon of Hominini (Q107588)

[edit]

@Succu: You reverted my change asking for a source.

I think it may be best to go check a claim if you are not sure (i.e. don't know if you know) instead of reverting it as that approach would likely invalidate the majority of contributions.

Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hominina (Q605457) is a higher taxon too. In fact you gave not a single scientific reference for your addition to parent taxon (P171). --Succu (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu:
Currently the following relations exist:
I also provided reference for this relation:
Given that you don't dispute any of the above claims - it seems like the relations with the least redundancy and that adheres to parent taxon description would be the following:
Given however that there may be multiple taxonomic viewpoints I don't suggest the other relations be removed - but I still think the relation I added is entirely appropriate.
Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still missing a scientific reference for your claim. --Succu (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: see figure 1 here Citation: McNulty, K. P. (2016) Hominin Taxonomy and Phylogeny: What's In A Name? Nature Education Knowledge 7(1):2 which basically is exactly this:
Homo (Q171283) --[ parent taxon (P171) ]--> Hominini (Q107588) --[ parent taxon (P171) ]--> Homininae (Q242047) --[ parent taxon (P171) ]--> Hominidae (Q635162)
See also B. Wood (2010). "Reconstructing human evolution: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107: 8902–8909. doi:10.1073/pnas.1001649107
These researchers now use the family Hominidae for all of the extant great apes (including modern humans), and they use the subfamily Homininae either for Gorilla, Pan, and Homo (e.g., ref. 10) or for just Pan and Homo. Some of the researchers who opt for the former, more inclusive, solution use the tribe Hominini for both the chimpanzee/bonobo and the human clades and treat the human clade as a subtribe, the Hominina (so individuals and taxa within it are referred to as “homininans”). Other researchers use the tribe Hominini to refer to just the human clade.
Again this is the same as: Homo (Q171283) --[ parent taxon (P171) ]--> Hominini (Q107588) --[ parent taxon (P171) ]--> Homininae (Q242047) --[ parent taxon (P171) ]--> Hominidae (Q635162)
Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another citation
Evolution of life history and behavior in Hominidae: Towards phylogenetic reconstruction of the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor, Journal of Human Evolution Volume 65, Issue 4, October 2013, Pages 424-446
In the phylogenetic classification adopted here (see Harrison, 2010; Wood, 2010; Wood and Harrison, 2011), all great apes (including humans) form the clade (family) Hominidae (‘hominids’), and African ape species (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) form the clade (subfamily) Homininae (‘hominines’). Pan species form the clade (tribe) Panini (‘panins’) and Homo and related genera fall into the clade Hominini (‘hominins’), the latter having been referred to as ‘family Hominidae’ in older taxonomic conventions (the rest of great apes then having formed the paraphyletic ‘family Pongidae’).
Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And another: See table 1 of The evolutionary context of the first hominins. which has again this:
Homo (Q171283) --[ parent taxon (P171) ]--> Hominini (Q107588) --[ parent taxon (P171) ]--> Homininae (Q242047) --[ parent taxon (P171) ]--> Hominidae (Q635162)
Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Why not to preffer (or add) Hominina? --Succu (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective reading from Reconstructing human evolution: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities (Q28743412) (mention above):
„These researchers now use the family Hominidae for all of the extant great apes (including modern humans), and they use the subfamily Homininae either for Gorilla, Pan, and Homo [...] or for just Pan and Homo. Some of the researchers who opt for the former, more inclusive, solution use the tribe Hominini for both the chimpanzee/bonobo and the human clades and treat the human clade as a subtribe, the Hominina (so individuals and taxa within it are referred to as “homininans”). Other researchers use the tribe Hominini to refer to just the human clade.“
--Succu (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: Why should it be preferred? I don't have any objection with both being present though and if you want to add Hominina I have no objection. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: Any further objects? Someone already added Hominina and I don't really see why it would be wrong to add Hominini as clearly it is used as such. Mayb @Infovarius: can provide some input also? I think I have went to great lengths to support my claim and so far nobody has gone to any lengths to refute it. I am fully willing to hear any objections and will even research them myself but I don't think we should spend this much time disputing a well supported claim and accept that multiple taxonomic viewpoints can be valid in absence of any final authority and there is much more productive ways we could be spending time. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's about how to represent taxon concepts in a consistent manner. Hominina (Q605457) should at least have a (sourced) link to Hominini (Q107588). The latter is missing a relationship to all fossil taxa (like Australopithecus (Q103237)). So yes I have objections to simply throw in here parent taxa without clarification and consolidation. --Succu (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: Fair enough, I will add some sourced relations/links and detail here once done Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: The following claims now have citations
And I'm planning to add the following claims with the following citations. Please raise objects if you have any. (@Infovarius:)
Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The usual blob. Do you really think Reconstructing human evolution: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities (Q28743412) is a good reference for this taxonomic change? The subtribe Hominina (Q605457) is only mentioned there. Please don't waste my time. BTW: Stalking edits like this are a waste of your time. --Succu (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: this was not a taxonomic change it is an addition of a reference to an existing statement as requested by you (I quote: "Hominina (Q605457) should at least have a (sourced) link to Hominini (Q107588)") - if you want to remove that claim I actually have no issue with it, I did not make it, I'm not interested in it, the only reason we are discussing it is because you brought it up during a completely unrelated discussion. The reference I added was the only one I could find and I don't see what is wrong with it - if you can mention something wrong with it I'm willing to extend my courtesy to hearing it out - but if you want a better reference you are also welcome to find one yourself. Again, it is not my statement, it is not a statement I care about either and I added the reference it out of courtesy and spirit of collaboration.
BTW: If this edit is wrong I'm again willing to discuss it as always - I don't see how enhancing wikidata is a waste of my time and find the claim that it is quite astounding. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting input from taxonomy project Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

  • I'm ot a specialist of this specific topic, but in a general way I avoid to add a parent taxon (or a taxon name) that is not stated in at least one of the external taxonomic databases the we use usually as source. And that, even if the information is stated in a scholary article. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: Thanks for the input. Hominini (Q107588) is listed as parent taxon of Homo in New Zealand Organisms Register (New Zealand Organisms Register ID (P2752)). New Zealand Organisms Register is listed under databases in the WikiProject Taxonomy list of databases. Hominina (Q605457) is not a parent taxon in any external database I checked but I don't care about it and I'm fine with removing the statements mentioning it if, the only reason we are discussing it is because Succu sees it as relevant to a question of adding parent taxon (P171) Hominini (Q107588), so they will have to clarify why they care about it (@Succu: maybe it is best we drop discussion of parent taxon (P171) Hominina (Q605457) for until we have resolve your dispute of parent taxon (P171) Hominini (Q107588) which has now spanned 3 days?)
I think if there is a guideline or convention as you said of only listing parent taxon if they are in external databases it should be documented somewhere (ideally in parent taxon (P171)) but I could not find it anywhere I looked.
Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For extant taxa a relationship (aka taxon concept) between Homininae (Q242047) and Hominini (Q107588) was proposed in 1996. I added references to Hominoid phylogeny and taxonomy: a consideration of the molecular and fossil evidence in an historical perspective (Q28282810) and Epilogue: A personal account of the origins of a new paradigm (Q48871242). The references you added try to include fossil taxa within Hominini (Q107588). --Succu (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Q171283&oldid=1013477218"