Talk:Timeline of human evolution

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Human Genetic History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles

Primates High‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Behavioral modernity#Great leap forward|Behavioral modernity]] The anchor (#Great leap forward) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Oryza sativa#Continental East Asia|rice domestication]] The anchor (#Continental East Asia) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Taxonomy

What is the source for the calling modern humans a sub species of Homo Sapiens? In the linked article on Sub species, it is stated that there must be two sub species or none. While their are other species in Homo, what are the other sub species in Homo Sapiens? 208.253.17.141 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Homo Sapiens Idaltu. --42.113.154.63 (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homo floresiensis

I removed entries for Homo floresiensis; as per its main article, "Whether the specimens represent a new species is a controversial issue within the scientific community." -- Limulus 21:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well a more important reason to remove it is that even if it is a new species it is not an ancestor to humans. It is a seperate descendent from something between australopithecus and ergaster. So it should not be in the list for the same reason that Neanderthal should not be on the list. Qed (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Neanderthal should not be on the list, but it is. "(Ancient) homo sapiens" is equated with Neanderthal which is plain wrong. Neanderthalensis is another subspecies that only contributed to ~3% of the genome of part of the modern human population. Certainly sapiens sapiens is not a subset of Neanderthal as the table suggests.--176.7.56.18 (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this. My best suggestion is to have the second column of the Species line read "Homo sapiens" and the third read "Anatomically modern humans": in the Subspecies line we could then have the third column read "Extant modern humans".

To accommodate the Neanderthals reference we could perhaps introduce a preceding line between Genus and Species – "Subgenus" is a valid term but I don't know if it's usually used in this particular context – whose third column reads Archaic humans, a term which is used to cover H neanderthalensis, H rhodesiensis, H Heidelbergensis etc, but this does not sit well with the preceding column entry of "Humans", so that could be changed to "Genus Homo". The fourth column figures might need rechecking. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making an article about the timeline of hominin evolution would allow including all the branches and twigs of the hominin clade. Many hominin (and pre-hominim) fossils that are not of modern humans are probably off the human line to some degree, since only a small percentage of hominins alive at any given time would have been direct ancestors of modern humans. Going farther back in time, we don't know whether Tiktaalik for example is a direct ancestor of humans either. It may have been on a side branch that died out. For all we know, Tiktaalik may be no more closely related to the actual common ancestor of humans and amphibians than Homo floresiensis is related to its actual common ancestor with modern humans. Since we will never have a complete list of all species that have ever existed, much less which ones left daughter species and which ones were terminal species, the sparse sampling that we do have is more likely than not to only show us species that are related offshoots of the actual transitional species. --Teratornis (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flatworm

Does the image at 550mya really show a flatworm, because that article apparently describes something a lot more complex-looking that appeared during the Permian. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  23:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humans 300,000 years old?

Recent news => humans evolved 300,000 years ago, much earlier than the 200,000 years ago thought previously?^[1]^[2] - relevant discussions at the following => "Talk:Human#Humans much older than we thought" - AND - "Talk:Homo sapiens#News 300,000 years ago" - AND - "Talk:Anatomically modern human#Revisions to "earliest" dates?" - AND - "Talk:Jebel Irhoud#Humans 300,000 years old?" - AND - "Template talk:Human timeline#Humans 300,000 years old?" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Zimmer, Carl (7 June 2017). "Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco, Altering History of Our Species". New York Times. Retrieved 12 June 2017.
^ Callaway, Ewan (7 June 2017). "Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history". Nature (journal). doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22114. Retrieved 12 June 2017.

Humans exited Africa 270,000 years ago?

Somewhat related - evidence suggests that Homo sapiens may have migrated from Africa as early as 270,000 years ago, much earlier than the 70,000 years ago thought previously^[1]^[2] - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this source.^[3] Doug Weller talk 19:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Zimmer, Carl (4 July 2017). "In Neanderthal DNA, Signs of a Mysterious Human Migration". New York Times. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
^ Posth, Cosimo; et al. (4 July 2017). "Deeply divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African gene flow into Neanderthals". Nature Communications. doi:10.1038/ncomms16046. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
^ Max Planck Society (4 July 2017). "DNA of early Neanderthal gives timeline for new modern human-related dispersal from Africa". Phys.org. Retrieved 11 February 2020.

600 kya and footprints & lack of any sources in this timeline when created

The 600 kya was left over from a merge to an 800-500 ka section, which is reasonable. The problem is that the original statement about footprints isn't in ths source, not surprising as it never was meant to be. The very first version of this article, in 2005, said:

355 kYA Three 1.5m tall Homo heidelbergensis scrambled down Roccamonfina volcano in Southern Italy, leaving the earliest Homo footprints, which were made before the powdery volcanic ash solidified.

It wasn't sourced. In fact, nothing in the original article was sourced, which makes me worry for the current state of the article. User:Dbachmann, how much of this article can we trust? Doug Weller talk 15:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I generally like this article, and most of the information is copy-pasted from linked articles, but of course it violates WP:CITE as it stands, each section needs a decent reference. But we can be reasonable with it, most of the information is correct, no need to litter it with hundreds of {{cn}} tags, we should start with tagging or referencing the most specific claims, such as the footprints one. This is not a problem, it's just a matter of ten seconds on google and then entering the reference here, in this case, the Wikipedia page is Ciampate del Diavolo, the reference is Mietto, Paolo; Avanzini, Marco; Rolandi, Giuseppe (2003). "Palaeontology: Human footprints in Pleistocene volcanic ash". Nature. 422 (6928): 133–133. doi:10.1038/422133a. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) and the correct date is not 600 ka but 385–325 ka 95% CI.

--dab (𒁳) 08:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Homo floresiensis, Neanderthal and Homo sapiens woman.Musée des Confluences.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating confusion: 4,100 million or 4.100 million or 4.1 billion years? Is this the USA or the international english SI units wikipedia?

I think that if you see 4,100 - with 3 numbers behind the comma - shows that this is the USA way of writing 4 thousand and 100, because most of the time accuracy - like in currencies - is noted up to 2 numbers after the unit. So if you'd see 4,10 - this would hint an American that he's probably looking at a European / SI way of writing and that it is not 410 but 4.10. Anyway, wouldn't it be good to put e.g. between parenthesis we're talking about 4.1 billion years ago? What is the convention for writing numbers in the wikipedia? I thought it was using SI units and I thought that it would be not 4,100 million but 4.1 billion or 4.100 million years ago? {{Help}} Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SvenAERTS Because of the different number writing conventions, having a thousands separator in a number results in this sort of ambiguity. The other inconsistency on the page is the use of Ga, Ma, and ka in the later tables while the first table uses this heading of "Millions of years ago". I would be in favor of either eliminating the thousands separator for these 4-digit numbers or using the Ga, Ma, ka convention throughout. Note that according to WP:DECIMAL and WP:DIGITS, the standard is to use a decimal point, never a comma, for the decimal separator and that a comma is used as a thousands separator but is optional for 4-digit numbers.

Is this more of a content question than a "how to edit" question? I'm turning off the {{help}} batsignal. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Homo erectus new.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Australopithecus afarensis new.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Australopithecus afarensis new.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Neandertaler reconst.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Neandertaler reconst.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Phthinosuchus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infraphylum: Gnathostomata?

Is the text in the cell next to "Gnathostomata" supposed to be "Jawed vertebrates" rather than "Jawed fish"? Following the Gnathostomata link seems to indicate this, but I am not a biologist, and AP Biology in the early 1990s didn't include any reference to infraphyla, so I am reluctant to make that change myself. Eqstokes (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[NYT-20170607-1] Zimmer, Carl (7 June 2017). "Oldest Fossils of Homo Sapiens Found in Morocco, Altering History of Our Species". New York Times. Retrieved 12 June 2017.

[NAT-20170607a-2] Callaway, Ewan (7 June 2017). "Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history". Nature (journal). doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22114. Retrieved 12 June 2017.

[NYT-20170704-3] Zimmer, Carl (4 July 2017). "In Neanderthal DNA, Signs of a Mysterious Human Migration". New York Times. Retrieved 4 July 2017.

[NC-20170704-4] Posth, Cosimo; et al. (4 July 2017). "Deeply divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African gene flow into Neanderthals". Nature Communications. doi:10.1038/ncomms16046. Retrieved 4 July 2017.

[PHYS-20170704-5] Max Planck Society (4 July 2017). "DNA of early Neanderthal gives timeline for new modern human-related dispersal from Africa". Phys.org. Retrieved 11 February 2020.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]