Talk:Kabwe skull

Renaming

I support the renaming. It seems really confusing as there is no clear consensus. I have some sources listing this as Homo sapiens rhodesiensis or Homo heidelbergensis (in fact the heidelberg article shows the same skull as this one). The best way I can see to handle this is to create a page for Homo rhodesiensis, indicating the controversy. We can also keep a separate page for the fossil itself and give links to the various species it is attributed to.

In other words Rhodesian Man, Broken Hill Skull and Broken Hill 1 will all redirect to Kabwe cranium (just info about the fossil itself.)

Homo rhodesiensis will contain most of the info from here and note the controversy and alternate species. Nowimnthing 14:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The move tag was removed, but I was just waiting to see if anyone else commented and figuring out how to make the move to a page that already exists as a redirect. I will take it up on the move board and see if an admin can go ahead and make the move. Nowimnthing 13:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Page kept at this location, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Rhodesian man → Homo rhodesiensis – Rationale: non-controversial move to make the page cosistent with other species pages (Rhodesian Man is the name of a particular fossil but the page is about the species), but it is over a redirect that has a small history so I need an admin. This move has been requested before, but no one acted on it and there was no comment other than my own. Nowimnthing 18:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose I've read the article; and it is clearly about one skeleton, not a species.JoergenB 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support We need to move the skeleton stuff to it's own page. Nowimnthing 04:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, pending the determination of its status. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The hominid classification is not uncontroversial; and suggesting the existence of a new species based on just one skeleton in as recent time as less than 300 000 years ago would be worth careful consideration, if it were made. Note that placing the skeleton as Homo sapiens rhodesiensis would classify it as a subspecies, not a species; and similarly with classifying it within the Homo heidelbergensis group.JoergenB 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some sources? I am kind of out of the loop on the most recent research. If there is current scientific consensus that rhodesiensis is a subspecies then we still need to change this page to reflect that and to change the human evolution template. Do you suggect we make this page about the fossil and indicate its controversial status and remove the species taxobox and remove it from the template? That is fine too, I just think something needs to be done to clean this up, if you have some sources that may help. Nowimnthing 04:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not those you want (without some trouble). (Even the classification of neanderthaleans as a separate species was not uncontroversial. For some time, some scientists preferred to speak about Homo sapiens sapiens versus Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, i.e., to classify us and the neanderthaleans as subspecies of the same species; I might be able to find some old advocate of this.) However, the fact that the classification e.g. as Homo sapiens rhodesiensis would classify the individual as belonging to a subspecies of Homo sapiens is an immediate consequence of the generally accepted Linnæan species naming conventions, and I can of course easily provide references of this, if you wish.

My opposition was against changing the name of the article as it is written now. If the article is rewritten to be about the (proposed) species (and preferrably with a note to the effect that its classification as a separate species is controversial), then I will not oppose the name shift.JoergenB 12:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikko's lists it as a species. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

not very scientific but a quick search of google scholar comes up with these results:

1. Rhodesian man - 214
2. Homo rhodesiensis - 84
3. Broken Hill 1 - 73
4. Broken Hill Skull - 46
5. Homo sapiens rhodesiensis - 10
6. Kabwe cranium - 6

I suppose we could abandon the name change for this page since the name passes the google test, but move the species stuff to Homo rhodesiensis and leave this page just about the fossil. Of course we would indicate the controversy on both pages. Nowimnthing 13:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly second that.JoergenB 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, but now Homo rhodesiensis needs a lot of work. Nowimnthing 00:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge

There is only one specimen of this species, so why have separate articles about both the species and the specimen when it could easily be collected in one article? FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename

I propose renaming the article Kabwe cranium. Since the term Rhodesia is currently obsolete when referring to a location. The term Kabwe cranium is more location specific, since this is the town of discovery, rather than the term Rhodesia, which is now the location of two separate countries. This would be more in line with names such as Neanderthal, which refers to the Neander Valley, or Cro-Magnon. Shambalala (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, is that how the specimen is referred to in modern literature? If not, we're not the ones who decide what it should be referred to as. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

These are some references to kabwe man

• Britanica
• google books
• Smithsonian
• Museum of Natural History

Based on the above links, Homo rhodesiensis is simply a latinization of Rhodesian man. Hence they mean one and the same thing, just one is latin the other is english. Therefore, if we are to have two articles, one for the species and one for specimen, then one should be called Homo Rhodesiensis or Rhodesian man. The other should be called Kabwe man, Kabwe skull, or Kabwe cranium. Shambalala (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)