GoKawiilHumanity’s family tree is long and tangled. Scientists sort our ancient relatives into three familiar groups: Homo, Australopithecus, and Paranthropus.
Featured Video
Each of these is a “genus,” the rank just above a species. (In Homo sapiens, Homo is the genus and sapiens is the species.)
These names dominate how we talk about human origins. But new fossils, advances in genetic analysis, and more rigorous methods for figuring out who’s related to whom show these groupings don’t really reflect the true shape of our family tree.
Is it therefore time to come up with a new way to classify humans and our closely related extinct relatives? As I argue in a new paper in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology, the current system is overdue for revision.
Advertisement
Finding family branches
The core problem is the current groups often don’t represent real family branches—what scientists call “clades.” A clade is one common ancestor and every one of its descendants.
There’s a second issue too. Ideally, a genus should also tell us something about the behavior, key traits, or way of life shared by all its member species.
Australopithecus (which includes the famous “Lucy” skeleton) is the clearest case. Large-scale analyses consistently find this genus isn’t a real family branch at all.
... continue reading