Clearly Homo idiotensis here is incapable of cultivating a factual ontology that would place it below the 'great apes' as the type species amongst amongst the 'asshole apes'.
Towle I. Clades, Grades, and the Genus Problem: A Case for Revising Hominin Taxonomy. Am J Biol Anthropol. 2026 Aug;190(4):e70344. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.70344. PMID: 42612121; PMCID: PMC13485234.
To me, the choices of names for clades seem like madness:
All apes (superfamily): Hominoidea; great apes (family): Hominidae; African great apes (subfamily): Homininae; Pan‐Homo clade (tribe): Hominini; human clade (subtribe): Hominina. [0]
The potential for error seems enormous, and also imagine speaking those words without creating confusion, or try forming singulars and possessives that, in text and speech, unambiguously identify the clade.
Can anyone on the inside shed insight on why they do this to themselves, and to everyone else who has even less understanding? Is it self-hate? Imagine a large codebase that named variables like that - there would be a lynching late one night when the bug was found to be confusion.
Despite my reaction, I guess there is some good reason that all these smart, experienced people make this choice.
That's just the established naming convention. For brown bears, you have parvorder Ursida, superfamily Ursoidea, family Ursidae, subfamily Ursinae, tribe Ursini, genus Ursus, and finally species Ursus arctos. When there are millions of taxonomic names, you want to establish some kind of regular structure, because you are going to run out of useful distinctive names.
I agree, but it is clear they got used to it. I suppose once you learn the endings, you can generate the higher genera from the name of a bottom level species familar to us like human-cat-dog / homo-felis-canis
Research is coming out specifically regarding the COVID genome which suggests missing sequence data was routinely filled in from baseline reference sequences. In turn, the reference sequences suggest during later analysis constant reversion back to the baseline. These gaps are the (dot) product of limitations of PCR * computer processing algorithms. No reason to believe the problem is limited to COVID.
Does this explain the conspiracy theories about “insertions”? When I looked into it, many other virus species had similar “insertions” - the problem seeming to be the sequencing itself not being accurate (as opposed to every viral disease being cooked up in a lab for the last 5,000 years)
The races roughly correspond to long-term biomes along longitudinal regions, meaning there are multiple races of black, white, and brown respectively.
There are Slavic white, who are in the same vertical slice (roughly, around water) as Arab brown and Ethiopian black, genetically.
Then there are western African black along another band that are closer to Irish and Scottish than some other black people.
There are white, black, and brown East Asians - the whole spectrum from North Korea and Japan down to Malaysia, Vietnam, and Samoan.
It’s not as simple as black, white, brown - this spectrum emerged multiple times in our evolution mostly due to climate patterns and differences in coastal vs inland, and cave vs outdoor, living conditions that relate to the weather.
Any large vertical region we inhabited in ancient times, with dark cold places in the north and hot sunny places along the equator with coastal and inland options, a racial spectrum like that would emerge over time.
Clearly Homo idiotensis here is incapable of cultivating a factual ontology that would place it below the 'great apes' as the type species amongst amongst the 'asshole apes'.
Here's the paper:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13485234/
Towle I. Clades, Grades, and the Genus Problem: A Case for Revising Hominin Taxonomy. Am J Biol Anthropol. 2026 Aug;190(4):e70344. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.70344. PMID: 42612121; PMCID: PMC13485234.
To me, the choices of names for clades seem like madness:
All apes (superfamily): Hominoidea; great apes (family): Hominidae; African great apes (subfamily): Homininae; Pan‐Homo clade (tribe): Hominini; human clade (subtribe): Hominina. [0]
The potential for error seems enormous, and also imagine speaking those words without creating confusion, or try forming singulars and possessives that, in text and speech, unambiguously identify the clade.
Can anyone on the inside shed insight on why they do this to themselves, and to everyone else who has even less understanding? Is it self-hate? Imagine a large codebase that named variables like that - there would be a lynching late one night when the bug was found to be confusion.
Despite my reaction, I guess there is some good reason that all these smart, experienced people make this choice.
[0] From the paper the OP describes: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13485234/
That's just the established naming convention. For brown bears, you have parvorder Ursida, superfamily Ursoidea, family Ursidae, subfamily Ursinae, tribe Ursini, genus Ursus, and finally species Ursus arctos. When there are millions of taxonomic names, you want to establish some kind of regular structure, because you are going to run out of useful distinctive names.
I agree, but it is clear they got used to it. I suppose once you learn the endings, you can generate the higher genera from the name of a bottom level species familar to us like human-cat-dog / homo-felis-canis
Superfamily -oidea
Family -idae Subfamily -inae Tribe -ini Subtribe -inaHomie, no idea.
[Sorry I never joke but surely the biologists were joking when they came up with that so it should be fair game]
Research is coming out specifically regarding the COVID genome which suggests missing sequence data was routinely filled in from baseline reference sequences. In turn, the reference sequences suggest during later analysis constant reversion back to the baseline. These gaps are the (dot) product of limitations of PCR * computer processing algorithms. No reason to believe the problem is limited to COVID.
I haven't heard anything about this, could you drop a couple references?
Does this explain the conspiracy theories about “insertions”? When I looked into it, many other virus species had similar “insertions” - the problem seeming to be the sequencing itself not being accurate (as opposed to every viral disease being cooked up in a lab for the last 5,000 years)
The races roughly correspond to long-term biomes along longitudinal regions, meaning there are multiple races of black, white, and brown respectively.
There are Slavic white, who are in the same vertical slice (roughly, around water) as Arab brown and Ethiopian black, genetically.
Then there are western African black along another band that are closer to Irish and Scottish than some other black people.
There are white, black, and brown East Asians - the whole spectrum from North Korea and Japan down to Malaysia, Vietnam, and Samoan.
It’s not as simple as black, white, brown - this spectrum emerged multiple times in our evolution mostly due to climate patterns and differences in coastal vs inland, and cave vs outdoor, living conditions that relate to the weather.
Any large vertical region we inhabited in ancient times, with dark cold places in the north and hot sunny places along the equator with coastal and inland options, a racial spectrum like that would emerge over time.
So you're saying dark skinned people reside in the south and lighter skinned people predominate in the north?
What does this have to do with the article?