The creation of specific hominid names: Gloria in excelsis deo? or ego? or praxis?

Abstract

The recent recommendation that it is preferable to recognize too many rather than too few species in the fossil record has led to a growing proliferation of specific names. Single specimens are being referred to different species by different authors, and new species are being proposed based on the juxtaposition of specimens from different sites and time levels representing different anatomical parts. In part this may represent the continuity of the Medieval assertion that a multitude of species is a better demonstration of the goodness of a divinely created world than a multitude of individuals in a single species. This has apparently accompanied the resurgence of the Medieval faith that species relationship are best demonstrated by the application of hierarchical Aristotelean logic. On the other hand, the suspicion remains that the vanity of the namer is frequently involved in the creation of new nomina. In general, anthropologists do not exhibit the “wide experience” and consequent “sound judgment” that Darwin recommended as necessary for those giving specific names. If the same criteria used to assign specific fossil names were applied to modern Homo sapiens, the different regional human populations would have to be recognized as specifically distinct. In opposition to the recommendation that we should recognize ever more specific names, there should be a moratorium called and no new species names should be proposed at all. The continuation of patterns of trivial trait configurations associated with the various inhabited regions of the world clearly indicates genetic continuity through time but, unless it can be shown that there is no reproductive continuity between one region and another, these differences do not warrant taxonomic recognition. Major adaptive changes such as significant increases in relative brain size do warrant formal named recognition.