[meteorite-list] Heidelbergensis-Zhamanshin dates

From: Michael L Blood <mlblood_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:42:21 -0800
Message-ID: <C3668C6D.11635%mlblood_at_cox.net>

Hi Sterling, Andreas and all,
        This topic (Physical Anthropology [as well as Cultural
Anthropology]) is what I teach week in and week out at the
College level (as well as Sociology, Social Psychology, etc).
        I do NOT think debating the status of a paleospecies
Is appropriate to the meteorite list. HOWEVER, for those
That insist, PLEASE at least post it as Homo heidelbergensis
NOT "Homo Heidelbergensis" with a capitalized H in the
Second term. ALL species are binomial with the first name
Being the same as the genus to which the species belongs, and
Capitalized with the second term NOT capitalized.
        Furthermore, paleospecies, or morphospecies are terms
Reserved for extinct species largely because it is impossible to be
Absolutely sure of difference of species (it could be variation
Within a given species (due to gender, local adaptation, diet,
Cultural/behavioral practices, etc.).
        However, again, NOT a topic for the met list - but IF you
Insist, at least write it properly. (PS: Most offensive of all is
"Heidelbergensis" alone, not preceded by "Homo." As does
Particularly poor grammar, these errors in basic taxonomic
Terminology grate on the nerves terribly.
        Best wishes, Michael

on 11/18/07 8:53 PM, Sterling K. Webb at sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net
wrote:

> Hi, E.P., List,
>
> EP Wrote:
>> Right now, I feel like the book is going
>> to do very well, right after it kills me.
>
> For writers, poets, painters, and the like,
> to use an elegant phrase coined by the late
> Dylan Thomas: "Death is like the Good
> Housekeeping Seal of Approval for us..."
>
> He made the remark in a New York interview
> and I'm pretty sure he was drunk on his ass
> when he said it (well, OK, that was most of the
> time).
>
> I mean, the late Dylan Thomas would know,
> wouldn't he? I would think so.
>
>
> Moving right along, Mr. Heidelbergensis is
> a species that has often been proposed for the
> dubious honor of "being submerged," or "sunk,"
> as some toxonomists call it, meaning that there
> is considerable doubt that Mr. H. is worthy of
> being set up as a unique and individual species
> of the genus homo all on his own.
>
> Of course, most of the doubters of Mr. H.
> live a lot further away from Heidelberg than Andi
> does! There is a homo sapies process going on
> here. Say you are a homo sapiens paleoanthropologist
> and you find an archaic homo who is not a sap.
> Are you going to look like more of a hot shot if
> your new homo specimen is a unique species or
> just another archaic man?
>
> Well, naturally, there is more prestige in a
> discovering a unique species than saying "I found
> another archaic hominid, nothing special"? So,
> every digger claims his group of specimens as a
> SPECIES. Some toxonomists (the ones who dig
> and find mostly) are SPLITTERS (as they're
> called) and some toxonomists (the ones that sit
> home and synthesize) are LUMPERS. If you left
> taxonomy to field workers, we'd end with North
> New Jersey Man and South New Jersey Man
> as separate species... and some guy that claims
> Central New Jersey Man is a separate species!
>
> The books are littered with specious species that
> likely only exist in the brains of their "discoverers."
> There are even cases of groups of individuals that
> are found together in one location in "family" groups
> that are so radically different that other diggers say
> they're two species while their discoverer says they're
> one very dimorphic species... Never ask a Man to
> study Man -- we're too close to the problems.
>
> Now, I'm not saying Mr. H. is not his own "Man,"
> but this sort of thing is a major problem in the field. I
> take no stand on Mr. H. and his family relations. Cousin
> H. can have Thanksgiving Dinner with me, just like one
> of the family...
>
> Personally, I believe that archaic man, like modern man,
> was one continuously variable, inter-breeding species.
> In Modern Man, 85 percent of all human genetic
> variation exists within human populations, whereas
> about only 15 percent of variation exists between
> populations. I think if we had genes for the archaics,
> we'd find the same sort of thing, great variety despite
> being essentially a single genetic branching pool.
>
> That's my heresy, and I'm sticking to it.
>
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "E.P. Grondine" <epgrondine at yahoo.com>
> To: "Andreas Gren" <info at meteoritenhaus.de>;
> <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Heidelbergensis-Zhamanshin dates
>
>
> Andi -
>
> Yes, Andi, time runs in one direction.
>
> One problem is in taxonomy, as I point out in footnote
> 22:
>
> "While some would lump Homo heidelbergensis with
> erectus, my intent here is solely to point out certain
> catastrophes which most certainly affected the
> evolution of modern man. Although this is another area
> under intense study and debate, my guess is that all
> erectus descendants were still able to interbreed by
> this time, and likely continued to be able to do so
> for some time afterwards."
>
> Another problem lies with samples. You must remember
> that just because no earlier Heidelbergensis has been
> found, that does not mean that an earlier date did not
> occur. Excavations in China and Russia, including
> especially the coastal areas, have been "limited" in
> recent decades. H.'s documented range, if you accept
> that Heidelbergensis was distinct from Erectus,
> indicates an earlier time.
>
> The important point here is that regardless of
> taxonomy, erectus or heidelbergensis, man is around
> and hunting probiscidonts (ancient elephants - hope I
> spelled that right) with spears at the time of the
> Zhamanshinite impact, and that massive impact occurs
> in the middle of his range.
>
> As a bonus consolation to you, there are mistakes in
> my book, and I find them irritating. Some are due to
> what was known at the time. In particular I used an
> end paleo date (8,350 BCE) for the holocene start
> impacts, now known at 10,900 BCE.
>
> The 8,350 BCE discontinuity most likely reflects yet
> another impact. Also, information on Savanah River
> ethnography has only recently become available.
>
> There are several other errors, but one that really
> irritates me is that the term "Nodena" was redefined
> by the anthropologists to apply to another type of
> pottery rather than the sandy fabric ware I was
> seeking to note.
>
> I tried to make my book as easy to understand as I
> could, but it is not for everyone. It would have been
> nice to have had an editorial staff, and graphics arts
> dept, and distributor. I didn't have those. It also
> would have helped if I had not had a stroke, and a
> pack of insane people to deal with - but I did. I just
> hope I didn't blow the scaling laws too bad.
>
> You might find this hard to believe, but some people
> think my book is a great book. I'm sorry you're not
> one of them. My offer to you stands, donate your copy
> to a university, send me the letter, and I'll send you
> what you paid.
>
> You know, there was a lot of material about Native
> Americas and meteorites that I wanted to write up, but
> instead we had that big discussion about Hibben.
>
> Right now, I feel like the book is going to do very
> well, right after it kills me.
>
> E.P. Grondine
> Man and Impact in the Americas
>
> --- Andreas Gren <info at meteoritenhaus.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi E.P.
>>
>> So you agree Zhamanshinite is around 900 000 years
>> old,at the actual point of science.
>>
>> And Hidelbergensis is 500 000 -600 000 years old,
>> also at the actual point of science. If you like,
> count Homo antecessor to Heidelbergensis, so you
>> would reach maximum age for Heidelbergensis of 800
>> 000 years, still 100 000 years after the
> Zhamanshinite event.
>>
>> So how can a species be split, that not exist at the
>> time of the event?.
>>
>> Time is going just in one direction.
>>
>> Andi
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> ______
> Be a better pen pal.
> Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
> http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Jesus was killed by a "stress position."
In the US it is now "legal" to place
People in a "stress position." (sometimes,
For days - as well as repeated drowning
Simulations, refrigeration and boxes that
Do not allow sitting, standing or lying down).
No trial, no lawyer, just torture. You can thank
King George, a complacent Senate and a willing
citizenry.
        Didn't we used to be "the good guys?"
Received on Mon 19 Nov 2007 03:42:21 AM PST