# The Name "Homo Sapiens" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 27, 2001, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-name-homo-sapiens/56117 "2001-02-27T22:41:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b5e925/32.png) [@Lego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lego)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-name-homo-sapiens/56117/1 "2001-02-27T22:41:37Z")
Which scientist was responsible for naming the human species? And when did it happen? ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-name-homo-sapiens/56117/2 "2001-02-27T23:27:09Z")
The binomial nomenclature for animals was introduced by the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linneaus (Carl von Linne) in 1758 in the 10th edition of his _Systema Naturae_. I believe it was he who introduced the term _Homo sapiens_ (“Homo”, which is the genus, is always capitalized, and “sapiens”, which is the species, is not capitalized, and the whole thing is always italicized.) _Homo sapiens_ means “thinking man” in Latin. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-name-homo-sapiens/56117/3 "2001-02-27T23:31:27Z")
And I believe old Carl used himself as the basis for the type description. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![PlanMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2bfe46/32.png) [@PlanMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlanMan)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-name-homo-sapiens/56117/4 "2001-02-28T00:43:27Z")
I’m not sure where, but I am pretty sure I’ve seen the nomenclature _Homo sapiens sapiens_. What’s this? I know some of the earlier humans were _Homo erectus_ and _Homo habilis_. What was Neanderthal’s nom de etre? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-name-homo-sapiens/56117/5 "2001-02-28T00:58:19Z")
Neandertal man was originally described as _Homo neanderthalensis_, as a separate species from _Homo sapiens_. Some paleoanthropologists contend that Neandertals weren’t different enough from modern humans to be considered specifically distinct, so call them a subspecies, _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_. Modern humans then would become _Homo sapiens sapiens_, to distiguish them from Neanderthals. Note that no subspecies are currently recognized _among_ modern humans, so this designation is only relavant in a paleoanthropological context. ---
**Author:** ![Lego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b5e925/32.png) [@Lego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lego)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-name-homo-sapiens/56117/6 "2001-02-28T01:31:58Z")
I think I might have read that 19th-century paleontologist E.D. Cope became the “type specimen” of H. sapiens? I’m not sure where, though. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-name-homo-sapiens/56117/7 "2001-02-28T01:53:54Z")
IIRC, and I don’t feel like looking it up right now, Linneaus had _Homo troglodytus_ (caveman) and _Homo sylvestrus_ (the wild man of the woods) in his _Systema Naturae_ (_Big Book of All the Animals_). At least we have names ready for Morlocks and Sasquatches… ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-name-homo-sapiens/56117/8 "2001-02-28T18:15:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lego \* > \*\*I think I might have read that 19th-century paleontologist E.D. Cope became the “type specimen” of H. sapiens? I’m not sure where, though. \*\* [This site](http://www.thehistorynet.com/AmericanHistory/articles/1998/0898_text.htm) has this to say about Edward Drinker Cope: > [@](#): > > **Cope had . . . willed his body to science as an anatomical specimen for students to study. But that wasn’t the end of his story. In 1993 a National Geographic photographer named Louis Psihoyos obtained Cope’s skull from the University of Pennsylvania and took it with him as he traveled around the world interviewing paleontologists for a book. He referred to the skull as “Eddie.” Later, he and paleontologist Robert Bakker tried to have the skull named as the “type specimen”–the standard of a species to which all others are compared–for Homo sapiens.** but: > [@](#): > > **In any event, the effort to turn Cope into a type specimen was a futile one. It turned out that Swiss botanist Carolus Linnaeus, the man who created the scientific naming system that classes specimens based on genus and species, had received that honor in 1959.** According to [this site](http://www.biodiversity.uno.edu/~gophtax/_gophtax.96/0044.html) Raquel Welch has also been proposed as a type specimen: > [@](#): > > \*\*In the case of H. sapiens a lengthy description was given by Linnaeus but no “specimens” were mentioned (the famous remark “Nosce Te ipsum” - recognize yourself - hardly qualifies!). > > The type series of a new nominal species consists [Art. 72b of the Code] of all the specimens included in the species by the author. In the case of H. sapiens this would be all persons living or dead (in 1758). Any such specimen (syntype) can be designated as a lectotype [Art. 74], but it cannot seriously be argued that “designations” of Carl Linnaeus himself have been made for the only relevant scientific purpose, i.e. in order to differentiate H. sapiens (modern man) from other hominids! Still less scientific or valid are the “designations” of a “neotype” (such as E. D. Cope, Raquel Welch(!) …) which have been made. No designation of a neotype for H. sapiens meets the requirements of Article 75 of the Code. > > In short, there is no name-bearing type specimen of H. sapiens. > > Philip Tubbs > Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N. > International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature > \*\*