Classification of Hominidæ

Abstract

PROF. G. MONTANDON¹ has recently discussed my propositions concerning nomenclature in physical anthropology and offers a classification of the Hominidæ. These appear to call for some remark. Montandon objects to my delimitation of “species”, and prefers to go back to the old, pre-Darwinian concept of a species being a group of individuals which are fertile inter se. There seems no need here to go into the pros and cons of that argument as it has already been dealt with by Pycraft² in the paper already quoted by me. Pycraft very aptly used the Phasianidsæ to illustrate his point, as this group is quite comparable to the Hominidæ. No modern systematic zoologist accepts that old definition of species. Actually, as Zuckerman³ points out, the value of species does differ among different animal groups, and the question of being fertile inter se or not depends on the magnitude of the chromosomal difference between related or neighbouring populations. Sometimes species of the same genus have greater chromosomal differences than those of other genera. The latter may produce fertile hybrids whilst the former cannot produce anything beyond an F₁ generation. Hominids would appear to belong to the latter category, and I maintain that such obvious anatomical differences as those between, say, Negroids and Mongoloids are sufficient to demand specific status for these two forms of modern man.