However, the discovery of more fossils of this type has opened up the debate on the delineation of H. Especially, the LD 350-1 jawbone fossil discovered in 2013, dated to 2.8 Mya, has been argued as being transitional between the two.Fossil KNM-ER 1470 (discovered in 1972, designated Pithecanthropus rudolfensis by Alekseyev 1978) is now seen as either a third early species of Homo (alongside H. erectus) at about 2 million years ago, or alternatively as transitional between Australopithecus and Homo.The systematic name Hominidae for the family of the great apes was introduced by John Edward Gray (1825).Gray also supplied Hominini as the name of the tribe including both chimpanzees (genus Pan) and humans (genus Homo).More recently proposed additions to the Australopithecina subtribe include Ardipithecus (1995) and Kenyanthropus (2001).
A proposal by Wood and Richmond (2000) would introduce Hominina as a subtribe alongside Australopithecina, with Homo the only known genus within Hominina.The recognition or non-recognition of subspecies of Homo sapiens has a complicated history. Pääbo (2014) frames this as a debate that is unresolvable in principle, "since there is no definition of species perfectly describing the case." There are a number of proposals of extinct varieties of Homo sapiens made in the 20th century.The rank of subspecies in zoology is introduced for convenience, and not by objective criteria, based on pragmatic consideration of factors such as geographic isolation and sexual selection. afer as grouping the native populations of the Americas, Europe and Western Asia, East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively, besides H. ferus (for the "wild" form which he identified with feral children) and two further "wild" forms for reported specimens now considered part of cryptozoology, H. Many of the original proposals were not using explicit trinomial nomenclature, even though they are still cited as valid synonyms of H. These include: Homo grimaldii (Lapouge, 1906), Homo aurignacensis hauseri (Klaatsch & Hauser, 1910), Notanthropus eurafricanus (Sergi, 1911), Homo fossilis infrasp. rhodesiensis continue to be considered separate species by some authorities, but the genetic evidence of archaic human admixture with modern humans discovered in the 2010s has re-opened the details of taxonomy of archaic humans.This concerns Homo ergaster in particular: The proposal of a broad division of Homo erectus into an "African" and an "Asian" variety would consider the Asian variety Homo erectus sensu stricto and Homo erectus sensu lato would include both Asian Homo erectus and African Homo ergaster. Similarly, Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1899) also had categories based on race, such as priscus, spelaeus (etc.); Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was proposed by King (1864) as an alternative to Homo neanderthalensis.There appears to be a recent trend, with the availability of ever more difficult-to-classify fossils such as the Dmanisi skulls (2013) or Homo naledi fossils (2015) to subsume all archaic varieties under Homo erectus. There have been "taxonomic wars" over whether Neanderthals were a separate species since their discovery in the 1860s.Orrorin (2001) has been proposed as a possible ancestor of Hominina but not Australopithecina.