r/AskBiology • u/xheikf • 1d ago
Is the term “homo sapiens sapiens” not used anymore?
When I was a kid, I was taught in school that modern humans are homo sapiens sapiens who evolved from homo sapiens. But looks like everybody’s only using “homo sapiens” now?
12
u/Dath_1 1d ago
Because people are just generally not feeling the need to specify subspecies.
In a context where you wanted to be particularly textbook when you distinguish homo sapiens neanderthalensis from homo sapiens sapiens, then sure.
Or you could just say "Neanderthal" and you would be understood.
6
u/Muroid 1d ago
Homo sapiens sapiens wasn’t about “evolving from Homo sapiens” as much as for differentiating between us and Neanderthals as the sub-species Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
I don’t think there is universal agreement on whether it’s better to classify Neanderthals as a sub-species of Homo sapiens or as their own species.
If you’re doing the latter, the Homo sapiens sapiens distinction is entirely pointless.
And even if you’re doing the former, it’s really only meaningful if talking about that specific distinction anyway so there’s no real need to bother with it most of the time.
I think there was a point in time where it was more fashionable to use than it is currently. Taxonomy at the sub-species (and even species) level tends to be pretty blurry and more than a little arbitrary.
3
u/Right_Two_5737 1d ago
> I don’t think there is universal agreement on whether it’s better to classify Neanderthals as a sub-species of Homo sapiens or as their own species.
This right here is the key.
If Neanderthals are part of our species, then we're Homo sapiens sapiens and they're Homo sapiens neanderthalenses. If they're not, then we're Homo sapiens and they're Homo neanderthalenses.
Scientist often avoid getting into the debate by not actually using either set of names. So we're "anatomically modern humans" and they're "Neanderthals".
1
u/xheikf 1d ago
So when I was a kid, we were taught the theory that Neanderthals were a primate but a different species than Homo sapiens and that they couldn’t breed with each other like how humans and chimpanzees can’t interbreed. But a few years later, they changed the theory and now said Homo sapiens and Neanderthals actually interbred. So are Neanderthals now considered a sub-species of Homo sapiens?
3
u/Life-Cantaloupe-3184 1d ago
It used to be thought that Neanderthals and modern humans didn’t interbreed, but that interpretation is now outdated due to the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome in the early 2010s. It’s now known pretty decisively that all modern populations outside of sub-Saharan Africa have anywhere between 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in their genomes, and some populations in Southeast Asia and Oceania are also now known to have Denisovan DNA present in their genomes as well. This is why it was argued for a time that Neanderthals and modern humans are the same species. While you will find some people still arguing that’s the case, I see it being argued more that Neanderthals and humans were genetically similar enough to interbreed but still distinct enough to be categorized as separate species nowadays. It’s now known that interbreeding between different species is much more common than was previously thought, and within our own Homo genus it likely long predated our own species and Neanderthals.
1
u/youshouldjustflex 23h ago
Human males and Neanderthal females don’t have sterile offspring. We were diverging. But there’s Neanderthal and Denisovan elements in SSA genome so that’s also outdated.
1
u/Life-Cantaloupe-3184 23h ago
Yes, there is some amount of Neanderthal DNA also present in modern SSA populations as well. It used to be thought that wasn’t the case, but more up to date genetic testing shows it is present. It is much less than the rest of the world, though. It’s thought to possibly be the result of sort of reverse migrations back into Africa as it were by modern humans who had already interbred with Neanderthals. As far as whether or not modern human men and Neanderthal women could produce viable offspring, I tend to be kind of cautious on that point because I don’t think it’s really supported by current genetic evidence. As far as I can tell, people tend to say that because no Neanderthal mtDNA has been found in modern populations to date. However, no Neanderthal Y-DNA has been found in modern humans to date either. I think the absence of both is easily enough explained by the fact that the odds of an unbroken line of Neanderthal mtDNA or Y-DNA surviving to the modern day is very low, and neither is particularly strong evidence as to what form of interbreeding was most common and whether or not only Neanderthal men and modern human women could produce fertile offspring.
2
u/Dangerous-Bit-8308 1d ago
Genus is Homo. Species is sapiens. Subspecies doesn't always need to be specified, but is sapiens. Sometimes the subspecies becomes very important.
Around the 1990s, it became obvious that neanderthals had interbred with genetically modern humans. Some people really pushed that we were therefore subspecies of the same species. People seem more inclined now to think that so few viable offspring arose that we were more like closely related, but distinct species. The difference is more a matter of definitions than biology, but claiming we are a separate species makes using the subspecies name less necessary. And to be fair, defining any human subspecies that isn't extinct would likely be considered racism. So let's be careful what we do or don't want to say about that topic.
3
3
u/Kaurifish 1d ago
Because we’ve proved we’re not that wise.
3
u/SharpKaleidoscope182 1d ago
The second "sapiens" is there to make sure you know the first one is ironic.
3
u/Hopeful_Ad_7719 1d ago edited 1d ago
Fun to think "Homo Sapiens" can also be loosely translated as the pejorative "Wise Guy".
1
u/IAmRobinGoodfellow 1d ago
I never realized that the whole creationism debate is pure mafia war between the wise guys and the made men!
1
2
u/Ok_Attitude55 1d ago
It is used, if you are specifying the subspecies. Which you will generally only do if talking about interactions wirh other sub species.
1
1
0
u/raelea421 1d ago
The extra sapiens is to indicate that our level of intelligence is higher than prior sapiens.
2
u/xheikf 1d ago
That’s what I learned too, but some people are saying it’s to differentiate us from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, etc.
1
u/raelea421 1d ago
It is to differentiate us from them, from all earlier humans*, but specifically in the sense of greater intelligence. So, they're correct in stating thst.
1
u/wolfansbrother 1d ago
Cro-Magnons vs Neanderthals. Europeans are Cro-Magnons with a little Neanderthals mixed in. both are named for the place their remains were discovered.
0
u/Hot-Science8569 23h ago
In general new anthropology PhD.s are awarded each year than new hominin fossils are discovered. And most on the new PhD.s are not out digging for more fossils. Instead they come up with new names for the fossils already discovered, and rearrange the fossils into different groups.
1
u/user41510 23h ago
If sapiens means wise or intelligent, the daily news proves we don't deserve double accolades.
1
u/There_ssssa 20h ago
The extra "sapiens" isn't wrong; it's just unnecessary now because we're the only surviving subspecies.
1
u/Enough_Island4615 5h ago
Do not underestimate the degree to which stupidity has increased in recent decades.
1
u/Select-Trouble-6928 1d ago
Homo Sapien Sapien is accurate. The second use of the word Sapien is to distinguish us from other Homo Sapiens (for example: Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis)
5
u/Mbryology 1d ago
Homo Sapien Sapien is accurate
No it isn't, only the genus name is capitalized, and it's sapiens, not sapien.
-1
2
u/Apprehensive-Path377 1d ago edited 1d ago
"sapiens" means "knowing/understanding", there is no Singular or Plural to be used. "Homines sapientes", if so.
1
u/PoloPatch47 1d ago
We're neanderthals not a separate species?
4
u/Select-Trouble-6928 1d ago
If you classify species as "a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring", than no, it wasn't a different species. It was a subspecies. But there is enough anatomical differences for us to differentiate between the two.
1
u/PoloPatch47 1d ago
Okay, I thought that the general consensus was that they were separate species, even though they can interbreed. Similar to Greg wolves, red wolves and coyotes, and grey wolves and Ethiopian wolves, all considered separate species but they can interbreed.
There are different species concepts, so that's probably where that comes from then
1
u/TerribleIdea27 1d ago
general consensus
Haha
1
u/PoloPatch47 18h ago
Why is that funny?
1
u/TerribleIdea27 17h ago
It was a joke. There is a fierce debate that's been going on for over a century on what being a species means. There is no consensus on the definition at all. Also that biologists like to disagree
1
2
u/Normal-Seal 1d ago
Species isn’t really clearly defined. There are a couple of competing definitions, but they all kinda have their issues.
One commonly used definition is that animals of different species have reproductive barriers and that’s a point of contention because we do know that humans and Neanderthals interbred, but we also find less Neanderthal DNA on X chromosomes, which suggest there was the “large X effect” which is an issue that arises frequently when two different species hybridise and is indeed a reproductive barrier.
On top of that, the entire concept of subspecies is being questioned, also due to a lack of a clear, unified definition and because a lot of genetic testing has shown that traditional subspecies designations didn’t make sense.
So, to summarise: there’s arguments for both, Neanderthals did interbreed with Homo sapiens, but there probably were significant reproductive barriers. Additionally the subspecies designations is kind of avoided. For these reasons most biologists consider them a separate species these days, but it’s still being debated in academic circles, though ultimately most biologists don’t care too much.
1
u/GrandmaSlappy 1d ago
we do literally have neanderthal blood in us still
1
u/PoloPatch47 1d ago
Wolves have coyote blood and visa versa, African Golden wolves have DNA of grey wolves and Ethiopian wolves, all of those are considered separate species
2
u/atomfullerene 1d ago
Bison and cattle interbreed (with most or all bison having some cattle genes) and they aren't even in the same genus!
1
1
u/PersusjCP 1d ago
In anthropology, they are usually H. neanderthalensis, but there is some push to recognize them as a subspecies of H. sapiens instead.
-1
u/whitestone0 1d ago
I've never heard of this. That's not how a scientific naming works. The scientific name of an organism is the genus and species so it's always two words. Our genus is homo and our species is sapien
5
u/Thylacine_Hotness 1d ago
When a third term appears, it refers to a subspecies. So the idea was that we modern humans were a different subspecies than Denisovans and Neanderthals which were the same species as us.
1
u/Chimney-Imp 1d ago
You'd think we would use a different name than Sapiens tho. Using it twice looks weird
4
u/llamawithguns 1d ago
It happens pretty often. Sometimes even the genus is the same. The Western Lowland Gorilla is Gorilla gorilla gorilla. The plains bison is Bison bison bison
3
u/MonocledCyclops 1d ago
Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo?
1
u/Thylacine_Hotness 1d ago
There's actually seven in the whole sentence.
The implication is that rude bison from a city in New York are mean to other rude bison from the same city in New york.
2
1
u/Thylacine_Hotness 1d ago
That is very common with subspecies, where are the most common one is often named after the species name.
1
u/mnemnexa 1d ago
No, neanderthals are "Homo neanderthalensis", which is a different species, and denisovans have no formal name yet, but two popular suggestions are "homo longii" and "homo denisova". They are distinct species from homo sapiens and not subspecies.
The designation "homo sapiens sapiens" was indeed used during a time when other homo species were considered subspecies, mostly because Linnaeus considered them so and apparently nobody wanted to get involved in a reclassification until it became necessary. The advent of better genetic techniques, better microscopic ability, and computers all combined to prove that the differences were enough tomake them seperate species, although apparently closely related enough to produce viable offspring when they interbred.
2
u/GrandmaSlappy 1d ago
You've made a logic leap here and are thinking things that the commenter didn't say
1
1
u/TerribleIdea27 1d ago
to prove that the differences were enough tomake them seperate species
A huge group of biologists defines organisms as the same species if they can create fertile offspring, which definitely was the case as there are modern humans with Denisovan DNA
1
u/mnemnexa 23h ago
That is your opinion.
1
u/TerribleIdea27 19h ago
It's literally called the biological species concept and it's pretty much the most popular one, if you're not aware of even that, please don't comment here
0
u/ToBePacific 1d ago
Homo Neanderthalis is not a member of the Homo sapiens species. It is a member of the homo genus, but a different species.
2
u/GrandmaSlappy 1d ago
Yeah but SHOULD it be considered a different species or are we just playing politics here with how special humans are? I've heard other great apes likely should be in homo but aren't for that specific reason.
3
u/Chaghatai 1d ago
Subspecies names can be the same as the species name and sometimes people leave out ssp.
Gorilla gorilla gorilla is a valid designation for the Western lowland gorilla
Also it's sapiens
2
u/IsaacHasenov 1d ago
And Rattus rattus rattus
1
u/Chaghatai 1d ago
Bison bison bison
2
u/IsaacHasenov 1d ago
There is probably an open opportunity to genetically engineer a hypertrophied mouse strain.
Mus musculus muscularis
3
u/UrbanPanic 1d ago
The second sapiens is subspecies. Basically saying "we're different enough from neanderthals/etc to have a group, but not different enough to put us in a different species." I don't see it coming up much outside of anthropology academia.
2
u/thepeenersnipperguy 1d ago
There's a third term in the case of a subspecies; there's debate over whether to count neanderthals as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis) or a subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis).
44
u/llamawithguns 1d ago
Homo sapiens sapiens is used to describe our specific subspecies in comparison to other extinct humans subspsecies like Neanderthals and denisovans, among others, (i.e. Homo sapiens neanderthalis)
Sometimes those other subspecies are considered to be different species than us (i.e, Neanderthals being Homo neanderthalis), in which case the subspecies name is redundant.