Whom Do Primate Names Honor? Rethinking Primate Eponyms

Sixty years ago, Sherwood Washburn 1 edited an influential volume entitled Classification and Human Evolution, which were the proceedings from the 1962 Wenner-Gren Symposium that was held in Burg Wartenstein (hereafter "BW'62") in Austria that focused on hominin systematics. One of the primary results from the BW'62 meeting was that the biological species concept (hereafter "BSC") became firmly entrenched in paleoanthropology as the structural framework for understanding hominin variation. The symposium results contributed toward the reduction in species names in human evolution, a trend that started in the late 1940s and became more prominent after 1950. 2 The effect of this paradigm shift resulted in an untenable assumption that a paleontologically defined hominin taxon represents a biological species (as defined by the BSC)-a problem that, to some extent, still exists in the field today. Unfortunately, this foundation has made it difficult to discuss the growing complexity in light of various evolutionary processes, particularly given how much the hominin fossil record has grown over the past 60 years. These questions and others were the focus of a recent Chibanian hominin systematics workshop (Meet the Chibanians: Late Middle and Early Late Pleistocene Hominin Systematics) that was held in Novi Sad, Serbia in May 2023 (hereafter "NS'23") that was funded by the Wenner-Gren Foundation and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. NS'23 fell on the 60th anniversary of the BW'62 symposium that was formally published in 1963. 1 Importantly, NS'23 gathered 12 of the most active paleoanthropologists working on Chibanian hominin fossils, in addition to a paleogeneticist, a paleoproteomics specialist, and a paleoprimatologist to provide broader perspectives. The goals of the NS'23 meeting were to reassess the Chibanian hominin fossil record and move the field forward by identifying ongoing problems and suggesting steps to move toward solutions. Ultimately, we were interested in finding a way forward in hominin systematics that would allow us to move the field conceptually from the proverbial "Muddle in the Middle" toward a solvable "Chibanian puzzle."The Chibanian (ca. 774-129 ka) is increasingly recognized as an important geochronologic age (and chronostratigraphic stage) in which many major events affected our own evolutionary history.Among the topics that continue to receive substantial attention is what to make of the extent of morphological variation we observe among the Chibanian hominins discovered so far, and whether a single chronospecies can be used to effectively delimit a diverse range of specimens from Europe, Asia, and Africa. Between Homo

Section: Should H Rhodesiensis Be Suppressed?supporting

confidence: 73%

Moving away from “the Muddle in the Middle” toward solving the Chibanian puzzle

Bae,

Aiello,

Hawks

et al. 2023

“…The Porr and Matthews recently published edited volume (21) specifically focuses on decolonizing modern human origins (see in particular, 22,23). Another good example is the piece by Chen‐Kraus et al that raises similar issues in the field of primatology (24). It is clear that there are growing calls from different fields, including subdisciplines within Anthropology, to acknowledge our racist and colonial history and change accordingly.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Homo bodoensis and why it matters

Roksandić

Radović

et al. 2022

In our original paper, we proposed a new species, Homo bodoensis, to replace the problematical taxa Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis, with the goal of streamlining communication about human evolution in the Chibanian. We received two independent responses. Given their substantial overlap, we provide one combined reply. In this response: (1) we are encouraged that the primary proposal in our paper, to discontinue the use of H. heidelbergensis (as a junior synonym to Homo neanderthalensis) due to its' nomenclatural problems, is acknowledged. (2) we provide additional clarification about the rules governing taxonomic nomenclature as outlined by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and join the growing calls for a revision to these rules. (3) we discuss further why H. rhodesiensis should be abandoned, particularly in light of the current sensitivity to using culturally inappropriate names. We conclude that H. bodoensis is a better solution than the proposed alternatives.

“…As others have done, 176 we recognize our positionality as scholars from institutions in the United States and acknowledge that by writing this article we are inserting ourselves into this conversation. We do not seek to offer claims of authority regarding the future of these remains.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Decolonizing museums involves a mindset and paradigmatic shift to acknowledge, tell, and come to terms with histories of colonization and the ways museums have benefited from past injustice 46,65 . Decolonizing primatology looks like acknowledging histories of exploitation and dispossession, recognizing the validity of Indigenous knowledge, addressing colonial legacies to increase inclusivity and improve equitability, and removing structural biases that perpetuate the academic domination of the Global North 176 . The same way that these principles are applied to primatology of living primates, the analysis of the deceased primates can similarly be decolonized.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specimens as individuals: Four interventions and recommendations for great ape skeletal collections research and curation

Kralick,

Canington,

Eller

et al. 2023

Extensive discourse surrounds the ethics of human skeletal research and curation, but there has yet to be a similar discussion of the treatment of great ape skeletal remains, despite the clear interest in their ethical treatment when alive. Here we trace the history of apes who were killed and collected for natural history museums during the early 20th century and showcase how the guiding research questions of the colonial era continue to influence scholarship. We discuss best practices for improving industry and academic standards of research on, and the curation of, ape remains. The suggested interventions involve restoring individual identity and narrative to great apes while engaging with contextual reflexivity and decolonial theory. The resulting recommendations include contextualizing the individual, piecing individuals back together, challenging/questioning the captive‐wild dichotomy, and collaborative international conversations. Our objective is to encourage a conversation regarding ethical and theoretical considerations in great ape skeletal remains research.