November 16, 2011
What’s in a Name? Hominid Versus Hominin

An artist’s reconstruction of Australopithecus afarensis, a species that can be called a hominid or a hominin. Image courtesy of Wikicommons
If you follow news about human evolution, you’ve probably noticed that our ancestors are increasingly called hominins rather than hominids. Why the change? It’s the result of researchers revising how they classify primates.
The system of taxonomy that biologists use to categorize animals, plants, bacteria and other organisms is based on the work of the 17th-century scientist Carl Linnaeus. It consists of nested, hierarchical groups that get more and more narrow as you go down the taxonomic chain. To understand what the terms hominins and hominids mean, let’s first look at the traditional classification of modern humans.
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata (animals that have a notochord at some point in their lives; in fish, reptiles, birds and mammals, the notochord becomes the vertebral column)
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates (lemurs, bush babies, tarsiers, monkeys, apes and humans)
Family: Hominidae (modern humans and our close extinct relatives, such as Ardipithecus and Australopithecus)
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens
Under this system, the term hominid refers to members of the Hominidae family (in taxonomy, names that end in -idae refer to a family). But in the past few decades, the definition of Hominidae has been broadened to include orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees because of the recognition that these apes are very closely related to humans. In the past, they had their own family—Pongidae—based on the physical characteristics that seemed to unite the great apes as a group. Genetic analyses, however, indicated that gorillas and chimpanzees are actually more closely related to humans than they are to orangutans. Therefore, the Pongidae family didn’t make sense (in technical terms, it was paraphyletic). The genetic discoveries led to a new classification of humans, starting at the family level.
Family: Hominidae (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans)
Subfamily: Homininae (gorillas, chimpanzees and humans)
Tribe: Hominini (humans and our close extinct relatives; the group that was called Hominidae in the previous classification)
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens
Here, the term hominin refers to the tribe Hominini. That’s why many of our extinct ancestors are now called hominins. But it’s not technically wrong to call them hominids—all members of Hominini are also members of the subfamily Homininae and the family Hominidae, that’s how the nesting system works. It’s just a less precise term.
At Hominid Hunting, we generally use the term hominid in the traditional sense of the word: humans and their close extinct ancestors. But rather than being old-fashioned, I think it means we’re allowed to write about chimpanzee, gorilla or orangutan evolution from time to time.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI























Names and categories of our close relatives will continue to be misused. it does not matter much if we use a term like Hominin or Hominid. The little small brained Homini#s which were found on Flores Island, Indonesia are still called Homo Floresiensis. With a brain that is so tiny – only pathological cases deserve to be called “Homo”. Much better term would be : “LATTER-DAY AUSTRALOPITHECUS FLORESIENSIS”!
> Ode to Multiregional Human Evolution
> Petr Jandáček 2011
>
> There was a crooked man who walked a crooked path
> of Darwin’s Evolution.
> As Science it is new and facts there are but few
> well seasoned with confusion.
>
> From lowly shrews – insectivores – it seems – the primates came.
> The Lemuroids and Tarsieroids have very little fame.
> The Monkeys are much better known – from New World and from Old.
> Gorilla, Orang, Chimp and Gibbon are man-like we are told.
>
> From Apes to Man the gap is wide -
> for a long time left apart
> Till small Australopithecus
> was found by Raymond Dart.
>
> How long have they been on the scenes?
> Those cute Australo-pithecenes….
> How and when they reached each haunt?
> Perhaps they started in Levant??
>
> From there through warm Eurasian band?
> And southward through all African land
> As they travelled – they would find
> Related types of ape-men-kind.
>
> Hominids of many strange shapes
> Crossed with bonobos and other such apes.
> Gorillas, Chimps and Bonobos did their forest thing
> While bipedal relatives had their naked fling.
>
> Like Timber Wolf of northern snow
> Has no qualms, but wants to know
> The carnal charms of Dingo Sheila
> Or Jackal bitch, or cute Akita.
>
> Like all Canines on this Earth
> Our forebears – bred — gave birth
> Left their genes with all uncouth
> Anywhere they’d find some mirth,
>
> As long as genes of Human-kind
> Meshed as still ALL Doggie-kind
> DNA would ebb and flow
> And recombine towards high and low.
>
> Thus, we see on Line of Wallace
> Austalopithecus on Isle of Flores
> Some — thirteen thousand years ago
> Maybe later… the Dutch would know.
>
> Australopithecus of Latter-Day
> On Flores Island - I would say
> Is better way to name that type
> Brainette for “Homo” is un-ripe.
>
> Most would die but some survived
> Some would kill, and thus had thrived.
> Settled types and new-comers
> Produced better survivors.
>
>
>
> North America had primates in days of yore.
> South America has monkeys yet – from shore to shore.
> Pliopithecus and Dryopithecus of Europe’s past
> Were Hominins too – - so not so fast!
>
> As BuzzWord it may be – all the rage
> But “Out of Everywhere-ica” can upstage
> The paradigm we had learnt to take
> May yet be nothing but a fake.
>