The species lived in the Middle Pleistocene, an era that took place 774,000 to 129,000 years ago. The Homo bodoensis is thought to be the most direct ancestor of humans.
Still a controversial issue, a lot of scientists refute this group. And the argument by the authors to name it “bodoensis” instead of “rhodensis” because of the colonial name “Rhodesia” is generally considered unscientific.
The article mentions that this is an amalgam of other groups including the one you mentioned,
"The name Homo bodoensis comes from a new analysis of already existing fossils found in Africa and Eurasia. Before the study, these fossils were attributed to multiple different species—that is, Homo heidelbergensis or Homo rhodesiensis, both of which were ambiguously defined in the first place."
I don’t know enough about this particular group in Winnipeg to speak about them, what makes them particularly controversial? Is it just reclassifying the above without really getting a consensus on the matter? Or is there believed to be issues with the methodology?
If I understand it correctly, people in this field are generally not in accord regarding the fossils of this era. There are multiple schools of thought regarding what kind of species/sub-species should be considered to exist or whether to classify certain fossils as simply archaic Neanderthals and sapiens. In such a highly debated field it will be hard to convince many scholars of this new theory.
And the reclassifying without getting consensus is something that people do all the time and some scholars clearly are annoyed by it.
Totally ignorant on the topic, but curious why they would have named the group rhodensis if not for the alleged aversion to Cecil John?
To clarify, I’m curious about the naming convention and why we would expect a certain name over another.
Thanks in advance!
