The anthropologist shaking up the way we name human species

It's fair to say that the family tree of ancient people is not carved in stone. Let's just take a case Denisovanmysterious ancient people, who until recently were known only from a few bone fragments. In June, molecular evidence revealed that a mysterious skull from China was actually that of a Denisovan. These ancient people suddenly had a face.

Or did they do it? Anthropologist Christopher Bay from the University of Hawaii at Manoa is one of those who disagrees with the findings. He still believes that the skull in question belongs to the place where it was before, that is, belongs to a species called Long man. In fact, Bae is at the center of a heated debate about what our family tree should look like. Over the past five years, he and his colleagues have proposed adding two ancient human species to the mix: Man from Bodo And July Man.

Both proposals sparked controversy, in part because Bae and his colleagues deliberately violated the formal rules governing traditional species names. He is unrepentant, however, arguing that the rules themselves have become petrified relics that do not allow for the removal of names of species now considered offensive or for ensuring names are easy to pronounce. He spoke to New Scientist magazine about all this and how his interest in human evolution was sparked by the mysteries of his own origin story.

Michael Marshall: What first drew you to the study of ancient peoples?

Christopher Bay: The main goal of paleoanthropology is to reconstruct the past, even without all the pieces of the puzzle. Having been originally adopted when the first year of my life was a complete blank, this area resonated with me. For me, I was born in Korea, then I was abandoned when I was about a year old and lived in an orphanage for about six months before being adopted by an American family.

When I was an undergraduate student, I was able to go to Korea for the first time on an exchange program, and during that trip I went to an adoption agency where I'm from. I asked the manager if there was a chance that I could actually find my biological parents. They said, to be honest, your Korean name is not real and your date of birth is not real. It's not worth even trying. Absolutely no chance. At that moment I kind of gave up.

So I was interested in my own roots, and I couldn’t figure out how to find them. But then I took an introductory course in biological anthropology and found a field in which I could actually research origins. It's kind of like constructing your own origins.

Two species that often come up in discussions about our direct ancestors are: Man from Heidelberg And Man from Rhodesia. But in 2021, you were part of a team that proposed replacing both of them with a new species called H. bodoensis. Why?

My colleague, Mirjana Roksandic [at the University of Winnipeg, Canada]and I organized a session at the 2019 anthropology conference on H. heidelbergensis question. There was general agreement that H. heidelbergensis this is what we call a “garbage bin taxon” because everything that belongs to the Chiban age [775,000 to 130,000 years ago] this clearly doesn't belong The man stood up, Neanderthal man or wise man he was usually appointed.

What was the reaction to your article?

When it was submitted, half the reviewers said it needed to be published because we needed to have this discussion. The other half of the reviewers said it was complete nonsense and should not be published. No wonder, it was back and forth as soon as the paper came out.

Is there already an emerging consensus?

We had seminar in 2023 in Novi Sad in Serbia. We had about 16–17 paleoanthropologists working on this topic. We all agreed that H. heidelbergensis became a wastebasket taxon. Another important finding was that H. rhodesian should be taken out of circulation due to the colonial history of Rhodes. In fact, only one of the paleoanthropologists present thought Rhodesian wasn't a problem.

This International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) who ultimately judges such cases. Did it respond to your H. bodoensis argument?

ICZN published an article V Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society a pre-emptive strike was launched in 2023, saying: “We have no intention of removing from circulation names that may raise ethical issues.” As a result of this, we essentially found ourselves down the rabbit hole and challenging the ICZN. [Editor’s note: The ICZN’s 2023 statement recognised that scientific names might cause offence, but said it is outside the scope of the commission to assess the morality of persons honoured in eponyms. It also emphasised the importance of zoologists following its code of ethics when naming new species.]

Are species names really so important that they can be fought over?

Yes and no. For example, there is a beetle from several caves in Slovenia. In the 1930s, an Austrian entomologist [Oskar Scheibel] said, “I'm going to call this a new species after Adolf Hitler.” These days the beetle [Anophthalmus hitleri] Hot product for memory. On the black market people sell them because many neo-Nazis want to collect them. This will eventually lead to the extinction of these poor innocent bugs who did nothing to bother anyone.

What's the alternative?

I would say talk to your local colleagues and find a species name that is acceptable to them, because they are the ones who will have to deal with it and live with it on a regular basis. I hope we stop using people's names to refer to species, otherwise we will continue to face problems in the future. I think this is the direction we are going to go – and change is already in the air. ICZN is trying to change the way it attracts members from the Global South and gives them more of a voice. And some other major associations, such as the American Ornithological Society, have recently voted to remove egregious species names from the biological organisms they study.

Last year, you again violated the ICZN rulebook regarding some ancient human fossils from a site in northern China called Xujiayao. What's the story there?

In the 1970s, researchers discovered a bunch of different hominin fossils at the site, representing more than 10 individuals, but all the fossils were separate parts. Me and my colleagues, including Xiujie Wu [at the Chinese Academy of Sciences]worked on these fossils. Wu actually performed a virtual reconstruction of the back of one skull. And when we looked at him, we said, “Wow, he's very, very different from other hominins of the same age.”

What differences are we talking about?

Differences in sizes and shapes. The average volume of the skull is from 1300 to 1500 cubic centimeters. The skull volume of these guys is from 1700 to 1800 cm3 – much more than that of an ordinary person. Additionally, based on shape analysis, it became clear that the Xujiayao fossils—and those from a nearby site called Xuchang—were consistently separated from other fossils and clustered together. This is what led us to the name of the new species.

But the name you chose was controversial. Can you explain why?

Where the species names actually come from is quite interesting. In this case, we could name it after Xujiayao – it's a generic site – and then add “-ensis” at the end, which would make it It will be homo. This is in accordance with ICZN rules.

And in Latin it means “homo belonging to Xujiayao” But you didn’t like this option?

The problem is that only people who speak Chinese will be able to pronounce the word, let alone spell it correctly. Names actually mean something. You need to be able to pronounce and spell them. So we came up with 'julu', which literally means 'big head'.

However, if we follow the ICZN rules, then we need to add an “i” at the end, which makes “Homo Yulu”. However, in our opinion, people will again not pronounce this word correctly if they do not understand Chinese. Some people might say “julu-eye”, others “julu-ee”. That's why we chose July Man.

How is your new species related to the mysterious Denisovan people who lived in what is now East Asia during the Stone Age?

If you look at second molars from Denisova Cave in Siberia and second molars from Xujiayao, they look almost identical. Indeed, one could take a Xujiayao molar and insert it into Denisova, and then take a Denisova molar and insert it into Xujiayao, and few would notice the difference.

But earlier this year, another team of researchers linked the same Denisovan fossils to another ancient species from China called Long man – and this idea seems to have appealed to many researchers.

In fact, in China, most paleopeople agree with ours X. juluensis argument. Many Westerners familiar with Chinese history also tend to agree.

What about the evidence from the skull that emerged in June? Researchers have recovered ancient squirrels from a skull attributed to X. long and found a match with proteins extracted from known Denisovan fossils.

When you talk to most geneticists, they say you could probably ignore protein analysis for species-level identification. You can go to a broader level, like a cat and a dog, but at a more subtle level it's really hard to tell the differences.

Would you still accept X. long how is the actual view?

Oh yeah I really like it X. long and fossils related to it. The debate revolves around which, if any, other fossils should be classified. long or whether some of these other fossils should be classified as July. What's interesting at the moment is that long supporters seem to I'm trying to put it all together longdespite clear morphological differences in Chinese fossils.

I've seen some strongly negative reactions from other paleoanthropologists to some of your research. How do you and your colleagues react to this?

At this point in our careers, we have developed thick skin.

Topics: