This article at the New York Times, which attempts to explain the developments in thinking about the origins of our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, and how it’s related to other subspecies of the same species, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) and Homo sapiens denisova (Denisovans), would be a lot clearer if it explained some of the controversies in classification.
Are we, the Neanderthals, and the Denisovans different subspecies of the same species? Or are we different species, i.e. the proper nomenclature is Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo denisova? Consider this paragraph:
The expert consensus now is that Homo sapiens evolved at least 300,000 years ago in Africa. Only much later — roughly 70,000 years ago — did a small group of Africans establish themselves on other continents, giving rise to other populations of people today.
It makes no sense unless you assume the second nomenclature. However, if my understanding is correct, that’s not the way the wind is blowing. Present thinking is trending towards considering us, Neanderthals, and Denisovans as members of the same species rather than three different species.
All of this illustrates why communicating science is hard. Not only is the terminology itself difficult (and in another language) but the understanding changes over time.
That’s my understanding too. Though I wonder if the species / sub-species framework ultimately gets redefined to match the evidence.
And all of the amphibians and other creatures will just have to change their natures to suit their great ape imperialist overlord’s need for continuity.