posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Ghost375
Homo sapiens cognatus.
That's just stupid. You name species with 2 names, not 3.
Not to mention if you know a thing about DNA, if you have a sample of DNA, there's no way to determine what the organism looks like from the DNA,
unless you cloned it.
Now I understand why cryptzoologists get such a bad rep.
Well... if it has 3 names, its not a species, its a subspecies.
Homo Sapiens is a species.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a subspecies evolved from the "old" homo sapiens (this is you and me)
theres also Homo Sapiens Idaltu for example... or homo sapiens neanderthalensis (you know... the neanderthal - altho this one can also be classified
as a different species from the same genus and be called "Homo neanderthalensis"... anyway) They were "sapiens" also.
So... if said "bigfoot" exists, it will be a subspecies of homo sapiens; if its called "cognatus" or not, I have no idea, but if it existed it
would have 3 names because its still a subspecies - "derived from". And would be definitely be under the "sapiens" species (btw, if you argue it
cant be under "Sapiens" you're entering the same discussion ppl have why the neanderthals cant be under "sapiens". But in my opinion, and
considering the meaning of Sapiens, the neanderthals fall into the "sapiens" species simply because the definition of "sapiens" given is too big
and vague - basically it means "to know, to have discernment, wise (well lol... in relation to the others hehe - this one is not to be taken
literally), rational, etc"... so neanderthals have all the traits and rights to belong to this species)
So... before I kill you out of boredom, I'll shut up now - rule of thumb - Genus - Species - Subspecies