How many species of the Genus, hominidae, have ever been discovered.?
351352
The genus is Homo, in the family Hominidae.  An example of another genus in the Hominidae is Australopithecus.\n\nAs far as how many species have been placed in the genus Homo, it depends on how much of a splitter or lumper you are.\n\nThere are some paleoanthropologists who would place every single fossil ever found in its own species.  Some of them would probably split each fossil into twenty or thirty species if they could figure out how to get a paper out of it.\n\nOthers will lump everything as a single species unless there's a compelling reason to define a new species.  Invertebrate palaeontologists usually need dozens if not hundreds of individual specimens before they can make a case for proposing a new species, let alone a new genus.  Those who study human palaeontology have a tendency to completely rework the entire family tree with each and every minimal find.\n\nThis is partially a consequence of working in a high profile field with lots of public interest and media opportunities with more academic scholars than there are actual fossils, but it does tend to create a bad image of wishy washery and flim flammery for the profession, and fosters an inaccurate view of how most palaeontology is actually done.\n\nPretty much everyone agrees there are at least three species of Homo:  \n\nHomo habilis lived in East Africa, and is associated with the first undisputed stone tools.\n\nHomo erectus moved out of Africa, and into Asia, getting as far as Java (aka Java man) and China (aka Peking man)\n\nHomo sapiens probably moved out of Africa again, actually reaching Europe.\n\nHomo sapiens neandertalensis was a specialized European subspecies with various adaptations for living in harsh ice age conditions.\n\nHomo sapiens sapiens is another subspecies that developed in southern Africa about 100,000 years ago and moved out of Africa again to take over all the areas previously inhabited by Homo erectus, killed off or interbred with previous Homo sapiens groups (including Homo sapiens neandertalensis) and even reached Australia, North America, South America, and even New Zealand and the South Pacific Islands.\n\nThere may have been another species Homo floriensis, a pygmy species that lived on perhaps a handful of southeast Asian islands.  This is the guy touted as the "Hobbit man" last year.  Unfortunately the fossils were smashed in transit (the scientist who proposed the "Hobbit" blames his fellow researcher, while the other researcher who thinks the fossils are just a standard midget human blames the first researcher) and the Indonesian government has refused further research permits.\n\nSo three definite species in the Genus Homo, several subspecies and at least one possible other species.
753449
“Ape-Men”—What Were They?\n\nFOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”1\n\n2 True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”4\n\n3 Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.\n\n4 From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?\n\nHow Much Fossil Evidence?\n\n5 From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?\n\n6 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”5\n\n7 After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”7\n\n8 Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”8 Science magazine adds: “The primary scie
772826
Homo sapiens is the species name for humans.\nHomo sapiens sapiens refers to the subspecies of humans known as modern man.
73927
Homo habilis 2.4 Million Years Ago\nHomo erectus 1.8 MYA\nHomo ergaster 1.8 MYA\nHomo heidelbergensis 800 Thousand Years Ago\nHomo sapiens idaltu 160 TYA\nHomo floresiensis 12 TYA\nHomo neanderthalensis 250 TYA\nHomo sapiens 200 TYA
837231
Dunno - there are some 300 species in the world - at least half of which are in the USA - however many India has, they bring on little nasties like malaria and encephalitis,  so the only answer I can think of is FAR TOO MANY
872169
Lemurs and other prosimians have been around for maybe 50 million years
1099542
Neanderthal and Monkey.
1106498
I have often pondered this question too.  I believe that scientists would say that human evolution involves a new genetic trait that resulted in some, but not all monkeys.\n \nSome say monkeys, some say birds, fish or small rodents...it's all weird.
1083787
Lucy is considered one of the first bipedal hominids.\n\nP.S. anyone who thinks evolutionists say we came from monkeys has a few missing links in their facts checker.
297158
Genus Humanus, and the Homo Sapien designation for modern man...but there are others, check the link below.
5138
Exactly. Humans did not evolve from primates. The theory of evolution is full of holes.
264541
I read recently in a weekly magazine that there are 230,000 oceanic and 1.5 million non oceanic (land + air + lakes + river) classified species. According to the same article there would be around 1.5  to 2 millions not classified species in the oceans alone.\nI don't consider this magazine very higly and it did not state its sources.\nBut anyways, I would guess less than 3 million in all.
780432
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is the oldest fossil hominid...In the below website it mentions why it is the oldest....\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
338810
Monkeys, lizards, birds, parrots, and SHARKS
372533
I think there are more than just one Chupacabra, really. I know it sound a little silly, but I think there is just some creature that we just haven't really got the chance to identify and list as a species. There have many accounts of the same in places all over the world. The Chupacabra(s) Live!!
210985
COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC SAY NONE .DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY ANIMAL SPECIES THERE ARE? WE DONT HAVE SHIPS TODAY BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMODATE 2 OF EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH...SCIENCE PEOPLE ...REALITY, USE THE BRAIN
121035
This is a difficult question to answer. There are fossil gaps, and gaps in our understanding of human evolution. But no one "missing link", especially one that we have a picture of. This is the fantasy of the media.