How do you pronounce this? And does this man (well, not quite) have a plural? In other words, can you put a genus into a plural form?

If you spoke of Carya tomentosa (type of hickory), could you refer to the 'Caryas'? Or whatever would be the Latin plural?

Same for Homo sapiens. Could you refer to the Homos? Or whatever the latinate plural would be? And is Latinate capitalized? (I don't think it is.)

Anyway, will you Latin people please respond to this post because my kids are studying various ages of man (or apes before men) in history and I have no idea how to respond to their questions and I figured you would.

If you don't believe in synchronicity, you should. It was approximately three weeks ago that I randomly began to study an old N'tl Geo chart on the ages of man--and, lo and behold, my kids are studying about those ages in history. Only I can't answer their questions on genus and species yet.

For starters, you might want to spell it right. Australopithecus. I've heard it pronounced aw-struh-lo-PIH-thuh-cus and aw-struh-lo-pih-thee-cus. Both of those are with a Þ as in think. The plural would be Australopitheci.

The plural of homo is homines. HO-mo and HO-min-ays.

Dear WW: I don't remember ever seeing plurals used. In many cases, the singular is used when plural is clearly meant. One deer or ten deer. And "man" means all humans irrespective of gender, despite what some nutty activist feminists think.

And "man" means all humans irrespective of gender, despite what some nutty activist feminists think.

You're right when it comes to man-eating sharks, Dr Bill, but I'll bet you'll change your tune when one of those nutty activist feminists waltzes in to the mens' room while you're busy at the urinal.

Dear Faldage: I do remember being a bit surprised when in Philippines, a pretty girl asked me if I had laundry for her to wash, as I was straddling slit-trench "making cables."
But she was not femininist activist.

Man cannot live by bread alone. From the Bible, isn't it?

In reply to:

---

The plural would be Australopitheci.

---

OK, OK. Now how do you pronounce 'Australopitheci'?

Thanks for the spelling correction, Faldage. I was doing this by memory with nothing in front of me--and I'm pretty amazed that I recalled as much as I did.

And, wwh, as for not referring to Australopithecus in the plural, I differ with your opinion here simply because there were several species associated with the genus Australopithecus--according to my trusty N'tl Geo chart that I've carried to school to fascinate my students. Therefore, if one were referring to the several varying species of the the Australopithecus group, wouldn't one refer to the Australopitheci Faldage has given us here?

And I really would like to know how to pronounce those A'pitheci.

Faldage, I promise I will carry the chart to NY in November.

Australopitheci Faldage

Australopithecus Faldagis?

That would be:

Australopithecus faldagis, et', since species is generally lower case, but in Faldage's case, who knows? He's always a pretty capital fellow, don't you agree?

ah, yes, of course! thanks for the correction.

Digging back to my old physical anthro days, I seem to remember them being referred to in the aggregate as Austalopithecines, aw-stral-o-PITH-uh-seens.

According to this site: http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/pcaustr.html, australopithecine is the name of the subfamily which includes the various types of australopithecus and some other genera.

Bingley

Australopithecus

Also it makes a great sixth line in a Double-Dactyl doggerel.

Which might make a catchy way for the students to remember it. Or even introduce a poetry unit! (run-and-hide-e)

In the Sunday paper, there was mention of a 32,000-year-old work of art found in a cave. Well, actually several small objects carved out of ivory--a horse head and some of other figure or figures, can't remember exactly right now.

Anyway:

Here's a problem. Carbon-dating dated the figures at approximately 32,000 years of age. But couldn't that dating be quite inaccurate here? After all, the ivory came from some elephant, I suppose, that could be dated back 32,000 years; however, couldn't a group of artists have found that very old ivory and carved the figures much, much later?

Just asking...

couldn't a group of artists have found that very old ivory and carved the figures much, much later?

I can't envision any way that carbon dating could disprove that proposition. If I understand how carbon dating works (and I don't), it only tells you when the thing you are dating (must be organic) died, because that's when it stops producing that form of carbon. I'll try to look into the intricacies of dating man-made artifacts more this week.

(And no off-color puns about "dating man-made artifacts", please -- my wife is not a cyborg, as far as I know)

While a carbon based life form is alive it takes up carbon from the environment and incorporates it into its structure. A certain percentage of this carbon is going to be the radioactive isotope carbon 14; the standard, stable form is carbon 12. Carbon 14 is Nitrogen 14 that, through the magic of nuclear physics has temporarily decided to become carbon, but will slowly decide to go back to being nitrogen. A given sample of carbon 14 will have half its atoms decide to revert in 5730 years, but, as long as the organism is alive it replenishes its carbon supply with available carbon. Once dead, it stops taking up environmental carbon and the clock starts ticking. By examining the ration of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in the sample, carbochronologists can roughly date a specimen. This is based on several assumptions, not the least of which is that the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 tens of thousands of years ago was the same as it is now. As y'all have correctly sussed, this dating of ivory will only tell you when the animal that the ivory came from died. If the artifacts being dated were discovered in ashes from a prehistoric fire, then the date of the fire can be determined. This could give us supporting evidence for the date, if the dates of the fire and the ivory match.

These reports from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3328229.stm and Nature http://www.nature.com/nsu/031215/031215-8.html don't actually say the figures were dated by carbon dating.

Bingley

And the report from the Los Angeles Times/Washington Post news SErvice indicates carbon dating was used. Here's a quote:

"Radiocarbon dating indicates that the figurines are between 32,000 and 34,000 years old, making them the earliest known examples of figurative art."

I still would like to know the direct connection between the carbon dating dates and the people who made the figurines. It may be inferred in this next bit from the article:

"No skeletons were found in the cave near the objects, but other artifacts suggest that they were made by humans, not by Neanderthals, who still lives in the area at the time..."

Edit: Thanks, Bingley, for that link! Terrific to get to see a couple of the figures. I've copied the photographs to my photograph file!