Origins of the Terms: Homin vs. Hominin

Posted by: Loren Coleman on January 6th, 2012

Origins of the Terms: Homin vs. Hominin

by Loren Coleman, Director, International Cryptozoology Museum

What are differences in origins and meanings of two words, hominin and homin, which are apparently being confused by self-styled hominologists? What do anthropologists and paleoanthropologists say of the history of the origins of “hominin”?

Giant Hominids

has a BS in Education from Illinois State University, and an MA in Anthropology from the University of Iowa. She writes for Archaelogy.

Apparently, in 2011, she wrote the following definition of “hominin”:

Over the last few years, the word “hominin” has crept into the public news stories about our human ancestors. This is not a misspelling for hominid; this reflects an evolutionary change in the understanding of what it means to be human.

Up until the 1980s, paleoanthropologists generally followed the taxonomic system followed by the 18th century scientist Carl Linnaeus, when they spoke of the various species of humans. The family of Hominoids included the subfamily of Hominids (humans and their ancestors) and Anthropoids (chimps, gorillas, and orangutans). The problem is, recent molecular studies show that humans, chimps and gorillas are closer to one another than orangutans. So, scientists split the Hominoids into two subfamilies: Ponginae (orangutans) and Homininae (humans and their ancestors, and chimps and gorillas). But, we still need a way to discuss humans and their ancestors as a separate group, so researchers have proposed a further breakdown of the Homininae subfamily, to include Hominini (humans and their ancestors), Panini (chimps), and Gorillini (gorillas).

So, roughly speaking, a Hominin is what we used to call a Hominid; a creature that paleoanthropologists have agreed is human or a human ancestor. These include all of the Homo species (Homo sapiens, H. ergaster, H. rudolfensis), all of the Australopithecines (Australopithicus africanus, A. boisei, etc.) and other ancient forms like Paranthropus and Ardipithecus.

I have quoted Ms. Hirst fully, for historical, editorial and critiquing purposes, as what she is sharing is under review here. (It appears part of her posting may have been based on Erin Wayman’s “What’s in a Name? Hominid Versus Hominin,” which I discovered after I had earlier uploaded my coincidentally similarly-named blog posting.)

Among some hominologists (those who study Bigfoot, Yeti, Siberian Snowmen, Wildpeople, Yeren, and the like), there appears to be some confusion that they “discovered” the word “hominin” versus the new cryptozoological term they coined, “homin.”

For example, after the Pangboche “Yeti finger” was declared to be “human,” Ms. Roberta “Bobbie” Short wrote on a public email list: “I love it that they’re using the term ‘hominin.’ Bobbie Short.”

The origins are very different for this similar term, “homin,” which was allegedly invented by Russian hominologists, and “hominin,” which issued from more mainstream anthropological origins.

As noted in my earlier discussion of definitions (in 2006), here:

“Homin” is a term coined by Dmitri Bayanov to be used instead of the words Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Almas, and other local, regional names of unknown, upright, hairy primates. Bayanov defines “homin” as a “non-sapiens hominid.”

The contemporary practice of using “homin” appears to be restricted mostly to Russian hominologists, and their close associates, including North Carolina’s William Duncan, California’s Bobbie Short, and Tennessee’s Mary Alayne Green and Janice Carter Coy. While the Russian term “hominology” has persevered and spread among Bigfoot researchers, in general, “homin” has not.

Bobbie Short
Bobbie Short

One reason it is not more popular may be that in the English-speaking world, the word “homin” is visually and lingusitically experienced as truncated, almost a typographical error. Also, for those that understand root words, it is viewed as more related to being from the Latin homin-, stem of Latin homo, meaning “human being,” than the generalized Bigfoot appears to require.

Nevertheless, followers of the Russians, as noted, tend to use “homin” heavily, as reflected, for example, in Will Duncan’s title of his 2002 paper, “The Predictability of Homin Behavior,” and in conjunction with the word “hirsute” (hairy) by Bobbie Short.

“A Registered Nurse by occupation, Bobbie [Short] is an active Bigfoot researcher and field investigator with a growing database of hirsute homin sightings.” – Anon., Crypto: Hominology Special Number I (2001)

“Actually, hominology can be nothing but the science of homins.” – Dmitri Bayanov, Crypto: Hominology Special Number I (2001)

Loren Coleman


But have anthropologists kept track of the exact origins of “hominin,” I wondered.

On December 29, 2011, I asked Wisconsin paleoanthropologist John Hawks, “Who was the first anthropologist to employ the term ‘hominin’?”

Hawks answered, on January 3rd, “Not sure who used hominin first; I’ll see if I can figure it out.”

Yesterday, an associate of Hawks giving her name as Caitlin S., a doctoral candidate in paleoanthropology, posted this Twitter message: “Subfamily Homininae Gray 1825; use of Tribe Hominini see Hoffstetter ’79; use of “hominin” for post-LCA, Groves ’89.”

And later, “Well, I could be wrong; that was a great question. I remember discussing hominin/hominid for post-LCA w/ Wolpoff even @ AAPAs ’03.”

Still later, Hawks responded, “I wrote quite a bit about it in 2005 before I switched to hominin (“PhyloCode and human evolution“) but did not have an origin.”

Colin Groves

LCA = last common ancestor. The 1989 title cited probably would be: Groves, C. (1989). A Theory Of Human And Primate Evolution. Oxford Science Publications. ISBN 0198577583.

Interestingly, this “Groves” would be primatologist Colin Groves, who was on the Board of Directors of the International Society of Cryptozoology, in the early 1980s. It is to be noted that Groves then went on to coauthor a book taking a  look at “pseudoscience”: Groves, C (1989). Laycock, D;. ed. Skeptical, a handbook on pseudoscience and the paranormal. Australian Skeptics. ISBN 0731657942.

The quest continues to answer the question of the origin of “hominin” and its first usage.

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

2 Responses to “Origins of the Terms: Homin vs. Hominin”

  1. DWA responds:

    Thanks for (I think!) clearing that up.

    I’ve seen sometime-confusing representations in the recent sasquatch literature – calling the creatures hominids in one paragraph, and hominoids in the next. Of course, given this recent reshuffling, the discovery of the sasquatch might lead to an even further one. I could see the sasquatch being aligned with some of what we now consider hominins, and that group being set apart from us.

    Or not.

  2. diogenes responds:

    Thanks for this article as I was vaguely aware my old school “hominid” betrayed me… I started using H. indomitus after my personal experiences and evidence grew. I agree the Bigfoot/Regional Name thing is distracting and that was my attempt to raise the dignity, true just another Bigfoot lover crackpot ?!

    I also enjoyed seeing how Bobbie Short and our Russian counterparts discuss this; Bobbie’s site I have relied on the most in my adventures and find it refreshingly non-commercial.

    I followed the link to Hawks site (and wished I was that grad student) and note this statement and agree:

    “One may argue that extant mammalian families have a distribution of ages, or even of genetic variation, and that this should inform our taxonomic choices. But the logical endpoint of this argument is not that the human lineage is a tribe-level or infrafamily-level taxon, but instead the endpoint is the conclusion of Goodman et al. (1998), that the human lineage is a subgenus-level entity and chimpanzees should be placed in Homo. The fact that this solution is viewed as “too extreme” is good evidence that this is at its core an aesthetic concern rather than a scientific one.”

    So, I will begin to use hominin, and given my poor typing/editing am sure to have spellings representing the variation homin…and I won’t be wrong!

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.