Suggestion (runoff crowner 1/1/16): Human Subspecies

Since there is no image, I think this may warrant one. However, I'm torn between three options:

Option 1: Neanderthal◊, a Ur-Example

Option 2: Hobbits◊ from the Lord of the Rings series, pictured with normal humans.

Option 3 A Solitus and an Atrox◊ from Anarchy Online

Which one is preferred, or is there another viable option?

Not really crazy about any of the suggestions, as Neandertals are an ancestor rather than a subspecies, the hobbits aren't really all that obviously different than the other humans, and I can't really tell what's in the third pic.

The first thing that comes to mind for me are the Abhumans from Warhammer 40,000: Squats◊, Ogryns, and Ratlings◊ being the most oft-mentioned in the fluff.

The Ogryns one seems to be another option I may consider. Squats one seems rather text-heavy, though with cropping, it could be a bit better, but that's just my opinion.

Actually, neanderthals and homo sapiens coexisted at the same time and were two separate species. I still don't like any of the OP suggestions however. Yours are better, but I'd like to see more suggestions before supporting any.

We did the nasty in the pasty and now anyone with a non-African ancestor has a percentage of neanderthal DNA.

The Ogryns work for me.

Choose one.

I personally give +1 to both.

edited 11th Nov '15 3:42:43 PM by MagwitchOo

Homo neanderthalensis is definitely not an ancestor of Homo sapiens, much more like a cousin. I strongly prefer a fictional example depiction, though. (6.2 given the options.)

edited 12th Nov '15 11:15:09 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Perhaps a few of the humanoid subspecies seen here?

Why does the Numan actually have a gene mark on his head?

Lazy artist maybe?

Ok, in all honesty, this is really difficult to illustrate because of the proliferation of Human Aliens and Rubber-Forehead Aliens in fiction (and a bunch of specific cases like The Morlocks have their own tropes). I think we need one of those "evolutionary chart" images to actually depict this.

edited 4th Dec '15 10:58:32 AM by Morgenthaler

Just an aside, biologists and paleontologists and other scientists especially interested in evolution tend to hate that image, among other things it is inaccurate and reinforces several major misconceptions. (Anyway it would illustrate a progression, not a subdivision. A "real" phylogenetic tree might be unclear to a novice.)

edited 4th Dec '15 5:23:40 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Right, I was thinking of a chart with at least one branching path, not a straight-line Hollywood Evolution one. We have to show a divergence point to show the subspecies aspect, after all.

Shouldn't be hard to find a picture of hobbits with the size difference more obvious.

Hobbits has its own trope. But again, due to the ubiquitiness of sci-fi/fantasy species looking basically human, I don't think that will work to establish an evolutionary connection.

ETA: Does this human-neanderthal map◊ establish kinship well enough?

edited 12th Dec '15 1:13:17 PM by Morgenthaler

Clock is set. Crowner?

edited 26th Dec '15 6:30:39 PM by Willbyr

Yeah, a crowner.

Crowner's hooked and the thread's unclocked.

edited 26th Dec '15 7:50:04 PM by Willbyr

Monday votes bump; two in the green.

The crowner's been running for 6 days. It looks like we'll need a runoff crowner between the top 2 options.

Edit: Here it is

edited 1st Jan '16 7:45:11 AM by Lymantria

Thanks, it's hooked.

As with other runoff crowners, please avoid downvoting one of the options if your feelings about it aren't stronger than "meh".

Monday votes bump; both are in the green, one has a pretty solid lead.

Gonna go ahead and call this one. Can someone please put up the new pic? Thanks in advance.

Caption?

Done.

I don't think it needs a caption.

Me neither.