> Historically, the term “hominid” was used similarly to how “hominin” is used today; it referred specifically to the lineage leading to modern humans. However, as scientific understanding evolved—particularly through advancements in genetic analysis—the definitions were revised. Now, “hominid” encompasses a wider array of species within the Great Apes category.
I think you need hominina not hominini so it excludes the panini.
I presume you know where the type specimen for Homo sapiens is housed, right?
> The type specimen of Homo sapiens now lies peacefully beneath Uppsala Cathedral.
> Although not the custom in Linnaeus's day, every described species now requires a type in order to tie the name to a physical object. For a variety of reasons, not all species have a type, and Linnaeus did not retain one for Homo sapiens.
> In 1959, as a passing remark in a paper on Linnaeus, the great taxonomist William Stern wrote: ‘Linnaeus himself, must stand as the type of his Homo Sapiens’. This counts as a nomenclatural act and under the rules is enough to make it so. Linnaeus did not designate himself, so he cannot be a holotype; however, he was one of the specimens that he examined, and as such was designated by Stearn as the lectotype.
Be careful of passing remarks lest they become nomenclatural acts. I'm looking at you, Adam.
All these are actually things: holotypes, isotypes, paratypes, syntypes, allotypes, lectotypes, paralectotypes, neotypes, epitypes, alloparalecdtotypes, countertypes, chirotypes, ambiguotypes, kleptotypes, neglectotypes, atypicotypes, cryptotypes, hoaxotype, heterotypes, artotypes, diplomatotypes, ephermotypes, neoepherotypes, copulotypes, abruptotypes, aedeotypes.
Most are nicely Greek throughout. Some include roots pinched from Latin. A few are true monsters that @Cerberus would never countenance.
> Professor David Hawksworth lists no fewer than 212 names for different types in his glossary of nomenclature.