It also explains that it is an (erroneous) back formation from the correct, homo sapiens.
Homo sapien has two possible uses.
(1) As a flippant comment in a context where everyone knows that the correct term is homo sapiens.
(2) As a non-standard term demonstrating clearly that you have no comprehension of the correct usage.
Unless you are very certain that you will succeed in (1), do not risk the possibility of being assumed to be (2).
The choice is yours.
I know I've heard "a homo sapien" before, and although incorrect, it doesn't really strike me as an egregious error. Just my two cents.
The entry shows how any idiot can post any nonsense to Wikipedia!
Back-formation from Homo sapiens taken to be a plural.
Homo sapien (plural Homo sapiens)
(nonstandard) A member of the species Homo sapiens.
He was going to explain all this, but he never got around to his Theory of Devolution. Considering the uproar and controversy, he may have been a little disheartened withal.Montaigne said:Shall someone start a new thread enquiring about "homo habili (habilee?), homo erectu (erectoo?)" ?
And is Darwin only the name of a city in Australia?
He was going to explain all this, but he never got around to his Theory of Devolution. Considering the uproar and controversy, he may have been a little disheartened withal.
Binomial nomenclature - WikipediaWhy is it necessary to capitalize the first letter of Homo sapiens?
In modern usage, the first letter of the generic name is always capitalized in writing, while that of the specific epithet is not, even when derived from a proper noun such as the name of a person or place. Similarly, both parts are italicized in normal text (or underlined in handwriting). Thus the binomial name of the annual phlox (named after botanist Thomas Drummond) is now written as Phlox drummondii.