As pure humans are not allowed on this site, and monkeys, apes, and humanoids get a pass here, what about the inbetween?

I'm talking about prehistoric humans. Y'know, Neanderthals, Australopithecus, Homo erectus (no innuendo intended). Do they get the pass here, and at which point should a prehistoric human be considered a either a human or a humanoid?

Is this a thought experiment, or is there a specific piece of art you're wondering about?

ccoyote said:
Is this a thought experiment, or is there a specific piece of art you're wondering about?

A bit of both. Such as this one, or this one, or in the case of Neanderthals, works such as the Earth's Children series or The Croods film, or even the infamous Ice Age baby. Or in the case of futuristic humans, the Eloi and the Morlocks of H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine".

I've posted images of future humans from Dougal Dixon's Man After Man, but I think they were more different from the bog standard human than most allowed humanoids are. Personally, of the real life near-humans, I'd probably draw the line at not being members of the genus Homo. That's an arbitrary line, though. While Neandertals would probably be a little too human to work (maybe, but compared to Tolkien-style elves, they might be okay) and some australopithecines might be depicted as a little too human to count, some early Homo might be non-human enough to just squeak in. Hard to say.

Your first link, that of the progression of primates, would work on e621 as it has suitably non-human primates in it. The group of Homo erectus I'd consider iffy. It might be the sort of image that would last for nearly a month before getting approved, but I'm not qualified to really say as the staff is.

clawstripe said:
Your first link, that of the progression of primates, would work on e621 as it has suitably non-human primates in it. The group of Homo erectus I'd consider iffy. It might be the sort of image that would last for nearly a month before getting approved, but I'm not qualified to really say as the staff is.

That would be a iffy for a human species with an unintentional innuendo.

clawstripe said:
While Neandertals would probably be a little too human to work...

Not even the old, stereotypical, brutishly hulking depictions of Neanderthals?

alexyorim said:
Not even the old, stereotypical, brutishly hulking depictions of Neanderthals?

Depends on how stereotypically, brutishly hulking they are. (The stereotype came about because the individual it was based off of suffered from arthritis.) As I said above, compared to Tolkien-style elves (which seem to often be accepted), they might be okay. Of course, an easy way to get around this uncertainty is to be sure to include a suitably prominent, suitably non-human animal in the picture, like the dead deer being carried in link #2.

alexyorim said:
A bit of both. Such as this one, or this one, or in the case of Neanderthals, works such as the Earth's Children series or The Croods film, or even the infamous Ice Age baby. Or in the case of futuristic humans, the Eloi and the Morlocks of H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine".

The first image straight up includes a monkey, so that's perfectly fine. The second image looks inhuman to me, but I recommend waiting for a staff member to speak their piece on this.

furrin_gok said:
The first image straight up includes a monkey, so that's perfectly fine. The second image looks inhuman to me, but I recommend waiting for a staff member to speak their piece on this.

Second one has a deer, to be fair.