Timeline for Should broader types be capitalized?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2011 at 22:28 | comment | added | CesarGon | @Martin Beckett: :-) | |
| Sep 13, 2011 at 22:23 | comment | added | mgb | @CesarGon - opps, not quite sapiens enough ! | |
| Sep 13, 2011 at 22:21 | comment | added | CesarGon | It's Homo sapiens: genus is capitalised; species is not. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature | |
| Sep 13, 2011 at 22:00 | history | edited | mgb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 63 characters in body
|
| Sep 13, 2011 at 20:53 | comment | added | Justin808 | The same as tree -> evergreens -> Blue Spruce I would have thought it would be humans -> asians -> Chinese or humans -> euopean -> Germans. Generally set -> sub-set -> specific type. I could see globe -> continents -> Asian. | |
| Sep 13, 2011 at 20:47 | history | answered | mgb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |