science research paper halp

>>9038927
How early ancestors are we speaking of?

Here are some suggestions:
Ancestral humans
Early/late hominids/hominins/homonins (Hominid for more apelike, homonin for species after diverging from chimpanzees)
Member of human clade
Extinct relative of humans

Just call them sapiens.
It's 2017 so nobody cares if they're homosexual.

>>9039036

my paper goes as far back as the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, also I should ask, I always say "the" before the name of the species in my paper, you see it more in the paragraph I just finished.

>>9038927
why don't you call them "pre-sapiens hominini" because that's a correct term I guess.

File: what is.png (23KB, 666x376px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 666x376px

>>9039051

I like that, I'm just unsure about the homini parge

>>9039045

I forgot to attach the image

>>9039045
You don't need "the"-article before species names. Think of species names as human names. You don't write "the John" or "the Jane", unless speaking of a certain individual.

>>9038927
Are you forced to use MLA formatting, or are other formatting types allowed too?

If there are no strict rules, I cite with a number like [1], [2] etc. Then I make a list of references.

>>9039082

I asked my professor and he told me do whichever style I prefer, mla is the only style I'm somewhat familiar with and it's due Monday so I think it's a little late to try and learn apa. My professor really didn't tell us what to do beside the topic we chose from a list and to make it an 11 page geography paper, no outline or anything so I'm basically taking the Smithsonian human origins website and telling it from a geographical sense and talking about the migration of human ancestors and the various geographical changes that are pointed out.

File: is it.png (12KB, 674x186px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 674x186px

Something else while I have this thread open, is it proper to put the oldest year before the newest year if I'm talking about time periods so far in the past? I talk about all human ancestor species,s o I would say like "the lived between 70,000 and 5,000 year ago", should I keep it that way or switch them? I only did it this way because with me moving up from the oldest ancestor to us it felt like I should start from lowest to highest to fit the moving upwards sense, but I didn't know if it was proper to do so.

>>9038927
why are you writing about homos?

>>9039196

I got a B in evolution (hence why I wrote about the evolution of ginger) and I figured I knew more about this shit than GIS and climate change

>>9038927
how about proto-humans?

Also I'm free tonight, so if you link the google doc, or pastebin it, I can give you some editing tips

>>9039214

If you're ok with it sure, here's a link for commenting, thanks.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T9h8LitjOEHmm8NgHG2rgI2_bDkJonKAro64xKlYas4/edit?usp=sharing

Thankyou to anonymous armadillo for helping me earlier, you pointed out a lot of shit I wouldn't have recognized if you hadn't commented on them

>>9038927
Ancestral humans? Old species of the gen Homo? Human ancestors?

About the source, the format is MLA, right? but what's the citation format? APA? Harvard?

>>9039464

mla citation, it was recommended that I use footnotes since I refer to the same two or three sources a lot throughout my paper, and I have verified that I can do that with mla

and I'm start from Sahelanthropus tchadensis and going up. There's a comment-able link in >>9039220 if you want to read what I have, I'm wrapping it up now.

>>9038927
Wow, you can't write for shit.

Human would be the catchall term, for our ancestors, as well as our evolutionary siblings/cousins