Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "โฮโมแฮบิลิส" in Thai language version.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (ลิงก์) p. 41: "A recent reassessment of cladistic and functional evidence concluded that there are few, if any, grounds for retaining H. habilis in Homo, and recommended that the material be transferred (or, for some, returned) to Australopithecus (Wood & Collard, 1999)."{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (ลิงก์) p. 41: "A recent reassessment of cladistic and functional evidence concluded that there are few, if any, grounds for retaining H. habilis in Homo, and recommended that the material be transferred (or, for some, returned) to Australopithecus (Wood & Collard, 1999)."{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (ลิงก์) p. 41: "A recent reassessment of cladistic and functional evidence concluded that there are few, if any, grounds for retaining H. habilis in Homo, and recommended that the material be transferred (or, for some, returned) to Australopithecus (Wood & Collard, 1999)."Wood and Collard’s (1999) proposal to remove H. habilis and H. rudolfensis from Homo and assign them to a different genus or pair of genera remains valid.