All the species of the genus Homo are considered human. What about other non-human races in fantasy, like elves, dwarves, hobbits, giants, trolls, ogres, gnomes, goblins and orcs? Should they all belong to their own separate genera? It’s easy to consider the more humanlike races as being part of Homo, but wouldn’t that make them human as well? What do you guys think?

If you’re going based purely off of the creature type system in dungeons and dragons, all of those races are tagged as Humanoid, often with a more specific subtype, such as Humanoid (Goblinoid). Since any system is as good as any other system, given it’s all fantasy anyway, I feel like most of these would fall under the Hominid label.

Homo Gobbo Sapiens? Homo Sapiens Goblinius? Hmm.

7455793

In many instances fantasy uses some form of special creation (divine, infernal, or otherwise) and scientific taxonomy does not apply.

In more realistic worlds it is up to the world builder to determine such things. Anything the writer can imagine and convey coherently is possible, though I’m not sure conventional elves and dwarves are optimized for their evolutionary niches.

7455793
Background in biology here.

the taxonomic nomenclature of species are determined by whether or not a specific entities can reproduce and produce fertile offspring with each other. Species can also be defined based on a shared evolutionary history and ancestry. With this in mind, one question has to be asked: which fantasy species can make fertile offspring with each other?

In our own history, Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis have been - and still are by some - considered to be separate species. But genetic research has shown that neanderthals and humans mated - often - and had many fertile children together. Virtually all humans who are not entirely of specifically African descent have neanderthal genes in them. We are all of us part neanderthal. Increasingly, neanderthals are being reconsidered to be not a separate species at all, despite the existing taxonomy, but rather just a variant of human. If you can make fertile babies together, you are not different species!

In fantasy literature and RPGs, it is common to have fantasy 'races' able to breed together and produce fully fertile offspring. Elves and humans, for example - the 'half-elf' trope is very old. Dwarves and humans. Orks and humans. Even dragons - considered in some fantasy literature to be able to breed with literally any existing creature, a 'universal' breeder - make for half-dragon people.

Being this the case, it would have to be that the fantasy 'races' truly are that. Races, not species. Which makes all the racial bonuses kind of, well, racist. On the other hand, neanderthals, if they still existed, would have D&D like 'racial bonuses' compared to stock humans - likely massively increased strength, for one thing, and definitely better disease resistance (neanderthal genes are one of the primary reasons that humans were able to leave Africa and spread around the world - they gained resistance to certain diseases).

So.. an elf might therefore be Homo Sapiens Dryadalis, but definitely human.

Which fascinates me so:

Human - Homo Sapiens Sapiens

Elf - Homo Sapiens Dryadalis

Orc - Homo Sapiens Troglodytam

Dwarf - Homo Sapiens Nanus

Dragon - Homo Thamaticus Draconis (wait, what? Dragons count as humans? Because magic, ONLY) I would prefer Draconis Sapiens Universalis if they can breed with anything, personally.

I don't know if trolls, gnomes and goblins can produce fertile children with humans. I've never heard of that.

7455793
7455964

Background in taxonomy here, amongst other things.

the taxonomic nomenclature of species are determined by whether or not a specific entities can reproduce and produce fertile offspring with each other. Species can also be defined based on a shared evolutionary history and ancestry. With this in mind, one question has to be asked: which fantasy species can make fertile offspring with each other?

If you can make fertile babies together, you are not different species!

Defining species is extremely hard, and none of the definitions up to date work sufficiently—and if I were to make a bet, no such definition will ever be found. (The best ‘definition’ we currently have is “A species is what a considerate taxonomist deems a species.”) What you quote here is one of the oldest official definition of species, and it’s been rendered pretty much obsolete for years, simply because pretty much everyone can agree that it applies only to sexually reproducing organisms and is extremely misleading. Organisms that have lived separated by geographical or behavioural barriers for millions of years can still breed under certain artificial conditions, yet nobody in their right mind would consider them the same species. Having fertile babies together is no longer a viable criterion.

Furthermore, since I saw also this in 7455807’s comment and it makes my eyes bleed, if you want to mess around with scientific names, remember that they should always be italicised, and only the generic name starts with a capital latter. The specific name is always lowercase, even if it refers to a certain person or place (e.g. Nepenthes attenboroughii, Myxococcus llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochensis).