My procedure in hybridizing subjects of the plant kingdom with the animal kingdom (which also includes the genus Homo) or with the mineral kingdom, aims to mix the cards, to distract the fixed thought on the categorical division and classification of value of the three kingdoms making them all equal, equally worthy, and equally entitled, to live in a new era that the Australian philosopher Glen Albrecht has defined as the Symbiocene.

A stone that is half animal or with the thorns of a plant, an animal with mineral inserts, a human portrait with a corncob beard or leaf for hair, or bark that defines its profile, are all tests and games of grafting with which I seek more the similarities than the differences between the interkingdom species. And I figure out this is a political action.

Homo is a genus of primates of the Hominidae family, including numerous extinct species and a single existing one without subspecies: Homo sapiens, that is, the modern human being.
In his Systema Naturae, Linnaeus classified the genus Homo among the anthropomorphic quadrupeds together with monkeys and the sloth. He called it Homo Sapiens (Nosci te ipsum, for the ability to perceive himself) but as expected, this aroused heated debates essentially of a philosophical-theological nature rather than zoological or systematic, but nevertheless forced Linnaeus to move man, in the tenth edition of the text, to the top of the new class of Primates, labeling the species for the first time with the name of Homo Sapiens.

However, it seems interesting to me to remember that homo derives from humus, (derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *dhǵhem-) which means earth, and from which humility also derives.