Who are the "humans", who the "humanoids"?
I use the 'multi-term' "human[oid](s)" to imply the reading, in parallel, of the following four terms in its place --
-- and I do so out of deference to an hypothesis which seems to be gathering further evidentiary substantiation almost daily, though an hypothesis only it still remains.
This hypothesis holds that the inflorescence of Homo sapiens sapiens on the planet "Earth", of the stellar-planetary system "Sol", is not an isolated, absolutely unique event, but, on the contrary, is an instance of a "meta-evolutionary" self-development that is generic throughout the galaxies; that the planetary irruption of human[oid] "meta-societies" -- that the actual irruption of the <<monads>> which constitute the 256th <<arithmos>>/ontological category in the categorial progression of cosmological "onto-dynamasis" that is reconstructed symbolically by F.E.D.'s Dialectical "Theory of Everything" Equation -- is part of the normal course of cosmological [meta-]evolution.
Every year, of late, an ever-larger increment of new, increasingly "Earth-like", extra-Sol[ar] planets, is added to the list of such celestial objects, as the sensitivity of the instruments and of the methods used to detect such celestial objects grows.
Now, of course, if this hypothesis turns out to be true to our future empirical data, i.e., if "exo-humanitys" are actually discovered by us, and us by them, then it is a matter, relative to each observer's point of observation, as to which planet's sapiens are to be designated the humans, and which the humanoids.
It is rather like within our own world, where, to some British, some French are ever the aliens -- the foreigners -- whether those French be presently located in England, or in France, and, likewise, to some French, some British are ever the aliens -- the foreigners -- whether those British be presently located in France, or in England.
So, my "human[oid](s)" leaves the "designationary" decisions -- that are implicit in my usage -- all to the reader.
It ever should be so, No?
There is also the matter of the hypotheses which hold out for the possibility -- and, perhaps, on the planet "Earth", of the system "Sol", for the actuality -- of a multiple, independent irruption of genus Homo, species sapiens on any single, self-evolving, biosphere-bearing planet.
And such an hypothesis may span far more than mere Cro-Magnon versus Neanderthalensis.
For example, one encounters, in one's Paleontology courses, in the fossil record of a latter-day development in the formerly somewhat sequestrated [a little bit like having been a separate planet on its own] Australian ecosphere, in the Kangaroo line, already largely erect-postured, a cranially-enlarged, snout-retracted, binocularly-envisioned, toes-and-fingers-foreshortened, opposable-thumbed -- what shall I call it?: "kangaroid" [e.g., Procoptodon goliah]? -- that has an appearance decidedly -- well -- "humanoid".
One might also wonder -- observing their seemingly escalating ingenuity -- if the evolutionary line of the squirrels might not pick up the torch for us, were we "human[oid](s)" of Earth to default on our destiny.