The Quaternary, which is sometimes also termed the Anthropogene Period, often is linked to the beginning of humankind. But what exactly is the basis in the fossil hominin record for this link, in particular what is the early Homo evidence? Since 1999, debate concerning the definition of the genus Homo and the identification of its first members has intensified. At the centre of recent debates, there are four hypotheses: (1) all early Homo specimens belong to the same species: Homo habilis sensu lato; (2) the early Homo hypodigm is heterogeneous, two species could be defined: Homo habilis sensu stricto and Homo rudolfensis; (3) these species do not belong to the genus Homo but to the genus Australopithecus; or (4) it would be more appropriate to put the specimens of Homo rudolfensis into the genus Kenyanthropus. The earliest appearance of the genus Homo will differ depending upon the favoured hypothesis: 2.45 Myr (hypotheses 1 and 2); 1.9 Myr (hypothesis 3); 1.9 or 2.4 Myr (hypothesis 4, depending on the genus attribution for habilis (2.4 Myr if Homo; 1.9 Myr if Australopithecus)). Our study, based on palaeoanthropological data, is focused on the 2.6-1.6 Myr period. In this paper, we propose to review and assess knowledge of early Homo taxonomy in the context of the definition of the Quaternary boundary.