tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post9175882463231002289..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: H. heidelbergensis is Neanderthal ancestor and not 'Denisovan' cousinMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-66220829530977869342016-03-21T08:11:44.085+01:002016-03-21T08:11:44.085+01:00Yeah, the concept H. erectus is both a problem and...Yeah, the concept H. erectus is both a problem and mediocre solution to our inability to properly categorize archaic humans. There are just not enough remains and certainly not enough academic consensus to change the terminology today anyhow. But, on the other side, we are learning that strict species barriers within the Homo genus did not exist. In a very lax sense we are all H. erectus, albeit primarily of a very specific and distinctive branch we call H. sapiens. The case of Neanderthals may well be the same.<br /><br />In any case H. erectus almost certainly should be distinguished in various categories, depending for example in brain capacity (Solo man and others were close to us and Neanderthals, within the low range of present variability, while early H. erectus were closer to H. habilis instead).<br /><br />I mention Solo man because he (his population) could well be the missing link in the Oceania-concentrated "Denisovan" admixture. The most parsimonious explanation is clearly that there were "Denisovans" in Sundaland or nearby areas (Wallacea or is it India, Indochina?) who were the ones directly implied in the admixture episode (and not Altai "Denisovans" quite obviously). <br /><br />"If you have seen the latest paper on Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture they break down the archaic ancestry in Melanesians into certainly Neanderthal, certainly Denisovan, and some which is ambiguous".<br /><br />I haven't seen, and that says much about my growing inability to keep up to date. It looks interesting because it appears to address my doubts on the matter, so thank you for the heads up. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-67684810744446634252016-03-21T03:20:30.537+01:002016-03-21T03:20:30.537+01:00Aargh, it either ate my previous comment or it wil...Aargh, it either ate my previous comment or it will show up twice.<br /><br />You are right, Homo erectus seems to be a catch-all for "not later western humans", i.e. both early forms and late eastern forms. Which is very annoying, because in these analyses how are we supposed to tell whether Homo erectus means "share features of later eastern humans" or only "lacking features of later western humans"?<br /><br />I have been doing some reading up on the subject and really there seems to be little overall agreement or clarity, so I am as confused as ever. There are not firm dates for Solo Man either, could be 50 000 years ago or could be 500 000 years ago, so it is not clear whether Sundaland was occupied by pure late Homo erectus (who could probably not be the Denisovans) or some hybrid as you suggest.<br /><br />I have found some speculations by palaeoanthropologists on the identity of the Denisovans and mostly they seem to focus on Narmada and Dali/Jinniushan/Maba. But that does not narrow things down very much because there is no agreement on what those people were either. <br /><br />If you have seen the latest paper on Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture they break down the archaic ancestry in Melanesians into certainly Neanderthal, certainly Denisovan, and some which is ambiguous. So that should be able to detect any overlap or twice-counted material.capra internetensishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15951755327460295070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-51076724101585724312016-03-19T10:01:03.987+01:002016-03-19T10:01:03.987+01:00So what's the possible conclusion then? These ...So what's the possible conclusion then? These H. heidelbergensis are close to Neanderthals (also in physiognomy) but carry Denisovan mtDNA. H. Neanderthalensis are closer to us than to Denisovans in mtDNA but not autosomal DNA... Do you think that there was a proto-sapiens population migrating to Eurasia that got admixed with pre-existent "H. erectus" populations producing Neanderthals? What are the "Denisovans" then in classical taxonomy? Shouldn't they be something like Solo man?<br /><br />When we talk about H. erectus (sometimes called H. ergaster in Africa but not in Asia), we're talking of a huge continuum of human populations (with clearly growing brain size along time, up to very close the modern human average: 1200 cc vs 1350 cc) and I'd dare say that H. erectus is not a different branch as such but rather the wider catch-all clade of all humans, except some of the very early branches (habilis, georgicus, floresiensis). Dali is generally considered H. erectus for example, Narmada also appears as such in some papers, even if it's clearly an outlier with greater brain capacity and Neanderthal-like traits. <br /><br />The issue of "Denisovan" as H. erectus <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/01/denisovan-admixture-may-actually-be.html" rel="nofollow">has been raised before</a> anyhow. Are Neanderthals pre-sapiens with strong "Asian Erectus" admixture? Is that the reason why Neanderthals form a cline with "Denisovans" and Heidelbergensis carries "Denisovan" mtDNA? <br /><br />It would also imply, I guess, that "Denisovans" and their plausible cousins like Solo man (a good candidate for "Denisovan" introgression in modern humans) carried Neanderthal admixture. Something I've been wondering since this "Denisovan" admixture was detected in Oceanians is whether Neanderthal admixture is not being counted twice: once as Neanderthal proper and the other as "Denisovan", i.e. that both admixture scores should not be added but rather considered in overlap (although no confirmation till now, also no strong rejection). Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-37938283370077053602016-03-19T09:35:57.233+01:002016-03-19T09:35:57.233+01:00Edited... who said what? Not me! ;)
Seriously: I ...Edited... who said what? Not me! ;)<br /><br />Seriously: I think that I particularly appreciate, in spite of the initial instinctive resistance, when someone proves me wrong as easily as you just did. It does not happen often but it should happen now and then, so thank you very much for pointing the obvious error in my logic.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-91263999887032200892016-03-19T09:26:40.249+01:002016-03-19T09:26:40.249+01:00Damn! You're absolutely right. Conclusion: I s...Damn! You're absolutely right. Conclusion: I should not give opinion on stuff I have not meditated enough about (like this "quickie"), as I got all the info mixed up and therefore the conclusions. Thank you, Capra: I'll delete the random thoughts presented as conclusions. I hate it but when you're right and I'm wrong that's it. Thank you for the correction.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-74858486925271068912016-03-19T03:40:21.422+01:002016-03-19T03:40:21.422+01:00I don't get it, why Homo erectus? It just says...I don't get it, why Homo erectus? It just says more than 430 000 years ago. Denisovans are still the sister group to Neanderthals in nuclear DNA, within the Neanderthal-Denisovan-MH clade. That can hardly include Homo erectus. Rather something like the Narmada human or Dali man.<br /><br />Denisovans did have minor ancestry from a much more divergent human, that could be some Homo erectus admixture.capra internetensishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15951755327460295070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-81730073179115884492016-03-17T10:56:16.262+01:002016-03-17T10:56:16.262+01:00As reasonable an interpretation as any. Thanks fo...As reasonable an interpretation as any. Thanks for that.Neanderthal Hybridhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09396869529285737518noreply@blogger.com