Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, May 5, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Neanderthals were separate species, new study finds

by AFP, Yahoo

Thanks to EJ Ashcraft III for the link.

Reposted from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080505/ts_afp/scienceanthropologyneanderthals_080505102027

PARIS (AFP) - A new, simplified family tree of humanity has dealt a blow to those who contend that the enigmatic hominids known as Neanderthals intermingled with our forebears.

Neanderthals were a separate species to Homo sapiens, as anatomically modern humans are known, rather than offshoots of the same species, the new organigram published Sunday by the journal Nature declares.

The method, invented by evolutionary analysts in Argentina, marks a break with the conventional technique by which anthropologists chart the twists and turns of the human odyssey.

That technique typically divides the genus Homo into various classifications according to the shape of key facial features -- "flat-faced," "protruding-faced" and so on.

Reconciling these diverse classifications from a tiny number of specimens spanning millions of years has led to lots of claims and counter-claims, as well as much confusion in the general public, about how we came to be here.

Various species of Homo have been put up for the crown of being our direct ancestor, only to find themselves dismissed by critics as failed branches of the Homo tree.

The authors of the new study, led by Rolando Gonzalez-Jose at the Patagonian National Centre at Puerto Madryn, Argentina, say the problem with the conventional method is that, under evolution, facial traits do not appear out of the blue but result from continuous change.

So the arrival of a specimen that has some relatively minor change of feature as compared to others should not be automatically held up as representing a new species, they argue.

The team goes back over the same well-known set of specimens, but uses a different approach to analyse it, focussing in particular on a set of fundamental yet long-term changes in skull shape.

They took digital 3D images of the casts of 17 hominid specimens as well as from a gorilla, chimpanzee and H. sapiens.

The images were then crunched through a computer model to compare four fundamental variables -- the skull's roundness and base, the protrusion of the jaw, and facial retraction, which is the position of the face relative to the cranial base.

When other phylotogenic techniques are used, the outcome is a family tree whose main lines closely mirror existing ones but offers a clearer view as to how the evolutionary path unfolded.

The paper suggests that, after evolving from the hominid Australopithecus afarensis, the first member of Homo, H. habilis, arose between 1.5 and 2.1 million years ago.

We are direct linear descendants of H. habilis. H. sapiens started to show up around 200,000 years ago.

None of the species currently assigned to Homo are discarded, though.

On the other hand, the Neanderthals are declared "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage," in other words, evolutionary cousins but still a separate species from us.

The squat, low-browed Neanderthals lived in parts of Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East for around 170,000 but traces of them disappear some 28,000 years ago, their last known refuge being Gibraltar.

Why they died out is a matter of furious debate, because they co-existed alongside anatomically modern man.

Some opinions aver that the Neanderthals were slowly wiped out by the smarter H. sapiens in the competition for resources.

Other contend that we and the Neanderthals were more than just kissing cousins. Interbreeding took place, which explains why the Neanderthal line died out, but implies that we could have Neanderthal inheritage in our genome today, goes this theory.

Comments 1 - 14 of 14 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #175438 by Andrew Stich on May 5, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Ethnic Tasmanians and the rest of homo sapiens could be described as "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage".

Black and white people could be described as "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage".

Neanderthals are only a few more splits up the tree. Does that make them a separate species? If the criterion is being able to interbreed, I can't say. If the criterion is "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage", then yes. On the other hand, that would also mean that I'm a separate species from everyone else who posts on this website.

One has to know where to draw the line. Distinction between species isn't as simple as would be convenient.

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

2. Comment #175440 by mordacious1 on May 5, 2008 at 12:24 pm

This is an area that I really enjoy reading about. We (meaning all of us but in reality, scientists) are very near getting this question answered definatively. Very exciting that one more gap will be filled in soon. By the way, not an expert, but I think the Neanderthals were a separate species and could not breed with Homo homo Sapiens.

Other Comments by mordacious1

3. Comment #175484 by Geoff on May 5, 2008 at 1:45 pm

 avatarMitochondrial DNA studies have pretty much established that they were separate species to Homo sapiens.

Other Comments by Geoff

4. Comment #175587 by Border Collie on May 5, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Sapiens came along and started cave churches. Neanderthals refused to go to church. Sapiens put out fatwas on all the Neanderthals. That was that.

Other Comments by Border Collie

5. Comment #175602 by articulett on May 5, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Do the Neanderthals share our chromosome 2 fusion from our primate ancestors?

Other Comments by articulett

6. Comment #175604 by Goldy on May 5, 2008 at 5:16 pm

That technique typically divides the genus Homo into various classifications according to the shape of key facial features -- "flat-faced," "protruding-faced" and so on.

Hmmm....isn't this more to do with morphological adaptation to local environment? Certainly Chinese are flatter of face than us protrudingly faced westerners...

Other Comments by Goldy

7. Comment #175634 by Andrew Stich on May 5, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Geoff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Etymology_and_classification

There are two sides to the story. I don't think that it is within anyone's power to be conclusive yet.

But I hadn't known of this evidence. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

I was mainly reprimanding the author's saying that "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage" means separate species, because that description could be used to distinguish me from you as well as humans from chimpanzees. I think it's an example of the author relying on complex language to befuddle the reader and then substituting his or her own faulty interpretation as a translation.

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

8. Comment #175655 by MaxD on May 5, 2008 at 7:39 pm

 avatarThis evidence of more or less isolated lineages has been building for some time. I'm not sure the acrimony that often surrounds this debate (thankfully not in evidence in the review presented here) is justified.

However this is another piece of the puzzle, it will be interesting to see how this falls out in the next few years.
If it ever really does.

Other Comments by MaxD

9. Comment #175656 by Goldy on May 5, 2008 at 7:42 pm

How many Neanderthal specimens are there for them to compare and what are the ranges of their ages, I wonder. Where are their specimens from - given there's a bit of a physiological range in modern man, I dare say the Neanderthal from the Levant is a bit different to the one from Georgia who is probably different to the one from Gibraltar...

Other Comments by Goldy

10. Comment #175682 by Don_Quix on May 5, 2008 at 9:24 pm

 avatarIs there a definitive dividing line between what is a Homo Sapien and what is a Neanderthal? I assume there is, but I am not a scientist. Since no Neanderthals currently exist (various ad hominems notwithstanding), how can we be sure when Homo Sapiens became dominant and when Neanderthals began to decline? More interestingly, under what circumstances did this occur? Why are we Homo Sapiens and not Neanderthals (or whatever Neanderthals would have called themselves if they had won the evolutionary lottery)?

Again, I have absolutely no expertise in here. This is an honest question because I really don't know. I just find the Neanderthal/Homo Sapiens story to be very interesting and I would like to know more about what the most current research has to say on this matter.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

11. Comment #175685 by Andrew Stich on May 5, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Don_Quix

It is important to keep in mind that we, the surviving humans, are not just homo sapiens, but homo sapiens sapiens. The second sapiens designates a subspecies within homo sapiens. Neanderthals are classified one of two ways: homo neanderthalensis, or homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Obviously, the latter would place them in the same species as us, but as a distinct clade (taxonomically meaningful group).

"how can we be sure when Homo Sapiens became dominant and when Neanderthals began to decline?"

When homo sapiens (sapiens) remains become more plentiful and Neanderthal less. Carbon dating.

"under what circumstances did this occur?"

Can't say. Some say that Neanderthals and early homo sapiens interbred, and Neanderthals no longer exist at least partially due to hybridization. Some say that we hunted them to extinction (although I would say that the evidence is lacking; it strikes me as mere romantic speculation).

"Why are we Homo Sapiens and not Neanderthals?"

Because we seem to be, based on morphological evidence, more similar to archaic homo sapiens than to archaic Neanderthals. There was a split between the homo sapiens (or homo sapiens sapiens) lineage and the homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis lineage a given amount of time ago.

If you feel I answered anything insufficiently or inaccurately, feel free to say something.

Other Comments by Andrew Stich

12. Comment #175686 by Don_Quix on May 5, 2008 at 9:41 pm

 avatar
Other contend that we and the Neanderthals were more than just kissing cousins. Interbreeding took place, which explains why the Neanderthal line died out, but implies that we could have Neanderthal inheritage in our genome today, goes this theory.
Wouldn't this be falsifiable? Do we not have any DNA from any Neanderthals that have been discovered? If we do, couldn't we compare their DNA to ours? 20,000 or more years is a very, very long time, but it seems to me that if we can find any Neanderthal skeletons, they could potentially have some viable DNA in them still. I mean, we're not dealing with dinosaurs 65 million years ago or anything here. In that respect, 20,000 years is nothing.

Again, I don't know, I'm just curious :)

Other Comments by Don_Quix

13. Comment #175807 by j.mills on May 6, 2008 at 5:06 am

 avatarLimerick Summary News Service!

Sunday's organigram teaches
Neanderthals were a quite separate species.
Did we kill them all off
With a spear or a cough,
Or sidle up and invade their warm niches?
(Ooer, missus!)

Other Comments by j.mills

14. Comment #175821 by Andrew Stich on May 6, 2008 at 5:53 am

Don_Quix, try the link I provided earlier and go to "Genome". Apparently, some nuclear (as opposed to mitochondrial) DNA has been found.

Other Comments by Andrew Stich
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: