Anthropology

Last edited Thu Dec 26, 2024, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)

and the article just has a really poorly put together sentence - that would tend to lead in a different direction.

Other hand - this article really doesn't address any sort of direct evidence (or lingering genetic markers) remaining from some imagined (suspected) cross breeding with this new example. (whereas we have quite definitive evidence of such with the Denisovans and Neanderthals) (not sure about florensis ?)

And, yeah - species, sub-species - all becomes a bit muddled. Come to find out inter-species crosses are not nearly as impossible (or even seemingly as rare?) as my old science teacher would have like to have drummed in. Nor, quite evidently, are such crosses (as was also hard and fast rule) inevitably sterile ...

Other other hand - sometimes these crosses are existing between animals with sufficiently different morphology (and lineage ?), as to be clearly and identifiably distinct and separate ... Wolves, dogs, coyotes ... Various kind of equine .. swine .. feline ..

Edit: Wait a second!!
This study is actually proposing to establish juluensis and Denisovan as the same line. In which case - the 'mixed ancestry' has already been thoroughly established.