They were not "US".

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

Just another very clear, scientific demonstration that we owe nothing to the Neanderthals !

Jacques Cinq-Mars

Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: Implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences

Katerina Harvati , Stephen R. Frost , and Kieran P. McNulty

PNAS ONLINE
Published online before print January 26, 2004

*Department of Anthropology, New York University, 25 Waverly Place, New York, NY 10003; {dagger}New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology, New York, NY 10024; §New York College of Osteopathic Medicine, New York Institute of Technology, Department of Anatomy, Old Westbury, NY 11568; and ¶Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Baylor University, P.O. Box 97326, Waco, TX 76798-7326

Communicated by Craig Morris, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, December 5, 2003 (received for review February 27, 2003)

The taxonomic status of Neanderthals lies at the center of the modern human origins debate. Proponents of the single-origin model often view this group as a distinct species with little or no contribution to the evolution of modern humans. Adherents to the regional continuity model consider Neanderthals a subspecies or population of Homo sapiens, which contributed significantly to the evolution of early modern Europeans. Paleontologists generally agree that fossil species should be equivalent to extant ones in the amount of their morphological variation. Recognition of fossil species therefore hinges on analogy to living species. A previous study by one of the authors and recent work by other researchers [Schillachi, M. A. & Froelich, J. W. (2001) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 115, 157-166] have supported specific status for Neanderthals based on analogy to chimpanzees and Sulawesi macaques, respectively. However, these taxa may not be the most appropriate models for Pleistocene humans. Here we test the hypothesis that Neanderthals represent a subspecies of H. sapiens by comparing the degree of their morphological differentiation from modern humans to that found within and between 12 species of extant primates. The model taxa comprised >1,000 specimens, including phylogenetic (modern humans and African apes) and ecological (eight papionin taxa) models for Pleistocene humans. Morphological distances between model taxon pairs were compared to the distances between Neanderthals and modern humans obtained by using a randomization technique. Results strongly support a specific distinction for Neanderthals.

[Mikey Brass]

All,

Just another very clear, scientific demonstration that we owe nothing to the Neanderthals !

Jacques Cinq-Mars

I don't like a couple of things about what I've heard in the article:
They attempt to replicate random sampling by effectively choosing characteristics from selected cranium and then multiple to achieve a statistic number they can work with. But the existing fossil record is already a random sample and not only would the authors be missing data from known samples but the multiplication is merely multiplying selectivity upon randomness. All in all the study leaves me puzzled.

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

Mentioned  in the present "topic" and briefly alluded to in another post (HERE), the position presented in Harvati & al.’s paper entitled Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: Implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences. has brought about the following, very formal response that addresses a number of important methodological issues:

Ahern, James C.M., John D. Hawks, and Sang-Hee Lee. 2005. Neandertal taxonomy reconsidered.again: a response to Harvati et al. (2004). Journal of Human Evolution (Advanced publication)

Introduction

The debate concerning the fate of the Neandertals has been ongoing since shortly after the discovery of the Feldhofer 1 skeleton in 1856. Were the Neandertals an extinct side-branch in human evolution or were they ancestral to modern humans? If they were an extinct side-branch, reproductively isolated from modern humans, then they should be classiffied as a distinct species, Homo neanderthalensis. On the other hand, if Neandertals were not reproductively isolated from modern humans, they represented a temporospatial population of Homo sapiens. Harvati et al. (2004) have made a welcome contribution to the literature regarding the taxonomy of the Neandertals. They used patterns of three-dimensional morphometric variation within

and between selected living catarrhine species to examine whether or not Neandertals and modern humans should be considered different species. They examined more than 1000 specimens from extant taxa, and included five Neandertal and five Upper Paleolithic specimens. Based on the morphological distances between paired intraspecific and interspecific groups in their study, Harvati et al. (2004) concluded that Neandertal specific distinction from modern humans was strongly supported. Although we are particularly impressed with the breadth of their study, we do not believe that their results refute the conspecificity of Neandertals and modern humans. An alternative interpretation suggests potentially more productive approaches to the problem.

Keywords: Late Pleistocene; Species; Systematics; Human evolution; Modern human origins

Click HERE for the full paper.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[lagarvelho]

Jacques:

The full paper doesn't seem to be available yet, nor does the abstract.  At least not at that link.
Anne G

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Jacques:

The full paper doesn't seem to be available yet, nor does the abstract.  At least not at that link.
Anne G

Just checked it and it does work. Given that it is identified as a "Response to...", i.e., a "Short Communication", it doesn't have an abstract, which is why I threw in the Introduction. Finally, as you most certainly know, Elsevier is not exactly known for handing around free access to its publications. In other words, you need to have a personal or institutional subscription.

Jacques

[lagarvelho]

Jacques:

I *thought* that might be the case.  Just to let you know, I *can* get hold of the article, but it won't be as easy as downloading the thing(sigh).  I actually have to go to a certain place and *read* it.  In hard copy  Oh well.
Anne G