West Asian hybrids?

[anthrostudies]

On my dendrogram, I have fun removing existing spcimens in order to see the result.

Well, I wasn't satisfied with one part of the dendrogram with the neanderthals and moderns. There was no seperation of the two lineages, until I removed Shanidar 1 and Amud.

Now I get an arrangement like this. I think this suggests that Asian neanderthaloids were not genetically isolated from the population moving out of Africa.

1 ER-3883

2
2a OH9
2b-2c Dmanisi
2d anatomically moderns

3
3a Sangiran
3b Zhoukoudien

4 ER-3773

5
5a Solo 6
5b BOU-VP-16/1
5c La Chapelle ie classic neanderthal
5d Saccopastore 1 and Krapina C
5e Jebel Irhoud and Dali

6
6.1 Steinheim
6.2a Arago
6.2b Ceprano and Daka
6.3a Sambungmacan 3
6.3b Atapuerca AT-SH-CR
6.3c Petralona
6.3d Kabwe
6.3e Bodo
6.3f Saldanha

[anthrostudies]

I think that these results are very interesting.

Moderns appear to diverge early on from other lineages, having an origin among types like OH9 and Dmanisi.

Also, note the position of Solo and Herto as South-East Asian and African nanderthaloids. It is also a surprising conclusion that many archaic types here form a lineage or species (6)  seperate from erectus, neanderthaloids or moderns.

[anthrostudies]

On removing Saccopastore 1 to see the effect, Jebel Irhoud and Dali were dragged into the moderns by the inclusion of Minatogawa 1. On removing Minatogawa 1, the order changed in both moderns, and in lineages 5 and 6, which is what I am discussing here.

The Arago, Ceprano and Daka lineage, which was 6.2, seperates first, then the lineage which was 6.3 also seperates from Steinheim and the neanderthaloids, which were 6.1 and 5.

The result is like this.

5
5a Arago
5b Ceprano
5c Daka

6
6a Sambungmacan 3
6b Atapuerca AT-SH-CR
6c Petralona
6d Kabwe
6e Bodo

7
7a Steinheim
7b Solo 6
7c BOU-VP-16/1
7d La Chappelle
7e Krapina C
7f Jebel Irhoud and Dali

Upon removing Krapina C to see if it affected the placement of Jebel Irhoud and Dali as neanderthaloids, I found that Solo 6 started to drag neanderthaloids etc into erectus. This suggests to me that Solo shows admixture from the erectus inhabitants of South-East Asia. Upon removing Solo 6, the neanderthaloids were dragged into what was lineage 6.

5
5a Arago
5b Ceprano and Daka

6 Sambungmacan 3

7
7a La Cahapelle
7b BOU-VP-16/1
7c Jebel Irhoud and Dali

8
8a Atapuerca At-SH-CR
8b Petralona
8c Kabwe
8d Bodo
8e Saldanha

[lagarvelho]

Anthrostudies:

Considering you got different results with each removal, does that mean to you that these lineages were all different in some manner, but possibly related through at least some gene flow?
Anne G

[anthrostudies]

Anthrostudies:

Considering you got different results with each removal, does that mean to you that these lineages were all different in some manner, but possibly related through at least some gene flow?
Anne G

Well, that is what I am suggesting, although gene flow isn't the only explanation. I suspect that there is gene flow involved, at least involving Amud, Shanidar 1 and Solo 6, because I know its often been suggested in the past, in these three cases.

I don't think anyone has linked Jebel Irhoud or Dali to Minatogawa 1 before, as although Dali has been linked to mongoloids, Minatogawa 1 is not mongoloid. Its not impossible, but this possible link is surprising.

[lagarvelho]

Anthrostudies:

What other sorts of mechanisms besides gene flow might be in force here?  In situ evolution doesn't sound quite right.  I hope I don't sound like I'm "bugging" you.  I'd just like to hear your ideas  And the ideas of others, too.
Anne G

[anthrostudies]

Anthrostudies:

What other sorts of mechanisms besides gene flow might be in force here?  In situ evolution doesn't sound quite right.  I hope I don't sound like I'm "bugging" you.  I'd just like to hear your ideas  And the ideas of others, too.
Anne G

I think you're asking me a sensible question, but yes, in theory it could be convergence. This sort of thing happens in other dendrograms, if a specimen or taxon, is removed. But because of the close relationships of these lineages, some hybridisation between them is the most obvious explanation, to me.

I also hope that I will get some more replies about this, to hear other opinions.

[anthrostudies]

I removed OH9 and the two Dmanisi specimens to see the effect upon the placement of moderns. I also included Qafzeh 9 and Liujiang. again out of curiosity. This is because I wanted more moderns included, and because of the age of Qafzeh 9. Solo 6 was dragged into erectus. However this result shouldn'tbe seen as unexpected. What is more interesting is that (Asian) erectus became a grade instead of a lineage, until Liujiang was removed. Solo was removed at the same time as Liujiang.

Now, Cape Flats was no longer within the moderns, and what was the neanderthaloid lineage becomes a grade leading to the moderns. But a more usual phylogeny of relationships was now produced.

1 ER-3883

2
2a Cape Flats
2b Steinheim

3 erectus

4 ER-3773

5
5a Arago
5b Ceprano and Daka

6 Sambungacan 3

7
7a Atapuerca AT-SH-CR
7b Petralona
7c Kabwe
7d Bodo
7e Saldanha

8 BOU-VP-16/1

9 La Chapelle

10 Jebel Irhoud and Dali

11
11a Cro-Magnon 1
11b Qafzeh 9
11c Elementeita C

12 other anatomically moderns

[lagarvelho]

Anthrostudies:

I hope you get some more replies too, because your results seem confusing to me.  I'm not sure what they mean, exactly.
Anne G

[anthrostudies]

Anthrostudies:

I hope you get some more replies too, because your results seem confusing to me.  I'm not sure what they mean, exactly.
Anne G

well, I'm afraid I cant do trees of the results on here. I think that in at least three of the cases, it supports hybridisation between the neanderthal and modern lineages, and also between neanderthaloids and erectus.

I just removed OH 9 and DMN to see the effects out of curiosity, as its usual that both neanderthals and moderns are interpreted as emerging from a grade of "heidelbergensis" types. These results were suggesting a lot of convergence between moderns and the neanderthals.

[lagarvelho]

Anthrostudies:

It would seem that way, based on *some* later Neandertal fossils(e.g. Vindija, St. Cesaire).  Or maybe there was gene flow in some cases that caused a "convergence-like" set of traits.  As I say, it would be interesting to get some feedback from some other people on this list, on this issue.
Anne G

[Frans_Jozef]

well, I'm afraid I cant do trees of the results on here. I think that in at least three of the cases, it supports hybridisation between the neanderthal and modern lineages, and also between neanderthaloids and erectus.

I just removed OH 9 and DMN to see the effects out of curiosity, as its usual that both neanderthals and moderns are interpreted as emerging from a grade of "heidelbergensis" types. These results were suggesting a lot of convergence between moderns and the neanderthals.

But doesn't convergence defined as shared derived similarities and not based on the notion of homology makes a common origin in a heidelbergensis grade somewhat problematic?

Maybe we can obliterate the confusion of dealing with grades and incompatible lineages are we very liberal assume the widest acceptible range of fluctuations and variarity in form and characters in the central area of typological distribution and on the edges a double phenomena: the same out-of-the-way area may cut of a group from continious gene flow in bilateral direction, but like in historical times these may function as well as specific breeding areas, producing intermediary morphological types, providing clinal variancy which bridge center with edge and imo disproves the idea of seperate origins.

Speciation in this context was nothing more than tuning and re-tuning of characters, not as in the holocene a process of creating complete new and previously unseen features, raising a high curtain of dissimilarity as if to counterstrike the lack of intra-species heterogenity, a measure to secure that stagnation and parsimony woult treaten the survival of the species.

[Frans_Jozef]

Anthrostudies:

It would seem that way, based on *some* later Neandertal fossils(e.g. Vindija, St. Cesaire).  Or maybe there was gene flow in some cases that caused a "convergence-like" set of traits.  As I say, it would be interesting to get some feedback from some other people on this list, on this issue.
Anne G

Despite the stoutness of their hyperarctic constitution, Classical Neanderthals tally in their post-cranial features closely with modern-living Europids, they are only beaten by Krapina in incipient modern configuration.

[lagarvelho]

Franz Josef:

Generally, Neandertals, though more muscularly and skeletally "robust", appear to have the same *skeletal arrangements* as "modern" humans, postcranially.  Some of this "robustness" may be "environmental" in origin; this has been argued over on several venues.  Cranially, of course, Neandertals are distinctive, for whatever reason.  It is on the *cranial* characteristics that people mostly seem to divide as to whether N's were a species of Homo in their own right or a subspecies of H.sapiens.  And I'm not going to get any farther into the argument about this, than that, at this time.
Anne G

[anthrostudies]

Franz Josef:

Generally, Neandertals, though more muscularly and skeletally "robust", appear to have the same *skeletal arrangements* as "modern" humans, postcranially.

Not all moderns are postcranially identical, so I think he's referring to the similarities between Neanderthals and West Eurasian or Caucasoid moderns in particular, despite the cold-climate adaptations of the classic neanderthals.