Study suggests humans mated with Neanderthals

[Narkis]

Humans and Neanderthals are already part of the same "family": The Homo genus. I don't know how close genetically was Homo Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens, but the differences can't have been that great.

[Jeremy]

She said she was 18 in human years. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

wow

this would make humans and Neanderthals in the same... family? Because wolves, coyotes and dogs are all "Canis-" (lupus; latrans; and familiaris respectively). Sure, we came from a similar simian ancestor, but the path brachiated and then re-formed?

IIRC, the line originated ~600kya and was "bifurcated" ~300kya. The lines crossed when the ranges crossed during migrations due to population growth in a 100ky cycle.

To me (and I ain't much) it looks like we are the other side of the Homo coin from the Erecti lines, where Neanderthals are just cold climate specialized versions of our side. Poor Habilis, he just wanted to eat more meat than the Australopithecines and look what happened.

[Alyrium Denryle]

To me (and I ain't much) it looks like we are the other side of the Homo coin from the Erecti lines, where Neanderthals are just cold climate specialized versions of our side. Poor Habilis, he just wanted to eat more meat than the Australopithecines and look what happened.

Nope. Both diverged from Heidelbergensis. No lineage crossing really occurred. Just a small to moderate amount of introgression from hybrids. As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, the biological species concept does not actually work very well. Ernst Mayr is dead, and so is his species concept.

[Jeremy]

Speaking of that, how should we consider ourselves? What terms should we use to differentiate us[/u] from old Heidelbergensis or Neanderthalensis? Are Modern and Archaic Homo Sapiens more similar to one another than the coexisting Erecti species?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Speaking of that, how should we consider ourselves? What terms should we use to differentiate us[/u] from old Heidelbergensis or Neanderthalensis? Are Modern and Archaic Homo Sapiens more similar to one another than the coexisting Erecti species?

Yes

[CaptainChewbacca]

Its been argued that Modern humans should be classified as Homo Sapiens Sapiens to indicate the differences of our enlarged form and intellect brought about by civilization.

[Anguirus]

As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, the biological species concept does not actually work very well.

I would argue that it works well in a not-mindlessly-strict sense. We are talking about populations and phenotypes, not legalities.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, the biological species concept does not actually work very well.

I would argue that it works well in a not-mindlessly-strict sense. We are talking about populations and phenotypes, not legalities.

It works well for specific taxa I suppose. But there are some groups where it breaks down entirely. Most bufonids, lacertids, probably ranids, natricine snakes, boids, dont even get me started on ambystomatids...

[Phantasee]

Its been argued that Modern humans should be classified as Homo Sapiens Sapiens to indicate the differences of our enlarged form and intellect brought about by civilization.

What is the difference between pre-civilization Homo sapiens and present day Homo sapiens?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Its been argued that Modern humans should be classified as Homo Sapiens Sapiens to indicate the differences of our enlarged form and intellect brought about by civilization.

What is the difference between pre-civilization Homo sapiens and present day Homo sapiens?

The difference as far as I am aware is an explosion of cognitive capacity caused by a genetic bottleneck and climate change 80k years ago.

[Anguirus]

As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, the biological species concept does not actually work very well.

I would argue that it works well in a not-mindlessly-strict sense. We are talking about populations and phenotypes, not legalities.

It works well for specific taxa I suppose. But there are some groups where it breaks down entirely. Most bufonids, lacertids, probably ranids, natricine snakes, boids, dont even get me started on ambystomatids...

What species concept do you use for these? I've been reading Coyne and Orr's book on speciation, where they make a good case for the BSC being the only concept that actually leads to productive research programs.

Mind you, they don't believe that Mayr was 100% right any more than you do. The existence of hybrids doesn't negate a species, there just have to be enough barriers to gene flow so that they evolve separately. They could make 100% fertile hybrids in lab, they could potentially undergo secondary contact, but if they are separated by a mountain range, they aren't the same species. You do have to accept that two species can potentially become one again under this concept.

The BSC doesn't play nice with phylogenies under certain situations and time scales, but I tend to think of the tips of phylogenies as "terminal taxa" that we simply prefer to line up with species, rather than them being necessarily species.

It should be obvious from the definition, but the BSC also does not work at all for primarily asexual organisms.