Talk:Denisovan/Archive 1

POV

It doesn't seem fully clear yet that this discovery is of a new species, so surely it's POV to say it does? UserVOBO (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(just found) – John Hawks (Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison): "Let me say very clearly: nothing about this sequence requires there to have been an undiscovered hominin species." --bender235 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Something more reviewed (even if its just editorial review) than a blog is needed, plus his complaint is just the word species. Narayanese (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see the Christian Science Monitor story. Removing the npov notice when there's still a dispute is quite inappropriate, by the way. UserVOBO (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether they are a new species is a standard scientific issue which does not justify a NPOV tag. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The article currently states "possible newly discovered species", which is an improvement on my original wording, and lends a better NPOV to the sentence as investigation is ongoing. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that that in terms of divergence Neanderthal, on average has 202 differences from modern human, and are considered a separate species. Denisovan had 385 differences and was clearly the outlier. It would make no sense to consider Neanderthal separate but not Denisovan. What needs still to be done is to verify that the differences were not a result of in-breeding and so far that appears to be the case. LinuxDude (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably a separate species from us, but also from Homo Erectus and/or Neanderthal? --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Homo Heidelbergensis or something related? There's lots of proposed species we know very little about though, so a stretch to label it as a species yet81.158.140.63 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hominin?

The BBC article, titled "DNA identifies new ancient human", describes the "X-woman" as a hominin. But following the hominid article, "A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini: bonobos, chimpanzees and humans." Thus the category "hominin" seems much too large for what is intended: a close relative of modern humans, more or less on a par with the Neanderthals, perhaps a member of the genus Homo. It seems there is a lot of confusion in the use of these terms, and perhaps the best that should be done is to simply leave out the term "hominin" from this page? David Olivier (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The name seems wrong anyways, since it should be a standard binominal name. So... Homo ??? (H. xxx) 76.66.194.32 (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree a member of the genus homo would make more sense, i.e. homo denisova or homo erectus denisova. Perhaps we should wait for the dust to settle. Have they registered the species name? --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the scientific name has not yet been assigned. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hence, I think this article's title shouldn't be in italics. "Denisova hominin" is a description, like "African felid". It's not a name at all. Grassynoel (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The article title is OK for the moment, but if/when a new name is assigned, we can just move the article to the proper title at that time. Think of this title as a convenient placeholder, as it is contextually specific to the find, and not as generic as an African felid would be. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and also like how the first paragraph now reads. Grassynoel (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue I mentioned is not about the binominal name of the animal, but about calling her a hominin, which is tantamount to ascribing her to the tribe Hominini - see article hominid. A tribe is a unit of classification below family and above genus. Describing her as a hominin seems much too large considering that she seems much more closely related to modern-day humans than that. David Olivier (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as this appears to be a member of the genus homo, but let's give the scientists a little more time to clarify things. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Grassynoel (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

from what is currently in the article, it appears completely undisputed that the individual in question belongs to the genus Homo. Discussion surrounds the question, does it belong to the Homo sapiens species or not. --dab (𒁳) 16:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I read, "The more anthropomorphic primates of the Hominini tribe are placed in the Hominina subtribe." and since all we know for sure is that it fits into Hominin tribe, probably into the Hominina subtribe, 'possibly' genus Homo, leavintg it as is seems conservative, which science should be. We can edit it later with the binomial. Perhaps the nuclear DNA will be even more differnet and there will be a new genus. --Paddling bear (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Following the hominid article, the Hominini (hominins) comprise two branches, the chimpanzees and the bonobos on one side and the humans - the Hominina (hominans) - on the other side. It seems clear that if it weren't believed that the Denisova specimen was on the human branch, there wouldn't be all this fuss. What news would it make that someone found the fossil of an extinct chimp? What is conveyed by the discoverers, and by the press, is that this is a new fossil that is more closely related to humans than are chimpanzees. Hence, a hominan, member of subtribe Hominina. Perhaps we don't have a reference for that right now, but I think we should change the name of the article to "Denisova hominan" as soon as we do. David Olivier (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I realise this is a long-dead conversation, but out of interest I believe the discovery of a chimp ancestor would be big scientific news, since such things are vanishingly rare and would fill in a big gap in sorting out how the family tree develops from our last common ancestor with chimps. 4u1e (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We only have a pinky tip to play with, so morphologically, it's nearly impossible to say that it's not a Homo erectus. Kortoso (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge "Woman X" to this.

I suggest that right now we make a redirect from Woman X to this article. The "Woman X" article has very little information - I think nothing that is not already in this article, so nothing will be missed if we act very soon. But leaving two articles around is apt to make the inevitable more difficult. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Woman X really appears to be a name cooked up by the media. Of course, the name of this article was pretty much cooked up by the team of scientists announcing the discovery, but in the absence of a scientific name, I think we should go with what the science team named it, which describes a hominin found in the Denisova cave. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are the links from the article:

Haven't checked them yet for duplication. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)> Done. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues surrounding the find

Aplogogies for edit's lack of citation, but this seemed to be what author intended. --Joshrulzz (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

They're basing the history of humanity on an old damaged finger bone?

Are they? 71.218.133.45 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! Better than on an old damaged book! David Olivier (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm notwithstanding (though I must say I agree with your comment if you're referring to the Bible), but the original user is making a good point. Scientists are not supposed to revise (let alone revolutionise) the entire discipline based on such scant evidence. --Joshrulzz (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bible is NOT damaged. And people should have both a bit more respect and more open minds to whether other conclusions better fit the available evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.92.109 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith. He could be referring to the wait for nuclear DNA testing, or just the difficulty of defining a new species with a sample size of one. --Joshrulzz (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Joshrulzz: Indeed!

Well, before we had genetics as a measurement, they used small skull fragments so we've been using small pieces to change the history of humanity for over 100 years.--Paddling bear (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Uuuh... not quite. They used "small skull fragments" (plural), in your words, but not a single sample. In fact countlessly many "small skull fragments" have been collected. The point is that the scientific method requires a vast number of repeated tests. (Not to mention that "skull fragments" are generally far better anatomical pieces of evidence than a freaking finger bone!) What bothers me about this whole Denisova matter is that they are hyping one tiny piece of evidence as revolutionizing an entire paradigm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.53.87 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The scientific method requires a vast number of repeated tests? Oh really? There wouldn't be a lot of science then (of course depending on your definition of "vast"). In paleoanthropology and other historical disciplines, there has never been "a vast number of repeated tests" – there has never even been the possibility in the first place, of any tests. Historical evidence is, by nature, limited and hard to integrate into an experimental framework. Paddling bear's point is entirely correct: The number of human fossils on which science is basing its ideas of human evolution is nowhere near "vast" – it's incredibly small. Many species are, indeed, postulated on the basis of only a single fossil. Man, you have no clue. You must be the same hyper-sceptical guy as below. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I see that you are making a very sharp distinction between "experimental sciences" and "historical sciences." Fair point, but by supplementing the paleontological record with genetic testing you are injecting an element of "experimental science." My point is relying on only one or two studies is a bit premature. After all, there was probable "gene contamination" in extracting the hominid genomes in question. Proponents of the hypothesis cite the findings of Green, Paabo, et al but ignore an equal number of studies that contradict their results (i.e. those of Noonan). Second, with all due respect you seem to completely or at least partially miss both my point and that of Paddling bear. For the record, I partially concede Paddling Bear's point, I just wouldn't go as far as he is. Third, your usage of terms such as "vast" or "incredibly small" are completely imprecise and nothing more than an attempt to stall or distract the conversation. The worldwide fossil collection upon which our knowledge/understanding of human evolution might not meet your special definition of "vast," but it is certainly NOT "incredibly small." Finally, I have a hard time taking seriously anybody who can't spell skeptical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.227.202 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify

Please could someone kindly clarify what is intended by the following unreferenced para from the article:

Questions remain regarding the appearance of the find, and whether it is truly distinct from other hominids. Likewise, the paper published in Nature about the find notes that because DNA is preserved for longer periods in cool climates there is an uneven distribution in space and time of preserved DNA from any given species suggesting warmer climates could appear to have greater artificial uniformity within a species than cooler climates.

The paragraph seems ambiguous:

• "Appearance of the find": does that mean visual description of the child when alive (in comparison with us, presumably)? Or does it mean the visual description of the finger bone ("the find") when found? Or does it mean the (questionable?) manner in which this new information has suddenly appeared?
• "Warmer climates could appear to have greater artificial uniformity . . ." Wot? --Storye book (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unknown on the first point, but I believe the original author of the paragraph meant the general presentation of the discovery. On the second point, warmer climates would preserve less DNA than cooler climates, and thus it is a reasonable assertion that DNA samples from a region with a historically cool climate would have a greater percentage of viable DNA samples which could suggest a greater degree of genetic variation in said region by virtue of an absence of evidence from warmer areas. The source articles do touch on this lightly. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I heartily agree concerning the first point. The person who originally wrote that section should definitely clarify what "appearance of the find" means because I have no idea. On the second point, the editor was pointing out that the climate of an area can cause unaccounted-for departures in the uniformity of statistical data that may be interpreted as being caused by something else (in this case the existence of an undiscovered species).from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

After a little poking around, I also think the author of that section was trying to connect the discovery to earlier discoveries by the Soviet archaeologist Alexey Okladnikov... I think. Perhaps we should just move that section to the talk page and try to better hash it out. I'm not sure that it is off great value to the article without sources at the moment. 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I think it's a good idea to move it to the talk page. Any sources for this would be interesting.--Storye book (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

When I heard the news story about the find, they said that since there was just one finger bone, they couldn't describe what the individual looked like (whether it looked more like a neanderthal or a huma, or an ape) so I assumed that this paragraph was also talking about the description of the individual.--Paddling bear (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hybrid?

The line about the individual possibly being a hybrid doesn't make sense if the only evidence thus far is mitochondrial DNA. MtDNA is inherited exclusively from the maternal line, so I don't see how it could possible carry any evidence relevant to hybridization. Looie496 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't - that's what the nuclear DNA will resolve. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't possibly resolve this. Anyway, the Washington Post article does not say this. Abductive (reasoning) 07:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But the other sources do, so it should be mentioned. BTW what do you mean? That the nuclear DNA can't resolve the hybrid issue, or that we can't here and now? --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. If one English major who a newspaper made their science writer had a brain fart, we do not have to repeat it. What is she supposed to be a hybrid between? Her mitochodrial lineage diverged before the Homo neanderthalensis and H. sapiens lineages. Abductive (reasoning) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your response is ignorant, rude and original research. We don't know whether we hydridised with Neanderthals, so stop pretending that this is an absurd topic. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to read WP:UNDUE. Abductive (reasoning) 07:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE does not apply, at least not how you think. The issue is not "suspect", it is a notable, legitimate question that will be resolved by nuclear DNA analysis. Your claim that it is suspect is WP:OR (Can you find a single source that says it can't be a hybrid?.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else think that we shouldn't mention the sourced possibility of hybridisation? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this notion of hybridization is only mentioned here and here, not in any other news sources, and is not quoting any of the scientists involved. The notion is not mentioned at all in any of the scholarly sources. This is why Wikipedia has the WP:UNDUE subpolicy; if a piece of information in an article is suspect, one must weigh the number and quality of the sources. Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that removing it was right. There is an amusing discussion on the same topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Archive_22#Zhucheng: Coelurus is probably wrong, yes? where they came to the same conclusion. Narayanese (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad analogy since hybridisation, in these circumstances, is not impossible.[1] --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a blog. In any case, it would be better to talk about the coalecsent. Abductive (reasoning) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As if it's either or. Duh. There's no reason why we can't talk about both. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, every case is different. And I don't think The Guardian gets it wrong - even if it is a distinct lineage the particular individual can still be a hybrid. Speculation about the individual isn't all that relevant for discussing the lineage/species though, it makes the article confusing. The blog comments that the mtDNA-type could have survived for long in the species which would be relevant for the article with a more citable source, but I'm unsure if it's realistic speculation... there would be a lot of time for genetic drift to act. Narayanese (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, what's confusing is for this article not the mention the possibility of hybridisation at all, when it is a natural question to ask, and has been asked by the media. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A link under the See also section that leads to an article on hybridization theories within the genus homo would be appropriate, but ascribing hybrid status to this specimen is inappropriate at this time. We're documenting what is known, not what is plausible, so while it is plausible that we'll have a much greater understanding of hybridization within a few years, we don't have that conclusive data yet from the archaeological record. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, it was never about "ascribing" hybrid status. And we don't document what is known at WP. I suggest you read up on policy. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just in case I wasn't clear, the statement

We're documenting what is known, not what is plausible

is not correct. All sides should be represented here, per WP:NPOV. That includes representation of all notable POVs, and will necessarily include plausible speculation (which is what science is, of course). We are not in the business of pushing our view of truth. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The contentions which you have not addressed with your WP:Wikilawyering are that Looie496, Narayanese, Hiberniantears and I all say that saying this this specimen a possible hybrid of Neanderthals and modern humans is like saying a dire wolf is a possible hybrid of a gray wolf and a domestic dog, and that the reporters invented this notion without input from the scientists involved. You are violating WP:CONSENSUS, WP:UNDUE and WP:3RR. Abductive (reasoning) 18:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • 1. No, you are saying that, not the others. Looie496, for example, just asked a question which I hope I answered.
    2. a possible hybrid of Neanderthals and modern humans? You seem to be crucially mixing up "and" with "or".
    3. Where is your evidence that this is entirely made up by journalists? The blog I cited shows informed debate amongst experts on the issue.
    4. The question has been published and will naturally be in the minds of some readers (not just Looie496). All my text is saying (as per the source) is that the issue will be settled by examination of the nuclear DNA.
  • --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, because the scientists are not quoted as saying that they would be looking for evidence of hybridization; they will be looking at base-pair differences to get an independent confirmation of the mtDNA molecular clock date. You do know that in these cases the nuclear DNA is totally shattered and incomplete, right? The notion of hybrization is part of what the reporters are making up out of whole cloth; it is idle speculation without any chance of being true or testable and, per WP:UNDUE, should be left out of this article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• That blog says otherwise - it says that there should be sufficient evidence, in a few months, from the nuclear DNA fragments to rule on the hybridisation issue. Makes sense to me, there are techniques for stitching together DNA fragments. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A blog is not a credible source, particularly when the credible sources do not provide evidence in support of your assertion. Now, the possibility of hybridization is not disputed, but the possibility is nothing more than speculation at this point as there is no evidence to support it (and neither is their evidence to support a contrary position). If and when scientists conduct research that provides data, and that data is published, then we can entertain expanding this article to include the possibility of hybridization. To do so in the absence of results is pseudo-science. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Speculation can and should be reported as such if it has appeared in the media, which it has. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Further Reading" link to hybrid speculation should be enough. I hope that this is the end of the matter. Abductive (reasoning) 23:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hybridisation with humans is now established. --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The original proposition was that Denisova was a hybrid. That has in no way been established by the recent study. Rather the authors concluded that some groups of modern humans (non-sub-Saharan-Africans) are hybrids of archaic humans and Neanderthals, and that in one group (Melanesians) that hybrid line itself hybridized with Denisovans. That is entirely different than that Denisovans were hybrids. The authors leave open, as one of the two possible interpretations of the disparity between mt and nucDNA results, that Denisovans may have an introgressed mtDNA from an earlier hominin (e.g. H. erectus), and hence themselves may also be a hybrid population, but this remains to be determined. Agricolae (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Female?

I know that this fossil has been referred to as Woman X, but is there any reason to suspect that it was female? TomS TDotO (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I wondered that too, but as far as I could tell from from the news story I heard, while they don't know the gender of the individual from the finger bone, it's become sort of standard practice that since mtDNA measures the female line, that they refer to this as a female (in essence, we don't know the gender of who's finger it was, but even if it was a male, the mtDNA they measured was his mother, so it's a female line).--Paddling bear (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a young girl, because also parts of the DNA had been sequenced in march, and they did not find a Y-chromosome. There should be added doi:10.1038/nature09710 to this article. De.Gerbil (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't see that claim in the free-text. --cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"...we identified sequences that are unique to the Y chromosome. [...] We found zero and three such Y chromosomal sequences [...] whereas 1,449 and 696 are expected if the individual is male. Thus, the bone derives from a female..." --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Melanesians

Strange that there is an article on Denisovans, an extinct hominid, but not Melanesians, an existing ethnicity who apparently have some Denisovan heritage. - Flybyright (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made a link to Melanesians.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. The Melanesians are more than just the people of Melanesia. They are an anthropological group that spread as far as Madagascar, and represent one of two ancestral strains that combined to form the Polynesians. As such they have left their genetic and linguistic imprint over a large stretch of the planet. They merit an article just as much as Indo-Europeans do. (I just don't have the expertise to do it.) Agricolae (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The first step would be to make a stub so people can expand it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Done -- I've made the stub. Now it needs to be expanded. Please feel free to pitch in!SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What I find strange is the fact that only a few years ago not a single person had any idea about the existence of this "Denisova hominid" and now all of a sudden it is presumed to be an ancestor of an entire living human race. Never mind the unfortunate implications, namely that Melanesians are not "fully human" but that they are apparently H. sapiens hybridized with an entirely different hominid species. Science requires extensive evidence and repeated testing to vindicate one's discoveries. All this media hype about the Denisovans is an affront to the scientific method. ("Sex, Lies, and Racism?") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.53.87 (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you have no idea. Longer before the Denisova it is been stated that Neanderthals had interbred with the ancestors of almost the whole human population but the Africans, so at least you are misinformed. Secondly, given the previous fact, I highly doubt that almost the whole of the population can’t be considered human. By the way, according to some, Neanderthals –along with Denisovans- are yet another extinct branch of the human species, so it’s not like claiming something demeaning. If they weren’t human enough, interbreeding wouldn’t have been possible. The unfortunate implications –as you call it- will lie on those who anyways have no real say on Academic Science and their racism doesn’t need this very fact to invent something to discriminate people for whatever reason. Finally the article is written in conditional terms, as it is fresh ink, but as science isn’t based on concealing data, it’s good that it’s open to analysis. With time if other discoveries are found (or not) their consistency will support the claims, change them or override them altogether.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12059564 http://www.livescience.com/16806-asian-ancestors-mated-denisovans.html --Magnvss (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, WRONG! Long before Denisova it has been hypothesized or postulated that Neanderthals had interbred with the ancestors of West Eurasians (i.e. the native people of Europe, the Middle East, and Inner Asia; "Caucasian" or "White" peoples). This has been proposed LONG before by believers in the multiregional hypothesis, or more specifically, the partial replacement model. The notion that "almost the whole human population but the Africans" interbred with Neanderthals, is on the face a patently ridiculous notion, at least by prima facie appearance. (Not even proponents of the multiregional hypothesis seriously entertained the possibility of significant Neanderthal admixture in, say East Asians, Australasians, or Amerindians. Why? Because Neanderthals were almost entirely a West Eurasian species (or subspecies if you prefer) found exclusively in Europe and the Near East, and with some scattered outposts in Central Asia. Only H. sapiens (or H. sapiens sapiens if you prefer) were a world-spanning hominid at the time (Late Middle to Upper Paleolithic). Multiregionalists or proponents of "partial replacement" suggest that African H. sapiens who reached other parts of the world (Southeast Asia, the Far East...) interbred with different "archaic" humans (never mind the dearth of hominids other than Neanderthals and H. sapiens at the time.) The notion that the archaic contribution to non-Africans is specifically Neanderthal is the sole result of one genetic study undertaken very shortly before discovery and study of the Denisova hominid. Not much "longer before the Denisova" as you say, so I would say you seem misinformed. Which brings up the next point, whether the modern human species would have been interfertile with contemporary hominids. While the findings of Green, Paabo, et al appear to challenge the notion of a fertility barrier between humans and Neanderthals, this creates its own problems! The growing consensus is that Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) were an entirely distinct species not interfertile with modern man (Homo sapiens). Or rather, more likely they could hybridize in the way horses and donkeys can make mules and jennies, or lions and tigers can make ligers and tigons, but such offspring would not be reproductively viable, making Neanderthal contribution to modern human ancestry impossible. The findings of Green and Paabo seem to undermine that paradigm. After all, the only way for their results to be possible is if there is no interfertility barrier between humans and Neanderthals, making the species distinction suspect, so perhaps we should revert to the H. sapiens neanderthalensis taxonimic label. Well, not necessarily, there are other explanations for the similarity besides direct admixture, probably relating to the common ancestry of living humans and Neanderthals going back to the days of H. heidelbergensis or H. rhodesiensis, or whatever. Population structure and/or genetic bottlenecks (combined with Ice Age natural selection) may explain why non-African H. sapiens seem closer to Neanderthals than African H. sapiens. But the authors of the study and their supporters propose that direct Neanderthal hybridisation is the most parsimonious. But let's just assume for the sake of argument that H. sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals were fully reproductively compatible, that they could freely interbreed. In that case, we should expect people of West Eurasians to be most Neandethal (Neanderthals were a West Eurasian species after all)! More specifically, distribution of Neanderthal admixture should follow a clinal pattern from West to East accross Eurasia. In fact we should expect Western Europeans (i.e Spaniards, Portuguese, Basques, Irish, Britons...) to be the "most Neanderthal" genetically, with gradually less admixture the further East one travels. Neanderthal admixture in Inner Asia would be relatively minor, and in East Asia negligible to non-existent. Indeed, the "Australoid" peoples (Australian Aborigines, Melanesians, Negritos...) would be the "least Neanderthal" of all people out of Africa. (Being descended chiefly from the coastal clan, the ancestors of Australasians would have mostly bypassed the remnant Neanderthal populations.) Instead the study finds the "1-4% Neanderthal admixture" to have completely random variance among non-Africans, NOT the clinal pattern described above. Faced with the competing hypotheses that: [A] Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis are separate species incapable of successfully interbreeding, or that [B] Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis are merely highly divergent subspecies nonetheless capable of producing fertile offspring together, the results need explanation! If we accept [B], then one must explain why we do not find that human populations that co-habited with Neanderthals much longer do not have significantly more Neanderthal ancestry than those that were not in co-habitation with Neanderthals as much if at all. After all, being able to freely interbreed, shouldn't Europeans have more Neanderthal genes as they were neighbors longer? And that does not even get to the absurd finding that people native to Papua New Guinea share genes with a hominid whose only known habitat was in the Altai region of the Russian Federation. (But say, Chinese or Kazakhs do not?!?) The point is, while interesting, the findings are highly inconclusive at best. Which brings up my final point, I'm sorry if I implied that all proponents of rival hypotheses to strong out-of-Africa are racist. I do not think this. Of course you would have to be naive if you don't think that some racists favor multiregionalism or "archaic admixture" when it fits their agenda. That said, I do NOT think that Green, Paabo, or their colleagues are racist. (I think they have some agenda that is not scientific, but I think said agenda is simply an all-too-human craving for fame and publicity.) And on the subject of sensationalism, I guess I shouldn't expect much from Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is basically a big joke, but the worst culprit in all this is Discover Magazine. They more than any media outlet, at least any non-Internet outlet assert that "archaic admixture" occurred as an unqualified fact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.227.202 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Divergence times

There's an mtDNA divergence time given in the article, but do the new nDNA results come with an estimate of divergence time? Abductive (reasoning) 12:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There are conflicting views in the sources. From the article at this point:

After they diverged from one another, Denisovans and Neanderthals had largely separated population histories.

There are 4 references for this paragraph, all following this sentence. The first reference (washington post article) directly contradicts the wikipedia article at this point, saying:

A more ancient proto-human, Homo erectus, left Africa about 1.9 million years ago. Neanderthals' ancestors left 300,000 to 500,000 years ago. Modern humans left 50,000 years ago. The researchers think the ancestors of the "Denisova hominin" -- named after the cave where the finger bone was found -- almost certainly left Africa in a migration separate from those of the other species. Paabo thinks it probably occurred 800,000 to 900,000 years ago.

The last article, from the guardian:

The new species probably migrated from Africa more recently, around 1m years ago, and survived in Eurasia until at least 40,000 years ago.

So there seems to be general consensus in the reporting that the species diverged well before Neanderthals, and any interbreeding had to have been contemporary to the find. --108.28.13.107 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like clarification of this. What island are they referring to? Thanks.

With their results, they challenged the belief that the Denisovans interbred in mainland Asia before spreading to the island from southeast Asia, Melanesia, and Australia. They said that their data "can be most parsimoniously explained if the Denisova gene flow occurred in Southeast Asia itself." NotWillDecker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The main article does NOT separate the Denisovan and Neanderthal lineages clearly. Given the mtDNA differences from modern humans to be 384 for the former and 202 for the latter, one has to conclude that the Neanderthal lineage branches from the modern stem and NOT from the Denisovan stem. In other words, we would expect the Denisovan/Neanderthal mtDNA difference to be of the order of 380-385 bases - though a 'skew' of perhaps 20 or 30 bases from the expected 380-5 differences is quite understable due to the stochastic nature of the mutations.

Hence the Denisovan/Neanderthal mtDNA difference needs to be given in this article.

Furthermore, mtDNA dates have been calculated with a too recent chimp-human divergence time of 4-4.5 million years. While a consensus claims 6my for this divergence, recent evidence points to 10my because only in this way is 1) New World/Old World Monkey divergence reconciled with continental drift and 2) the time of Marsupial/Placental divergence equated with Monotreme divergence time (circa 230myBP) rather than Marsupial/Placental divergence being about 120myBP as formerly thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.40.195 (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation listed is in an "IPA-en" template. This needs to be changed by...
 · Pointing out that this is the anglicization of something trickier in Russian (which should be noted next to the anglicization, not replacing it— cf. the two pronunciations in the entry "Søren Kierkegaard")
...or...
 · Pointing that this already is Russian; and changing the template from IPA-en to IPA, or to IPA-ru if that exists. (And prefacing it with "Russian pronunciation:" or whatever.)
I welcome experts in Russian and/or the biome of Wikipedia templates. (I know so little of either domain.) Sean M. Burke (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The currently given IPA is for a possible English pronunciation - although, if the stress falls on the /i/ it should be the tense, not the lax /i/. We would need a native speaker of Russian to indicate which vowel is stressed in Russian in order to get an accurate Russian pronunciation, since unstressed vowels are pronounced differently from stressed vowels. Since which syllable receives the stress is unpredictable we cannot just guess or apply some rule.μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See here for samples of the word pronounced by Russian speakers. It would seem if we are going to follow the Russian vowels (but not the palatalized consonants?) that the fisrt vowel needs to be changed to the tense /i/. μηδείς (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

See also. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please explain

At one point in this article, we are presented with percentages of how much different lineages of humans differ from one another. Specifically, from the current version of this article: "In addition to genetic studies linking approximately 4% of non-African modern human DNA to Neanderthals, these tests comparing the Denisova hominin genome with those of six modern humans ... showed that between 4% and 6% of the genome of Melanesians (represented by the Papua New Guinean and Bougainville Islander) derives from a Denisovan population". What do these percentages mean? I ask this because, unless I am misinformed, the human species shares at least 90% of its genome with other primates; so unless I am wrong, any significant difference of genome material between two human-like subjects (i.e., 1% or more) means that we are presented with different species. Please help me -- & other readers -- understand what the intent of this passage is. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of ways of looking at this. The 4% relates to the amount of inheritance we share with Neanderthals i.e. how much of our DNA can be attributed to Neanderthals - but they themselves also possess a c. 98% overlap with chimps. Or another way is to think of the 4% figure as the amount of the variation we share with other humans; i.e. 4% of the human variation is due to our Neanderthal inheritance. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 02:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is quite confusing. Humans are said to be 99.9% alike at the DNA level. The remaining 0.1% difference is responsible for the uniqueness of every individual human and for all the human variation we observe. It is part of this 0.1% variation that was being investigated in this study. Of this 0.1% variation, 4% is thought to be of Neanderthal origin in non-Africans and 4-6% is thought to be of Denisovan origin in Melanesians.

That is the simple explanation. A more detailed explanation is as follows. The authors focused on the most basic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs. Since humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor, it was expected that these populations will possess some of the same SNPs. For example a human and the denisovan may share a particular mutation that is absent in the chimpanzee. Or humans and chimpanzees may share a particular mutation that is absent in the Denisova. Given that humans and the Denisovans share a more recent common ancestor, it is expected that humans and denisovans have more SNPS in common with each other than either has in common with Chimpanzees. The same approach was used with to study the relationship between contemporary human populations (Africans, Europeans, East Asians and Melanesians) and the Denisovans. The authors found that the Melanesians have 4 - 6% more SNPs in common with the Denisovans than other human populations. The authors suggest that the best explanation for this scenario is an interbreeding event between Melanesians and Denisovans. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant, please explain in the article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

redirects

shouldn't Homo denisova & Homo Denisova redirect here? Homo denisovan/Homo Denisovan already does.

Also H. denisovan/H. denisova

And Homo sapiens denisova, H. sapiens denisova, Homo sapiens denisovan, H. sapiens denisovan

184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

relation to andaman islanders

One wonders at the gene simlarity of Denisovans to Andaman islanders, given they are of very ancient and isolated lineage. Also the links to Dravidian / Tamils and Aborigines of Australia (given the Melanesian link). If there is a link the morphology may have been a lordotic, heavy-browed dark-skinned person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.229 (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of Denisovan Neanderthal divergence

The article gives an original estimate for divergence of modern humans, Denisovans and Neanderthals of 1 million years. It then cites the second Nature paper for an original split at 804,000 years and Denisovan-Neanderthal of 640,000 years. The Discover article gives the later split at 400,000 years, while a chart in the New Scientist article shows it as 300,000 years with the Denisovan/Neanderthal split from modern humans at 440,000 years. I do not have access to the original sources - perhaps someone who does could clarify. Dudley Miles 14:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm having problems with an aspect of the split as well. Could an expert please clarify? The quotes that follow are from the "Anatomy and lineage" section.

1. "the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone from which only mitochondrial genetic material was gathered. A tooth found in Denisova Cave carries a mtDNA very similar to that of the finger bone" -- does the tooth also contain nuclear DNA?
2. "The Siberian bone's mtDNA differs from that of modern humans by 385 bases (nucleotides) in the mtDNA strand out of approximately 16,500, whereas the difference between modern humans and Neanderthals is around 202 bases. [...] Analysis of the specimen's genome shows it to share a common ancestor with Neanderthals. " -- If the Denisova<->Neanderthal divergence is 385 base pairs, and Modern Human<->Neanderthals is 202 doesn't this suggest that Denisova and Neanderthals seperated before we seperated from Neanderthals? This would also be supported by "The tooth differed in several aspects from those of Neanderthals while having archaic characteristics similar to the teeth of Homo erectus." in the "Discovery" section. The article seems to imply the opposite.
3. (Obviously this point is irrelevant if nuclear DNA has been analysed) "After they diverged from one another, Denisovans and Neanderthals had largely separated population histories." -- How do you get this from mtDNA? mtDNA goes down the female line, for it to be relevant to the seperation of populations you'd need successful female to female breeding which (to the best of my knowledge) isn't found in the mammals.

Thanks Kiore (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Two new studies. Links to indigenous Australians.

Article in Swedish.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Illustration

Please include some reconstructive artwork so we can have an idea of what the Denisova people looked like! Thank you. Das Baz, aka Erudil 22:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To date, all that has been found is one finger bone, one toe bone and part of a tooth. You can't do much art work based on that. Agricolae (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

HYPE!

The Denisova hominin is undeniably an interesting find, but I think we're all getting a little ahead of ourselves here. We know next to nothing about this hominid find. The only physical evidence that we have is an "old damaged finger bone" and a tooth. These scant fossil finds give us very limited information about the creature's anatomy. Now the technology exists to recover genetic data, but beyond mtDNA we do not have much reliable information. The appropriate response is to await further finds before placing the Denisova hominid on the hominid family tree. Instead, you find articles hyping about how this newly discovered, and as of now poorly understood, hominid find allegedly comes from a population ancestral to Melanesians. Wow, I didn't know that! I'm sure Melanesians will be pleased to know that they are not fully human, but rather, hybrids of Homo sapiens and Homo (whatever species Denisova man is). In all seriousness, the exclusively recent-out-of-Africa human origins theory is solidly established and nearly unanimously accepted for good reason. It will take a hell of a lot more than a couple scant fossil remains to revolutionise a scientific paradigm, especially if it requires a "step back." (It was once controversial whether or not different hominid types represented subspecies or entirely separated species, the "lumper-splitter dispute," namely whether Neanderthal man should be considered Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or Homo neanderthalensis. It is now understood that Neanderthals were a distinct species from modern man. To use a rather extreme example, reversing the paradigm on the basis of two over-hyped studies is almost like Galileo concluding that the solar system is geocentric after all!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.53.87 (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The pendulum between the "pro-interbreeding" and "anti-interbreeding" views has swung back and forth several times. A couple of years ago, the "anti" camp seemed to finally and decisively prevail, but their victory was short-lived as the DNA results came in ... and now the discussion has resumed. Far from WP:UNDUE (and even WP:RECENT is starting to look out of place here), serious people have seriously argued that interbreeding is a serious hypothesis that accounts best for the facts. What we see here is a little more (mind the "a") than sensationalist yellow-press speculation. Yeah, I know: the press likes to paint the interbreeding hypothesis as "proven", which is of course premature, but that doesn't mean it's discredited, either. Avoid fallacies such as guilt by association: just because the wrong people eat this piece of news up like candy doesn't make it a groundless hype – just a typical mass media hype that you'll find about just about any topic, "sexy" and controversial topics at least, regardless of the scientific discussion. You're clinging to a dogma that just isn't firmly established anymore; nothing has been proved – or disproved, for that matter – just yet, sure, but the controversy has been re-opened. Sorry, fella, that's the way it is: you're the old-fashioned dinosaur now. Or should I say the neanderthal? Anyway, if you've got any arguments other than your personal scepticism, incredulity or disbelief, or even better, cites, that the scientists who have seriously argued for the interbreeding hypothesis have made themselves guilty of irresponsible hyping, do present them and integrate them into the article; I'd be thrilled. For the time being, let's both tread lightly and wait for more results before making our minds up that it's all TRUE! or respectively, BULLSHIT! There are enough hedges in the article already. Hey, even Homo floresiensis is hedging heavily on the classification issue (for good reasons, of course). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you are the same guy as above. You were already shrill then, quick with accusations of racism and sweeping generalisations not supported by the facts. You should take some of your own advice and quit your quixotic anti-hype. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And you're the guy who can't spell skeptical! Granted, I find the "strong out-of-Africa" to be by far the most plausible explanation. For the record, it is perfectly fair to support alternate explanations. However, at most you can say that these findings challenge strong out-of-Africa. You can argue that recent single origin theory (out-of-Africa) is not necessarily true in its entirety, but you can NOT say that it is false. As you yourself say, the controversy has been re-opened but nothing has been proven. Never mind that what you call "dogma" has become entrenched via years of evidence and research and that you expect one study to overturn this. I'm willing to "play fair" but most of what I read on Wikipedia relating to this subject presents the discovery as an unqualified fact rather than a controversy. And this does not even cover the anamolous results of these recent studies. Such as the fact that the allegedly Neanderthal genetic admixture does not match expected patterns given what we know about Neanderthal-Sapiens interaction from the archaeological record. Or that the only population that shows alleged "Denisovan" admixture is that indigenous to Papua New Guinea (when the only known habitat of the Denisova hominin was near the Altai Mountains!). Not to mention the absolute lack of Neanderthal mtDNA in modern humans...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.227.202 (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

giberish in lede

• 2010}}, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone. < the nuclear aDNA sequence was announced. It is achievement.
• a region also inhabited at about the same time by Neanderthals and modern humans< false , the cave do not show other bones, "region" undefined. (If the region of SS then perhaps true).
  • Denisova Cave (Altai Krai, Russia), a region < so what is "the region". the cave, the Altai or Rusia @ 40 k year ago and if so where?
• at about the same time < also mischiefed is 40 k about the same time? (another crucial trick for flogging a dead RAO horse).
• NYTimes.com & The Scientist < peculiar aspects of mdDNA at the time when nuclear DNA is known. Refs perhaps sufficient to prove notability but not to excerpt scientific thesis.
• ancestors of modern Melanesians < undefined "modern Melanesians" , "ancestors of modern" and 2x undefined "ancestors of modern Melanesians". If needed rather 'present-day Melanesians'. Anyway redundant and is mentioned below.

If one want to bring it back , elaborate why. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to bring it back because it is better than what replaced it, which was badly focused (back and forth between DNA and bone finds and DNA and bone finds and DNA - the current one talks first of discovery, then of DNA analysis; it defines the entire groups as "members of the genus Homo that was initially assigned to a previously unknown species based on an analysis of their mitochondrial DNA", bypassing the background of where they lived and how long ago, or even the current view, and jumping right to a somewhat trivial question of how their species assignment was first determined.). It is also in readable English (its replacement had to be tagged for cleanup because it was so bad grammatically). It doesn't talk about now-incidental details (that the mtDNA results show a million+ year old convergence with Neanderthal - perfectly appropriate for body, but confusing and unnecessary in lede, given how the nuclear results diminish its significance). It is not as misleading (the other version says the toe bone has yielded mtDNA, but none of our references say that). Those are some of the reasons why.

If you have a problem with two statements being vague, that is no justification to replace two whole paragraphs with misfocused and unreadable prose of your own. As to your specific points:

• • 1. I can only guess what you are trying to say here. It is not necessary to talk about the nuclear sequence at the same time we introduce the species through the discovery of this bone. In fact, it is poorly ordered to do so. The nuclear genomics are talked about in the very next paragraph, where the rest of the DNA analysis is described.
  • 2. I don't know anyone who would interpret the word 'region' as referring to a cave. The whole problem, though, could apparently be fixed with a single word: Denisova Cave in Altai Krai, Russia. Then 'a region clearly' will not be referring to the cave.
  • 3. No idea what you are saying. Mischiefed is not a word. RAO could mean any number of things. No tricks involved, and no mention of horses anywhere in the article.
  • 4. No idea what you are saying, but the references you question are appropriate secondary sources - the kind we are supposed to prefer rather than using primary ones. And you don't think Carl Zimmer can be trusted as a scientific journalist?
  • 5. The lede is supposed to be redundant with the article. That's why it's there - to provide a brief overview of the article. As to your distaste for 'modern Melanesians', I suppose present-day works just as well, if a little more awkward. However, given the more detailed information in the body, it should probably include the word "some". Agricolae (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Very nice edit but some factual data were incorrect. (do'nt worry corrected already) Especially "found in Denisova Cave in [Altai Krai]], Russia, a region also inhabited at about the same time by Neanderthals and modern humans" < Words for facts not found in nature or put in source. If you know about new discovery point to a specimen .99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That Neanderthals and humans lived in the same region comes straight from the reference cited, "Neanderthal remains have been found less than 100 miles from Denisova Cave. Artifacts in nearby caves and in Denisova itself suggest the presence of Upper Palaeolithic-age people, which might include modern humans." That being said, it is still wrong to start the lede with the initial basis for deciding it was a new species, before we lay the groundwork, and the rest of your change still lacks a well-thought-out structure and has the same grammatical problems. I get the impression we are dancing around the issue. You say your problem is with specific words or phrases, but then make major structural changes. Agricolae (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC) ----- You keep wanting to put in something about Autosomal DNA, but the analysis was on the entire nuclear genome, autosomes and allosomes alike. The way it is done, it doesn't distinguish source - it was even an analysis of the mtDNA and all of the various contaminating bacterial, plant, and mammal DNA, which data were then subtracted out. While it makes sense not to talk about the mtDNA (and contamination), the sequencing of the X-chromosome (and Y, were it there) was just as important as the other 22, so referring only to autosomal DNA is too imprecise. Agricolae (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

4% DNA in common ?

"Genetic study indicates approximately 4% of the DNA of non-African modern humans is the same as that found in Neanderthals, suggesting interbreeding."

Since humans have around 98% of their DNA in common with chimps, there is obviously something wrong with this statement. What exactly is the 100%, in this scenario ? It's not all of our DNA, so is it all the DNA which is unique to the Homo genus, or something else ? StuRat (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a long-standing problem with the language used by the press and by the scientists themselves to reflect these similarities. Humans and chimps share 98% of their DNA (as determined by conservation of coding sequence), yet any two humans are as low as 90% similar (as evaluated by comparison of indels, and particularly gene duplication) - they are counting different things and referring to it imprecisely. In this case, clusters of co-inherited SNPs are used as a proxy for estimating the inheritance of contiguous blocks of sequence. The report that an average of 4% of the DNA of non-African humans is shared by Neanderthal probably means that 4% of these SNP clusters are not found in Africans (i.e. in the same blocks of sequence the Africans have different bases at the specific diagnostic sites), but are found in Neanderthals (they have the same bases at those diagnostic sites). However, the scientists assume that anyone wanting details would simply read the paper closely and see what they mean, and the media avoid scientific precision at all costs as it only confuses their non-scientific readers. Agricolae (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you be willing to clarify the article ? StuRat (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And here we get into a problem area, as the article is true to the secondary sources and as detailed as they are. The above is just off-the-cuff, and to 'clarify the article' I would have to either base it on personal knowledge or do original research in the primary source, both of which are problematic with respect to Wikipedia policy. Further, it is a bit out of place to give a detailed description of a scientific result comparing humans and Neanderthals in an article about Denisovans. Agricolae (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Scepticism

It is probably not germane to the subject of the article, but since the correct spelling of "skeptic" has come under some debate in the talk page, it may be worth noting the regional variation in usage. WP:Manual_of_Style/Spelling In my experience, an inability to spell "sceptic" properly, tends to identify one as American, while an inability to spell "skeptic" is associated with Europeans and Asian English speakers. Apologies for the OR. --Robert Keiden (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Finalized divergence times?

This article and others have seemed to have caused a good number of people confusion over when neanderthals, denisovans and humans diverged. Early reports, which this article reiterates, claim denisovans diverged before neanderthals did, while later ones claim neanderthals and denisovans share the same common ancestor. Likewise, others give pretty variable divergence times of the denisovans/neanderthals, from close to 1 million years ago to only about 500,000. This article from this year gives the lowest I've seen yet, with denisovans, neanderthals and modern humans sharing an LCA about 500,000 years ago- directly from a Max Planck researcher.

So what is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.230.48 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

FOXP2

Did Denisovans have the same version of the FOXP2 gene as Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Custard mustard sandwich (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen this reported and it would be WP:OR to look at the genome and reach the conclusion ourselves. Agricolae (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Previously unknown"?

Should we really need to state that it's "previously unknown"? Every single knowledge that the human kind knows was indeed previously unknown before the discovery. sentausa (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Some people get confused when they see the term "new species". Kortoso (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Reversal of my posts

My reversal has been reversed again. I want to dispute this before you all. The report does not claim to be fact, but rather it is a report of research by Peter J Waddell and Xi Tan, based upon previous research they have done in 2007 and 2010. It makes no claim to the veracity but reports findings from a reputable source - namely Cornell University's Archive in Quantitative Biology, and specifically Genomics. It reports on "a genomic data set that looks at how Neanderthals and Denisovans are related to each other and modern humans. Evidence that Homo erectus may have left a significant fraction of its genome within the Denisovan is shown to persist with the new modelling criteria." This IS relevant and reliable in relation to the current article. In particular it extend the article by David Reich et al, published in Nature, Vol 468, pp. 1053–1060,(23 December 2010), which is surly a reputable peer reviewed source. I feel this warrants either 1: a re-reversal. 2: a re-writing to make it fit any valid critique based upon Agricolae's criteria. Regards John D. Croft (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC).

For starters, this one finding is being given undue weight - more text than any other finding, it is not being presented in an appropriate format (we don't just give a citation in article text at the end of a paragraph, it belongs in a footnote), and it looks like it is more relevant to the Interbreeding section, but those are not the biggest problems. As I said in my edit summary, ArXiv is a repository of non-peer-reviewed material, self-deposited by the authors. It is primarily used by authors to place before the public data that have they yet submitted but have yet to get approved by the reviewers, a process that can take months or even years. As such, the material there does not qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if it is based on previous research of these or other authors. It doesn't matter if Cornell hosts ArXiv. What needs to happen here is patience. This material will eventually pass peer review and be published for real. Then it will qualify for a brief summary somewhere in the article. Agricolae (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Testing mtDNA will not reveal when two people shared a common ancestor

mtDNA does not get recombined with each generation.

mtDNA is inherited with little change down the female line, mother's mother's mother's ... mother.

mtDNA can only indicate how far back someone's mother's mother's mother's ... mother shared the same mother's mother's mother's ... mother shared.

The academic pursuit of archaeology claims far too much from far too little evidence.

It is like a college psychology professor claiming that all men and all women every where in the world at all times in history have some specific trait based on tests of first year psychology students made in a single year on a single campus, except archaeologists use even smaller less representative sample sets.

Two even estimate when two people last shared a common ancestor you need to look at the nuclear DNA.

And to determine when two populations of people last shared a common ancestor you need to look at the nuclear DNA of a large number of people from diverse families in both populations.

mtDNA does not do it.

Of course in regular English, biology and real science the definition of 'species' revolves around 'inability to interbreed' or at least 'inability to easily interbreed'. To judging by reports in the news media, to an archaeologist it is mere differences in genes.

span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.210.133 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Might be of interest

Might be of interest: [2] 76.10.128.192 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating, but too early to incorporate in the article. We need WP:RS, not a news report. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan edits

I have copied Gaylinn's complain from my Talk page so others can comment.

The version you reverted to promotes two misconceptions about what the cited paper says: 1. The Tibetans interbred with Denisovians. Untrue. The Tibetans and Chinese separated ~3,000 years ago. The Denisovian gene was a rare variant in the ancestral population of Asian peoples. 2. The gene variant was an adaptation to high altitude. Probably untrue. We do not know what purpose it served in the Denisovians, only that it is useful at high altitude in the Tibetan gene background.

Why did you remove the details meant to allow better representation of the facts in the cited paper? Gaylinn (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As Drbogan pointed out, the main reason for reverting your edit was that most of it was after the citation, making it unreferenced comment.

On 1, you are right that I should have said ancestors of the Tibetans, and I will clarify this.

On 2 my edit said nothing about the original function of the variant, only the purpose it serves for the Tibetans now.

In my view, it would be premature to go into further details at this stage, as the paper has only just been published and we do not know how will stand up to examination by other researchers, but others may disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Dudley, OK, then move the quote or add the quote again because the info in the comment is from the paper. The gene is not an adaptation to high altitude, it is a block of DNA inherited from the Denisovians that has been used by the Tibetans as part of their adaptation to high altitude, but we do not understand the details of that adaptation and have no idea whether the Denisovians used it for that purpose. It is a pretty solid paper and I did not push past what they said, just tried to explain it. And get around the idea of Tibetans mixing with Denisovians. And the take home point to someone reading this for general information is that the diversity of genes acquired from hybridization are important to adaptation. Gaylinn (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

Meakin.2

3 ways article could be improved: 1) Needs to discuss hominid movement from Africa in more detail

2) The article only mentions the possibility of denisovan mating with melanasians, new evidence shows that denisovan DNA has been found in parts of Europe too.

3) The article doesn’t needs to talk about how new evidence has found that hominid like bones have now been found in Western Europe (Spain) that show the movement of hominids from Africa to Europe was over double as long as Archeologists had previously thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meakin.2 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Grade

How is this article considered a B-class. For starters, it lacks a taxobox. It is also unclear and deviates from topic. B-class is the rank just below good article. I think this article should be rated C. How come it is B-class? Gug01 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

Taxobox

I think this article should have a taxobox. The article does not make clear whether Denisovans are a human subspecies, a separate species in the genus Homo, part of its own genus in the Homoninae subfamily, or simply just a random species in a different subfamily that was capable of interbreeding with humans. In addition, for some reason, the temporal range of the species as well as the geographical range is not mentioned in the article. How is this possible! Please improve this or I will be forced to change it back into a C-class article. Gug01 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

Taxobox fail ):

I tried doing a Taxobox for Homo Denisovo, but failed the correct structure. I got the info so could someone do it right this time? Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primate, Family: Hominidae, Genus: Homo, Species: Denisova. Much appreciated Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Taxobox complete and utter factual failure

I appreciate that people want a box, but this box is simply unencyclopedic. It provides a name of a taxon that was not used by the discoverers nor does it have mainstream recognition whatsoever. It is illustrated by a fossil that is simply NOT a Denisovan. Never illustrate a fossil taxon with a fossil that no one considers to be a member. And "Tsybankov, 2008"???????????? The Denisovans were not even discovered in 2008, so unless this Tsybankov had a time machine or was referring to something else there is no possible way he published in 2008. As it is science has only a tiny fragments of physical remains, not enough by any standard to name a new species. Indeed no one would have cared about such paltry remains if they had not yielded DNA in 2010.

I am simply going to remove the box. Until someone can provide a box that is factually correct, not misleading, and can justify their statements with appropriate citations, it should not be reinstated. 68.97.11.73 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)