PDA

View Full Version : Between Sapiens and Neanderthalensis and Erectus



morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, February 12th, 2004, 10:53 AM
Some people may hear species names of Homo, that they mignt find confusing, so I have described them here. Many of these names for Homo are rarely used, and use of them can be interchangable between a species, a subspecies of erectus or a subspecies of sapiens. All these forms appear to be closer to us than to Asian erectus, but I have excluded moderns and neanderthals. Often soloensis, rhodesiensis and especially heidelbergensis are used to cover various, archaic forms, and the name "Homo sapiens archaicus" is used in a similar way. At least some of these show multiregionalism with each other, just as modern races interbreed. Since I am doing this list to help understand modern racial origins, I have not listed true Asian erectus (SNG, ZKD etc) or the early African Homo. I may be unaware of other names for these hominids.

helmei (Florisbad) Dreyer 1935
idaltu (Herto) White et al 2003
antecessor (Gran Dolina level TD6) Bermudez de Castro et al 1997
lantianensis or gongwanglingensis (Gongwangling) Wu/Woo 1964
daliensis (Dali) Wu Xinzhi 1981
mauretanicus (Ternefine) Arambourg 1954
tautavelensis (Arago) de Lumley and de Lumley 1979
paleohungaricus (Vertesszolos) Thoma 1966
steinheimensis (Steinheim) Berckhemer 1934
bilzingslebensis (Bilzingsleben) Vlcek 1978
petraloniensis (Petralona) Poulianos 1967
heidelbergensis (Mauer) Schoetensack 1908
soloensis (Ngangdong) Oppenoort 1932
narmadensis (Narmada) Sonakia 1984
rhodesiensis (Kabwe) Woodward 1921
palestinus (Qafzeh) McCown and Keith 1932
njarensis (Eyasi) Reck and Kohl-Larsen 1936
kanamensis (Kanam) Leakey 1935
caprensis (Ceprano) Callegni et al 2003
reilingensis (Reilingen) Czarnetski 1989

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, April 6th, 2004, 07:43 AM
I want to see someone fit the Rhodesian skull and extra-cranial material into a framework of H. sapiens or erectus. Please, someone, make this monster make sense.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, April 6th, 2004, 09:10 AM
I want to see someone fit the Rhodesian skull and extra-cranial material into a framework of H. sapiens or erectus. Please, someone, make this monster make sense.

I think Kabwe represents a hybrid between a form on the lineage leading to moderns, with a more archaic race (or species) associated with the African early MSA. Kabwe is associated with Sangoan, which is derived from the Acheulian, tool industry.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 09:39 PM
If the Rhodesian material is a hybrid between a sapiens and non-sapiens, to what species did the non-sapiens portion belong. Also, by what reasoning do you attribute sapiens ancestry to any of it?

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 02:38 AM
If the Rhodesian material is a hybrid between a sapiens and non-sapiens, to what species did the non-sapiens portion belong. Also, by what reasoning do you attribute sapiens ancestry to any of it?

I would say that the non-sapiens ancestry is from an archaic of the grade that some call "heidelbergensis". But, I can't say properly at the moment why I attribute sapiens ancestry to Kabwe, sorry.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 03:29 AM
As I recall, the Broken Hill skull has no jaw and the Heidelberg jaw is only a jaw. So, the question is: do they matchup or are they close? It seems to me that someone made this comparison somewhere.

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 03:38 AM
As I recall, the Broken Hill skull has no jaw and the Heidelberg jaw is only a jaw. So, the question is: do they matchup or are they close? It seems to me that someone made this comparison somewhere.

I was referring to heidelbergensis as it is used to describe a "grade", not a lineage. In this sense all that is requied is a lack of shared characters with more modern lineages, and more shared characters than with erectus.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 11:25 PM
This is the whole problem with "grades". If they don't imply genetic relationship, then of what use are they? Your word "linage" does imply genetic relationship, at least in my mind. Grade may imply a set of morphological characteristics but, again, if they have no basis or an unproven basis in an actual genetic relationship, then don't these grade designations only serve to confuse matters?

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 11:36 PM
This is the whole problem with "grades". If they don't imply genetic relationship, then of what use are they? Your word "linage" does imply genetic relationship, at least in my mind. Grade may imply a set of morphological characteristics but, again, if they have no basis or an unproven basis in an actual genetic relationship, then don't these grade designations only serve to confuse matters?


Yes, but that is the only way to describe this in this case. A grade here shares common ancestry but does not include the descendants.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 08:48 AM
I think the biggest problem in Anthropology is anthropologists who make distictions, using Latin wording, which have no meaning in biology. Somehow, Anthropology and Biology must come together. Recently, I saw Meve Leakey (or however her name is spelled) doing just what her husband and father-in-law did for years, this same trick of giving everything she finds a new Latin name. Latin names ought to mean something and that "something" means something phylogenetic.

An anthropologist once told me that "we" are trained to "follow along" (in her words) but not to do the research ourselves. This was in 1975. Everything which has happened since has only make her statement stronger. I love Anthropology, but if I had to do it over again, I would have followed a science of more rigor and used this to further anthropological work.

Frans_Jozef
Monday, April 19th, 2004, 09:09 AM
Yes, but that is the only way to describe this in this case. A grade here shares common ancestry but does not include the descendants.

A grade is linked to the temporal (sub)species issue and embodies changes with time over the entire range of the species).
Common ancestry goes by the term clade, features that uniquely typify a geographic region.
The main problem with grade is that its implement leads to confusion and strange outcomes if one doesn't careful scrutinize the geographic individuality of certain samples and the lessons one can draw from the patterns of morphology in a given area over time.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, May 18th, 2004, 05:40 AM
The Discovery/Science Channel just did a program on H. heidelbergensis and its reationship Neanderthals. I am really suspicious of the taxon "H. heidelbergensis". Maybe a common ancestor of sapiens and Neanderthals is necessary as a taxon, but heidelbergensis is not this animal. It is simply another morphospecies or grade-species and as such adds confusion and unnecessary biologic implication to an already loaded subject. Atlanto-Med includes the Broken Hill specimen in this group, as do many others. This is a further muddling of the issure since Broken Hill cannot possibly be ancestral to Neanderthals. Someone, make me a beliver.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, May 18th, 2004, 06:22 AM
The Discovery/Science Channel just did a program on H. heidelbergensis and its reationship Neanderthals. I am really suspicious of the taxon "H. heidelbergensis". Maybe a common ancestor of sapiens and Neanderthals is necessary as a taxon, but heidelbergensis is not this animal. It is simply another morphospecies or grade-species and as such adds confusion and unnecessary biologic implication to an already loaded subject. Atlanto-Med includes the Broken Hill specimen in this group, as do many others. This is a further muddling of the issure since Broken Hill cannot possibly be ancestral to Neanderthals. Someone, make me a beliver.

Heidelbergensis is unlikely to be anything except a grade, even in Europe, unless ie the Steinheim cranium can be firmly linked to the Mauer jaw.

Its possible that a single lineage does include Steinheim, Ceprano, Petralona and other archaic Europeans as well as elsewhere (Kabwe is included). It mignt be something that depends on ER-3773 being an early member of this group.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Wednesday, May 19th, 2004, 07:37 AM
"Grade", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. This is not science. Latin names imply genetic relationship. If they are species names or higher, the imply reproductive isolation. Grades are used like sign posts by anthropologists and paleontologists who seem to have forgotten this. Paleontologists, dealing with creatures millions of years apart can be forgiven, and they know it, because, given these time-frames, the creatures meet these biologic qualifications. Anthropologists took over this idea but employ it in a narrow time-frame. This short time frame means overlap of two grades, or species by their designation. Yet these overlaping grades can interbreed, just as have, in all probablility, H. sapiesn and Neanderthals in Palestine. At this point the whole "grade" thing starts to unravel.

There is no necessity for a designation Homo heidelbergensis, unless you believe this taxon left Europe and re-invaded Africa and beget H. sapiens. Otherwise, if they simply hung out in Europe and gave rise to Neanderthals, this designation is unnecessary and confusing.

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, May 19th, 2004, 08:10 AM
"Grade", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. This is not science. Latin names imply genetic relationship. If they are species names or higher, the imply reproductive isolation.

High level clades have more reality than species, because of problems in defining a species. And I can think of an important problem with you using this concept of a species, to argue against the use of grades.


Grades are used like sign posts by anthropologists and paleontologists who seem to have forgotten this. Paleontologists, dealing with creatures millions of years apart can be forgiven, and they know it, because, given these time-frames, the creatures meet these biologic qualifications.

Is this always right?


Anthropologists took over this idea but employ it in a narrow time-frame. This short time frame means overlap of two grades, or species by their designation. Yet these overlaping grades can interbreed, just as have, in all probablility, H. sapiesn and Neanderthals in Palestine. At this point the whole "grade" thing starts to unravel.

If you say a species is defined by a shared ability to interbreed, and a new species loses that ability, then isn't defining the ancestral species identifying it as a grade?


There is no necessity for a designation Homo heidelbergensis, unless you believe this taxon left Europe and re-invaded Africa and beget H. sapiens. Otherwise, if they simply hung out in Europe and gave rise to Neanderthals, this designation is unnecessary and confusing.

I dont know if heidelbergensis is the best name to use since there could have been more than one species in Europe at that time, but heidelbergensis isn't neccessarily a grade. And if it was, it can still be argued that its members show shared ancestry, but lack the specialised characters found in their descendants.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, May 20th, 2004, 07:18 AM
If you say a species is defined by a shared ability to interbreed, and a new species loses that ability, then isn't defining the ancestral species identifying it as a grade?

No, a grade is defined only by morphology and that is the basic problem.


I dont know if heidelbergensis is the best name to use since there could have been more than one species in Europe at that time, but heidelbergensis isn't neccessarily a grade. And if it was, it can still be argued that its members show shared ancestry, but lack the specialised characters found in their descendants.

If it isn't a grade yet it has a species name, then it is a "species". It is a species which lies between two other extinct species. Nobody knows anything about the reproductive boundaries involved with heidelbergensis. So what is gained by the taxon H. heidelbergensis? I say less than the confusion such a designation generates.

Let's look at an example of two real species, seperated by about the same period of time, lions and tigers. The seperation is about 1.5 to 2.00 million years, aproximately the same for the two major divisions leading up to Neanderthal and sapiens. Lions and tigers have seperate species names. They look differently, live in different types of social groupings, exploit different environments and even hunt differently. Yet, their skulls look much more similar than do sapiens vs Neanderthal. They never interbreed in the wild. These are good species.

Ergaster-heidelbergensis-neanderthal line all lived in the same environment, had, as far a is known, the same social groupings, made their living in the same way and showed a continium of morphologic traits through time. If an isolated population of any one of these peoples somehow survived long enough to meet the next group in that line, they would probably not even recognize each other as "different" and so would "interbreed".

In fact, the biggest division within mankind may be Africans and non-Africans both now and two million years ago during the first Out of Africa exodus. In both cases the two groups (Africans and non-Africans) lived in different environments, and exploited the resources of those environments differently. They never interbred because of geographic seperation. Why are not Africans and non-Africans recognized as two distinct species? They look very much different in the flesh. In the bones, they look more different than do lions and tigers (good species).

My point is that the concepts of classification are ultimately based upon an alledged genetic relationship. As long as Paleontologists were studying fossil dinosaurs, for instance, seperated by really long periods of time and distance, everything is allright if they pass out species names. The more compressed the time frame and the smaller the geographic area, the more questionable this practice becomes. Genus names don't have this problem of reproductive isolation. In the last 2 million years, there have only been two lines of human descent. One genus name and two species names are all that are necessary and proper in keeping Homo within the guidelines set for other mammels.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, July 6th, 2004, 04:49 PM
helmei (Florisbad) Dreyer 1935
idaltu (Herto) White et al 2003
antecessor (Gran Dolina level TD6) Bermudez de Castro et al 1997
lantianensis or gongwanglingensis (Gongwangling) Wu/Woo 1964
daliensis (Dali) Wu Xinzhi 1981
mauretanicus (Ternefine) Arambourg 1954
tautavelensis (Arago) de Lumley and de Lumley 1979
paleohungaricus (Vertesszolos) Thoma 1966
steinheimensis (Steinheim) Berckhemer 1934
bilzingslebensis (Bilzingsleben) Vlcek 1978
petraloniensis (Petralona) Poulianos 1967
heidelbergensis (Mauer) Schoetensack 1908
soloensis (Ngangdong) Oppenoort 1932
narmadensis (Narmada) Sonakia 1984
rhodesiensis (Kabwe) Woodward 1921
palestinus (Qafzeh) McCown and Keith 1932
njarensis (Eyasi) Reck and Kohl-Larsen 1936
kanamensis (Kanam) Leakey 1935
caprensis (Ceprano) Callegni et al 2003

reilingensis (Reilingen) Czarnetski 1989

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 09:04 PM
I want to see someone fit the Rhodesian skull and extra-cranial material into a framework of H. sapiens or erectus. Please, someone, make this monster make sense.

At present, Kabwe is firmly close to Bodo and Saldanha but even closer to an Indonesian specimen. The Kabwe lineage is shared more distantly by Sambungmacan 3, the Atapuerca pre-neanderthals from Sima de los Huesos, Petralona, Arago, Ceprano and Daka. Together they share a phylogenetic relationship with a lineage that includes neanderthals, and moderns with daliensis. Asian erectus (Sangiran and Zhoukoiudien), early African erectines (OH9, ER-3883 and ER-3733), early Palearctic erectines (Dmanisi), Narmada and Liang Bua are all more distantly related.

Cail
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 11:43 AM
I regret that no other hominid species except H. sapiens survived to our days :~(. Would be very, very interesting if they had.