In Plain Sight

Posted by on December 21, 2010; This entry is filed under Uncategorized.
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

In Table S48, on page 135 of the supplement to the big Neandertal paper in Science, fourth line from the bottom, the text says ‘San closer to Han+French than to Yoruba (!)” – but that is a typo.

I trust you all see the implications.

12 Comments

  1. DK December 21st, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    Should read “San closer to Han+French than to Papuan”. So? The statement “Papuan closer to non-Africans than to Africans” has 10X higher Z-scores.

  2. Eric Johnson December 22nd, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    The two propositions highlighted by DK are consistent with one another – even if one is quantitatively much ‘more’ true than the other. And if they are both true, as seems to be the case, the implication is that Papuans have significantly more archaic derivation than other Eurasians (most likely) have. The upshot is that the latter truth was already implied by neandertable S48, lo these many months ago.

    I’m not certain, but I suspect it was also clear, at that time, that this additional Papuan archaicness (over and above the probable archaicness of other Eurasians) was non-neanderthal in nature. If so, I’m sure Mr. Cochran probably realized it, and the only news for him today, then, is the source of the ‘just’-discovered admixture: denisovan. Although knowing him he may have also somehow figured out some time ago that it was probably denisovan.

    Also, while the apparent neandermixture in Eurasians may also be somewhat susceptible to being alternatively explained by ancient population structure within Africa, the denisovamixture may be insusceptible to this sort of explanation (???). I am unsure about that.

  3. Eric Johnson December 22nd, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    > denisovamixture may be insusceptible to this sort of explanation (???)

    Or maybe just significantly less susceptible.

  4. gcochran December 22nd, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    There has for a long time been a suspicion that Australoids had erectus admixture.
    I’ve also seen funny genetic anomalies that are probably due to this.

    There were further hints this year. Long, looking at microsatellites, found evidence for one admixture that showed up in all Eurasians and another that showed up only in Melanesians. Moreover, Linda Vigilant (from Max Planck) found Long’s work interesting and said that it fit certain patterns they had seen in Melanesians. Later, in the fall, I noticed the clues in Table S48. I thought that the Denisova sample might be from the same population (from Occam’s razor), but was somewhat discouraged from this when Paabo said the Denisova pinkie was Neanderthal, as recently as two weeks ago.

    As for ancient population substructure in Africa – the idea that it explained the evidence of Neanderthal admixture was silly. The idea that it might explain Denisovan admixture in New Guinea is the turducken of silly.

  5. DK December 22nd, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    Of course the two statements are compatible. I wasn’t sure what it was the point about Papuans that Greg is making.

    when Paabo said the Denisova pinkie was Neanderthal, as recently as two weeks ago.

    Wow. How could he say that after publishing a paper on mtDNA with the main point that it is not from Neandertal?

  6. H. Hardrada December 22nd, 2010 at 6:40 pm

    You will have to forgive me, I am not very up to date on latest genetics research. I have been reading conflicting stories about this all day.

    (1) Is it the Melanasians (only) who are descended from the Denisovans, or are Europeans and Asians also?

    (2) Are the Denisovans part of H. Erectus?

    (3) Is there a consensus on whether Europeans and Asians are descended partly from Neanderthals?

  7. gcochran December 22nd, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    1. So far, Melanesians only. More exactly, I would say Australoids only: Australian Aborigines must have it too.

    2. I suspect so, the authors probably disagree.

    3. There should be, but there isn’t. I think it’s clear that Neanderthals contributed some ancestry to everyone outside of Africa, but some disagree. I haven’t heard any argument supporting that disagreement that makes sense to me.

    4. How’s that Stamford bridge thing working out for you?

  8. H. Hardrada December 22nd, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    Thanks Prof. Cochran, a few other things also.

    (1) Were Neanderthals in both Europe and Asia, whereas Erectus was only in Asia?

    (2) Was there, do you think, a campaign of war/genocide against Neanderthals or were they just outnumbered and absorbed? Could disease transmission from the ‘modern’ Homo Sapiens have mostly eliminated Neanderthals like happened to the Indians in the New World? Or was that only possible due to animal domestication (a la Diamond)?

    (3) Do we know at what point the Neanderthals “died off”? I had heard that the last evidence of there existence was about 20,000 years ago in Iberia – is this just a case of more research needed to find more recent “extinction”?

    (4) What can I say about Stamford Bridge? Hastings ruined the English anyway + I prefer him to the Normans

  9. gcochran December 23rd, 2010 at 10:00 am

    1. There are areas that are unclear, but Neanderthals were clearly in Europe, the Middle East, and southern Siberia.

    2. Nothing like a campaign or war, those are late development. Little bands must have sometimes fought. Our side won more often than not, due to something or other: smarts, numbers, who can say for sure ?

    3. Last was about 28k years ago in southern Spain, but dating revisions might change that a little either way.

  10. FM Transmitter December 25th, 2010 at 7:23 am

    I always wanted to know if Neanderthal bones were found in other parts of the world like Egypt or India.
    Maybe just in europe they died but in those parts they mated with humans and survived

  11. jb January 1st, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    There has for a long time been a suspicion that Australoids had erectus admixture.

    How long? I remember reading many years ago — maybe even 30 or 40 — that if paleontologists weren’t careful about the criteria they used to define Homo Erectus, their definitions would sometimes end up including the Australian Aborigines. (Well, the Abos certainly do have a different look to them, don’t they?)

  12. gcochran January 3rd, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Franz Weidenreich certainly talked about a special connection between Australians and archaic hominid fossils in Indonesia in the 1940s, maybe earlier (I haven’t read that much of his work). Herman Klaatsch talked about it as far back as 1908.
    I think it’s pretty obvious if you compare the skulls. In recent decades, it became generally unobvious, for some reason.

Leave a Reply

a