This is the graphics they show: http://www.nature.com/news/535218a-i2-jpg-7.37680?article=1.20231 http://www.nature.com/news/535218a-i2-jpg-7.37680?article=1..

This is the graphics they show: http://www.nature.com/news/535218a-i2-jpg-7.37680?article=1.20231 http://www.nature.com/news/535218a-i2-jpg-7.37680?article=1.... So its about Asians being on their own branch (also out of Africa, earlier) according to this, not Asia as the original origin. From the text: > Stringer even suggests that H. heidelbergensis might have originated in Asia and then spread to other continents. > But many researchers, including most Chinese palaeontologists, contend that the materials from China are different from European and African H. heidelbergensis fossils, despite some apparent similarities. So I read this that the Chinese opinion is explicitly not that they are the origin for all, only that they are on their own branch. And this is quite clear: > Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. It says "of modern Asian people". > In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu.