3 ms·
> the recent discovery of a female Denisovan finger bone and various teeth shows that they had no morphological similarities to either Neanderthals or modern hu
by dghf 9y ago
> the recent discovery of a female Denisovan finger bone and various teeth shows that they had no morphological similarities to either Neanderthals or modern humans.
Does "morphological similarities" have a particular definition in palaeoanthropology beyond the apparently plain meaning of the words? Even if "they" refers to the finger bone and teeth rather than the Denisovans as a whole, I would have thought they would have had some morphological similarities to modern humans, otherwise they wouldn't be recognisable as a finger bone and teeth.
- icebraining 9y agoAlso, how could they have mated, let alone have hybrid children?
- mabbo 9y agoFor some modern people, as much as 5% of their DNA comes from neanderthals. Pretty-close species can have hybrid children, but the more distant the less likely the child will be fully-functional. Consider mules (horse + donkey) which are sterile or the infamous Ligers and Tigons (Lion + Tiger can make some monstrously large cats).
- goodJobWalrus 9y agoI remember reading that Australian aboriginals have up to 5% of Denisovan genes (don't remember source, but it was widely reported after the discovery)
- icebraining 9y agoMy question was how they could mate without having any morphological similarities. Horses and donkeys surely do!