3 ms·
At >4mybp, this species may have been genetically close enough to interbreed with chimp ancestors. If it overlapped with afarensis and other australopithecines,
by dalbasal 7y ago
At >4mybp, this species may have been genetically close enough to interbreed with chimp ancestors. If it overlapped with afarensis and other australopithecines, hybridisation almost certainly would have been possible. These guys were as closely related (at least in the earliest periods) to eachother as we were to Neanderthals, denisovans and the other undiscovered species who we know our ancestors mixed with.
Homo habilis started its career as an australapithicine, and could probably reproduce with "non-homo" species.
A lot of the classification only makes sense after the fact. If habilis hadn't produced the homo genus, it would just be an australapithicine, and we wouldn't consider it separate from them.
- Robotbeat 7y agoTo what extent does number of chromosomes matter, here? I'm still confused about how species with different number of chromosomes can successfully interbreed without major problems in their offspring and thus I am still confused about the process of how a species can change its number of chromosomes (since the genetic problems that might occur with such crossbreeding would not likely be terribly helpful in survival). Is there any really good explanation for this that someone can point me to?
- dalbasal 7y agoHaving a different number of chromosomes is a hurdle, but not an absolute barrier to offspring reproductive viability. It's not necessarily an issue for animal health. Horses & donkeys have a different number of chromosomes. They're also separated by an estimated 4m years of evolution, which is around the rule of thumb limit for large mammal hybridization so it makes sense that they're borderline hybridizable. They have shorter generations than us apes. Anyway, mules are healthy. No survival issues. They are mostly infertile, but not 100% of the time.