tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8973162.post7436788626049612423..comments2024-03-27T16:44:31.600+05:30Comments on Stranded in the Present: Origins of Indians: Version 8.4Manju Edangamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00474338169829802934noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8973162.post-20844841773925653252010-12-26T00:17:08.479+05:302010-12-26T00:17:08.479+05:30It's evident. We're only missing direct co...It's evident. We're only missing direct comparison with some H. erectus mtDNA and/or nuclear DNA.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8973162.post-59129005712044260452010-12-25T22:11:10.543+05:302010-12-25T22:11:10.543+05:30There's no particular reason to believe that N...<i>There's no particular reason to believe that Neanderthals evolved in the modern Basque Country or near it, though it's indeed possible. Also there is no reason to consider non-sapiens hominins as a different genus ("N." - Neanderthal?)</i><br /><br />Let's say what's there in a name. I just wanted to make Neanderthal east/west distinction. No, I'm not referring to separate genus..they are subspecies (of subspecies ...maybe). <br /><br /><i>But the key evidence is genetic: their mtDNA is clearly pre-Ergaster, hence Erectus. </i><br />Well, until a new study declares it so, I don't have any reason to think Denisovans are hybrids.Manju Edangamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00474338169829802934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8973162.post-24084926572242400662010-12-24T16:46:12.849+05:302010-12-24T16:46:12.849+05:30"N. Euskaria"?
After googling "Eus..."N. Euskaria"?<br /><br />After googling "Euskaria" I could only find a handful of items all in Basque language, what implies that you are using this term as Indoeruopeanized form of Euskal Herria or Basque Country. However the normally and historically most common form is Vasconia, from a different non-native ethnonym (exonym probably at first). <br /><br />There's no particular reason to believe that Neanderthals evolved in the modern Basque Country or near it, though it's indeed possible. Also there is no reason to consider non-sapiens hominins as a different genus ("N." - Neanderthal?)<br /><br />Finally in the biological nomenclature these parts of the name are invariably produced using Latin declensions, so it'd be "Siberiensis" and "Vasconensis"/"Europaeus" or whatever...<br /><br />Regardless Denisovans are as population loosely related to Neanderthals but their mtDNA makes them as distant from them as of us and likely H. erectus in this aspect. All this clearly means that Denisovans were a hybrid Erectus-Neanderthal (or Erectus-Heidelbergensis) population and not an species on their own right. <br /><br />Their geographic position at the crossroads of Eastern Asia (H. erectus) and West Eurasia (H. neanderthalensis), their use of Mousterian tech, the fact that Neanderthals inhabited other caves in the same region... support this reasonable theory. But the key evidence is genetic: their mtDNA is clearly pre-Ergaster, hence Erectus. <br /><br />Denisovans therefore are genetic representatives, at least in part of H. erectus, what means that the component found in Melanesians at low levels (4.8%) is signature of an Erectus introgression at about half those levels (2.4% maybe). This component is more likely to have been picked in Sundaland or otherwise in Tropical Asia than in Siberia, where no H. sapiens lived before the colonization of Australia. <br /><br />The very dark pigmentation of Melanesians clearly indicate that they never lived (at least for long) in non-tropical areas. Compare with tropical Amerindians, who have completely lost the "black" (dark brown) color and can only achieve a light brown tan. This surely applies to other "black" populations of tropical Asia such as so many Indians, Andamanese, Negritos of Malaysia and Philippines...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com