Neanderthals ‘had sex’ with modern man

Neanderthals ‘had sex’ with modern man

From an article in the Times

Modern humans and Neanderthals had sex across the species barrier, according to a leading geneticist who is overseeing a project to compare their genomes.

Professor Svante Paabo, director of genetics at the renowned Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, will shortly publish his analysis of the entire Neanderthal genome, using DNA retrieved from fossils. He aims to compare it with the genomes of modern humans and chimpanzees to work out the ancestry of all three species.

I can’t say I’m surprised to see this. Later (transitional) Neanderthals picked up modern human traits like chins and more complex burial rituals, and a few sets of remains do look hybrid. If you look at the more recent reconstructions such as ‘Wilma’ (from Nat geo), they don’t look massively different to modern humans.

In addition to this there are numerous DNA studies that suggest a low level on Neanderthal contribution to Europeans (5% or less seems the norm) even though Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes are absent.

Out of Africa again and again

Possible Ancestral Structure in Human Populations

Archaic admixture in the human genome

Detecting ancient admixture and estimating demographic parameters in multiple human populations

There are a few more, but you get the point.

From looking at the difference between Mesolithic and modern Europeans mt DNA, I know that it would be easy to lose a small minority contributor through drift, and it’s unlikely that (as a group being exterminated)  male Neanderthals would have made any kind of traceable contribution, as females may be absorbed from lower status groups, but males usually aren’t.

Theres also a  vid which mentions the subject by Prof Paabo on the subject on Youtube. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

Advertisement

We aren’t all the same- science is finding evidence of genetic diversity between populations as well as between individuals

Let’s celebrate human genetic diversity

Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein Nature, 8 October 2009

Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity’s chief assets.

The current moral position is a sort of ‘biological egalitarianism’. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind’s common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

Many people may acknowledge the possibility of genetic diversity at the group level, but see it as a threat to social cohesion. Some scholars have even called for a halt to research into the topic or sensitive aspects of it, because of potential misuse of the information. Others will ask: if information on group diversity can be misused, why not just focus on individual differences and ignore any group variation? We strongly affirm that society must guard vigilantly against any misuse of genetic information, but we also believe that the best defence is to take a positive attitude towards diversity, including that at the group level. We argue for our position from two perspectives: first, that the understanding of group diversity can benefit research and medicine, and second, that human genetic diversity as a whole, including group diversity, greatly enriches our species. 

Emerging understanding of human genetic diversity

Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.

Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people’s DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.

Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person’s major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).

For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.

Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies. 

A news worthy article, that won’t probably get the attention it deserves in the general media. I’ve noticed over the past few years more and more papers are being published along these lines, and I’d just like to applaud them for having the courage to put this in print, as this kind of published work (observing what are essentially racial differences) can really endanger your career. Most notable was this …

It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels

Which really goes counter to what it generally presented to the public in those cosy channel four and BBC documentaries like ‘In the blood’  and ‘ Race, the last taboo’. Prof. Jones will not be a happy man when he reads this. Also worthy of attention was this (condensed, it’s in the text as a whole) …

Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups …..We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous…We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

So there you go. We aren’t all the same. I’ve believed for the past seven years, ever since I started to show a deeper interest in anthropology and genetics, the ‘no such thing as race’ paradigm was driven by (well meant) egalitarianism ideology and not fact. If there’s no such thing as race, there can’t be racial differences and, ergo, no racism. I think that Lahn’s and Ebenstein’s hopes for a grown up acceptance of between-group differences may be unfulfilled, as the average human just isn’t that reasonable.

Detecting ancient admixture and estimating demographic parameters in multiple human populations

Detecting ancient admixture and estimating demographic parameters in multiple human populations (pdf)

A rather odd looking pdf- runs a lot like a mini PowerPoint presentation, by the man who published the recent paper that concluded there probably was archaic admixture in humans. And yet again.. I see the 40k-60k OOA date in print. Grr.

Detecting ancient admixture and estimating demographic parameters in multiple human populations

We analyze patterns of genetic variation in extant human polymorphism data from the NIEHS SNPs project to estimate human demographic parameters. We update our previous work by considering a larger data set (more genes and more populations), and by explicitly estimating the amount of putative admixture between modern humans and archaic human groups (e.g., Neandertals, Homo erectus, H. floresiensis). We find evidence for this ancient admixture in European, East Asian and West African samples, suggesting that admixture between diverged hominin groups may be a general feature of recent human evolution.

Yet another DNA study that finds evidence of archaic contributions in modern human groups. Odd how these don’t make the news but anything that finds in favour of the OOA gets splattered all over the media.

We estimate admixture proportions of 14 % (95% CI: 8 – 20 %) in the European-American sample and 1.5% (95% CI: 0.5 – 2.5 %) in the East Asian sample. In both cases, the relative log-likelihood for a = 0 (i.e., no ancient admixture) is significantly lower than the maximum likelihood (likelihood-ratio test, p < 10-3) , which provides additional evidence (along with the S* results in the previous paragraph) that ancient admixture occurred. The estimates of admixture rates in Europeans are consistent with estimates of Neandertal admixture obtained from analyses of Neandertal DNA (Serre et al. 2004; Noonan et al. 2006), [. . .] Unlike previous studies, we incorporated admixture between archaic and modern humans as an additional demographic parameter to be co-estimated. Interestingly, we could exclude no admixture (i.e., exclude a = 0) in both of the non-African populations studied

 The observation that all (three) populations studied seem to have evidence for ancient admixture suggests that ancient population structure may be a common feature of all contemporary human populations, and this ancient structure may predate the initial expansion of modern humans out of Africa.

Although some of the archaic DNA isn’t found in Africa, which would make the archaic admixture prior to the OOA hard to explain. This paper also finds evidence for archaic admixture in the Yoruba. I remember reading previously that the X chromosome showed signs of archaic ancestry in one pygmy group, so archaic ancestry in West Africa is supported by another paper. More detail… Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome, which concluded the TMRCA was about 2 million years for one locus on the X chromosome and concludes..

For now, this locus represents a genealogical history that is most consistent with recent admixture from an archaic hominin population in Asia

Which is a far cry from Svante Paabo’s ‘no admixture but they were within the range of modern humans’ claim, which I found a bit odd. So you found they had essentially human DNA with us but decided they didn’t mingle …how?

I’d just like to comment that the OOA/RAR theory leaves absolutely NO room for any ancient DNA cropping in non Africans that doesn’t have a root in Africa- but it does, with remarkable frequency. In other words, the OOA doesn’t ‘fit’. That OOA is true of mostof our ancestry means sod all, it has to be true for all of it and it’s rather blatantly NOT the case, as there are a plethora of non-African but ancient in Eurasia mutations that invalidate it. Particularly the non African MC1R mutation ages that have ages of 100k-250k and a TMRCA of a million years.

Both African and non-African data suggest that the time to the most recent common ancestor is ª1 million years and that the age of the global 314 variant is 650,000 years. On this time scale, ages for the Eurasian distributed Val60Leu, Val92Met, and Arg163Gln variants are 250,000–100,000 years;

I’m going to have to make up a proper list of the DNA studies that find against the OOA theory.

My main objections to a recent out of Africa date.

Also known as the ‘I’m not typing this out in the comments anymore‘ entry. I keep seeing the 40k for the out of Africa date in print, and it’s starting to get on my nerves just a bit. Some of sites these don’t have bones, but modern human associated industries. This is not including any sites in or South of the Sahara.

I’ll start with the oldest first.

Skhul, Israel.

Dates ranging from 130,000 -100,000 BP on assorted remains.  The crania shown is Skhul V, roughly dated to 105,000 BP. Many archaic traits, but anatomically modern humans. The in theory is that the 130,000  year old colonisation of Asia failed due to climate conditions, although it didn’t seem to bother the Neanderthals in the area. There’s a gap in the record from 92,000 BP to about 45,000 BP, which only has Neanderthal remains (so far).

Qafzeh, Israel

Modern human remains about 92,000 BP. The best known is of a 12 year old boy.

Jebel Irhoud, Morocco.

Estimated dates range from 160,000 to 90,000 BP. More modern humans with archaic traits-so archaic they were mistaken for Neanderthals for years.

Frontal view of cast of adult male Homo sapiens from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco. Link.

 

Taforalt, Morocco.

Aterian shell beads  found dated from 110,000 BP to 82,000 BP. The Aterian was continuous in North Africa until the Dabban and IberoMaurassian industries 40,000 and 20,000 BP.

Henan province, China.

Modern human teeth dated to around 94,000 BP, and the Xuchang/ Liujiang skull dated to at least 68,000 BP and possibly as old as 159,000 BP.

Pdf.

 

 Nauwalabila I, Australia.

 Oldest thermoluminescence date of 60,300+6,700 years on stone tools .

Malakunanja II, Australia.

Thermoluminescence dates of prior to 50,000 BP. There’s also a claimed but very poorly provenenced date of 116k in a site in Kimberly.

Topper site, S. Carolina, USA.

Site dated  ~50,000 BP with C14.

Pedra Furada, Brazil.

Oldest date for site occupation 60,000 BP ,according to the archaeologist.

Kota Tampan, Malaysia.

Pebble tools associated with modern humans dating back to 75,000 BP. The pebble tools were found in a later burial with a modern human (Perak man).

Niah Cave, Borneo.

Skull dated to 40,000 to 42,000 BP.

Üçağızlı Cave, Turkey

EUP site about 43,000 BP.

Ksar ‘Akil, Lebanon.

EUP site dated to 45,000 BP

 And Dr Stephen Oppenheimer has worked out it woukd take about 20,000 years for modern humans to work their way into Australia from Africa. so add that on to any Australian and American sites for a minimum OOA date.

There are probably a few I’ve missed. Some of the Indian sites under the Toba ash are claimed as modern human sites, but there’s a lack of bones so I won’t include those, although I suspect they are right. Some are on this pdf, with more detail from this paper, Modern Human Origins and the Evolution of Behavior in the Later Pleistocene Record of South Asia. From this a few snippets..

A number of mtDNA lineages (specifically U2i, M2,and R5) share coalescence dates of 50,000–70,000 yearsago (Kivisild et al. 2000, Metspalu et al. 2004) and may represent an India-specific subcladerelated to the initial dispersal of modern humans into the peninsula.

A Middle Paleolithic scraper-based industry from Patpara in the Middle Son Valley is dated to~103,000 years ago (Blumenschine, Brandt, and Clark 1983, Williams and Clarke1995), while dates of 75,000 and160,000 years ago areassociated with artifacts recovered from Samnapur (Nar-mada Valley) and Balotra (Luni River valley) (Mishra etal. 1999, Misra et al. 1990). The dating of miolites in the Hiran Valley places assemblages classed as Middle Paleolithic at 69,000–56,000 years ago (Baskaran et al.1986). The earliest assemblage classified as Upper Paleolithic is currently Site 55, Pakistan, where the loess overlying the occupational horizon has been dated to ca 45,000 years before present(Dennell et al. 1992).

One of my main objections to a more recent OOA date is that it doesn’t make sense with the dates of the backmigration mt DNA into Africa and the mt DNA in early Europeans. In a nutshell, there was a back migration of mt U and M1 from Asia, which appears to have been accompanied by Y chromosome R1, somewhere from 40,000 to 35,000 BP- supported by stone tool cultures and later dates of mt DNA in the same area matching the cultural epxansions. The problem with a more recent OOA date is that you have to skip impossibly quickly from L3 to U if the exit date is around the 40,000 mark. The same is true for the migrations into Europe where much later haplotypes are found relatively quickly in time and it just wouldn’t allow enough time to get from L3 to pre HV. There’s also not enough time for Y chromosome R1 to appear with the more recent OOA dates. The estimated dates on the mt DNA make a lot more sense when compared to an OOA date of 100k, and the Y chromosome date estimates are starting to get old enough to be an acceptable match. Which is why I’m taking the side that supports humans being on the other side of Asia when the Toba eruption occurred.

I’m in good company at least. Cavalli Sforza’s estimated date for the separation of African and non African populations was 146,000 BP.

The first estimate gave a separation time of the first migrants out of Africa of 146,000 years ago

I’ve seen at one other paper where the date was 120,ooo. My guess would be that modern humans were inhabiting North Africa and particularly the Nile delta (which as far as I know never dried out) for a while before a move into Asia was made. The structure of this Aterian population was wiped out by the later backmigrations from West Asia, and no North African mt DNA dates back prior to this era.

And now I have an evil headache. I’ll have a better look at the Petraglia pdf later…

Skhul/Qafzeh early modern human hand function

Behavioral inferences from the SkhulyQafzeh early modern human hand remains.

Two groups of humans are found in the Near East ~100,000 years ago, the late archaic Neanderthals and the early modern Skhul/ Qafzeh humans. Observations that Neanderthals were more heavily muscled, had stronger upper-limb bones, and possessed unusual shapes and orientations of some upper-limb joint complexes relative to the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids, have led some researchers to conclude that significant between-group upper limb- related behavioral differences must have been present, despite the  association of the two groups with similar Middle Paleolithic archeological complexes. A three-dimensional morphometric analysis of the hand remains of the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids, Neanderthals, early and late Upper Paleolithic humans, and Holocene humans supports the dichotomy. The Skhul/Qafzeh carpometacarpal remains do not have any unique morphologies relative to the other fossil samples remains examined. However, in the functionally significant metacarpal 1 and 3 bases they resemble Upper Paleolithic humans, not Neanderthals. Furthermore, the
Skhul/Qafzeh sample differs significantly from the  Neanderthals in many other aspects of hand functional anatomy. Given the correlations between changes in tool technologies and functional adaptations seen in the hands of Upper Paleolithic humans, it is concluded that the  Skhul/Qafzeh hand remains were adapted to Upper Paleolithic-like manipulative repertoires. These results support the inference of significant behavioral differences between Neanderthals and the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids and indicate that a significant shift in human manipulative behaviors was associated with the earliest stages of the emergence of modern humans.

A little prep work for my list of before 40k sites where modern Humans are found out of Africa.

The fossil remains from the ‘80,000- to 100,000-year-old site of Skhul (5) and the  100,000-year-old site of Qafzeh (1, 2), both in Israel, are craniofacially more modern and less muscular than Neanderthals.

These features, plus the results just presented, demonstrate that the Skhul/Qafzeh and Neanderthal samples are distinct from each other in the most functionally significant regions of the hand and that the Skhul/Qafzeh hand remains are morphologically and functionally within the range of the combined EUP/LUP samples.

Although there is some arguing about who these people were, the general agreement is that they were modern humans, dated to about 100k ago in Israel. There are shell beads  dated to 100,000 -130,000 years from this site.

Pdf on evolution in North Africa.

A click on the image will enlarge the size so it’s readable.

The pdf, which is from an encyclopedia on human evolution is here. The ancient sites aren’t really my interest, but it has some info on the Iberomaurussian sites in the text.

Y chromosome haplogroups: a correlation with testicular dysgenesis syndrome?

Y chromosome haplogroups: a correlation with testicular dysgenesis syndrome?

McElreavey K, Quintana-Murci L.
Reproduction, Fertility and Populations, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France. kenmce@pasteur.fr

Testicular dysgenesis syndrome encompasses low sperm quality, hypospadias, cryptorchidism and testicular cancer. Epidemiological studies and genetic data from familial cases suggest that testicular dysgenesis syndrome has a common etiology. The Y chromosome is known to encode genes that are involved in germ cell development or maintenance. We have therefore investigated if different classes of Y chromosomes in the general population (Y chromosome haplogroups) are associated with aspects of the testicular dysgenesis syndrome. We defined the Y chromosome haplogroups in individuals from different European counties who presented with either (i) oligo- or azoospermia associated with a Y chromosome microdeletion, (ii) unexplained reduced sperm counts (<20 x 10(6)/ml) or (iii) testicular cancer. We failed to find Y chromosome haplotype associations with either microdeletion formation or testicular cancer. However, in a study of the Danish population, we found that a specific Y chromosome haplogroup (hg26) is significantly overrepresented in men with unexplained reduced sperm counts compared with a Danish control population. The factors encoded by genes on this class of Y chromosome may be particularly susceptible to environmental influences that cause testicular dysgenesis syndrome. Our current data highlight the need for further analyses of clinically well-defined patient groups from a wide range of ethnic and geographic origins.

Another study that suggests a Y chromosome prone to infertility.

Evidence for the association of Y-chromosome haplogroups with susceptibility to spermatogenic failure in a Chinese Han population

Evidence for the association of Y-chromosome haplogroups with susceptibility to spermatogenic failure in a Chinese Han population

Yang Y, Ma M, Li L, Zhang W, Xiao C, Li S, Ma Y, Tao D, Liu Y, Lin L, Zhang S.
Department of Medical Genetics and State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, P R China.

INTRODUCTION: Y chromosomes are genetically highly variable due to frequent structural rearrangements. The variations may create a genetic background for the susceptibility to Y-related spermatogenic impairment, although few data have been accumulated about the possible correlation between the Y-chromosome haplotype and the predisposition of men to spermatogenic failure.

 OBJECTIVE: To investigate the possible association of Y-chromosome background with spermatogenic failure.

METHODS: The distribution of 18 Y-chromosome haplogroups was compared between 414 infertile men with azoospermia or oligozoospermia and 262 normozoospermic men with or without AZFc deletions in a Han population of Southwest China.

RESULTS: A significant population difference in Y-haplogroup distribution was found between the groups of normozoospermia and azoospemia or oligozoospermia, and between the patient groups with oligozoospermia and azoospermia without AZFc deletions. Interpopulation comparison of Y haplogroup frequencies showed that the distribution of the haplogroups C, K* and O3* were significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the association of Y-chromosome background with impaired spermatogenesis, suggesting that Y variations play a role in the occurrence and even the severity of spermatogenic failure. Furthermore, both AZFc deletions and other Y-chromosome structural variations may be important for determining the susceptibility to spermatogenic failure. Our findings emphasise the necessity of more extensive study on Y-chromosome variations for better understanding of spermatogenesis and its pathology.

I’m very pro the idea of the Y chromsome being subject to natural selection. Some types being better sperm producers than others would explain that.

Recent Human evolution in North West Africa

Recent Human evolution in North West Africa

I can’t paste any of this to the blog unfortunately. It has a lot of usable information about the very oldest North African remains (Jebel Irhoud, etc). The abstract says that …

…the rise of anatomically modern features cannot be restricted to an east Afrian or sub Saharan origin.

Because the North West African samples are just as old as the Ethiopian ones, with modern features.. although they are more archaic than the Skhul skull. The Jebel Irhoud specimens (date rather vague, from 90k to 190k, with 160k seeming to be the favourite) were thought for a long time to be North African Neanderthals. This paper has a very close look at them. It cconcludes that if an African cradle for humanity is assumed, it should extend from North Africa to South Africa, and should also include the middle East. This does ask though, what happened to the AMH’s of North Africa. They were apparently wiped out by the back migration of Eurasians about 30k ago, leaving no (as yet detected) trace.

Any blog regulars… normal service will be resumed in a few days. I’m a bit busy at the moment.

The evolution and development of cranial form in Homo sapiens

The evolution and development of cranial form in Homo sapiens
Daniel E. Lieberman,*† Brandeis M. McBratney,* and Gail Krovitz‡

Despite much data, there is no unanimity over how to define Homo sapiens in the fossil record. Here, we examine cranial variation among Pleistocene and recent human fossils by using a model of cranial growth to identify unique derived features (autapomorphies) that reliably distinguish fossils attributed to “anatomically modern” H. sapiens (AMHS) from those attributed to various taxa of “archaic” Homo spp. (AH) and to test hypotheses about the changes in cranial development that underlie the origin of modern human cranial form. In terms of pattern, AMHS crania are uniquely characterized by two general structural autapomorphies: facial retraction and neurocranial globularity. Morphometric analysis of the ontogeny of these autapomorphies indicates that the developmental changes that led to modern human cranial form derive from a combination of shifts in cranial base angle, cranial fossae length and width, and facial length. These morphological changes, some of which may have occurred because of relative size increases in the temporal and possibly the frontal lobes, occur early in ontogeny, and their effects on facial retraction and neurocranial globularity discriminate AMHS from AH crania. The existence of these autapomorphies supports the hypothesis that AMHS is a distinct species from taxa of “archaic” Homo (e.g., Homo neanderthalensis).

Just one for the record.