Traces of two unknown archaic human species turn up in modern DNA

Fossils are the most reliable way we can piece together the history of humans, but some clues have been inside us all along. The human genome can tell us where we’ve come from, and it’s hiding more than a few surprises. Now researchers from the University of Adelaide have found evidence of two unknown, archaic human species in modern DNA.

more…

I was aware that researchers were saying “at least one…” for quite some time.

party_pants said:

I was aware that researchers were saying “at least one…” for quite some time.

New to me.

“The team identified the islands of Southeast Asia as a particular hotbed of this interbreeding, with modern humans cozying up to at least three different archaic species. One of them is the Denisovans, which have previously been identified in the genomes of people of Asian, Melanesian and indigenous Australian descent. But the other two remain unidentified.”

Floresiensis?

“genetic studies on an Alaskan fossil revealed a previously-unknown population of Native Americans.”

Not surprising. We know there was a pre-Clovis migration.

Somebody has to start assigning dates to these populations. And doing more about DNA sequencing of fossils Erectus, Heidelbergensis and Floresiensis for starters.

It would be extra nice if someone did the same sort of analysis on populations of Canus familiaris. ASAP.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

I was aware that researchers were saying “at least one…” for quite some time.

New to me.

“The team identified the islands of Southeast Asia as a particular hotbed of this interbreeding, with modern humans cozying up to at least three different archaic species. One of them is the Denisovans, which have previously been identified in the genomes of people of Asian, Melanesian and indigenous Australian descent. But the other two remain unidentified.”

Floresiensis?

“genetic studies on an Alaskan fossil revealed a previously-unknown population of Native Americans.”

Not surprising. We know there was a pre-Clovis migration.

Somebody has to start assigning dates to these populations. And doing more about DNA sequencing of fossils Erectus, Heidelbergensis and Floresiensis for starters.

It would be extra nice if someone did the same sort of analysis on populations of Canus familiaris. ASAP.

Problem is that the older the specimen the less likely any usable DNA still exists, it to be preserved only in very rare cases where the conditions are just right. The sequencing of Denisovan DNA was pushing the very limit of the technology in 2010.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

I was aware that researchers were saying “at least one…” for quite some time.

New to me.

“The team identified the islands of Southeast Asia as a particular hotbed of this interbreeding, with modern humans cozying up to at least three different archaic species. One of them is the Denisovans, which have previously been identified in the genomes of people of Asian, Melanesian and indigenous Australian descent. But the other two remain unidentified.”

Floresiensis?

“genetic studies on an Alaskan fossil revealed a previously-unknown population of Native Americans.”

Not surprising. We know there was a pre-Clovis migration.

Somebody has to start assigning dates to these populations. And doing more about DNA sequencing of fossils Erectus, Heidelbergensis and Floresiensis for starters.

It would be extra nice if someone did the same sort of analysis on populations of Canis familiaris. ASAP.

Problem is that the older the specimen the less likely any usable DNA still exists, it to be preserved only in very rare cases where the conditions are just right. The sequencing of Denisovan DNA was pushing the very limit of the technology in 2010.

I’m not sure that that’s the problem. The problem may be “you’re not touching my specimen”. Specimen owners would be loath to see a unique and highly valuable specimen destroyed in the search for DNA. I infer that because only junk bone, bone unassignable to any human species, or specific skeletal part, was tested for DNA at Denisova.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

New to me.

“The team identified the islands of Southeast Asia as a particular hotbed of this interbreeding, with modern humans cozying up to at least three different archaic species. One of them is the Denisovans, which have previously been identified in the genomes of people of Asian, Melanesian and indigenous Australian descent. But the other two remain unidentified.”

Floresiensis?

“genetic studies on an Alaskan fossil revealed a previously-unknown population of Native Americans.”

Not surprising. We know there was a pre-Clovis migration.

Somebody has to start assigning dates to these populations. And doing more about DNA sequencing of fossils Erectus, Heidelbergensis and Floresiensis for starters.

It would be extra nice if someone did the same sort of analysis on populations of Canis familiaris. ASAP.

Problem is that the older the specimen the less likely any usable DNA still exists, it to be preserved only in very rare cases where the conditions are just right. The sequencing of Denisovan DNA was pushing the very limit of the technology in 2010.

I’m not sure that that’s the problem. The problem may be “you’re not touching my specimen”. Specimen owners would be loath to see a unique and highly valuable specimen destroyed in the search for DNA. I infer that because only junk bone, bone unassignable to any human species, or specific skeletal part, was tested for DNA at Denisova.

humans are what they are.