back to article Homo sapiens: Hey you, Neanderthals! Neanderthals: We heard that

Computerised tomography scans and auditory bioengineering models of fossilised Neanderthals ears suggest our closest extinct cousins had a hearing range necessary to process human speech. The virtual reconstructions based on previously published fossil specimens by researchers at the Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Spain and …

  1. steelpillow Silver badge
    Trollface

    Species or specious?

    Well, computer reconstruction also shows they had a hyoid bone (the one that floats around near your vocal tract) which supports sophisticated vowel sounds, unlike apes. And skeletal/facial reconstruction shows that if they put on jeans and a T-shirt and walked down the High Street, they'd look no more than a little chunky and ugly - very like some of us, ahem.

    And they interbred with us, several times fairly freely - we all have some Neanderthal genes in us. Given all that, if we were talking dogs or horses here we would be talking of different breeds of the one species.

    The Neanderthal "species" label is so last-millennium sapiens sapiens chauvinist crap.

    Ain't it th' truth, you Denisovan-loaded East Asians out there, you?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Holmes

      Re: Species or specious?

      Speciesism.

      Every new discovery regarding Homo neanderthalensis points to the lack of meaningful differences between them and Homo Sapiens. It is well past time to reclassify them as a subspecies, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and us as homo sapiens sapiens.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Species or specious?

        >we all have some Neanderthal genes in us

        Isn't that only true for European/Middle-East/North-Africans?

        IIRC that was some of the push-back for accepting Neanderthal DNA theory, it sounded dangerously like claiming that "Aryans" were a different species

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Species or specious?

          dogs have "breeds", and yet they're all dogs.

          I suspect Neanderthal vs Human is more like that, rather than a separate species. This is more or less proved by the apparent evidence that Neanderthals and humans had viable offspring who then passed along genes from both.

          [usually separate species can't mate very well, though donkey+horse = mule, and mules are normally sterile]

          In any case, the similar hearing fits the concept that Neanderthal is just a "breed" of human.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Species or specious?

            [usually separate species can't mate very well, though donkey+horse = mule, and mules are normally sterile]

            The more this is studied, the more fertile interspecies crosses we find, like ligers (the females can breed with either lion or tiger males, liger males are infertile), or the savannah cat (fully fertile cross between a domestic cat and a serval).

            And birds just have a go with anybody, the randy little buggers. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/science/does-bird-mating-ever-cross-the-species-line.html

      2. Alumoi Silver badge

        Re: Species or specious?

        homo sapiens sapiens

        Look at most politicians/public figures, look me in the eyes and tell me again about the sapiens part. I dare you!

      3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Species or specious?

        "It is well past time to reclassify them as a subspecies,"

        What makes you think they are the sub-species? Maybe we are? They were here first. :-)

      4. Naselus

        Re: Species or specious?

        The definition of 'species' isn't quite as clear-cut as the biology textbooks like to pretend tbh. Some biologists have actually proposed abolishing it as an unhelpful categorization system which draws arbitrary lines between groups of organisms and only really make sense as a snapshot in time. Moreover, whichever way you attempt to define speciation, there usually turns out to be a whole load of exceptions to the rules. Is it physical similarity? But there's extreme variation in the physical form of many animals. Is it interbreeding? Lots of separate species can interbreed.

        After all, at some point some individuals which we categorize as Homo Ergaster must have been capable of interbreeding with some individuals we categorize as Homo Sapiens. Where you pick to draw the line between the two species is pretty arbitrary, since the every generation is able to interbreed with (and not physiologically significantly different from) the generations immediately preceding and succeeding it.

        The same thing applies to ring species that are alive today - Finch A can interbreed with Finch B, and Finch B can interbreed with Finch C, but A and C cannot. They're all types on finch, but is B a subspecies of A, a subspecies of C, or are two of them a subspecies of finch and the third for some reason not since it can only interbreed with some finches?

        It's a wonderful system for looking at the big picture, but once you get into the weeds it turns out that it doesn't map to reality very well.

        1. steelpillow Silver badge
          Flame

          Re: Species or specious?

          "Lots of separate species can interbreed."

          Darwin's answer was simple, "Then they are mis-classified and should be reclassified as sub-species". But of course the next Great Man, who mis-classified them, along with his acolytes and/or successors at the prestige institution which appointed him on the strength of it, will not hear of it. So let's all change what Darwin meant. WTF! Why, dear thoughtless souls, do you think that Darwin made so much of the idea of a sub-species?

          Ring species are a good example. It has never been a demand of species classification that every single individual can breed with every other of the opposite sex; an individual is not cast out of the species just because they happen to be born sterile. If certain populations of individuals cannot interbreed, this is not a problem provided all the individual populations are linked in the chain; we just say that sub-species X and Y cannot interbreed directly. But oh, my, the fuss from the I-don't-want-to-rewrite-my-textbook deadheads! Sorry folks, in IT we do that all the time.

          Then again, we need to understand that speciation is only relevant to sexual reproduction. For life forms which only reproduce asexually, it is meaningless.

          And so on.

          So no, lots of separate species cannot interbreed, that is just lazy and egocentric biologists trying to shift the work onto the lexicographers.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Species or specious?

      You're absolutely right: there seems to be a fetishism of linear evolution supported by a few fossils, even though interbreeding, which essentially makes a nonsense of linear evolution, is observed all the time.

      All we really know is that our current theories are inadequate.

    3. veti Silver badge

      Re: Species or specious?

      "They interbred with us" - given that you're talking about your own ancestors, what is the basis for labelling "them" and "us" in this story? Aren't they all "us"?

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Species or specious?

        Exactly. There was no "mysterious die out", the two groups merely assimilated each other and moved on, all the stronger for it ... with the caveat that it's possible that the Sapiens branch was more resistant to a new strain of influenza (or whatever) than the Neanderthal branch, thus the disparity in gene percentage.

        Regardless, I have met Neanderthals, and they is us. (With apologies to Walt Kelly, but I rather suspect he would have approved.)

        1. Potemkine! Silver badge

          Re: Species or specious?

          There was no "mysterious die out", the two groups merely assimilated each other and moved on

          I doubt that. That would not explain why there is no Neanderthal remains younger that 40,000 years old. That would mean that "suddenly" all Neanderthals would have chosen to mix with Sapiens.

          Also, AFAIK we have less of 2% of our genes coming from Neanderthal. That's very few for an assimilation.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: Species or specious?

            If you would take the time to bother reading the rest of the paragraph that you are responding to the first sentence of, I think you'll discover that I addressed your concerns.

            1. steelpillow Silver badge

              Re: Species or specious?

              Given that the Sapiens population was far more numerous at the time, the 2% of Neanderthal genes need to be refactored for that. We may each have only 2% in us, but collectively we have something like 40% (estimated to date).

              But it was all rather complicated. Fully modern Hom Sap did not appear until well on in the Neanderthal/Denisovan/nameless Africans era. For most of that time, hom sap was no more sophisticated than the others, and sporadic interbreedings took place. Only towards the end did Hom Sap suddenly go into higher gear - and all our isolated predecessors, the original Hom Sap included, were outbred and faded from the scene.

              We owe key parts of our immune system and the presence of gingers among us to the Neanderthals. Last I looked there was some debate over skin colouring. Similarly, East Asians owe their high-altitude/extreme cold tolerance to the Denisovans.

              Frankly, labelling them as different species smacks of racism.

        2. eric halfabe

          Re: Species or specious?

          It is likely that neanderthals were seasonal breeders like many animals that live near the poles. That would give homo sapiens a 12 to 1 advantage right off.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: Species or specious?

            You are not even wrong.

            1. eric halfabe

              Re: Species or specious?

              I know. After 2 or 3 generations there would be only 8% neanderthal DNA. What is staggering is that we currently have 4% each and 40% across the population.

  2. Mast1

    POTS

    Well, we have survived as homo sapiens using the "plain old telephone service" for around a century with an audio bandwidth extending from 500 to 3000 or 3500 Hz, (varies with the side of the pond), presumed to be sufficient to carry the bulk of the articulation in speech. The assumption is true if the context is easy to understand ("Get out of my cave") but much less so if there is little context, ("Do you prefer Bach or Bartok?"). Your homework for tonight: "Was communication between homo sapiens and neanderthals likely to be high context or low context? Discuss."

    1. steelpillow Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: POTS

      Judging by the amount of interbreeding, there was probably a lot of grunting involved.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: POTS

        you made me think of a joke involving a Neaderthal named "Ugg"

        ('who's on first' style)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: POTS

      Sadly given our subspecies' record, I imagine the Neanderthals were sitting around the campfire composing sonnets and discussing philosophy, and we snuck up, hit them over the head with a club and hen staggered off to the nearest pub singing 'Sapppiennnnns, Sapppiennnnns, , Sapppiennnnns '

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: POTS

        "KNOCK'EM UP! KNOCK'EM UP!"

        Fortunately we are now more civilised.

        1. BebopWeBop

          Re: POTS

          hmmmm - really :-)

    3. redpawn

      Re: POTS

      The rat in our ceiling space and our dog who would love to get it both have better hearing than I ever did. They both chose when to understand me and thank god neither of them can speak English yet.

    4. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: POTS

      not just telephones, but narrow band radio communications as well, limited to about 3khz. Narrow band FM is common for walkie-talkie systems, and short wave band (as I recall) is allocated in 5khz increments [unfortunately this means cross-talk at high frequencies but there ya go].

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: POTS

        Except Neanderthals seem to have had no concept of pots. But then, neither did Sapiens until roughly 20,000 years after the last of the genetic Neanderthals kicked the bucket. Wait ... maybe I should rephrase that ...

        1. BebopWeBop

          Re: POTS

          They stole the idea and killed off the Neanderthals to avoid a lawsuit.

  3. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
    Pint

    POTS Someone Had To Go There - It May As Well Be Me.

    Out evolved by a bunch of POTS Sanitisers.

  4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    The region of 3–5kHz is associated with the production of high-frequency consonants such as the voiceless plosives (in the English "p", "t" and "k") and the fricatives (eg, the English letters "f", "s" and "th").

    Sima de los Huesos with a median of 2.8kHz - better adapted to Estuary English, then.

  5. Drew Scriver

    I still get hung up on the name "Neanderthals", as it makes little sense grammatically. Instead, they ought to be called "Neanderthalers" (or preferably Neandertalers). As the name is derived from the "Neander Tal" (Thal), or "Neander Valley", it makes little sense to call the inhabitants of the valley "valleys" themselves.

    And please, drop the "h", especially in the pronunciation...

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "And please, drop the "h", especially in the pronunciation..."

      Why? So long as people understand what is meant. The French say Londres, not London in the same way we pronounce the S in Paris and the French don't. There's nothing wrong with localising pronunciation when it suits.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        >As the name is derived from the "Neander Tal" (Thal)

        Which was itself presumably the Latinized version of Neumann.

        Ironic that these ancient ancestors are called "new man"

  6. 89724102172714182892114I7551670349743096734346773478647892349863592355648544996312855148587659264921

    Given all the Neanderthal genes in huumans, they certainly knew the language of luuurvvve...

    1. Mast1
      Joke

      lurrrrrvvvvvv ?

      Perhaps its because they went out clubbing more often on a Saturday night ?

  7. Toni the terrible Bronze badge

    Hominoid

    So does this mean that if Bigfoot is another hominoid that the reason they stay hidden is that they can understand us (HSS) only too well?

    1. NoKangaroosInAustria
      Coat

      Re: Hominoid

      Exactly! Oh I almost forgot, Ben 10 says to tell you that he (Bigfoot) prefers to be called "Forgeti".

      Mine is the one with the Omnitrix in the pocket.

  8. Blackjack Silver badge

    We already knew that while not as smart as modern humans they were indeed quite smart.We also knew we breed with them so instead of them going extinct we became a single species. Now we have confirmation, well another one, that we could actually could communicate.

  9. Glenn Amspaugh
    Coat

    Great Artists Steal

    So this is where old Bill got that great line for Mark Antony.

  10. Archivist

    Attitudes

    Our perception of Neanderthals has changed over the years. When I was young Neanderthals were perceived as thuggish apes and incapable of most human actions.

    Is it any co-incidence that since we now understand that we are partly Neanderthal (it's in the DNA of many of us), they have become a cultured alternative human version that don't look too different from us.

    I also find it interesting that some Chinese anthropologists have spent a lot of time researching their Devonian branch of the evolutionary tree to try and prove that as a race they have no Neanderthal DNA.

    I don't know if I have any Neanderthal DNA, but a European it seems likely that I do. And I'm proud of it!

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Attitudes

      >When I was young Neanderthals were perceived as thuggish apes and incapable of most human actions.

      But since visiting Aberdeen I've come to recognise them as valuable members of the local community

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon