In considering the matter of relic hominoids and the concept of bushiness in our family tree, there are a couple of different things which are both in operation and both of them are working against each other. One is thetenfy and that is what causes the bushiness. But against the creation of new species there are the two major constraints of the time necessary to a new species and the available quantity of genetic changes which are possible within that time. You have a problem of time and you have a problemn of (genetic) space. Along with this is the central problem I always bring up: scientists have yet to make a definition of exactly how much genetic difference is need between two creature's genomes to determine a species which will be agreeable to all of the experts involved.
Recently I posted this chart on this blog along with the discussion on the genetic study it went with. The results shown on this chart show the interesting feature that whileeal of separation between the Classic Western European Neandertals and Denisovans, the gap is largely filled up by the older and more diversified Neanderthaloids which include the Asiatic populations. The Asiatic ones are about as far genetically from the Europeans as they are from the Denisovans. The likelihood that the Denisovans actually constitute a separate species is drastically reduced.
Proponents of bushiness are going on a general theory which is drawing on an estimated range of total number of species and estimating what share of that diversity should be in our family tree. Neither of those figures is actually demonstrated or even demonstrable: they are theoretical ideals. There are some practical considerations about how far one can take these things literally. I am also fond of pointing out that there is only so much genetic space between chimpanzees and humans and the tests state that the Neandertal DNA can take up to HALF of that available space, so where are you going to fit all of those other intermediate species in between. From the practical point of view, you need to be reducing the number of species and easing up on the pressure to fit more species into the ever-shrinking gap, rather than trying to multiply the number of species.
There is thus the balancing of diversifying categories for relic hominoid species and the numbery represent and then again consolidating the putitive species into fewer categories in order to satisfy the more conservative academics and the lumpers.
Two recent articles by my friend Tyler Stone illustrate the problems we are dealing with both in creating the family trees and in estimating the number of reported types of unknowns we are dealing with. They are indicated below.
Archaic Homo sapiens[Tyler Sone's blog Titanoceratops, for March 7, 2012]
|Comparison by Dale Drinnon of four basic cryptid primate types, including my
Image from frontiersofzoology.com.
Monday, March 12, 2012
The Mystery Primate Omnibus (Sort of)
Additionally, while others would have Erectus Hominins be added to the above group as well, thus being the same species as H. sapiens, I consider H. erectus to be a distinct species and have thus decided to let the category stand.
I also see where there could be confusion: this is not an original list. It is my attempt to combine the lists of others in a way that makes sense and is accurate for the animals being described. Likewise, these categories aren't meant to symbolize one species, but rather is a simple way to sort different species into basic categories based on physical and behavioral characteristics. To prevent confusion, here is a list to show the total number of species present.
Wildmen (two, possibly three species)
- Neanderthaloid [including a normal-sized and a large-sized morph like H.heidelbergensis]
- Erectus Hominin
- ?H. floresiensis?
- "Skunk Ape"
- American Siamang
- Freshwater (Eurasian)
- Freshwater (American)
Out of this list, however, Neanderthaloids, Erectus Hominins/H. floresiensis, and the Asian Neo-Giants appear to represent species known from the fossil record. On the other hand, Gracile and Robust Australopithecines, "Skunk Apes," and American Neo-Giants are all probably new species of known genera. This means that they all qualify as being known in one way or another. Thus, only the "Yeti," Parapongo, American Siamang, and Merbeings are completely unknown, and likely all represent new species and genera, if not new families.
|Primate family tree created by Dale Drinnon. While I agree with his points here,
I would also add a branch for Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Homo
Image from frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com
Comment posted by Tzieth at Bigfoot Evidence on Mar 9, 2012 05:48 PM
Here is an example of how you can't assume all Hominid reports are Sasquatch (As in Patty). Almasty of Russia, Mongolia, China and the Caucasus are reported to make fire and medicinal teas and occasionally ware clothes and carry weapons. We also have these reports in the Pacific Northwest and Canada. "Neanderthaliods" The things in the South behave completely different and seem to be hairier and shorter on average. Unlike in the PNW, these things are said to be highly aggressive and territorial. (Pacific Northwest Sasquatch are thought to be nomadic and migratory as sightings drop in the winter here in Washington.)
Some of the Southern reports say they have fangs and four or three toed feet which could mean a mix of two different creatures reported in the same areas. which brings me to Skunkapes. Skunkapes have fangs and would leave three or four toed footprints [plus the offset "Thumb"] because they are most likely true apes with hand like feet. Depending on how the toes are spread as they walk, the prints from the same animal could vary. Florida has a problem with invasive species both plant and animal because virtually anything can not only survive, but flourish there. How skunkape got mixed in with "Bigfoot" I will never know. The actual reports are of chimp and orangutan-like creatures.
A-lot of the reports that come out of my native Texas are even more differing. East Texas reports are mostly they typical Southern Sasquatch. (Overly hairy around five-six feet tall and bulky.) But central and north Texas reports are of tall lanky creatures that are well toned, but not massive.