Commentary on ADAPTIVE RADIATIONS, BUSHY EVOLUTIONARY TREES, AND RELICT HOMINOIDS

Thomas Finley [On the Right] is one of my favourite paintings I made especially for the Sasquatch Summit in honour of John Green last spring. Nice comparison Dale. :-)

The differences between the Eastern and Western types of creatures called Bigfoot are depicted in the artwok done under witness' supervision above and in the distinctive types of footprints in the track casts illustrated to the Left. In the latter case, E means East and W means West. The physical differences between the two populations makes a good case for multiple species involved and more diversity between the reports than is generally realised by researchers.

While I greatly welcome the journal Jeff Meldrum is posting in as well as his editorial, which includes much valuable evidence not made widely known before, I do wish to point out some caveats which must be considered along with any such discussion as well.

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]

There has been a big debate in recent years of whether or not Neanderthals are a subspecies of modern human (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis). Most geneticists say that Neanderthal DNA is sufficiently different from ours to suggest that they are a different species. Yet while I was watching a Neanderthal documentary the other day called Clash of the Cavemen, one geneticist being interviewed said that the total number of genetic differences between modern people is about 1 in 1000. He then went on to say that the genetic differences between a modern person and a Neanderthal are 1.5-2 in 1000. This is barely beyond the normal variation found in humans. To me, this does not sound like enough genetic differences to qualify as another species.

The main problem is actually Homo heidelbergensis. Today it is generally acknowledged that H. heidelbergensis is the common ancestor of Neanderthals, modern humans, and the recently-discovered Denisova hominin. The problem with H. heidelbergensis is classifying it - over the years it has been classed as a subspecies of H. erectus, an archaic form of H. sapiens, and its own distinct species.*

Tree showing the evolution of hominins.
Image from unrefinedthoughts.wordpress.com.

*Note: in this case I am going to consider H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, and H. rhodesiensis identical to H. heidelbergensis until sufficient fossils appear to show that they are different.

The fact is, the only feature that comes up that seems to really differentiate H. heidelbergensis is brain size; H. erectus fossils have an average cranial capacity of 900 cubic centimeters; this jumps to 1300 cubic centimeters in H. heidelbergensis, and both it and Neanderthals have cranial capacities that are either within or greater than the cranial capacity of H. sapiens.

Having looked at this, I think brain size is the key to identifying species of Homo. While it is very difficult to identify different species of human by their physical features, there are multiple areas in the hominin fossil record which show jumps in brain size, which in tern coincides with new technological innovations. Now, because Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens, and Homo neanderthalensis all have brains that are the same size, it is my opinion that they are actually members of the same species: Homo sapiens (the Denisova hominin would be included as well; however, no cranial bones are known from this being at this time). In this case, they are all different subspecies: H. sapiens heidelbergensis, H. sapiens neanderthalensis, the Denisova hominin, and H. sapiens sapiens. If you wish to divide it even more, then you could also add H. sapiens rhodesiensis, H. sapiens antecessor, and H. sapiens cepranensis, although I think this may really be splitting the fossil forms a little too much. In the end, while the term "Archaic Homo sapiens" is generally considered outdated, this new information seems to suggest that it may be correct!

Comparison by Dale Drinnon of four basic cryptid primate types, including my Freshwater Monkey!
Image from frontiersofzoology.com.

Monday, March 12, 2012

http://titanoceratops.blogspot.com/2012/03/mystery-primate-omnibus-sort-of.html

The Mystery Primate Omnibus (Sort of)

Having looked at the primate classification schemes proposed by Ivan Sanderson, Mark Hall, Loren Coleman and Patrick Huyghe, and Dale Drinnon, I have tried to create a classification scheme that encompasses all of their ideas and puts the animals into proper groupings. In this case, I think Sanderson's original classification is the most accurate, but that each one made after adds important sub-groupings, which I've included here. They are sorted from "most manlike" to "least manlike" in the style of Sanderson. ...[I shall move ahead to the conclusions part to show the whole catalogue but interested readers can always go back to Tyler's blog for the full article]

 

 UPDATE: after doing some more research, I have come to the conclusion that the "Marked Hominin" and "Neanderthaloid" Wildman sub-types are subspecies the same animal, Homo sapiens. Thus, I have dropped the Marked Hominin sub-type and combined it with the Neanderthaloid.


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?

Australopithecines (two definite species)

• Gracile
• Robust

Neo-Giants (two species)

• Asian
• American

Unknown Pongids (four species)

• "Yeti"
• "Skunk Ape"
• Parapongo
• American Siamang

Merbeings (three species)

• Marine
• 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 erectus.
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.