tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post8947748967306952274..comments2023-07-15T05:32:20.508-07:00Comments on Frontiers of Zoology: Zana's Child and Old Neanderthal CrossesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-66350892188036465182013-02-23T04:08:59.795-08:002013-02-23T04:08:59.795-08:00The key points differentiating the photograph from...The key points differentiating the photograph from the skull are indeed that the top of the head and forehead are much lower and there is no need to insist on looking at any other views: it is plain enough full-face-on. The discussion of the dentition is irrelevant when the height of the vault is in question.<br /><br />Oase, the one skull compared to the Shanidar skull is supposedly the oldest modern skull found in Europe, and it has clear indicators of being related in that the general outline is much the same. Therefore it is both Basal Caucasian AND Part-Neanderthal, simultaneoudsly. You will find that several writers in Anthropology refer to modern Europeans as being partly descended from Neanderthals, Carleton Coon being one of those writers. You are using a racial classification scheme that is not universally recognised yourself; and guessing what Otamid would be without knowing anything about the skulls you are talking about is a very hazardous proceedure. To answer your question, NO, the skulls have nothing to do with Jomon skulls and are much larger, and the teeth and jaws differ in significant ways, those ways being inclined to be more like the Neanderthals. And Denisovans and European Neanderthals turn out to be extremes in a genetic cline which is connected by several genetically intermediate finds from geographically intermediate stations, that information has been printed on this blog before. They are within the same species, that species being presumably Homo sapiens, since both Denisovans and Neanderthals interbred with modern human beings.<br /><br />As a matter of curiousity, doed Dr Jeff Meldrum have any especial backgroungd in forensic reconstruction from human skulls?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-4868727452362183142013-02-21T22:33:11.235-08:002013-02-21T22:33:11.235-08:00OK, here is what physical anthropologist FivePerce...OK, here is what physical anthropologist FivePercenter told me.<br /><br />"The man in the picture is much younger than the skull. The skull has not upper dentition and is missing half his lower dentition. If these teeth projected slightly (procumbantcy) this would go a long way to making the lips as full as in the picture but they may have been that way anyway. We need a profile view to assess the forehead but as you say it looks small in the skull. I have seen a picture of Zana on the internet, googling "Zana" and then flipping to images. My computer skills are very poor but I will try to do this and post the picture. To do so I must leave the forum."Faintsmile1992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-50032555154969617262013-02-21T21:19:46.577-08:002013-02-21T21:19:46.577-08:00Have you asked Meldrum's opinion of whether th...Have you asked Meldrum's opinion of whether the skull matches the man in the photo? I agree the man's forehead doesn't properly fit with the skull, but the skull is Basic White anyway IMO. I would immediately recognise the skull as a Basic White Caucasian, never mind modern human. It looks Vovnigy-Vedbaek to me, a Europeoid type derived from the Magdalenian toolmakers.<br /><br />Oase 1 has very large teeth, a Denisovan trait shared also with Minatogawa I, which would otherwise represent a true anatomical modern of Jomon-Ainu stock if not for the relatively small cranial capacity.<br /><br />OTOH Otamid is a Jomon-like type, right? The pre-Mongoloid, pre-Sinodont.populations of eastern North America.Faintsmile1992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-25278469222106986792013-02-21T18:08:45.184-08:002013-02-21T18:08:45.184-08:00Faintsmile, of course you are correct as to the ma...Faintsmile, of course you are correct as to the man in the photo, but actually I have my doubts as to whether the photo actually belongs with the skull. The features do not match up right. I suspect the photograph is actually of another person. In particular the photograph shows a person with a higher forehead and a higher roof to the braincase.<br /><br />I have had an ongoing discussion about Neumann's Otamids for some time now and at this time all I have otherwise are some drawings of skulls rather than photos. I DO have very full sets of the measurements of several skulls (the average measurements of about 15 of the skulls), and when I wrote of them in a human osteology paper I did in college containing these average measurements, the professor made a note in the margin off to one side "This sounds very Neanderthaloid" when I was enumerating the traits of the jaws and teeth. <i>In red ink.</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-9152611323127025322013-02-21T17:51:05.625-08:002013-02-21T17:51:05.625-08:00You bring up a problem that has not really been ad...You bring up a problem that has not really been addressed so far. The theoretical classification only allows one thing or the other, it does not allow for halfway stations. If there is a halfway station between Neanderthals and moderns, the experts are not about to erect a new subspecies for that. They are going to say the one thing or the other.<br /><br />For my part, I do not go for taxonomically valid subspecies of any type. I conceive of the subspecies level as being much more fluid and ill-defined. But beyond the recognition of subspecies in the first place we have got to have some sort of agreement as to exactly how much genetic difference defines a species, and then if we want to make an issue of it, how much genetic differences would define a subspecies. There is far from a general agreement about that at this time.<br /><br />But the easy answer is, there are only so many boxes allowed and the experts have got to use only one at a time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-52243929476576763392013-02-21T14:26:58.397-08:002013-02-21T14:26:58.397-08:00Very interesting! Do you think that the DNA result...Very interesting! Do you think that the DNA results of Zana and Khvit that had shown that they had Homo sapien sapiens DNA was simply due to the fact that they were Homo sapien sapiens and Homo sapien neanderthalensis crosses? Did the geneticists check both paternal DNA sources?Jay Cooneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300702399539846543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-53758390080169530872013-02-21T09:33:36.615-08:002013-02-21T09:33:36.615-08:00Khwit's appearence in life was that of a Basic...Khwit's appearence in life was that of a Basic White crossed with an Armenoid, and that skull is that of a Basic White (a normal robust Caucasian).<br /><br />Dale, do you have a clearer picture of Neumann's Otamids?Faintsmile1992noreply@blogger.com