Talk:Neanderthal/Archive 5

Homo rhodesiensis Timeframe Discrepencies
From the article:

"Homo rhodesiensis arose in Africa an estimated 0.7 to 1 million years ago." (Under Classification.)

According to the article on human evolution, Homo rhodesiensis lived 300-125 ka. The article for Homo rhodesiensis seems to agree.

Which is more correct? Should this article be updated to reflect the estimates in related articles?

SurlyP (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not just Rhodesiensis. Much of the Classification section is a mess which needs re-writing. I will try to have a go if someone more expert than me does not take it on. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Blood type
The blood type of the Neanderthals was 0- (Can we say this?) Böri (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We'd need to reference a published source that gives this information. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction???
The second part of the following sentence, "Neanderthals went extinct no earlier than about 33,000 years ago, and probably more recently than that." seems to contradict the first part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.74.185 (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

new study suggests Neanderthals died out 50K years ago
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/study-suggests-neanderthals-died-earlier-18405252 HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. It just suggests that one Iberian site that has been claimed to represent the last refuge of the Neanderthal is much older than thought - this says nothing about Portugal or Croatia. Agricolae (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Before anything else - is English your first language? This may seem strange to ask, but it is fundamental in ensuring I know that you can read the news articles I referenced, and the EDIT SUMMARY about the separate and OLDER, unrelated material that seems to put Croatia as the last refuge of Neanderthal man, which is not supported by the vast majority of paleontologists.  There are no disputes whatsoever about this, and the new study is very, very clearly stated. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In paleoanthropology it is quite common that sensationalist news stories are disconfirmed or their conclusions much more moderate once the actual academic community has a look at the data. That is why we write articles based on academic reviews and not based on news reports and press releases.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nature is a highly respected academic source. We must note this study. This is without argument per Wiki rules. And by the way, the article is full of such studies reported online. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that just has to be it. I must not be able to read English because otherwise I would see exactly how a paper that only, solely, addresses the age of artifacts at one site in Iberia obviously is about all Neanderthals everywhere.  Sorry, no.  No amount of English language competency would enable the conclusions you are attributing to those news reports to be supported by the actual text of those news reports.  One site - the one claimed to be most recent, may be much older than was thought.  That is the sole take-home message of the new study.  Nothing about Portugal, nothing about Croatia. Oh, and by the way, the Nature News web page is not the journal Nature, which to date has had nothing to say about the new finding (not unexpected given that an issue hasn't even come out yet since the embargo date passed).  Agricolae (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The article appeared in PNAS, not in Science. The link is to a general journalistic source. These tend to approach science as entertainment and usually get almost everything wrong. So we have to look at the actual PNAS article and can use articles in the popular press only after verification that they are not lying.

The key to the dispute here is probably the last sentence of the abstract:
 * ''"Evidence for the late survival of Neanderthals in southern

Iberia is limited to one possible site, Cueva Antón, and alternative models of human occupation of the region should be considered."'' This does not literally apply to Vindija Cave in northern Croatia, and the reason for the redating (having to do with high temperatures) does not apply there, either. It is not clear to what extent either applies to Lagar Velho, a site in central Portugal, which is in the southern half of Iberia. To judge from Table S4 (a supplementary document to the article), the authors have examined many Portuguese sites but not this one. It is not clear to me whether they were concentrating on sites further south or whether this was because it's not strictly a Neanderthal site. (It's Cro Magnon with some Neanderthal features.) The high temperature argument probably applies to that site, though.

Altogether, nothing changes about the dating for the youngest site, which is the one in Croatia, but there seems to be reason to expect a revision to the Lagar Velho date in the future. (Or maybe not. That depends on details of how that was dated.) Hans Adler 07:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Citation needed tag in the lead for the Croatian claim. Is there a reference?  The Nature link was removed by Agricolae after I added it to the article. Nor did I state that it had come out in a print-edition. But they noted it, and therefore the paper/study deserves a mention, along the lines of "suggests" or "may have."  HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. This (which actually is still in the article) does in fact look like a journalistic article published by Science. In some respects this is the best kind of source we can hope for, especially when combined with the original article(s). No opinion on Croatia. Hans Adler 11:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one I had. As stated before, I sort of expected everyone to read the edit-summaries int the article history to see what the almost edit-war is/was about.  I get very touchy when RS sourced material is removed instead of discussed first - probably a result of so many RANDY's in Wiki.  Sorry about that.  Anyway, per Wiki rules, we have an uncited statement in the lead, and that can be removed immediately by any editor.  May be based on a solid source, but there's no citation.  Now, if this article was cleaned up and written per the Wikipedia standards, a lead is a summary of the article and doesn't require a citation, however, this article has not been groomed yet, and has citations in the lead, which opens it up for tags. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As touchy as one may feel about it, RS sourced material should be removed when it does not reflect the content of the reliable source. Further, contrary to your accusation, I did not remove the Nature News link that you added.  Since you are interested in Wikipedia rules and standards, perhaps you can educate me.  In what part of WP:BRD does it say that when someone reverts your edit, the appropriate response is to accuse them of being a Croatian nationalist who can't read English?  Or maybe it is some other policy that indicates this is the appropriate action to take? Perhaps the study deserves mention (there are other criteria to weigh than simply that it appeared on a web page, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, etc, and while we are at it, whether such a preliminary result merits mention in the lead), but any mention needs to accurately convey the content of the source rather than drawing a conclusion that the source never draws.  The recent study does not address the extinction date of all Neanderthals everywhere, let alone date that extinction to 50,000 years ago.  It was a study of a limited geographic area, so whether the edit included a reliable source citation or not, the presentation of this finding was both inaccurate and misleading, a distortion further obfuscated by the removal of material fossils found elsewhere that are more recent than the erroneous 50,000 ybp extinction date being inserted. And yes, an uncited statement in the lead can be removed, but it can also be improved by citation. The critical question is whether the article is better with or without it, and for that we Talk (actually Talk, not simply accuse people of being illiterate). Agricolae (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Vindija remains have also recently been pushed back in time: . But we have yet to see if these new dates are accepted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This 2011 article still uses the 28,000 y/a model for the Gibraltar finds:Jennings, R., Finlayson, C., Fa, D. and Finlayson, G. (2011), Southern Iberia as a refuge for the last Neanderthal populations. Journal of Biogeography, 38: 1873–1885.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This 2012 study using the ultrafiltration method pushes back the dates for the Zafarraya remains from northern Spain WOOD, R. E., HIGHAM, T. F. G., DE TORRES, T., TISNÉRAT-LABORDE, N., VALLADAS, H., ORTIZ, J. E., LALUEZA-FOX, C., SÁNCHEZ-MORAL, S., CAÑAVERAS, J. C., ROSAS, A., SANTAMARÍA, D. and DE LA RASILLA, M. (2013), A NEW DATE FOR THE NEANDERTHALS FROM EL SIDRÓN CAVE (ASTURIAS, NORTHERN SPAIN)*. Archaeometry, 55: 148–158.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please reference and remove the cite-needed tag.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

bigger eyes and optical brain areas
Listen this week BBC report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01r5s24/Material_World_Clay_on_Mars_Neanderthals_Cholera_Tapeworms/ re this paper: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1758/20130168 Chrisrus (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21759233 Chrisrus (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Subspecies of Homo sapiens?
Do many people think that Neanderthals are a subspecies of Homo sapiens now? Oh, and the box on the right lists Homo neanderthalensis on the species and H. s. neanderthalensis on the synonym part. I guess that is a little thing because they already say that it might be a subspecies of Homo sapiens in another part but it still bothers me. Ha! Happy1892 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to be unclear, but the article takes side, which it perhaps shouldn't Also, this sentence is sued as an argument against it being a subspecies, but has really nothing to do with it: "Others, for example University of Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"" FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With the revelation that modern humans have Neanderthal DNA, I don’t see how there can be any question that they were homo sapiens provided the classical criterion as to what constitutes a single species still applies: the ability to mate and bear fertile offspring.  Whatever scientific regulatory body is charged with making such determinations should state whether this criterion still applies or if not what is the contemporary criterion or criteria that distinguishes a single species from a separate one.  Until that happens, I don’t see how a Wikipedia article can state such one way or the other with any degree of certainty.  In light of recent revelations, I am skeptical that Neanderthals were anything but an advance guard of humans into their ultimate environs who developed superficial physical differences from other groupings of humans no different than what is evidenced today between “races” and ethnic groups.  I’m not certain if even a “subspecies” classification would be accurate without likewise classifying various groups of modern humans as such as well.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is common for different species to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and most working biologists no longer (if they ever did) use reproductive isolation as the primary criterion for species recognition. The vast majority of recent scientific literature recognizes the Neanderthal as a separate species; so should Wikipedia.


 * In any case, the genetic data clearly indicates that Neanderthals, even though they may occasionally have interbred with humans, were substantially more distinct from any living humans than living humans are from each other. Ucucha (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is something that keeps ping-ponging back and forth.  Prior to the mtDNA data, the consensus was shifting from them being a separate species to being a subspecies, then after the mtDNA finding that shift in consensus turned on a dime and there was widespread agreement that they were separate species.  With the genomic data, it wouldn't surprise me if there is movement back the other direction, but as Ucucha suggests, one thing that genomics has taught us is that all kinds of critters pass DNA back and forth (e.g. cattle and bison, polar and brown bears, wolves and coyotes and dogs, horses and donkeys), such that the concept of complete reproductive isolation as the prime criterion for distinguishing species is falling by the way side. Currently the data is coming too fast for a stable consensus to solidify, so I think we do right in straddling the fence. Agricolae (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is also the Science or Nature paper from last year challenging the DNA conclusion. The author argued that you could not exclude the possibility that the matching DNA was a statistical likelyhood for two species with a recent common ancestor.  In other words two daughter species will of course have long stretches of common DNA and that absolutely does not require interbreeding to explain.  It hasn't got the traction that the "they were our mothers and fathers" school does, but seems to be a fairly good counterargument to me.  The argument was based on the statistics of the DNA models, mutation rates, etc., so is way over my ability to evaluate.  But clearly the claim that they did interbreed is NOT a slam dunk and will require additional evaluation (some of which possibly already has happened).173.189.75.106 (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Neanderthal" vs. "Neandertal"
I was under the impression that since the spelling for "valley" in German was changed from "thal" to "tal", the name "Neanderthal" had been changed to "Neandertal" in order to reflect this. 142.26.194.189 (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Both spellings are commonly used. I have changed the lead to reflect this. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The German article says: Neandertaler, formerly Neanderthaler, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Germans prefer Neandertaler (naturally as it is the modern German spelling), but in English both are used. For discussions see here and here. Dudley Miles (talk)

Latest revision
Agricolae your latest revision still seems to me to leave the text unclear:
 * What have been claimed as the last traces of Mousterian culture (without human specimens) have been found in Gorham's Cave on the remote south-facing coast of Gibraltar, dated 30,000 to 24,500 years ago. However, a recent re-examination of Neanderthal bones there has suggested they were much older, perhaps as old as 50,000 years. It has yet to be determined whether this redating also affects other Neanderthal sites with reported recent dates.

"Neanderthal bones there" seems to refer to Gorham's Cave. I would suggest:
 * What have been claimed as the last traces of Mousterian culture (Neanderthal artifacts but not bones) have been found in Gorham's Cave on the remote south-facing coast of Gibraltar, dated 30,000 to 24,500 years ago. However, a recent re-examination of Neanderthal bones from two Spanish Neanderthal sites has suggested they were much older than previously thought, perhaps as old as 50,000 years. It has yet to be determined whether this redating also affects other Neanderthal sites with reported recent dates.

What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I was just trying to get rid of the suggestion that the result from this one study means that all Neanderthals went extinct by 50,000 ybp, as was being claimed. Agricolae (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Just as an aside to this redating issues, a new dating has been published for the El Sidron Neanderthal specimens (from Asturias, Spain) that some have reported to be as young as 10,000 years. It places them at 48 +/- 3k. Agricolae (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Conservation Status
Should we put in a Conservation Status label just for consistency's sake?
 * no.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems those are only used for recently extinct animals covered by the IUCN. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

New "hybrid" paper
Contrary to what this article currently states, the new evidence seems weak, and no modern human DNA has been found in the "hybrid" jaw. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Chrisrus (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be in the article at all. It is far too preliminary. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This came out last summer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/14/study-doubt-human-neanderthal-interbreeding?newsfeed=true, and yet this article still treats it as a universally accepted theory. How long until we at least add a caveat? Chrisrus (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need to wait to see how it is received by other experts in the field before adding a caveat. I have not seen anything yet suggesting that it is taken seriously. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what we should have done when the hybrid theory first came out. These papers show that it's not so well accepted as we imply. Chrisrus (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

All the books and papers I have seen accept a small degree of hybridisation as the consensus view of experts. I think we need to stick with that until there is evidence of a significant minority view, not just one or two papers, which may or may not be significant. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Under "References", #43:

''"First Love Child of Human, Neanderthal Found". Discovery News. 27 March 2013. Retrieved 11 April 2013. Text "Jennifer Viegas" ignored (help)''

Is that mention of a Jennifer Viegas vandalism or merely an unclear addition? Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Was that in the previous diff? If not, it's just junk.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  17:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was was a typo in giving the author's name which I have corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah! Thank you. I didn't know what that "ignored" part meant. I do not yet know how to add references or to edit them. Wordreader (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested external link
Here's a link to a National Geographic page that shows a close-up of the reproduced Neanderthal woman's face, illustrating the light, freckly skin, red hair, and blue eyes that the DNA genome discovered. It appears to be a close-up of the same reproduction that's shown already in the article photo: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121012-neanderthals-science-paabo-dna-sex-breeding-humans/ Yours, Wordreader (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Last sentence under "climate change"?
cited as "88"... is the last sentence under heading "climate change" 100% accurate??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.200.72 (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

24.3.200.72 (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Distribution of Neanderhals
Hello! I made a new map of distribution of Neanderthals:



However it seems that it would be better if I uploaded it as a new version of an existing map. So, I think that I'll slightly modify this map. Do you have any suggestions how I can improve it? Nilenbert (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As you are obviously aware, the accuracy of the old map is disputed, and no sources are cited in its description. I think the sources for your new map need to be fully set out in its description, and it should then be a great improvement. Dudley Miles (talk)
 * Actually, I already replaced the old map. But how exactly I will cite sources? I just saw a picture in Nature and tried to reproduce it. Can I give that paper in Nature as a source? Nilenbert (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is something strange going on which I do not understand. On my computer, it is the old map in the article, but when I click on it I get your map. I think you need to cancel your edit to the old map and upload your new one as a new file, calling it something like Range of Homo neanderthalensis 2.png. I would put in the description "A map depicting the range of the extinct Homo neanderthalensis based on ...[Nature paper]." That is unless someone has a better idea. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cache problem? FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

2010 Genetic Study User Agricolae
User Agricolae keeps reverting an edit that includes information newer from a 2012 study by Cambridge University of the 2010 genetic study findings. He has reverted this at least 3 times. He claims "not a more recent study, already refuted" yet this is obviously not true as the study he cites is 2010 and the study I site is 2012 and as stated in the article it is a re-examination of the earlier 2010 findings. Agricolae does not provide any sources to support any claims it has been refuted. Agricolae's edits are borderline vandalism. Thanos5150 (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I explained it here when I reverted in August, and in case that was unclear I explained it again today. Also, please read WP:BRD, where it does not say that if someone disagrees with your addition, the appropriate response it so keep forcing it back in and accuse them of vandalism. Agricolae (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your "explanation" is worthless as it is clearly ignorant of the facts and it is borderline vandalism. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Your only "explanation" as I have already quoted was "not a more recent study, already refuted", so what is your "explanation for reverting it again and again when your claims are clearly false? And as I as I have explained several times; no, it clearly is a more recent study dated 2yrs after the original and is a re-examination of the 2010 findings. How can you not understand this? And if it has been "refuted" so what- if others disagree this does not invalidate the findings of the Cambridge scientists and you need to provide a reference to this refutation. And as far as WP:BRD is concerned, you can "disagree" all you like, but you can't keep reverting it just because you don't like what it says not to mention understand it and when a user says go to discussion you go to discussion before reverting it back so that consensus can be reached. Thanos5150 (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You haven't read my explanation, have you? I have explained my position, in detail, twice.  Scroll up!   A consensus needs to be reached rather than repeatedly forcing this information into the lead.  Agricolae (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And now you are editing my posts in discussion? You have been given a 3r warning on your talk page. Save the nonsense. You reverted this several times before saying one word about "consensus". Your explanations have been invalidated so now the onus is on you to back up your claims with sources and if you can't then don't touch it. And even if you do have a source that you claim "refutes" the 2012 study you do not remove my edit you include yours in addition to. This is how it works. The information of my edit is properly sourced citing a study from Cambridge University no less and is 2yrs newer than the original information cited and is a re-examination of the same 2010 study. No one is "forcing" anything except you. Do not revert it again until you have consensus here it should be removed.Thanos5150 (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am removing a 3RR warning, because it has no business being on an article's Talk page - they are for discussions intended to improve an article. You were Bold. I Reverted. I posted a long Discussion to the Talk page which sat there for weeks without comment, and then today you ignored it and reinserted the contested text.  I reverted it again and left another lengthy discussion on the Talk page which you again ignored and reinserted the contested text.  This is not how BRD works.  You don't get to put anything you want into a page and then place the burden on those who don't think it is an improvement, particulatly when they have explained their criticism in detail and you have ignored it. Please read my explanations, above! Agricolae (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You made no note in the edit notes about a topic in discussion then or now, so no I am not "ignoring it". Next time make an effort to be clear so you don't waste peoples time.Thanos5150 (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I sent you to Talk on August 28 (note the edit summary). I sent you to Talk in my first of today, in my second of today, and yet again in my third of today (see edit summaries). I told you I had twice posted extensive explanations.  I told you emphatically to "scroll up!"  Speaks for itself.  Agricolae (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I am not "ignoring", I obviously never saw that "Ancient Population substructure, not interbreeding" was directed to me considering you do not even mention me and the lead of the paragraph in question is "Genetic evidence...". Instead of one word cryptic allusions to the talk page in a few of your edit histories (>talk), why couldn't you have taken the extra second to say "see Ancient Population substructure, not interbreeding in talk" especially when I kept asking you for a source? It didn't occur to you, particularly given it had been weeks since I was last here, that I missed your strangely long post? Or am I just edit warring for no reason? Next time give the other person the benefit of the doubt and take an extra second to explain yourself and you might be surprised.Thanos5150 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See your Talk - a response will benefit no one else here. Agricolae (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there some amount of "weight" that would be "due" intermediate between "last word in the lead section" on the one hand, and "no mention whatsoever" on the other? Given that on the face of it this is an authentic academic publication that's received significant and fairly prominent coverage, it seems to me that even -- and indeed especially -- if this paper is regarded as DOA, it would be a service to readers to mention it in some explanatory and well-sourced context. (I originally somewhat hoped that this might cast some light on the "species or subspecies" issue, but that seems beyond reasonable expectation as it's apparently more tied up in the semantics and objective definability of the species concept itself.) 84.203.35.23 (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We want to avoid the whole WP:NOTNEWS trap. Our goal here is not to summarize the press releases that have garnered the most coverage, but rather to summarize the scientific consensus while giving due weight to reasonable alternatives.  With that in mind, I think it would be proper to mention population substructure as having been entertained as an alternative explanation of the genetic similarities (citing the PNAS paper along with earlier RSs that have mentioned this possibility, such as John Hawkes' blog) while clearly indicating that recent detailed analysis has shown it to be unlikely (Yang, and when it is formally published, the 2013 study). What we don't want to do is follow the media, whose perspective can be skewed by personal ignorance (in the sense of simply lacking the specific knowledge to fully understand well enough what they are writing about, and not meaning to imply a lack of innate intelligence), drinking the Kool-Aid of the press releases, getting starry-eyed for the major universities and their expensive publicists, and slow news days.  Nature wrote a commentary about how the PNAS paper was DOA because the authors didn't take advantage of the growing trend of pre-release that would have shown them where they were going to come up short, and that gives us a better indication of its true weight as an individual study (as opposed to the general concept) than the press coverage.  I think that relegates it to being used as a cited example of the substructure alternative and not highlighted as a noteworthy study in its own right. (And you are right about the species/subspecies issue: the species concept itself is too fuzzy for any conclusion that isn't begged by the question - people will decide which they want it to be and choose their criteria to defend that decision.  Now that we know the degree to which trans-species introgression takes place, the least fuzzy criterion we had, of normal reproductive isolation, is no more hard-and-fast than any of the others so it comes down unavoidably to personal and somewhat arbitrary conclusions.) Agricolae (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Population substructure, not interbreeding
I have removed a sentence that is giving way too much weight to a study that was basically dead-on-arrival, addressing a scenario that had already been dealt with in more detail prior to this study's appearance. "But now, “it’s kind of an obsolete paper,” [Reich] says." ; "So why so dismissive from Reich & Patterson? Because the Yang et al. paper admits this problem, and formulates a way to test alternative scenarios. . . . What they found in Yang et al. is that a model where a population bottleneck occurs followed by admixture is the best fit. . . . One could say that the appropriate follow up paper to the PNAS contribution was actually published before it." If we want to present population substructure as an alternative scenario to interbreeding, it should cover all of the work done on that alternative and not just suggest that by virtue of being more recent the contrary conclusions of this one study are of superior or even equivalent value, so as to merit the final word. Agricolae (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Lest I didn't get my point across: The possibility that the shared genetics between Neanderthal and non-African humans might be due to population substructure and not interbreeding has been an undercurrent from the beginning, while the overall mood in the community clearly favored interbreeding. This alternative was all but put to bed by Yang, et al., who considered several alternative models, from population substructure to several versions of interbreeding.  They ran the numbers and showed that the model that was best supported by the data was that of interbreeding followed by a population bottleneck, and not deep population substructure.  Then the PNAS paper comes along a few months later, and completely unaware of the Yang paper, raised a possibility, substructure, that Yang had already shown not to be likely.  The PNAS just said, 'hey, it could also be this', but they did no detailed comparison of their model to others to see which best fit the data, an analysis that unbeknownst to them Yang had already done.  The PNAS paper is unfortunate in that by the time it came out a better study had already shot down its suggested alternative.  In the context of the whole body of published material and the scholarly consensus, it is very much WP:UNDUE to give the PNAS paper significant coverage, let alone to give it the final word in a way that casts doubt on the most likely model in favor of one already shown less likely.  We never want to have an article give a detailed account of the scientific consensus and then end by suggesting that it is all wrong, particularly in the lead were we want to keep it simple.  (Oh, and if you don't like Yang for some reason, see Lohse and Frantz (2013) already cited in the article.) Agricolae (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the PNAS paper deserves little if any weight. Certainly not in the lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This reeks of WP:NPOV violation. Individual Wikipedians cannot decide to remove one point of view. There were problems with Yang et al.'s work such as how they assumed OoA was 100kya and they only use Yoruba sequences, which significantly predates all other evidence. Structure papers continue to be published, and so do interbreeding papers. Both views need to be represented. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Detractors have argued and continue to argue that the signal of Neanderthal interbreed may be due to ancient African substructure, meaning that the similarity is only a remnant of a common ancestor of both Neanderthals and modern humans and not the result of interbreeding. John Hawks has argued that the genetic similarity to Neanderthals may indeed be the result of both structure and interbreeding, as opposed to just one or the other. This was added. Interpreting sources and rejecting opinions when a firm consensus does not yet exist in the scientific community violates WP:NPOV and probably also WP:SYNTH Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead question
After reading this interesting article, I wonder why there is still controversy stressed in the lead regarding the taxonomic nomenclature? Is it still unclear that neanderthalensis interbred with sapiens and were successful for a time until thier genome disappeared? Or does it have to do with cloudiness of definition in regards to "species/subspecies"? –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 03:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure per WP:MULTI → There has been some back-'n-forth at Template talk:Human evolution#Neanderthal controversy on this issue. What I really wonder is — has there been any discussion in any science forum that is responsible for decisions about paleontological classifications, and what were the results of those discussions? The IAU, for example, holds fairly regular get-togethers to make decisions about classifications in astronomy. Does the  International Paleontological Association  or a similar science organization do the same for the bi- and tri-nomial nomenclatures of genus Homo? –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 18:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (A little long, but this is how I remember the trends.) There is no such body.  If I recall correctly, there is a body that makes decisions on which name has precedence (normally earlier wins, even for an iconic critter such as Brontosaurus, now Apatosaurus).  I do recall a formal decision being made to continue using Archaeopteryx even when it became clear that the first actual Archie specimen had been mischaracterized as a pterosaur and given a different name, which would then supersede the later, but it was concluded that Archie held such an honored place that it should remain).  There has never been a body to decide what the appropriate dividing line between species and subspecies is.  Rather, consensuses develop, and usually they crystallize around an influential scholarly review or two, but in some cases it goes unresolved for decades, and can drift back and forth between the competing views.  Historically, Neanderthal was considered a (very) different species, but the more that was found (ceremonial burial, brain pan size, stature reassessment, etc) the more the differences started to look superficial.  I would say that the position that they were just subspecies was on the verge of crystallizing, and then came the mt and Y DNA studies showing no single European modern having a Neanderthal haplotype.  With all of the time the two spent together, this was viewed as definitive evidence of reproductive isolation, and hence distinct species, and the trend toward subspecies reversed in one blow (or rather, two) - different species.  By the time definitive evidence was discovered of interbreeding, it quickly became clear that it was very limited, maybe just a handful of times.  Even this might have turned things around again, but at about the same time various examples of rare interbreeding or trans-species introgression were found all over the place between groups that nobody was about to consider members of the same species (dog/coyote; polar/brown bear; cattle/bison, etc), meaning that the entire criterion of complete reproductive isolation as a defining characteristic of speciation came into question.  I don't recall any scholars in the post interbreeding years who thought the question important enough to make a strong case for one vs the other - new data have been coming so fast that the actual details are more worth the ink than discussing where to draw an arbitrary line. Agricolae (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agricolae, thank you for that! Those scientists should push for a well-defined body to take responsibility for the many needs of mundane classification.  It does seem to be an exciting field, though.  One thing that (I feel) makes the subspecies question important is the timeline.  I often hear someone remind people that we (Homo sapiens) haven't been around for very long as compared with how long other groups lasted.  If the Neanderthal people ever wind up definitively as a subspecies of Homo sapiens, then that will push the H. s. timeline quite a ways back farther than it is believed to be at present.  I guess at one time the Cro-Magnon people of 43,000 years ago were considered among the first of H. sapiens.  Then the H. s. idaltu and other discoveries took our species back to 160,000 - 200,000 years before the present.  If and when the Neanderthals are evidenced to be a subspecies of H. sapiens, the timeline will  increase to 300,000 years ago.  So it seems to me to be very important to resolve this – but that's just me, I guess. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 05:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * DNA analysis is such a fast developing field and new evidence changes views so often that scientists probably think it would be premature set down definitions which would be subject to constant revision. I also do not think it makes any difference to the argument on how long our species has been around whether idaltu and neanderthal are species or sub-species. When people say that humans are a young species, I would take them to mean people with fully modern minds, which on current evidence seems to be only homo sapiens sapiens, and to date back not much more than 50,000 year. Of course new evidence in the next few years may well make nonsense of what I have said! Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to highlight how unsettled this all is, a paper was just published in a premier journal that argues every Homo found to date, not just these we have been talking about but back to Homo erectus and Homo habilis too, all belong in a single species. The proposal was basically dead-on-arrival, but it shows you how wide open this issue is. Agricolae (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling Neanderthals a subspecies due to minor interbreeding (which may actually be a signal of ancient African substructure) is completely uncalled for. As a graduate student in molecular anthropology, I have come across very few modern publications actually making the argument for them being a subspecies. About 10% of a coyotes genome comes from gene flow with the grey wolf, yet it has not been demoted to a subspecies. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You probably didn't search very far. The first two hits from Google yielded two modern publications that throw doubt into your conclusion:
 * http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=our-neandertal-brethren
 * http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/n.html
 * There is not yet any consensus, and Wikipedia should reflect that.
 * Perhaps it's just that biological science has assumed that the distinction of species can be easily defined, as if each species is a step on a staircase, but in light of evolution, the correct analogy is often more of a ramp.
 * Kortoso (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Those may be reliable sources per Wikipedia policy, but they are not scholarly sources. They are popular science sources, and notably the second does not take a firm opinion for subspecies it just noted it has been referred to as a subspecies which was once the norm, but no longer is. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sure that a professional molecular anthropologist such as yourself will come up with the definitive studies and solve this for us once and for all. Meanwhile, I wonder how we define the term "species" anymore. Kortoso (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The definition of the species is not relevant here. What is relevant here is the consensus on the nomenclature. While yes, a minority of anthropologists such as Milford Wolpoff will always consider Neanderthals to be a subspecies, the scientific consensus is that they are Homo neanderthalensis (where they start is debatable and whether they interbred with us is also debatable). Here is good article by Jean-Jacques Hublin "This has led many scholars to accept the species H. neanderthalensis as an operative paleontological species, distinct from H. sapiens. However, subspecific divisions have been also proposed (22)."
 * Google Scholar hits data since 2009 shows [About 388 results for "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" (with quotes) http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Homo+sapiens+neanderthalensis%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10&as_ylo=2009] vs. About 1,610 results for "Homo neanderthalensis" (with quotes) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For "Homo neanderthalensis" -"Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" About 1,500 results (since 2009)
 * For -"Homo neanderthalensis" "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" About 272 results (since 2009).
 * If there were no consensus against subspecies, this massive discrepancy would not exist Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Replacement suggestion
I propose replacing this Neanderthals are classified either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species of the same genus (Homo neanderthalensis). with this Neanderthals are generally classified as the species of Homo neanderthalensis, but some few consider them to be a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). It presents both views, but it is much more cognizant of anthropological consensus. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW - ok w/ me - seems your proposed text may be better imo - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps: "Neanderthals are generally classified by palaeontologists as the species Homo neanderthalensis, but a minority consider them to be a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, go ahead and edit it on the page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be considered by some to be just a bit "weaselly", since "minority" is a vague attribution that requires the who? template. Maybe something like(?)...
 * The word "generally" to describe "classified" is also unnecessary. –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 22:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That violates WP:Crystalball, you are putting a statement out there about the future and revisions that may not happen at all. Yes, minor interbreeding violates the strictest form of the biological species concept, but it does not violate more relaxed versions. For example, Canis latrans owes 10% of its genome to Canis lupus, but no one is stripping the former of its specific status. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as it is it does no harm, so let's think about it some more, because it still needs just a little more polish. –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 22:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is Milford Wolpoff Erik Trinkaus and their contingents that still support the subspecific definition and that is because they are retaining it from the past. To my knowledge there are no/few new people interested in reviving the subspecific definition, so your wording about the future is very misleading. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then if that's the "minority", it should be noted, shouldn't it? A footnote would probably do the job. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 23:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then if that's the "minority", it should be noted, shouldn't it? A footnote would probably do the job. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 23:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This might be food for thought, although it's two years old:

A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome,Richard E. Green, Svante Pääbo et al. Science 7 May 2010: Vol. 328 no. 5979 pp. 710-722 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full "Neandertals are on average closer to individuals in Eurasia than to individuals in Africa." "A striking observation is that Neandertals are as closely related to a Chinese and Papuan individual as to a French individual, even though morphologically recognizable Neandertals exist only in the fossil record of Europe and western Asia. Thus, the gene flow between Neandertals and modern humans that we detect most likely occurred before the divergence of Europeans, East Asians, and Papuans." Kortoso (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really relevant here since they never refer to Neanderthals as a subspecies. Unless you follow the strictest forms of the biological species concept, minor interbreeding has no importance in the species/subspecies discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As Thegreyanomoly says, there are other cases of minor interbreeding between species, and this has not cast doubt on their status as separate species. The Classification section needs amendment, as it does not reflect the scientific majority opinion as stated in the lead. Perhaps you could tackle this Thegreyanomoly. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the high-profile authorities (Pääbo, Hawk etc) are understandably reluctant to address this issue. Kortoso (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Subspecies semantics
Recently, I added a cite request for the phrase "there are documented examples of fertile inter-specific hybridization and introgression, so this is not definitive". This does't seem to make a lot of sense in the context, at least without further clarification. The counter-hypothesis to "no reproductive isolation, therefore subspecies" is presumably either "not defining species by reproductive isolation", or else is "not accepting data of no reproductive isolation as conclusive". (Or both of these, separately.) Are there suitable sources for either of those, and a way to sum them up as such? 84.203.32.136 (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Defining species, subspecies and genus in extinct (as well as extant) animals is extremely arbitrary, so I'm not sure how that would be pulled off. The confusion arises because the lines are so blurred. Even inter-generic hybrids are known, if not inter-familial, so where is the line? Only solution here is, as you say, find a source that specifically deals with this in the context of Neanderthals. FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not heard of inter-familial, but yes, I know about inter-generic hybrids (which if you ask me argues for "poorly defined genera in those particular cases", if not to say "traditional taxonomic ranks are bunk, yay cladistics"). But the context here appears to be a specific sense of species:  "Since species can be defined by reproductive isolation[...]"  That's also a falsifiable definition, and one that the interbreeding data seems to indeed falsify.  Or am I missing some key fudge in "isolated(...ish)"?  84.203.32.136 (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Certainly all sorts of hybrids are possible, but they are by and large sterile. How could they then become someone's ancestors? Kortoso (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a circular definition question, since "species" is defined by not interbreeding. So if there was extensive interbreeding then Neanderthalensis and Sapiens are not different species biologically, but subspecies. That is the entire question and the reason that the taxonomic status is not agreed upon. Conclusive evidence of interbreeding would solve the question of the taxonomic status.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The argument presented in the article "Modern humans, Neanderthals shared earth for 1,000 years" is no longer valid. This is a conclusion (from 2005) supported by geneticists such as Dr. Svante Pääbo at the Max Planck Institute, but recently revised this conclusion. Neanderthal genome project Kortoso (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How about this:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies#Doubtful_cases
 * When biologists disagree over whether a certain population is a subspecies or a full species, the species name may be written in parentheses. Thus Larus (argentatus) smithsonianus means the American Herring Gull; the notation with parentheses means that some consider it a subspecies of a larger Herring Gull species and therefore call it Larus argentatus smithsonianus, while others consider it a full species and therefore call it Larus smithsonianus (and the user of the notation is not taking a position).
 * Thus Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis. Kortoso (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Rehabilitating the Neanderthal
It is not the job of this article to rehabilitate the reputation of the Neanderthal. If what little we know about them includes that they were cannibals who in tens of thousands of years made little progress, left no clear evidence of art and therefore symbolic thought, as well as having, like bears and gorillas, routinely shat where they slept, then there's no reason to go out of our way to say that they weren't "brutes" or some such. They were what they were and there's no shame in it. Chrisrus (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As, after all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue to advocate human rights for an extinct species with.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Diannaa, while doing some research I ran across your comment. I haven't edited this article before, and I have no beef in any debate, controversy, or edit war that might have been going on here. I really have no idea about anything like that. I just found this and am wondering what's going on. According to the date of your comment, you must be referring to this long-standing content you deleted:


 * Competition with humans probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction. diff


 * To make this easier to understand, I will provide the Guardian sentence it comes from, and highlight in bold the relevant parts below (and above):


 * "But it does add to the evidence that competition from modern humans probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction."


 * It is properly sourced, so there is no plagiarism. If there is anything wrong here, it's only that the exact words aren't in quotes. Instead of fixing it, you deleted it, including two good references. Why did you do that? We're trying to build, not destroy, this encyclopedia. We try to fix things, rather than just delete properly sourced content.


 * I'm also wondering about all the opinions you posted above, especially the words "not as a source of sentences or phrases." I don't recall that being in any policy here. Maybe I missed it. That would require deleting huge amounts of very widely accepted Wikipedia content and ignoring fair use, which allows sentences, phrases, and sometimes even whole paragraphs. Please explain your thinking, and make it relevant to the context here, which is your deletion above. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi BullRangifer. The content was removed as part of Contributor copyright investigations/Tobby72. The content is almost identical to the source material and therefore is a copyright violation. Removal of the content is a valid option, consistent with the instructions provided on each case page. I often re-write the content when working on CCI cases, but did not do so in this particular instance because its removal did not do excessive damage to the article. It's okay to re-add the information if the prose is thoroughly paraphrased. The material in my post above is the template cclean, not a hand-written set of opinions. Content must not be copied from sources. Sources should be used only as a source of ideas, and prose must be thoroughly paraphrased before being added to the encyclopedia (or placed in quotation marks in the case of direct quotes). Quotations must be short so as not to violate the rights of copyright holders and must be identified as being quotations rather than presented as if they were original prose. Our non-free content guideline states that "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited" (see Non-free content), so if you see instances where "sentences, phrases, and sometimes even whole paragraphs" have been copied from sources without attribution, they are also copyright violations. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt reply. "Extensive" would usually be more than a paragraph, unless it's a long one. Sentences and phrases are always allowed by "fair use" if properly sourced and in quotation marks. Nowhere in policy is such quoting forbidden, as that template seems to indicate. That template needs fixing. It needs to be based on policy, not someone's misguided interpretation of policy. Quotations are allowed, and this template would discourage that. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Technology template
That may be misapplied here. There's nothing here about styles of lithic reduction here, for instance. As a side note, links could be added that point to recognized Neanderthal lithic technologies, e.g., Levallois, Mousterian. These have the technology template applied appropriately. Kortoso (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at talk:Neanderthal extinction hypotheses
There's a move discussion for Neanderthal extinction hypotheses → Neanderthal extinction, where I'd like to have more input. --Cold Season (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As per my comment there, I propose retitling the section Neanderthal to Neanderthal. The hypotheses are material within the subject of their extinction.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Neanderthals in Europe died out thousands of years earlier
1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.254.104 (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Neanderthal
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Neanderthal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nytimes.com": From MSNBC: </li> <li>From Ukraine: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/world/europe/activists-say-election-of-a-president-is-just-a-start-in-repairing-ukraine.html?_r=0</li> <li>From History of Italy: </li> <li>From Italy: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Extinct species?
"Genetic evidence published in 2010 suggests that Neanderthals contributed to the DNA of anatomically modern humans, probably through interbreeding".

In that case, how can they be a distinct species? My understanding is that if individuals can interbreed and the offspring are fertile, they're of the same species by definition. Paul Magnussen (talk)


 * That is not correct. Lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile offspring (ligers and tigons), but they are separate species. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Refer to the species problem. Kortoso (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, there is no fully satisfactory definition of "species". But Paul Magnussen is nonetheless mostly correct in suggesting that evidence of interbreeding goes a long way to support the view that Neanderthals are not a separate species.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Scientists don't strictly follow the biological species concept. The coyotes owes about 10% of its genome to the grey wolf, but biologists are not taking away that species boundary. If you look at the post-Neanderthal genome research, you will notice that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis basically never shows up (except amongst remnant multiregionalists). Scientists have not been referring to Neanderthals as Homo sapiens. That is what is relevant for Wikipedia.
 * Google scholar hits since 2010 for "Homo neanderthalensis" -"Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" - About 1,710 results
 * Google scholar hits since 2010 for -"Homo neanderthalensis" "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" - About 294 results
 * Google scholar hits since 2010 for "Homo neanderthalensis" AND "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" - About 117 results
 * We have our answer here about what is being used in the literature, and it is not the subspecies classification. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is just a matter of opinion, all taxonomic ranks are arbitrary (standards differ wildly across fields), which also creates the "human races" problem. We'll just have to follow what the majority of sources say. Only safe thing is unranked clades, and even that leaves hybridisation ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The paleoanthropologists I've been following (c.f. John Hawkes) won't even call Neandertal a species or subspecies. I think the preferred wiggle-word is "population". Kortoso (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

John Hawks is partly or is influenced by multiregionalism. His adviser (Milford Wolpoff) is the most pre-eminent (and wrong) multiregionalists on the planet. The anthropological consensus (albeit with some dissenters) is that they are a separate species; the Google scholar hit counts clearly convey this. (Also, this is a bit semantic, but JH is not quite a paleoanthropolgist; he has background in paleoanthropology, but his research is primarily in molecular anthropology) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Hawks may not be the best source of an "objective source" because of his association with multiregionalism, but on the other hand I don't think that it is currently clear whether the separate species consensus has been maintained following the most recent developments. The textbooks I have used seem to almost avoid the issue. I don't think we can really say that there is a consensus either way currently.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are very wrong on the consensus issue. Google scholar hits are the clearest way to tell (and are regularly used Wikipedia to gauge scholarly consensus), and people are publishing "Homo neanderthalensis" decidedly more than " "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis"". To ignore that would violate WP:UNDUE. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the necessary conclusion from you google based research. First of all google scholar will be slow to register a change in consensus because most of the hits are citations of or repetitions of the usage of older sources. Only specialist literature should be counted and the context should be taken into account. A usage that simply repeats earlier usage without evaluate it does not demonstrate or contribute to scholarly consensus. Secondly, your research is based only on two options and does not include the possibility of agnosticism, which I consider to be the most prevalent view in current paleoanthropological literature. Only a handful of scholars are actually invested in the classification of Neanderthals as either species or subspecies, in my experience most scholars consider it a mostly futile and irrelevant argument because they are aware of the arbitrariness of taxonomy. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Google Scholar is actively updated. New article regularly end up in its search history. Google scholar only presents scholarly books and articles. You can even filter out books if you want to by adding in "-site:books.google.com". You can change the start date from 2010 to 2011/12/13 and the exact same trend continues. Very few people actively state that the Neanderthals are subspecies. They are trounced by the number of people who treat them as a species. You are jumping in WP:OR and WP:Synthesis by trying to jump into agnosticism and interpretation of what the ambiguity means. Rejecting articles because you thinkg that "[a] usage that simply repeats earlier usage without evaluate it does not demonstrate or contribute to scholarly consensus." is invalid. Those scholars (i.e., those reliable sources) used the notation they used, you can't make a story to take away that from the count. Essentially that's like saying that every scientist that publishes an article that cites research in agreement saying climate change is occurring does not count to consensus of scientists who say it is occurring.
 * I am sorry, but pretending these numbers don't exist violates WP:UNDUE by giving a minority view too much weight. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Neanderthals=Humans
There is no proof that they're not one and the same thing... "Humans" mated with "Neanderthals", so... 129.180.152.199 (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy that the words "differ" in this article, relate only to 0.12% of our DNA (which in the case between races, is the case...). And the only other thing being that they had a "more robust build", and "distinctive morphological features", because - that's what people can say about differences between races too... 129.180.152.199 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What's worse is this quote already in the article, "scientists have debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as ...Homo sapiens neanderthalensis... placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of H. sapiens", providing 2 references. The only evidence however, showing it as a separate species is "some morphological studies", "no cultural interaction", and "mitochondrial DNA studies has been interpreted as evidence... were not a subspecies". This could also be a racially discriminating arguments against blacks. For example, they have (1) a different morphological facial structure; (2) they do not interact culturally with white people; and (3) their mitochondrial DNA, i.e. the DNA of their mother, is not the same, i.e. blacks and whites do not share the same mommy. Are you serious this is where our most up to date "science" is??? 134.148.67.15 (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Europeans and others are partly Neanderthal.
New article just off the oven stating that most European groups have 2.5 percent Neanderthal genes:

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/10/results-from-asturias-spain-add-to-the-genographic-project-human-family-tree

From there, the following is cut and pasted:

Among the 100 people who participated, most (>80%) of their maternal lineages belonged to one of the seven major European haplogroups (branches on the human family tree). Lineages from the Middle East and North Africa were also present, but in smaller numbers (between 5 and 10% each), and one participant had Native American maternal ancestry, not commonly found among the Spanish.

Maternal haplogroup H was the most common branch among participants, accounting for more than a third of lineages. Interestingly, the ancestral haplogroup HV, with ties to early agriculturalists from the Middle East or possibly Europe’s earliest settlers, was found in eleven Asturians present. Overall, the maternal results showed a high frequency of some of Europe’s oldest lineages, a pattern similar to their Basque neighbors, also from northern Spain.

Haplogroup R1b was the reoccurring lineage for paternal ancestry, accounting for nearly 75% of male participants in this group. R1b is the most common European Y-chromosome branch, and nearly 60% of European men carry this lineage. One interesting finding revealed, however, was that many of the men came from lesser known branches of the R1b, suggesting their exact origin remains a mystery. Among the paternal lineages only one had ties to Europe’s fist modern humans.

'''Before modern humans arrived in Iberia about 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals ruled Spain. And although most anthropologists agree that humans and Neanderthals mixed, a point of interest among the participants was the unusually low percentage of Neanderthal in their DNA. The people from Asturias on average carried only 1.5% Neanderthal DNA, compared to the 2.5% average observed among most other modern European groups.'''

National Geographic’s roots in Asturias go deeper than DNA. In 2006, it was awarded the Prince of Asturias Award for Communication in 2006 for its efforts to inspire people to care about the planet. To learn more about National Geographic’s Genographic Project and discover your own ancient ancestry, visit www.genographic.com

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not new. Here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project
 * -Kortoso (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Some popular news article (not saying this is reliable) are suggesting that Westerners/Europeans became smarter because they intermarried with the Neanderthals, whereas the Blacks remained less intelligent because they failed to intermarry outside of Africa 134.148.67.15 (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting though, that the African Homo Sapiens prevailed before the European Neanderthal. Difficult to explain according to those theories, right? Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Neanderthals did not have the largest brains
They article says Neanderthals had the largest brain of any hominid at 1600 CC. This article on Boskops, hominins who lived in southern Africa 30,000 to 10,000 years ago, had an average brain case of 1750 cc. Why are Boskops not mentioned? http://discovermagazine.com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominids-who-were-smarter-than-us Turtire (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the article you mention is describing a speculative theory based on flimsy evidence that has not been met with any degree of acceptance in the literature on human evolution.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
This sentence: According to The Sensuous Curmudgeon “Whatever dates one uses, it seems that Neanderthal was the first to arrive in Europe and the Middle East.”

is confusing. First of all, who is the "Sensuous Curmudgeon"? I googled this and it appears to be someone's blog. Yet the sentence isn't sourced to the blog, it's sourced to the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That was added to the article last October with by an editor who has only made three edits and only to this article.  That may throw all three edits into question. – <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine Ellsworth</b>C LIMAX ! 18:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That editor's first edit has been well-improved since October. The second edit was an improvement and still stands.  The third edit was this paragraph, so I have removed the confusing parts and improved grammar and links. – <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine Ellsworth</b>C LIMAX ! 19:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Violence
This section seems to have a contradiction that really trips me as I read it. It currently says:

The St. Césaire 1 skeleton discovered in 1979 at La Roche à Pierrot, France, showed a healed fracture on top of the skull apparently caused by a deep blade wound. This wound was likely fatal, given the lack of medical care, causing the victim to bleed out, or through cranial concussion

As I read it, what trips me is that it is a "healed fracture" but the second sentence says it was likely fatal and that the victim likely bled out through the wound. in such a case, it wouldn't be a healed wound.

I can't locate the source to try to correct it myself. It would be nice if it was clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.231.7.225 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sources I could find:
 * 1. |Saint Césaire Neanderthal skeleton
 * 2.
 * 3. |The Role of the Neanderthal in Modern Behavior and Cultural Development, |Vindija cave and the modern human peopling of Europe]
 * 4. |search Jimw338 (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Classification
"For some time, scientists have debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of H. sapiens.[36][37] Some morphological studies support the view that H. neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies.[38][39] Others, for example University of Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"[40] and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies has been interpreted as evidence Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens.[41]"


 * Question and comment: Since when did "cultural interaction" enter into the determination of species vs variety for any being? I just got through with reading a paper about findings about Neanderthal nasal morphology which showed definite differences with H. sapiens, and while the paper said nothing about it, an author's interview in a magazine definitely proclaimed that this proved that Neanderthals and sapiens were different species, common genes notwithstanding.  And secondly, Svante Paabo et al. has gone somewhat beyond his paper concerning mitochondrial DNA in Neanderthal to his paper about nuclear DNA. It seems to me this paragraph needs rework by someone familiar with anthropological idiom. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The cultural interaction bit does seem weird, maybe it has been taken out of context? FunkMonk (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly from the POV of other species interrelations? One species of chickadee doesn't mix with another because of different courtship rituals, habitat preferences, etc. Just guessing here. Kortoso (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Last common ancestor?
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18196.abstract
 * A central problem in paleoanthropology is the identity of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans ([N-MH]LCA). Recently developed analytical techniques now allow this problem to be addressed using a probabilistic morphological framework. This study provides a quantitative reconstruction of the expected dental morphology of the [N-MH]LCA and an assessment of whether known fossil species are compatible with this ancestral position. We show that no known fossil species is a suitable candidate for being the [N-MH]LCA and that all late Early and Middle Pleistocene taxa from Europe have Neanderthal dental affinities, pointing to the existence of a European clade originated around 1 Ma. These results are incongruent with younger molecular divergence estimates and suggest at least one of the following must be true: (i) European fossils and the [N-MH]LCA selectively retained primitive dental traits; (ii) molecular estimates of the divergence between Neanderthals and modern humans are underestimated; or (iii) phenotypic divergence and speciation between both species were decoupled such that phenotypic differentiation, at least in dental morphology, predated speciation.
 * Thoughts?

Kortoso (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is interesting but it is far too early to start changing the Wiki article. We will need to see whether their views are accepted by other experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, it appears to be a peer-reviewed organ. Kortoso (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

English translation of the Greek "neander"
The following material was deleted recently with an edit summary that said "junk":

The valley was named after Joachim Neander, a 17th-century German pastor. According to fashion in those days, Neander used the Greek translation of his family name Neumann — both names meaning "new man".[1]

[1]Muller, Stephanie and Shrenk, Friedemann. The Neanderthal, p. 2 (Routledge 2008). If we have a section on etymology (which we do), I am puzzled why giving the English translation of the Greek "neander" is junk, while giving the English translation of the German "thal" is not junk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you're attaching it to Joachim Neander, not the valley. The valley isn't called "Neumann", it's called "Neander". So it's irrelevant to the page. Put it on Neander's page, if you insist on having it somewhere.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  06:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neander is Greek for "new man". How would you suggest we include that fact in the etymology section?  I have reinserted that information in a different way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not relevant because it is a coincidence, had the valley been named after Fred Blaupunkt would you have felt the need to translate blaupunkt as blue spot? the people are named after the valley, so they are "neader's valley" man. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If the valley had been named after Fred Blaupunkt, and the species was called Blaupunktthal, then very obviously a section on etymology must mention that Blaupunktthal literally translates to "Blue spot valley". I entirely agree with you that the literal translation of Neanderthal ("new man valley") is coincidence, but the fact that this cave was in a valley rather than on a plain is also complete happenstance, and yet we have no problem giving the translation of "thal" ("valley"). Moreover, some coincidences are trivial whereas others are remarkable, or strange, or otherwise notable.

Alan Almquist writes that the meaning of "Neander" is a "remarkable coincidence". See Almquist, Alan. Contemporary Readings in Physical Anthropology, p. 145 (Prentice Hall, 2000). Likewise, Noel Boaz writes that the meaning of "Neander" is "a strange linguistic turn of chance". See Boaz, Noel. Biological Anthropology: A Synthetic Approach to Human Evolution, p. 385 (Prentice Hall, 1997). Dozens of other reputable authors say how "Neander" translates, including these among many more:


 * Pallen, Mark. The Rough Guide to Evolution, p. 276 (Penguin 2011).


 * Ruse, Michael and Travis, Joseph. Evolution: The First Four Billion Years, p. 763 (Harvard University Press, 2009).


 * Schmitz, Ralf. Neanderthal 1856-2006, p. 257 (Verlag, GmbH, 2006).


 * Barrett, Erin and Mingo, Jack. Just Curious About Animals and Nature, Jeeves, p. 3 (Simon and Schuster, 2010).


 * Stern, Philip Van Doren. Prehistoric Europe, from stone age man to the early Greeks, p. 83 (Norton, 1969).


 * Schultz, Gwen. Ice age lost, p. 100 (Anchor Press, 1974)


 * Reader, John. Missing Links: In Search of Human Origins, p. 63 (Oxford University Press, 2011).


 * Klein, Jan and Takahata, Naoyuki. Where Do We Come From?: The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent, p. 262 (Springer 2013).


 * Camp, Lyon Sprague. The Ape-man Within, p. 14 (Prometheus Books, 1995).


 * Brace, C. Loring and Montagu, Ashley. Human evolution: an introduction to biological anthropology, p. 187 (Macmillan, 1977).

We currently say that "thal" means "valley" in the main text. I do not think it's appropriate to omit the translation of "Neander" even from the footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Application of Allen's rule to cranial capacity disputed
This difference in brain size can be attributed to the cold climate adaptations discussed in Allen's Rule

Neither the wiki article cited nor the source cited suggest this is the case. In fact I cannot see that there even a suggestion that this may be the case.

The wording of the statement makes it impossible to refute ashe difference COULD be attributed to anything we please! We could say that it can be attributed to diet, and cite sources showing the impact of nutrition on stature. The question though is what does scientific research say that it IS attributable to. If there is no consensus on this then the various opinions should be cited.

However I suggest the sentence simply be deleted.

LookingGlass (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC) ps apologies for the clumsy tag - I'm commenting on it's talk page.

Clean up re interbreeding evidence
A plea: for someone with more knowledge than I to cleanup this (these?) article(s) with regard to the DNA evidence. It seems clear from the work done by Barcelona University in the Sidrón Cave and statements from the Max Planck institute that a substantial amoumnt of DNA evidence must now be dismissed on account of possible sample contamination. It has been shown that such contamination can occur merely by breathing on or touching bone fragments on account of the foreign DNA readily penetrating to the bone core. I believe this led to the team setting out what I believe is known as the "El Sidrón protocol" for future archaeological work. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2012.00671.x/abstract Any takers? LookingGlass (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi protection
Hi! It might make sense to protect the article due to regular acts of vandalism. Fortunately, though there are lots of page watchers, who tirelessly revert these entries. Yet, it probably is the best way to discourage these kids. Thanks for your attention. All the best. Wikirictor (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

africans have neanderthal genes
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24988-humanitys-forgotten-return-to-africa-revealed-in-dna.html I'm not sure which article to put this in but it would appear that the khoisan of southern africa have west eurasian and neanderthal genes. Interesting find as neanderthal admixture theorists argue that naenderthal genes explain racial differences in intelligence. Turtire (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Are there racial differences in intelligence? I think one can keep these two issues quite separate. HiLo48 (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The linked article says everyone has traces of Neanderthal DNA. Which somewhat invalidates the concept of this thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it was previously assumed that no Africans had "Naenderthal" genes, and now this has been disproved. It's just remarkable that the Neanderthal markers were not seen previously.
 * And it has nothing to do with intelligence. Kortoso (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sorry, I should have said it makes an interesting claim re the genetic makeup of some isolated African populations, but says nothing useful re the implied views of "Neanderthal admixture theorists." -- Euryalus (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the study didn't test every African they could find for Neanderthal genes, the article should read "Some Africans Might Have Some Neanderthal Genes For Some Reason". Kortoso (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? Genetics absolutely affected cranial capacity and intelligence. How could you deny that? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this discussion is going nowhere. It is about at least two different issues. CorinneSD (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * BvO sounds like an editor who likes to pick a fight, CorinneSD. To use "cranial capacity" and "intelligence" in the same sentence like that is a dead giveaway.  Modern human capacities average around 1000cc, while Neanderthals averaged around 1400cc.  And one of the most intelligent men who ever lived, Anatole France, reportedly had a cranial capacity just a tad above a modern day chimp's.  Genetics may affect cranial size, but its affect on intelligence is dubious at best. – <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine</b>  23:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pardon, but that's pretty lame. Absolutely genetics, somewhere, enabled humans to become intelligent enough for societal life. Whether the residual Neanderthal genes did so, or just made our hair grow faster or our eyes squint more, or added another enzyme for digesting pine needles is not yet fully known.


 * The original for the "sub-Saharan Africans don't have Neanderthal DNA" idea was Sante Paabo et al's paper on the reconstruction of Neanderthal DNA. After he had the sequence, he tested six people's DNA for matches; if I remember rightly, one from each continent. One of the six was sub-Saharan African, and did not show the similarities that the other five did. This could, of course, have been just a sampling error, but he reported his findings. Typically, no one waited to see what follow-ups would say. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "african genes" has no significant meaning because africa is inhabitated by many races, including caucasisns in north. Khohisians do not belong to the negroid race, they are close to aborginal australians who definitely have neanderthal genes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.79.137 (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

nendertal area and ancestors of white people
"Neanderthals include bone and stone tools, which are found in Eurasia, from Western Europe to Central and Northern Asia and the Middle East. "

can we add obvious fact that the area inhabited by Neanderthals match the area populated by White people in prehistoric times before the exodus. If not - why it is too much truth for this website?
 * We use references. We don't use 'obvious facts'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So if we found references that white people in prehistory were "found in Eurasia, from Western Europe to Central and Northern Asia and the Middle East" it will be sufficient to add this 'discovery' to the article? Do this perfect match of ancestral population will be too 'original discovery' or as you cal it original research. Is it possible that if was not concluded by anybody yet, and if so, it should be credited to me as scientific discovery ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "If we found references", it wouldn't be "credited to you as scientific discovery", would it? Since it would already have been published. If, OTOH, you did actually discover this, & managed to get it published in a credible scientific journal (& not a rag publishing creationist fantasies as facts), it would (perhaps) qualify for adding, with a cite. Since I don't see either of those things happening before Hell (if it exists) gets a Stanley Cup team...    Crowley   hit me again, Dean  03:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What if we avoid religious/creationist etc fantasies (as mentioned by Crowley ) popups related to the ME(middle east). But if we change the sentence to exclude problematic with scientific consensus ME would be it clear? Not objectionable?. Anyway they in ME exhibited archaic futures which are not quite neanderthal and some papers suggest that the ME area may be the inbreeding zone with migrating from Africa Homo s.

'''Neanderthals include bone and stone tools, which are found in Eurasia, from Western Europe to Central and Northern Asia and the Middle East. + What is the area where white people lived in early historic times except (not certain) Midle East.''' < (the proposed addition).

But we know Hittite which were definitely white and lived in northern ME. Perhaps even we can safely narrow and say the neanderthal lived where in 900 ad lived indo-europeans (except India since I do not know yet any neanderthals from India(do you know any?)). Now the task is to see if comparing two maps is considered here a discovery? The distribution of neanderthal finds is projected through the time to distinctive anthropological features; see other maps.(the problem: to see similarities in differences and differences in similarities) I bid it is so obvious that nobody consider it discovery and will not write about. Is like writing that Europe was inhibited by white people (i cant find ref for that either). Perhaps if we add the map where neanderthal lived it will be self explanatory. Can you put the map to the art ? And what politics dictate this article is locked?


 * I'd answer that argument, if I actually found it coherent...  Hoshi Sato   say again, T'Pol  06:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * wasting time here. Besides the original research issue, I see this IP has been blocked 3 times for disruptive editing, including anti-Semitic remarks, an agenda the IP still seems to have given recent edits elsewhere. Doug Weller (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Neanderthal existed also in North Africa
Neaderthal lived also in north africa and is responsible of many cultures such as the Iberomaurusian North african people have a high amount of Neanderthal genetic input

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047765

The maps and article need to be updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.154.95.71 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just one article and it is too early to judge how far it will be widely accepted. But in any case it only covers whether people with Neanderthal genes moved into North Africa as well as Europe and Asia, not whether the Neanderthals were themselves there. The only proof of that would be the discovery of Neanderthal fossils in North Africa. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a far cry from "Neanderthal DNA admixture in modern N African genes" to Neanderthal in Africa". To date, no Neanderthal remains have been found in Africa. Kortoso (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, very far. It is more likely simply geneflow back into North Africa from Europe and the middle east.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

how looks people with nenderthal gens?
the article says: "Neanderthal DNA in us," said Pääbo, who led the study. "The proportion of Neanderthal-inherited genetic material is about 1 to 4 percen".

Where this 1-4 % proportin of people live today? 1 % of 6 of all humans equal 60 milion. As much as Germany! It is imposible so many hide in caves, mountains or forests. I will add cryptozoology to see also. OK? Do anybody have picture any of them ? 70.208.18.6 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say 1 - 4 percent of people alive are Neanderthals. You misunderstand.  1-4 % of the average human genome.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have misunderstood the statement, each and every individual who hails from a population outside of Africa has between one and four percent neanderthal genes. So unless you are only of African heritage (most Africans have genes from outside of Africa as well), you can look in the mirror if you want to know what a person with neanderthal genes looks like.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "one and four percent" rather someone 1 someone 4 % ? Imposible both be true for one person. Right? In any case. Do it mean they are grand grand x fathers for a lot of people? If the number are right. Nenaderthal are 5 to 8 generation away. See ancestry calculator. Why i can not edit this clan?
 * "Imposible both be true for one person. Right?" Wrong. It's called "a range of values", indicating uncertainty about an exact figure.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  05:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * range is 'from to' not 'n and m'. Also for a given person genome is fixed do not change. Or rather change on the level e-9 not x%. Small semantic but big diff. Anyway the 1 to 4 % is derived on sample of 3 genomes. 3 out of 3 bilons. the problem is you keep the art closed and outdated. You cite new papers but you  do not geting the conclusion, pushing old alredy abandoned thesis on top. Do you expect some busy resercher who may help edit this art to scout yor WP:hierarhy to get permition to edit it?

Hi! The mapping of the Neanderthal genome was an exceedingly complicated process, research on it is still in its infancy, which implies there is a rather sizable error margin and researchers are reluctant and vague with their statements. see section above: "concerning: Find peer-reviewed (etc.) source instead of current Reference #7 and remove current one". the 1-4% is the percentage of genes in modern humans,which they share with Neanderthals-not 1-4& of humans a r e Neanderthals http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding : Approximately 1 to 4% of non-African modern human DNA is shared with Neanderthals

All the Best Wikirictor (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you silently agree that acording to newer sources Nendertahl are grand grand.. fathers/parents to substntial group of people. If so - Is it a kind of insult to this people group/clan call they progenitor an extinct? (which mean dead whituot progeny or a species, family, or other larger group having no living members)
 * No, nobody agrees to this. You really don't seem to understand the issues here at all.  We share common genes with bananas, that doesn't mean my grandparents are bananas.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The implication here is that we descend partially from Neanderthals, though, not that we just share a common ancestor with them, which we do in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Moreover - it isn't relevant, what anyone silently might agree on - WP is an encyclopedia, that is supposed to present facts, plus providing references thereof.ATBWikirictor (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The lack of understanding of the basic math principles by the unsigned leaves me speechless. Clearly, this is describing a fraction of the genome & an uncertainty exactly how much of it traces directly to Neandertal. (No wonder. How accurate can the "gene drift" numbers from chimps actually be?) Until a sample of Neandertal DNA can be found, & a method developed to extract an analyse it, I don't see how it'll be anything but a best guess.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at, for example, Neanderthal genome project. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not know about that. Thx!  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

concerning: Find peer-reviewed (etc.) source instead of current Reference #7 and remove current one
Hi! The issue seems to be a bit messed up - so far.

The Smithsonian (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding) states: Approximately 1 to 4% of non-African modern human DNA is shared with Neanderthals.

The Scientific American (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dna-finding-my-inner-neandertal/): "According to the Genographic Project, I’m 2.1 percent Neandertal (average for non-Africans, their site informed me). In contrast 23andMe found 2.9 percent Neandertal content."

Yet the Genographic Project (https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/) writes: "A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA"

Wikirictor (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-neanderthal-genes-modern-human-dna-01734.html - about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome survives in modern humans of non-African ancestry

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26435-thoroughly-modern-humans-interbred-with-neanderthals/ - About 2 per cent of many people’s genomes today is made up of Neanderthal DNA,

http://www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-percent-neanderthal-genes.html - At least 20% of Neanderthal DNA Is in Humans

http://www.livescience.com/1122-neanderthal-99-5-percent-human.html - Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/human-neanderthal-similarity-africans-europeans - I understand that everybody except sub-Saharan Africans has 2 to 4% Neanderthal genes. So they differ from pure Africans by this large amount. We differ from chimpanzees by 1.2%. How can this possibly be?

Primary sources:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/neandertal/

Wikirictor (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe I'm looking at the same issue as you, except the reference #7 I'm looking at is for "Reconstructing the DNA Methylation Maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan". It is cited as the source for "differing in DNA by just 0.12%." I haven't found any such claim in the article. Is this the same thing you are seeing? Let me know if not.


 * Could someone point me to where it says 0.12% in the article? My tired eyes might just be missing it... Dlpolanco (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that's the whole point of it. The summary deals with Neanderthals and Denisovans - not precisely, what the WP editor made out of it. I suggest we dump the link and focus on the 1 - 4 % most of the above sources refer to. ATB Wikirictor (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How about: "Neanderthals and modern Humans have a common ancestor - Homo Heidelbergensis - who appeared around 700,000 years ago in Africa. However, Neanderthals evolved from a group of Homo heidelbergensis that had migrated into Europe and West Asia between 300,000 and 400,000 years ago (Out of Africa 1). Yet H. sapiens evolved in Africa from the local, African Homo heidelbergensis (also called Homo rhodesiensis) population approximately 130,000 years ago and migrated into Europe in a second wave at some point between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago."
 * Instead of: "They were closely related to modern humans, differing in DNA by just 0.12%."

Wikirictor (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikirictor, I think your proposed language works with small changes: "ancestor - Homo Heidelbergensis - who" to "ancestor, Homo Heidelbergensis, which" (IMO, "which" is the better choice) & "local, African" to "local" (since we've established Africa already).  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting the badly needed improvement of this article, but what sources are you using? Some points in your draft seem to me doubtful. You link to Out of Africa 1 but that article is about the original migration nearly 2 million years ago. As there were probably many migrations, I think it would be better to omit all references to first and second waves. 2. I would also leave out the reference to rhodesiensis, as it is a disputed species. 3. I am doubtful about 300-400,000 as the date of heidelbergensis migration out of Africa - is it not rather the date Neanderthals started to separate from heidelbergensis? (However, this probably reflects the conflicting dates given in different sources, which unfortunately is reflected in conflicting dates given within Wikipedia articles.) 4. I think the date for evolution of h. sapiens is far too late. Anatomically modern humans date back 200,000 years, although they probably did not evolve the brains of modern humans until much later. It might be better to leave out the dates of migration of modern humans as not relevant in the lead to the Neanderthal article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you - the migration history is way more complex and varied, the oldest sapiens skull is 190.000 years old...and so on. But i also had the task "Expand on the debate between Neanderthalensis as a separate species or sub-species of Homo sapiens" on mind, trying to somehow introduce it in the lead as well. Thanks for reminding me that it is hardly relevant in the Neanderthal head section.Wikirictor (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hybridisation with Neanderthals in East Asia
A recent PLOS1 paper on a discovery in China of a recent archaic hominin at references a 2013 paper at  titled "Higher levels of neanderthal ancestry in East Asians than in Europeans". This would obviously be very important if correct, and remarkable as there is no evidence the Neanderthals got that far east. Does anyone know of any other papers or books which show whether this claim is widely accepted? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, there exist some genetic studies demonstrating that present-day East Asians have more Neanderthal ancestry than present-day Europeans. See The landscape of Neandertal ancestry in present-day humans for more details. <span style="font:110%/1.5 'segoe ui','open sans',arial,sans-serif;border:2px solid #6ad;overflow:hidden;border-radius:9em;display:inline-block;background:#6ad;vertical-align:-7px;margin:0 8px"> Sky 6t  04:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Agenda involved in classification?
I was taught in school that if two animals could mate and produce fertile offspring then they were the same species. Therefore, dogs, for example, have not diverged sufficiently as yet from wolves to constitute a separate species. I thought this provided a concise and objective definition. Now, however, it would appear that such an objective definition has given way to more subjective criteria (a proposition which I would think weakens science). Was this shift made in the wake of the discovery that modern humans have Neanderthal DNA; the reason being that evolutionists feared this would weaken their case and give fodder to creationists? Were Neanderthals simply the first known wave of humans out of Africa who were no more qualitatively different than later waves of humans into Eurasia than white and black people are today? Is the term “subspecies” simply an expediency to advance an agenda? If this seeming paradigm shift in definition was made because of the discovery of the Neanderthal lineage of modern humans, then I think that would certainly be noteworthy and should be mentioned in the article. If on the other hand this paradigm shift in definition occurred before this discovery, then the point is obviously irrelevant. So when was the definition changed and why? If so, thanks for educating me to that fact.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The definition has always been subject to exceptions. For example, hybrids between lions and tigers - tigons and ligers - are occasionally fertile, but no one (so far as I know) thinks that they are the same species. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Our modern expression "Once in a blue moon" is the equivalent of the ancient Roman expression "When a mule foals." That is, I take it, your point.  But would this type of rare aberration apply in this case in which we have obviously carried our Neanderthal forbearers’ genes to this day through many millennia?  Thank youHistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can answer the question here, all we can do is search for sources meeting WP:RS and WP:NPOV. You might want a website forum dealing with evolution. Doug Weller talk
 * But the question as to if the definition of what constitutes different and like species was changed because of this issue can presumably be answered here, and if that was the case, mentioned in the article. If not, then, as I said, it is irrelevant.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

19:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that definitely the fact that interbreeding is now generally accepted means that the subspecies interpretation can no longer be said to be a minority view.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This recent review stillmaintains the species classification though: White, Suzanna, John AJ Gowlett, and Matt Grove. "The place of the Neanderthals in hominin phylogeny." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 35 (2014): 32-50.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This entry acknowledges both possible classifications as valid options: Harvati, Katerina. "Neanderthals and Their Contemporaries." In Handbook of Paleoanthropology, pp. 2243-2279. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2015.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This one also gives both options (but prefers subspecies): Bräuer, Günter. "Origin of Modern Humans." Handbook of Paleoanthropology (2015): 2299-2330.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This one simply states that it is a subspecies.Gross, Michael. "Rapid population rise bad for our health?." Current Biology 22, no. 17 (2012): R702-R705.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This post by Jonathan Marks (my favorite biological anthroppologist) explains why the debate about the taxonomic status of varieties within the human family is just as much political as it is scientific.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * An exception that's been recently bruited about is that of coyotes and wolves, which understand occurs in the wild and the pups are normally fertile. Kortoso (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian Tattersall defines a species as "the largest population within which interbreeding can freely take place". He regards Neanderthals as a separate species, but observes that one school of thought among paleoanthropologists displays a "quasi-religious fervour" in insisting that they are a sub-species, and sees hybrids between modern humans and Neanderthals all over the late Pleistocene. (The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack, 2015, pp. 13, 185) As Marks is cited above as commenting, the debate is as much political as scientific. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Taxonomy has always been arbitrary, pretty much all animal taxa have been reclassified multiple times, it is not unique to human relatives, and it has been so since the time of Linnaeus. There is no clear, universal definition of genus, species, subspecies, etc. It is up to scientific consensus what is considered as belonging to which rank. Nature doesn't care about arbitrary "ranks". Defining species vs. a subspecies is as subjective as the old race/cline debate. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Predation Hypothesis

 * Would the hypothesis espoused by Danny Vendramini in his book THEM + US be worth mentioning? Personally I have to raise an eyebrow or two at his reconstructions, but it's gotten good reviews from a number of archeologists and anthropologists. 174.4.40.74 (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The book was published in 2009 and I have not seen it mentioned in recent books and articles on evolution. It would need coverage by leading experts to be notable enough for coverage. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

pronunciation
English people pronounce this word NeanderTHal just as Americans do these days. To litter the main page of this item with a trivial discussion on pronunciation only serves to increase the general public's perception that Wikipedia is a suspect source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2o2o2o (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Neanderthal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100925191858/http://news.discovery.com:80/archaeology/neanderthals-more-intelligent-than-thought.html to http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/neanderthals-more-intelligent-than-thought.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 10:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Valley of the river Neander" is wrong
In the first sentence, the statement that the name comes from "the valley of river Neander" is wrong - there is no "Neander river", it's the "Neander valley" on the Dussel river. However I am not able to come up with a clear formulation how to put it all in a sentence not to make it confusing, so I just figured I will leave this here for someone better with English. The relevant facts can be found simply by clicking the link that is already there. Opisska (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"Neanderthals had a lower volume-to-surface ratio"
I think that should be "Neanderthals had a HIGHER volume-to-surface ratio." In other words, they had relatively more mass for their height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.149.74 (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Life timeline
Does anybody know, whether there is a more focused timeline - or one that starts later - more suitable? The existing one is of little use IMO. Wikirictor (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Life timeline is not relevant and I have deleted it. There is also the 'Timeline' section - I have amended the heading to 'Timeline of research' to more accurately reflect its contents. At the end there is a chronology section, but this is very out of date. It dates a number of fossils to after 40,000 years ago, even though researchers no long believe that the Neanderthals survived that long. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW - added a newly created Human timeline template, more focused than the earlier Life timeline template, which may be better in the "Neanderthal" article - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Humans with Neanderthal DNA
I don't mean to be rude when I say something has to be wrong. I come across as rude a lot though sorry lol

Something has to be wrong with when Neanderthals "interacted" with humans because I had a DNA test done and I have Neanderthal DNA but no African, Asian, or Mongolian DNA. (Mongolia was the last one right?) I have mostly British DNA with hints of stuff like Dutch and Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Kappa Sigma (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 one external links on Neanderthal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060115225948/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200509/s1450949.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1450949.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130302233458/http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/files/43feat_ancenct_human_occup_britain-3012.pdf to http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/files/43feat_ancenct_human_occup_britain-3012.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090521013034/http://www.anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm to http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121122123322/http://www.upf.edu/cexs/actualitat/neandarthals.htm to http://www.upf.edu/cexs/actualitat/neandarthals.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090115021331/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/459.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/459.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090115021331/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/459.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/459.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090326072705/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com:80/news/853/dna-find-deepens-neanderthal-mystery to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/853/dna-find-deepens-neanderthal-mystery
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140419013144/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9474109/Neanderthals-did-not-interbreed-with-humans-scientists-find.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9474109/Neanderthals-did-not-interbreed-with-humans-scientists-find.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090222210101/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com:80/node/814 to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/814
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090222210101/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com:80/node/814 to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/814
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120118081917/http://www.daynes.com:80/en/reconstructions/neanderthal.php to http://www.daynes.com/en/reconstructions/neanderthal.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060617204513/http://www.isogg.org:80/neanderthaldna.htm to http://www.isogg.org/neanderthaldna.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140313230947/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com:80/features/better-mothering-defeat-neanderthals/ to http://cosmosmagazine.com/features/better-mothering-defeat-neanderthals/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140313231031/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com:80/features/my-great-great-great-grandfathers-a-neanderthal/ to http://cosmosmagazine.com/features/my-great-great-great-grandfathers-a-neanderthal/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140812205137/http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/ancient-boost-fortifies-human-immune-systems/ to http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/ancient-boost-fortifies-human-immune-systems/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 10:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Neanderthal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121122123322/http://www.upf.edu/cexs/actualitat/neandarthals.htm to http://www.upf.edu/cexs/actualitat/neandarthals.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140419013144/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9474109/Neanderthals-did-not-interbreed-with-humans-scientists-find.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9474109/Neanderthals-did-not-interbreed-with-humans-scientists-find.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090222210101/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com:80/node/814 to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/814
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120118081917/http://www.daynes.com:80/en/reconstructions/neanderthal.php to http://www.daynes.com/en/reconstructions/neanderthal.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 18:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

See also section
Hi! i think there is too much unrelated and non-relevant stuff in it (e.g. Almas: wild man of Mongolia, Basajaun, Pleistocene megafauna). ATB Wikirictor (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW: i just found a new docu on youtube: CARTA: DNA–Neandertal and Denisovan Genomes;Neandertal Genes in Humans;Neandertal Interbreeding here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBeSV-FfJbU&ab_channel=UniversityofCaliforniaTelevision(UCTV) Wikirictor (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Mysterious underground rings built by Neandertals
See [,  and similar sources. Damn. The most information from the actual Nature article (or letter I think) is actually at AIG.. Weird. [[User:Doug Weller| Doug Weller ]] talk 16:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Chris Stringer's comments here look useful. Doug Weller  talk 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Can someone with access to the full Nature letter update the article? Dudley Miles (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Requested at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_28. If I get it, and I'm sure I will, I'll send you a copy. Doug Weller  talk 08:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for the copy. I am tied up at FAC at present, but I will read the article when I have time and amend the article if it has not been done by other editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * . I have at last got round to dealing with this, and also re-written Bruniquel Cave. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Dudley Miles. Thanks very much. Back to whack-a-mole now, I block one IP block evader and they hop to another, I've lost count! Doug Weller  talk 14:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested text and where it should go
I'm wondering if it should have it's own section or subsection under behavior.

Structures built from stalagmites and dated to 176.5 thousand years (±2.1 thousand years) ago, the early Middle Palaeolithic, have been found inside Bruniquel Cave near Bruniquel, France. The cave was found to have closed naturally during the Pleistocene and its discoverers in 1990 were the first modern humans to see it. and These consist of two large rings formed from deliberately broken stalagmites, stacks of stalagmites, burned bear bones, and evidence of fire were found far underground, 336 meters into the cave. The work long predated any other cultural artifact of hominins, such as cave paintings. Since radiocarbon dating is only usable back to 50,000 years, scientists Jacques Jaubert and Dominique Genty measured the time of the work's creation by analyzing uranium levels pre- and post-breakage in the stalagmites. During the period these structures were created the only humans in the area were Neanderthal.

This is the first known Neanderthal construction built in a cave beyond the reach of daylight. We need to also mention the comments on social organisation, on using light in deep karst, maybe a quote about "hundreds of partially calibrated, broken stalagmites (speleofacts) that appear to have been deliberately moved and placed in their current locations, along with the presence of several intentionally heated zones.

need to credit the original article for some of the above text in the edit summary. That article needs to be enlarged - the difference between the two is that this one can have less detail on the cave itself, focussing on the Neanderthal aspect.