Talk:Tianyuan man

Untitled
The Tianyuan jaw is not the same as the Liujiang skull, arguably the known oldest human skull in Asia (excepted Palestine). I get redirected here from "Liujiang man". --85.84.246.2 (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Updating needed
A recent article (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/was-ancient-person-china-offspring-modern-humans-and-neandertals) gives additional and corrected information on the genetics. Kdammers (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Relation of ancient populations in western Eurasia
The text currently says: based on Yang et al. (2017). The statement is also used in Goyet_Caves.
 * Tianyuan man exhibits a unique genetic affinity for GoyetQ116-1 from the Goyet Caves in Namur province, Belgium. GoyetQ116-1 shares more alleles with Tianyuan man than does any other sampled ancient individual from West Eurasia.

This seems to be partially outdated. While there is still consensus that the East Eurasian part of GoyetQ116-1's genome has a special close relation to Tianyuan against all other East Eurasian lineages, Bacho Kiro has been shown to be deeply East Eurasian-related without West Eurasian admixture.

So "GoyetQ116-1 shares more alleles with Tianyuan man than does any other sampled ancient individual from West Eurasia" might be wrong, although I haven't seen a source that directly says that IUP Bacho Kiro shares more alleles with Tianyuan man than GoyetQ116-1 does, nor explicitly anything like D(IUP Bacho Kiro, GoyetQ116-1; Tianyuan, Mbuti) > 0 (although it must be buried in the input data for the qpGraph diagrams in Hajdinjiak et al. (2021) or Vallini et al. (2022)).

Do you have an idea how to update this piece of information without guesswork or OR? Austronesier (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No (I tried). 😁 Let's replace it with 'Tianyuan man shows affinity with both GoyetQ116-1 and IUP BK. Both Tianyuan and Goyet can be modelled as IUP BK related source with admixture from a West Eurasian source' or something like that, perhaps?  Tewdar   12:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yep perhaps something like the suggestion of Tewdar. The Hajdinjak et al. 2021 does show BK and "deep western" contributions for Tianyuan and Goyet. The Maier et al. 2023 paper also has something about that (https://doi.org/10.7554%2FeLife.85492), although if I remember correctly, their models did not support BK geneflow into Goyet or Tianyuan (but I would need to read it again...).Wikiuser1314 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maier et al. say it is "clear that we do not yet have a unique historical explanation for the excess sharing of alleles that has been documented between some Upper Paleolithic European groups (Bacho Kiro IUP, GoyetQ116-1) and all East Asians.". So perhaps something like "the precise relationship between Tianyuan man, GoyetQ116-1, and IUP BK remains uncertain" would be better. Maybe we can give the Hajdinjak model a mention too?  Tewdar   13:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Hajdinjak et al. (2021) graph and the alternative re-runs in Maier et al. (2023) are already "outdated" too, since they don't have Zlatý kůň in their model, which would help to set some constraints on geneflow from an unknown deep basal source (as in the best-scoring model by Maier et al.). So the most up-to-date sources to consult would be Vallini et al. (2022) and the two MPI EVA papers as they make use of both Zlatý kůň and IUP Bacho Kiro. In Vallini et al., we have the nice and simple branching-off model, while Posth et al. (2023) have a Hajdinjak-like topology with Bacho Kiro as partial ancestry source for Ust'-Ishim, Tianyuan and GoyetQ116-1 (only differing in the admixture ratios). Villalba-Mouco et al. (2023) don't have Bacho Kiro in their graphs, but have a lot of valuable information in the prose of Supplementary Information 4+5.
 * And guess what, Villalba-Mouco et al. actually have the f4-statistics that I have been looking for in the Supplematary Tabe S2.7: f4(GoyetQ116-1, IUP Bacho Kiro; Tianyuan, Mbuti), and surprise, it's positive! That means, "GoyetQ116-1 shares more alleles with Tianyuan man than does any other sampled ancient individual from West Eurasia" has not become outdated with IUP Bacho Kiro. But then, Solutrean MLZ from Andalusia slightly beats GoyetQ116-1 both in (X, IUP Bacho Kiro; Tianyuan, Mbuti) and also in direct comparison (MLZ, GoyetQ116-1; Tianyuan, Mbuti) > 0, so we still need some kind of re-write. But as for now, my head is still spinning so I need to take a nap first before thinking about how make use of all this here and in Ancient East Eurasians (and also in the diagrams by that as of now heavily lean on Vallini et al. in the IUP/UP part) –Austronesier (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)