Species

We have been treating Neanderthals here as a species, Homo neanderthalensis, distinct from our own species, Homo sapiens. Some researchers elect to call Neanderthals a subspecies, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and classify modern humans as another subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

The line between subspecies and species is not clear cut, nor – given the way evolution works – should we expect it to be. Very recent work on ancient DNA recovered from fossils has shown just how complicated the subject is. The spectacular finding of the last few years is that modern humans are hybrids, getting most of their ancestry from a single founding population (we can call them Homo sapiens), but incorporating limited ancestry from close relatives. Thus human beings outside Africa have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA. So it looks as if early in the course of expansion(s) out of Africa, there was a limited amount of interbreeding with Neanderthals.* And not just with Neanderthals. Populations in Melanesia get an additional 4-6% of their DNA from a widespread East/Southeast Asian population known as Denisovans, while some African groups have ancestry from non-sapiens populations in Africa. (The fossil record for Denisovans is a lot sparser than for Neanderthals, and it’s even sparser for African non-sapiens.)

This isn’t reason enough to put Neanderthals and sapiens in a single species: plenty of species occasionally hybridize with related species. And in fact the DNA evidence implies that sapiens and Neanderthals were moving toward being reproductively isolated. Specifically, we find that a lot of Neanderthal genes related to testis development and male fertility are underrepresented (i.e. at a lot less than 1-4% frequency) in modern humans. The likely explanation is that those genes didn’t work well against a H. sapiens genetic background. In other words, if you were mixed sapiens/Neanderthal man, you probably had fertility problems, albeit not to the point of complete sterility.

There is an extensive older literature in physical anthropology on “race crossing.” Researchers were concerned with whether people with mixed racial ancestry might have reduced fitness as a result of combining incompatible genes. This literature is reviewed at book length here. The overwhelming evidence is that “race crossing” has no harmful biological consequences (in contrast to close inbreeding, which is a bad idea: wait until we get to the Habsburgs on November 9). The new data from Neanderthal DNA puts this in perspective. Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis evolved separately for the better part of a million years, and were some way on the path to reproductive isolation. By contrast, different populations (“races”) within Homo sapiens have only been evolving separately for 100 thousand years or less. This has been enough time to evolve major differences in traits like skin color and hair form, but not to create appreciable biological barriers to interbreeding.

And here’s a link covering some recent research suggesting that across a wide range of organisms it takes a surprisingly clock-like average of two million years separation to split one species into two.

* Hence, my Neanderthal name is Carg, and my website is cargshome.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Species

  1. Brit

    I’d like to see “Biology of Racial Integration” reviewed and scrutinized before accepting its conclusions. I met a researcher who was convinced that children of recently mixed races have a higher degree of health problems. He said this effect isn’t apparent in already-mixed populations as in South America, presumably because bad combinations of alleles have had time to be selected against. One of the examples he gave was a white brain in a black skull causing the brain to push against the skulll, leading to high rates of schizophrenia in mixed race children.

    I would trust his opinion over a book written fifty years ago, as I presume he had access to more data.

    Like

    Reply
  2. logarithmichistory Post author

    The story about white brains in a black skull causing schizophrenia sounds like a piece of medical folklore. The “evidence” you cite – what some researcher told you – is pretty flimsy. There is (or was) a similar piece of folklore among dentists about how overbites result from race crossing: an upper jaw from one group, lower jaw from another. But that’s not how development works.

    The argument that outbreeding depression isn’t evident after a few generations of mixture, thanks to selection, doesn’t work quantitatively. It took tens of millennia for selection to reduce the frequency of Neanderthal genes in Homo sapiens by several percentage points.

    Dyer’s book is old, but covers a large body of research, including first generation crossing. The overwhelming and consistent conclusion is that mixed race children are intermediate between their parents, without serious outbreeding depression. This conclusion might change with more research, but it seems at this point that outbreeding depression, if it happens at all, is a lot harder to detect than inbreeding depression.

    You can find some discussion of the issues at the Harpending-Cochran West Hunter blog, here: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/standards-drift/

    Like

    Reply
  3. Pingback: Inbreeding depression | Logarithmic History

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s