Denisovan: Why does not a mysterious group of old people do not contain the name of the species

This is an excerpt from our human story, the newsletter on the revolution in archaeology. Subscribe to receive in your inbox every month.

One of the things I try to do in our human story is to answer the most common questions about human development. Again in February 2021, I tried to explain something that disturbs many people: how prominent humans and modern humans can overcome if they are separate types. (Short answer: The boundaries between the types are mysterious).

This month we will treat another permanent source of confusion. Why does Denisovans, a widely extinct human group in Asia, have the name of the species? What should their name be, if they get one?

The issue of what should be his “official” name for Dennisovan is calm since their discovery in 2010. It appeared again in June, when a great discovery was announced. A skull of Harbin in northern China, which is called the dragon man, is recognized as Denisovan using molecular evidence. We hadn’t had a Denisovan skull before, so this was the first time that we had a good idea of what their faces were.

When I went New worldWorld Podcast, the universe and everything to talk about the discovery, the host of Rawan Hopper asked me why Denisovans did not have the name of the species. Why can’t we contact them Homo Denisovances Or something like this, the way we call Neandrthals Homo Neanderthalinsis?

The time was short, so I gave what I was hoping to be a simple answer: “It is about the fact that we had no enough information about Denisov to be able to properly describe them … their DNA is different from Neanda and the Nandaltal DNA is before us. To be able to describe the shape of the species, how its skeleton was.

Although this is true, there is also a lot of it. There are two intertwined questions. First, what fossils are actually Denisovan (and which is not)? This is a question about the objective reality, and is very difficult to solve, because it involves looking at dozens of excavations and contracts of research. Second, which of the many names that have been appointed must have precedence in accordance with our classification rules? This is a legal question about humanitarian processes – and therefore more difficult.

Who is in and who comes out?

First, here is a reminder of Denisovan. It is a mysterious group of people, which was first described in 2010 based on a slice of the finger bone in Denisova’s cave in the Tai Mountains in Siberia. DNA revealed from the bone that he was neither a modern human nor Neanderthal, but it is a different thing. Moreover, many people today carry some DNIsovan DNA, especially in Southeast Asia and Milanism-which indicates that Denisovan and modern humans.

This implicitly means that Denisovan should have been somewhat widely in East Asia during a few hundred thousands of past years. Where are all fossils Denisovan?

Quickly forward 15 years until the present time, a small number of Denisovan fossils have been identified positively. For example, the lower jaw bone was found in a cave on the Tibet plateau, and it was identified using both proteins of fossils and DNA from sediments. Likewise, the jaw bone was bulldozed from Penghu channel off the coast of Taiwan: In April, the preserved proteins confirmed that it is Denisovan.

However, we are far from the presence of a full skeleton. Determining a Harbin skull, we took a step closer by giving us a face. But there is still a lot of the skeleton that still finds.

Now, there are many East Asia’s Huminin fossils that, in theory, be Denisovan. Many discoveries have proven to be difficult to classify: it does not seem to be completely matching Men alert. This is tempting: If enough of them prove that it is Denisovan, we will have a more complete picture and you may officially describe species.

But how do we decide which fossils are Denisovan? Ideally, we will have molecular evidence – preserved DNA or proteins – we can compare the original Denisovan residue. But most samples were either analyzed or did not result in anything.

One of the most prominent attempts to solve this problem was a preliminary study published In 2024, with reviews in MarchBy a group led by Shigon Ni at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. The team compared 57 hominin fossils, given the largest possible number of material features. This enabled them to put a family tree of all different excavations.

The NI team found that huntins eurosian gather in three main groups: modern humans, Anandal and the third group. This third group included the original fossils, Denisovan, Jawbone from the Tibetan Cave, Penghu Jawbone, and Harbin Skull. The third group seems to be the people we call Denisovan.

This is very elegant if this is true – but of course others do not agree.

One set of controversial fossils comes from Hualongdong in southern China. It is a good collection: a semi -complete skull with 14 teeth, upper jaw, six isolated teeth and other bits. They are all about 300,000 years.

The Ni team has selected the hualongdong excavations in the Denisovan group. However, a study in July led by Xiji Woo, also at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, has given a closer look at Hualongdong’s teeth. I found that she did not match anything terribly, and suggested They may represent another group. Of course, there is another possible explanation: Denisovan was definitely diverse, so Denisovan of Hualongdong may have been a little different from that in another place.

Meanwhile, there are many other mysterious Asian fossils, including the 260,000 Daly skull Also, 260 thousand years of partial Jinniushan skeleton Both of them suggested the Ni Denisovan team.

However, we have a increasing list of Denisovan fossils, some of which were identified with more confidence than others. What will we call them?

Homo, whatever it is

This was happening, Ni was one of the researchers who described the skull of Harbin in 2021. The team called it his name pole. So perhaps this is what Denisovan should call?

But wait. A competitor’s proposal was presented last year, by Wu and Christopher Bay at the Hawaiian University at Manua, Honolulu. In two papers, in paleoanthrophology and Nature CommunicationsThey argued that we must build somewhat around it A group of excavations from Xujiayao in northern China. They suggested calling this new type Julons man Including the original Denisovan fossils. So we must invite Denisovan Julons man.

The point of selling this idea is that Xujiayao fossils resemble the fossils of Denisovan. In fact, the NI team also classified them as Denisovan. The difference is Bae and Wu wanted to deal with Xujiayao fossils as a “sample”, which is the entire type is named.

This is simultaneously an argument about which fossils should be assembled together and naming agreements. Let’s separate the two.

On the first front, Julons man The proposal has a big problem. BAE and Wu, frankly, said that Harbin’s skull is not a Julons man/Denisovan, because it does not look similar enough. However, the study from June clearly appears, using molecular evidence, the Harbin skull is Denisovan. So, as a description of objective reality – that is, excavations, not Denisovan – Julons man It appears to have fallen flat.

What about the classification? The rules here are complex. One of the main elements, it is basically, comes first to be presented first: the first name to be applied is a priority. On this basis, pole He has a more feature Julons manBecause it was put up three years ago.

Are there any other possible names for Denisovan?

Denisova cave excavations did not describe Denisovan as a type. One of the members of this team, Anatoli Dervianko, referred to them as Bassem Humainsis HomoAnd that would make them a sub -kind of modern person – however He did not formally describe so that he did not count.

This year, Derevianko has placed a series of papers that suggest what Denisovan might do Mongoliaand Uzbekistanand Tajikistan and Iran. He refers to them all the time Hoomo, the sane Denisovan. I could not read the papers because the summaries are only available to the public, so I don’t know if he had made an official description – but if he did, he did so after four years pole It was called.

If you really, you can find some additional options. Uses the 2015 paper Homo Denisovinis And 2018 study study for Homo Dennisense. None of them was widely accepted.

Finally, there is a truly the possibility of an old name. Perhaps a person has named one of the Asian Humin fossils decades ago in a mysterious paper: if it turns out that these fossils turned out to be Denisovan, this name will have a priority (assuming that the description has been properly done). However, Wu, Bay, Ni and others looked at this in the 2023 paper. They found The main excavations have not been properly named. There were loose suggestions, for example, the Dali skull can be called Dalinisis manBut these were terrible statements instead of official descriptions.

At this point, your head may rotate from all these fossil names and species names, so let’s summarize. The main point is that we come out of our understanding of Dinisov – this means that we are close to being able to give them a cultivation.

What it deserves, based on my understanding of the rankings, I think pole He has a good opportunity to become the official name. I am not sure that he would have been my choice, but it doesn’t return to me. In any case, they will always be Denisovan Lee.

Topics: