This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and splitted by subregions (e.g. the Metrolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
I have inserted coordinates into the double image caption. It is not THE solution, i know. It might help to inspire someone to do something great. All the best Wikirictor 01:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It's good to give information on the location. However, the coordinates in the image caption don't work very well - the dropdown is clipped, and IMHO giving coordinates is too much detail for a caption. I replaced the coordinates with a link to the existing article on the location (Kleine Feldhofer Grotte), which gives the exact location for anyone interested. I also geotagged the photo. Sebastian (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Species interact and evolve, in the same form and manner that they do today.
The Neanderthal did not die out (go extinct), the species evolved over several thousands of years in the same form and manner that the other branches of species evolved into either distinct branches or came together into a hutspotz of species (as is that tendency today).
Extinct, is when a species has not evolved and died out, or has been genocided, which for a differencial in two specimens that are seperate one from the other in terms of around a hundred thousand years in time, is not the case.
Placing the term: extinct, on this topic, is somewhat of a mistake, the correct term would be, evolved, descendent relationships unknown.
Extinct, by itself, is merely an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
What's the scientific consensus on the matter? How fringe are any other opinions? --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Genetic relationships among neanderthals/modern humans/chimpanzees
Comes 126.96.36.199 with a deletion to the text which states that Neandertals may be a species or a subspecies, leaving it saying only species.
As best I can determine with a cursory look, the jury is still out about whether Neanderthals are best classed as a species or a subspecies, and may well be so for years. While it is a bit awkward to require a source for a phrase deletetion, I think that we need one, at least in the Talk section, which reaches the conclusion through research and negates the arguments contrary, not "just cause I say so". Until then, best cover both possibilities. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This may be the study that prompted that edit:  But recent evidence keeps piling up showing that features are a mix-and-match affair, leading to the sub-species conclusion: . If I had my "druthers", I'd present the mixed POV as a teachable moment. Kortoso (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
As close as I can read your two references, they seem to point to the conclusion that Neandertals are a subspecies of H. sapiens, which is the opposite of what the edit I reverted said. Even your own conclusion seems to say subspecies.
Thanks for the input. I agree with it, I think, and I agree with your teachable moment. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
"It is very probable that additional finds will make the delimitation of sapiens against Neanderthal even more difficult. It seems best to follow Dobzhansky's suggestion and to consider the two forms, as well as the ancestral group that seems to combine their characters, as a single species."
From 2011 onwards, following radiocarbon results by a team of the Oxford Institute of Archaeology, there was a major change in scientific consensus for the age of the extinction of the Neanderthals. No uncontaminated radiocarbon date of a Neanderthal, Mousterian, or Châtelperronian layer is demonstrably younger than 40 ± 1 ka (Higham 2011, Pinhasi et al. 2011, Wood et al. 2013, Higham et al. 2014). To change the extinction date to one more recent than 40 ka (as was widely believed before 2011), kindly cite on this talk page a scientific article more recent than 2011 that seriously challenges the well-received work of the above authors. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nicolas Perrault III: FWIW - Just now noticed this discussion - after updating the template to 24,000 years ago extinction date for Neanderthals - based on a relevant 30 October 2015 reference from the Australian Museum - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: Hey Drbogdan, many thanks for your interest in the date of the Neanderthal extinction! The scientific consensus changed recently and as far as I am aware no scientific research article published after 2011 has produced a Neanderthal radiocarbon date convincingly younger than 40 ka. Because radiocarbon dates for Neanderthal sites were of highly variable quality (an estimated 70% of them were contaminated), the radiocarbon accelerator team here at Oxford has spent five years redating 500 uncontaminated Neanderthal sites and found none that was convincingly older than 40 ka. Some outdated secondary sources will still show a date younger than 40 ka. The article from the Australian museum was written in 2010 or before as seen on the Wayback machine. The Australian Museum gives this outdated date of 30-28 ka (not 24 ka) only in passing, with no source, as if it were common knowledge. It does not discuss, criticise, or even acknowledge the post-2011 uncontroversial scientific work of the Oxford radiocarbon unit. (As a disclaimer, I should mention that I am a member of the Oxford Institute of Archaeology, but not of the radiocarbon team.) All my best, Nicolas Perrault (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nicolas Perrault III: Thank you for your comments - the "24,000" date was noted in the Australian Museum reference ("Last Updated: 30 October 2015") as "Lagar Velho – a 24,000-year-old skeleton ... described by its discoverers ... as a Neanderthal-Homo sapiens hybrid" - nonetheless - yes - agreed - seems the most substantial support at the moment may be the "40,000" date after all - *entirely* ok with me to update relevant Wikipedia articles if you like - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that "hybrid" identification is solid enough to propose the existence of neanderthals in that period. It is generally agreed that they were gone by 40k BP, that is the date we should use, proposed younger dates can be put in a note or side comment with attribution, untill there is clear evidence that consensus has shifted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
That's my opinion as well. Inferring the existence of Neanderthals 24,000 years ago based on a single robust individual reminiscent of Neanderthals requires a string of inferential leaps, namely
that the dating is correct
that Neanderthals lived on and stayed under the archaeological radar bar this site for 16,000 years
that the authors are correct in suggesting that the skeletal features are outside of modern human range
that these more robust features are indeed inherited from Neanderthals and are not due to something else
that the Neanderthal features came from Neanderthals that lived not long prior to the skeleton
Finding the first or last of something is always thorny. The consensus is indeed that there are no Neanderthals left after 40 ka, but for all we know they may have managed to survive a remote somewhere in Europe until, say, 37 ka (or deep in Norway to this day for that matter). The last known tool assemblages associated with Neanderthals at 40 ka is just our best guess. Regards, Nicolas Perrault (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I am with Nicolas and Maunus on this - until I see DNA from that supposed hybrid skeleton, Lapedo child, its status as a hybrid remains in doubt, particularly as it was contested at the time by others who saw no Neanderthal affinities. It doesn't look like this has been done (or, given the time that has passed, it was tried and failed), so we are left with the new 40K YBP consensus. Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to throw a cat among the pigeons, is this 26K date solid, or might this also be a case of the same flawed dating? Agricolae (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree with the comments above - the 40K YBP dating seems best at the moment of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
While the 40k date is now in the infobox, the article is now internally inconsistent - there are many fossils listed at the bottom of the page that are assigned more recent dates. Don't we need a comment down there that these are the original dates assigned, but may be subject to revised dating based on the 40K consensus? Agricolae (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Well spotted. Indeed they are confusing, I removed them entirely. Because different fossils may have had different levels of contamination, the old dates cannot even be usefully compared with one another, at least not by a layman. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)