Talk:Denisovan/Archive 2

DNA from thigh bone in Spain similar to Denisovian DNA

400,000 Years, Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

From the article: "The fossil, a thigh bone found in Spain, had previously seemed to many experts to belong to a forerunner of Neanderthals. But its DNA tells a very different story. It most closely resembles DNA from an enigmatic lineage of humans known as Denisovans." Beutelevision (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps better to say that the Sima mtDNA is closer to Denisovan mtDNA, than to Neandertal or anatomically modern human mtDNA, but the difference between the Sima and Denisovan mtDNA is roughly comparable to the distance between Neandertal and AM human mtDNA. See the chart at Dienekes Anthropology Blog for December 4, 2013 (I've not linked directly to that day's blog as I suspect the chart is copied from the article in Nature). And this, of course, says nothing about autosomal DNA. -- Donald Albury 17:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And an interesting discussion at John D. Hawks' blog: The Denisova-Sima de los Huesos connection. For some reason I wasn't able to connect to his blog last night or this morning, or I would have cited it earlier. He does state what I referred to above: Although they are on the same mtDNA clade, the difference between Sima and Denisova sequences is about as large as the difference between Neandertal and living human sequences. He also disceusses It would not be fair to say that Denisova and Sima represent a single population, any more than that Neandertals and living people do. He also has something to say about this one sample of DNA fits into the general picture of our genetic history. This is a blog, but Hawks is an established paleo-anthropologist, and I think use of the blog as a reliable source is defensible, but I will leave it to discussion here. -- Donald Albury 18:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear that Denisova would be more "primitive" than Heidelbergensis or would be between Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal. Can we make this clearer? Kortoso (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Almas

It is perhaps a coincidence that this historically very recent non human should be found in the very mountains where the Almas (AKA Yeti) has been reported.119.224.91.84 (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This "non-human" bone is at least 300,000 years old.(A mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos) -- Donald Albury 17:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In other words, yes it is a coincidence. Kortoso (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Homo rhodesiensis, the ancestror of Homo sapiens ?

FYI, I read somewhere in a scientific magazine, that we usually admit (like in your graphic showing the spread of humans) that Homo sapiens is the direct descendant of Homo heidelbergensis. Indeed, both species lived locally on the same area at a few ten of thousands years apart. However, new analysis reveal that Homo sapiens would descent directly from Homo rhodesiensis whose descendants left directly Africa (they trajectory across Northern Africa is not documented) and does not follow the track left behinf them their common ancestor, Homo antecessor. As we say in this case, all track are opened. -- luxorion

I've been reading about that and Rhodesian man is most likely a transitional period between Humans and Neanderthals Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

More like Homo rhodesiensis = Homo heidelbergensis -> Neanderthal -> Homo sapiens. Kortoso (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Name?

This article makes it seem like this is a proven species but it doesn't list the scientific name anywhere which is really confusing. --174.102.9.42 (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The scientific name has not yet been assigned. There are ongoing studies trying to place Denisovan in the correct evolutionary context and lineage. But homimin lineage looks increasingly diverging and converging between species (read: interspecies "hanky-panky"). Human evolution was not linear, but the product of multiple hybrid experiments. I understand there is a suggested classification of the 3 groups: modern human, Neanderthal and homo altaiensis (Denisova). But all of them have been shown to have interbred. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This is no doubt true, but the name Homo sp. Altai is used by a few sources, including a Wellcome Trust site, so I will add this to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I modified the article to avoid using lowercase in these (sub)specific epithets. These are not formal taxonomic names - Denisovans have not been described formally. I would argue that the best way to refer to these would be Homo sp. 'Altai' and Homo sapiens ssp. 'Denisova'. Generally speaking, these names should avoid looking like they are actual, formal scientific names. I would argue that neither italics nor lowercase is appropriate (that should be reserved for real scientific names), but acknowledge that the Altai reference uses italics and the other two are ambiguous. None of the references use lowercase. --Aranae (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Lets just call them all humans. Me myself I prefer calling all 3 subspecies of Homo sapien but others will call them other species for various reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.106.113 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't make editorial decisions based on personal preference. Agricolae (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Stone bracelet

Perhaps this Denisova bracelet is notable enough to be included? Stone bracelet is oldest ever found in the world (May 2015). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we would need a more reliable source, especially as modern humans also used the cave, so its connection with the Denisovans may be debatable. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... "Scientists found that a hole had been drilled in part of the bracelet with such precision that it could only have been done with a high-rotation drill similar to those used today."

Some of that science stuff: "The bracelet is not attributable to Denisovans with any degree of certainty. There is no such thing as a “Denisovan layer” at 40,000 B.P. when we know there was breeding between Denisovans and Homo sapiens sapiens. They were in fact co-existing and more, so the presence of a Denisovan bone does not exclude the presence of Homo sapiens sapiens if we accept the 40k soil date as equal to the bracelet date."

Kortoso (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Denisovan genes in Native South Americans - Via Oceania travellers

• "Denisovan ancestry in East Eurasian and Native American populations." Qin, P. & Stoneking, M. Mol. Biol. Evol. (2015). (Full text: [1]).
• Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas. Nature 525, 104–108 (03 September 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14895 Received 05 February 2015 Accepted 14 July 2015 Published online 21 July 2015

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It would not be at all surprising if native Americans have Denisova NA, but I think it is a bit early to change the article. The first paper is a pre-print, and presumably not peer reviewed, and the second does not mention the Denisovans in the abstract, which is the only part I can access. Still it is very interesting, and hopefully someone (John Hawks?) will produce comments we can use. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is very premature to include it. Further work on population genetics is needed, and then there is the interpretation. If there is no impact in the scientific community, there will be no change in this article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line

What exactly does this paragraph serve? Idle speculation? Kortoso (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

New paper

Quote: "Reconstruction of this genetic history suggests that Neandertals bred with modern humans multiple times, but Denosivans only once, in ancestors of modern-day Melanesians."

Excavating Neandertal and Denisovan DNA from the genomes of Melanesian individuals. ([2]). Science Vol 352, Issue 6282; 8 April 2016. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"low coverage"

The article to which this term links, never uses it. Either explain what it means here, or edit the other article. As it reads now, this is not comprehensible. 100.15.117.207 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The linked article, in the section Coverage (genetics)#Ultra-deep sequencing, defines "higher coverage" as ">100-fold" sequencing. I would therefore interpret "low-coverage" as less than 100-fold. If you feel that this does not adequately explain what "low-coverage" is, you can request clarification of the term on Talk:Coverage (genetics). - Donald Albury 00:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not clear that the linked article is talking about the same thing. Some scientists distinguish between depth, which is the number of times a nucleotide is read to reduce errors, and coverage, which means the proportion of the genome which is sequenced. The coverage article appears to treat it as synonymous with depth, whereas the Denisovan article seems to mean by coverage the proportion of the genome which has survived to be sequenced. Does anyone know whether I have got this right? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the second source cited for the heading of the table, I see that in one place they mention a 51-fold coverage, but later seem to use low-coverage to mean that only a small part of the genome from a specimen could be sequenced. I'm not an expert, and now realize that I understand less about this than I thought I did. - Donald Albury 18:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Interbreeding

The last paragraph of this section includes a sentence the point of which is unclear to me, and I can't improve it because I currently don't have access to the cited source to know what exactly it is trying to relate:

"South Asians and East Asians have comparable levels of Denisovan admixture but South Asians like Oceanians had only one detectable introgression event."  

What is this getting at? Is it implying that East Asians, unlike South Asians, have more than one event? or does it mean to say that though there are different amounts in East/South Asians vs Oceanians, each group had just a single introgression event? Or something else? Could someone with access to the source rephrase this. Agricolae (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

While we are talking about this Interbreeding section, parts of it read a bit like a play-by-play of scientific reports. It may benefit from a rewrite that sets aside the chronological sequence of discoveries and instead presents a summary of the current state of knowledge. Agricolae (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I rearranged to address this chronological blow-by-blow presentation, but I still can't figure out what the sentence mentioned above is supposed to mean. Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This article states that there is a second set of Denisovan genes in East Asians that are not found in South Asians and Papuans. - Donald Albury 23:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, between that and the abstract of the original paper, I get what that sentence was trying to say. I have completely rephrased it accordingly. Agricolae (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Neanderthal mother and Denisovan father. 23 August 2018 Chicago Tribune has an article on a bone fragment of a girl whose parents (not just ancestors) were from the two different species/subspecies. The newspaper source is the just-released issue of Nature. Somebody lease go to that article and include any relevant information. 107.134.78.59 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It is already there, in the first paragraph of the Interbreeding section. Agricolae (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Generations" inconsistency

From the lede: "Denisovans and Neanderthals split from Homo sapiens around 600,000 up to 744,000 years ago and diverged from each other 300 generations after that."

From Discovery section: "This work shows that the Denisovans were actually a sister group to the Neanderthals, branching off from the human lineage 600,000 up to 744,000 years ago, and diverging from Neanderthals, probably in the Middle East, 200,000 years later."

Unless the lifespan is believed to be two-thirds of a millennium, these statements are conflicting. I mean, right? 70.29.99.106 (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. -Rowan Forest (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The Denisovans aren't as closely related to East Asians as the European Neanderthals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1R8yrEGAgw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8258:6300:55DA:5F9D:1AAF:A6BB (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Homo altaiensis

A citation has been requested for Homo altaiensis. So, I find the following possible sources:

• RBTH; Interfax (2014-05-26). "Neanderthal, Denisovan genes protect humanity from HIV - researcher". www.rbth.com. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
• journal, SCIENCE First Hand. "Homo Altaiensis?". SCIENCE First Hand. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
• April 1, Peter Frost •; 2010 • 1; Reply, 300 Words • 8 Comments •. "Homo altaiensis?". The Unz Review. Retrieved 2018-12-28. {{cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• "Denisovian humans: DNA reveals remains of alien tribe time forgot". www.news.com.au. Retrieved 2018-12-28.
• Zubova, Alisa; Chikisheva, T; V. Shunkov, M (2017-01-01). "The Morphology of Permanent Molars from the Paleolithic Layers of Denisova Cave (in English)". Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia. 45: 121–134. doi:10.17746/1563-0110.2017.45.1.121-134.

There are others, but what I see is that it is a Russian thing. Are any of the above sources generally considered to be reliable? Or may we use one of those sources to support Russian usage of H. altaiensis for Denisovans, even if not reliable for other uses? - Donald Albury 17:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

My reaction is that without a formal accepted name, all names used in scientific publications are equally valid(/invalid), even if there are national preferences. Regarding the potential cites, the Unz one is a blog post so isn't really up to snuff, and I don't know what to make of SCIENCE First Hand or the rbth one, but if Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia is a peer-reviewed journal, that would seem to do the trick, while the News Corp one would provide a non-primary backstop to show it isn't just one research group's quirky usage. Agricolae (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia used to be handled by Elsevier, but was "[t]ransfered back to the society as of 2016."[3] These instructions for submitting papers request that the submitter suggest one or two referees, which I take to mean that they do not use blind peer-review. - Donald Albury 18:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Our article specifies these are temporary species names, so I think the reference from Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia is good enough. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. That it is a legitimate journal and not a paper mill makes it good enough for this purpose. Agricolae (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

New discoveries reported at Denisova cave

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00353-0 Ancient-human species mingled in Siberia’s hottest property for 300,000 years Neanderthals and Denisovans both called Denisova Cave home — and Homo sapiens might have, too.

With cites to new papers, also at Nature. Interesting stuff. I don't have time to put it in the article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the cave was occupied by different homo sapiens but at different time intervals. Be careful to assume otherwise. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Denisovan and Zhang Dongju to Chen Fahu, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

make paragraph: Denisovan component in modern populations

you should find a better word than component; contribution is very generic— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4105:b300:a486:5f72:2389:eb7d (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Read WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph describing genetic contribution of Denisovans to human genetic pool in modern-day descendants of Denisovans already exist. Article was improved wikilinking to this #interbreeding subsection/paragraph, but let us wait for explanation why 'Not an improvement'. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Because the thrust of the sentence in question is simply to indicate that the taxonomy is undecided, and the qualifiers only muddy the waters. This is not a distinction that is based on interbreeding - there was introgression whether they were a species or a subspecies. Them being a subspecies (vs a species) is based on phylogeny, not temporality - the term 'temporal' is used with relation to the species concept to describe when one species is thought to have evolved into a successor species. Based on the current understanding of the modern human/Denisovan relationship, this does not apply whether they are called different species or subspecies. Thus, describing them as either a species or an interbred temporal subspecies establishes a false dichotomy wherein both qualifiers of the second option are misleading, with 'interbred' applying irrespective of whether they are a species or subspecies, and 'temporal' applying to neither. (It was also not an improvement for technical reasons - because linking extinct species to a page that is nothing but a list of lists is less helpful than retaining the link to species, and it is decidedly atypical to link a word in the first sentence of an article's lede to a section in the very same article.) Agricolae (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

OK so let give up wikilink to extinct species until this 2012 redirect will be replaced sound article. I propose following rework:

The Denisovans or Denisova hominins ( /dɪˈniːsəvə/ di-NEE-sə-və) are an 1 extinct species or 2 inbredeed temporal subspecies of archaic humans in the genus Homo.

Of course without the numbers . I give it only as pointer to conceptualize this alternative. See also Species#Change, Reproductive isolation 99.90.196.227 (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The simple elimination of the flawed link to extinct species does nothing to resolve the core problems with this language as detailed above: that they interbred (not interbreeded, which isn't a word) is accepted whether Denisovans are H.denisova or H.s.denisova, so it does not distinguish the two models, adding it to the description of just one is misleading, and adding it to both is superfluous. 'Temporal' is misused, as indicated above: there is no indication of a temporal (sub-)speciation taking place - the fact that they interbred means they were both distinct and contemporary, not one deriving from the other. And we generally don't Wikilink within the same article. In terms of 'conceptualizing this alternative', I do not see this alternative given sufficient coverage in scholarly/reliable source discussion for this pointer in the first sentence of the article's lede to be anything but WP:UNDUE.

I would actually prefer going the other way, to eliminate this species/subspecies duality from the first sentence of the lede, The Denisovans or Denisova hominins . . . are a group of archaic humans in the genus Homo. The very next sentence makes clear by implication that there is no taxonomic consensus over the (sub-)species issue, and hence it is redundant to indicate this in the first sentence as well, and it gets in the way of a simple statement of 'Denisovans are X'. Agricolae (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Pragmatically OK, it will be a plus. (with shortcomings, which now, for sake of simplicity i prefer to not discuss now.) Please change as you suggest. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I added (bold italic for visualization) text to reflect content described in chapter Denisovan#Interbreeding.

The Denisovans or Denisova hominins ( /dɪˈniːsəvə/ di-NEE-sə-və) are an extinct group of archaic humans in the genus Homo or not extinct group of Homo sapiens.

Is any argument for following [4] rejection ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As a species, Denisovan are extinct. The fact that there is a remnant DNA in some current Homo populations, does not make Denisovans an extant species. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

For that matter, as a subspecies, they are also extinct. Agricolae (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

(Assuming WP:GF) When did they extinct ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The number of surviving fossils is far too few for any sensible estimate. According to this article in the New Scientist modern humans and Denisovans are thought to have interbred 50,000 years ago, but a new study finds evidence for another interbreeding episode 15,000 years ago. The article is presumably based on this article, but I do not have access to it and it is too early to know whether the new date will be generally accepted. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Or to simply turn the question around, if they are not now extinct, show me a living Denisovan (not just someone with small amounts of Denisovan introgression). Agricolae (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This 'living Denisovan' is like cheeking for living grand^N parent to find if they grand children happily living ever after. (IMO there is no) but can you put WP:VER extinction date? Should I explain the DNA percent too? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not like that. If there are not living Denisovans, Denisovans are extinct. That there are living descendants does not mean that the ancestral species isn't extinct (example - the ice age cave bear is extinct, even though grizzlies have about 10% cave bear DNA through introgression). An extinction date cannot be given, because the fossil record is extremely limited - 5 total samples, spread over more than 100,000 years. We can't just point to the newest fossil and say that was the last Denisovan ever. Then there is suggestion of late persistence in the recent Cell paper, which is too recent to have been taken on-board as the accepted consensus by the larger scientific community, and even then, that is the date for the most recent detected interbreeding, not extinction. As to explainign the DNA percentages, what do you want to explain? Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Cave bear has WP extinction date but Denisovans do not:). But guess why 'taxonomic conclusions' are mentioned when aDNA sequence suggest cave bear survived by inbreeding with other bears?.

This dispute underlay cognitive aspect of species definition. This sourced "+ or non extinct group of Homo sapiens" is logically cohesive with 21 century definition contextually breviated as "species:= population exchanging genetic information by sexual reproduction. Species out-group by infertility barrier of reproductive isolation". From postulates above i suspect near/predarwinian or Chronospecies definition rule but who ask not guess: which species definition is being used ?

In the paper posted just above by Dudley Miles is (like for children) a map. Just looking on this map one can estimate (lover bound) that ,year round, every second 6 Denisovans descendants are born, which wouldn't if they ancestor were extinct. As the for the 'DNA %' calculate DNA ranges you/one could inherited from one of grand^20 parent (living only few hundred years ago). 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you read that paper you just cited? That they are not going to wade into the species/subspecies taxonomic dispute is entirely irrelevant. The very first sentence of the cave bear paper reads "Although many large mammal species went extinct at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, their DNA may persist due to past episodes of interspecies admixture." This is the real 21st century (genomic era) definition of a species in operation. These authors find it entirely reasonable for a species to be extinct, even if the DNA of that extinct species persists through introgression. They also specify interspecies admixture - between species, so they are obviously not using the restrictive definition of species that you are, but instead are perfectly comfortable with the proposition that rare interbreeding events can transfer DNA from one species to another without having to thereby automatically reclassify as subspecies. I earlier asked you to show me a living Denisovan, but more importantly since this is Wikipedia, I now ask you to show me that a sufficient number of mainstream scientists in relevant fields who consider Denisovans to be non-extinct. Without that, it has no business being in the article, no matter how much an individual Wikipedia editor prefers that interpretation. Agricolae (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Are Cro-Magnon extinct ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Why ask me? I am not a WP:RS. This appears to be an attempt to make a logical argument, but sources, not opinions or logic, are the basis for Wikipedia. Show us sources wherein experts in the field think Denisovans are extant and we have something to talk about. Agricolae (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"think Denisovans are extant" < Because to abstract (to wrote summary) logic is needed. Sources are already in article. Do we now see - are you rejecting logic? Expecting exant palaeolithic chronospecies/(chrono-subspecies) is example of this anti semantic fallacy flashed again on this page (& contrary to evolution's principia). Do you think any researcher who wrote 'ancestral to E Asia' , 'H s denisova' or 'D. decendants .. present day' thought they lineage terminated without progeny in paleo/neo-lite or even up to contemporary times. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

IP 99.90.196.227, I'm not sure as to whether you're following the discussion. In the simplest of terms, Wikipedia is WP:NOR. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

early H erctus mtDNA ?

− The mtDNA analysis further suggested that this new hominin species was the result of an earlier migration out of Africa, distinct from the later out-of-Africa migrations associated with modern humans, but also distinct from the even earlier African exodus of Homo erectus

So where is this ++1Mya mtDNA? it will be snsstional find. 99.90.196.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

What 1Mya DNA? It doesn't say anything about 1Mya DNA. It is talking about migrations. They conclude that 1) the early OOA migration of AMHs posited in this study was distinct from both 2) the later OOA migrations of AMHs associated with all other modern Eurasians, but also from 3) the really old migration of H.erectus. Agricolae (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

and what are the aproximate dates of 1 and 2 ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent African origin of modern humans states that anatomically modern H. sapiens (AMH) left Africa 115,000 to 270,000 years ago, although those lines are believed to have died out, with all living humans outside of Africa being descended from migrations of AMH no older than 60,000 to 70,000 years ago. As the line leading to Neanderthals and Denisovans separated from the line leading to living humans up to 800,000 years ago, it seems reasonable to assume that the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa as early as 800,000 years ago, as they remained reproductively isolated from humans in Africa until after the AMH migration out of Africa. - Donald Albury 14:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you consulted with Agricolae or do you do mind reding ? but anyway which date is 1 and which 2 ? (imo not those dates but i can't change anything here :)99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Homo sapiens denisova subspecies of Homo sapiens

Do somebody doubt that taxon named "Homo sapiens denisova" is classified as subspecies of Homo sapiens. This request regrading only Homo sapiens denisova (as verbatim string). 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no established scientific name for the Denisovan clade, and disagreement as to whether Denisovans (and Neanderthals) are sub-species of H. sapiens, or distinct species of Homo (i.e., the dispute between "lumpers" and "splitters"). - Donald Albury 14:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

User 99.90.196.227 has been told that by several users now, and it is reflected in the scientific literature. He is cherry-picking. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I did put condition 'as veratim string' and you talking not on this subject. Can you agree on one statement at all? Too confusing? Would be the following easier to conceptualize so you stay on the subject.

---

Do somebody doubt that taxon (if and only if) named "Homo sapiens denisova" is classified as subspecies of "Homo sapiens"? This request regrading only "Homo sapiens denisova" (written as verbatim string). (not if in sources they wrote as species of genus!!! eg Homo Dneisova, Homo altaiensis or any other "Homo" (if any) without word "sapiens" immediately following it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

What wrong? Agricolae and others

What wrong ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

lets vote finger or tooth

I bringing hypothesis H0 that this was tooth. What do you believe? Just put your finger eventually like me tooth and signature. Can we/you reject H0 with sufficient margin eg P=0.95 5 votes and i give up ?

---

• tooth 99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

---

not vote by action

• nonesential [5] Agricolae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Don't 'vote' for someone else. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• finger (+ jaw bone?) [6]

This is not something subject to a vote, nor can it be presented as an 'or' statement in the article. If finger is wrong, it is wrong, and the whole sentence and at least one other sentence in that paragraph need to be rewritten. It is nonsensical to just say 'finger (or tooth)' in that sentence and leave the rest intact. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

But you and other are leading it here reverting my edits. There is much more such stupid edits and merithoric misreading of sources here . You did wrote at least twice that "alternative A or B" is too complex for you (repeated by u:s.) so how we can get agreement at all? Restore the vote or admit uduno. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The disputed text was added in late 2013 into a paragraph already containing the reference that follows, so it need not (and indeed does not) derive from the cited Reich paper. Reich does not describe the finger (nor does the earlier paper first reporting it), and of the tooth he just says that the roots are short but robust, not that the tooth is broad and robust. Thus neither finger nor tooth are supported by the cited paper. The way forward is not to have an opinion poll, and not to replace finger with tooth, which would be equally unsupported by the cited source, but to either do a broader survey of pre-2014 sources to see if the origin of this claim can be identified, or to remove the sentence entirely (which the consequent changes to following text made necessary by its removal). Agricolae (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL you did put the finger back [7] 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I reverted a nonsensical change. The statement either correctly refers to the finger and can stand as accurate (with an appropriate citation), or the whole paragraph needs to be fixed. You adding '(or tooth)' only exacerbates the problem. Agricolae (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So here you have problem with clear informative alternative ? But alternative 'A species of genus Homo B subspecies of Homo spaiens ' you have not (and it in lede). More you push "intentionally ambiguous']" antisemantic wording to obfuscate stupid simple alternative A|B . IM0 either you I)cant see underlined simplicity from surfacial complexity (and vv) or J)... do you have instructions? Why it cannot be (A or B), who forbiding informativeness. (b iopolitics?) Why "the lede has chosen" but not 'we did chose it because 1,2,3 so to open subject for discussion' for best? or maybe K) . If I accept it. If J resist it. If K then what it is ? Please help mi understand. Why not clear A or B in lede? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC) ps maybe GPG sig?

I did simplified by re-engagement those deemed so complex section (if I). Greetings .99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You might have been trying to say something insightful, but what you have written here is completely incoherent. Agricolae (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OK dont wory it was to BOB he get it. Now case I is reduced by 0.3. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL you didn't fix it. You reverted me keeping the finger while you admitted you know it is false because tooth is in source. ("Knowingly spreading falsehood" isn't it defined as lie?) To propagate lie to keep intact fake narration. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We report what sources say, not our own interpretations of data. Sources call it a finger. If you have a reliable source that calls the bone a tooth, bring it here and we can discuss it. Guettarda (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the source does not say finger - the source was already in the paragraph before the sentences about robustness were interpolated into it. The source has no description of the finger bone at all. I have been unable to find the original source for a robust finger bone, so better to delete it. It can be restored if the source can be found. (The source doesn't say this about the tooth either, and a simple substitution of one for the other is equally inaccurate.). Agricolae (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes Agricolae is here (partialy:) right and i agree here with him. The source say not about robust finger but tooth and nicely picture it (Fig. 4b)

qu: "The tooth is an almost complete left, probably third, but possibly second, upper molar ...The roots are short but robust and strongly flaring. Overall, the tooth is very large (mesiodistal diameter, 13.1 mm; buccolingual, 14.7 mm). As a third molar, it is outside the range of normal size variation of all fossil taxa of the genus Homo, with the exception of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, and comparable to Australopithecines (Fig. 4c)"

but from here i must lower my support to above u:A post. The source also say abuot finger and do it from beginning in its bolded abstract:

qu: "Using DNA extracted from a finger bone found in Denisova...to about 1.9-fold coverage. This individual is from a group that shares a common origin with Neanderthals. ...the data suggest that it contributed 4–6% of present-day Melanesian"

Which is not a description of the finger bone. Agricolae (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if confusion "what source say" is sufficient reson to remove this interesting source and reverting my edit. Is it? Suspecting that source was lost therefore here is this ref doi:10.1038/nature09710. If you(plular) get next time confused ask question it is a honest way of proceeding. And now what?99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

So, was it finger or tooth:) ? It this was description of the finger bone why did you deleted it ? 'several hours today trying what' take 5 minutes ? they must be writing those sci papers in alien language or after verification the source do not fit GAOPR

1 open https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denisovan&oldid=916661735#Anatomy

2 look for [21] at end of this sentence

3 open and search for string 'robust'

• But you inserted {cn} [8] which was there never, and were not needed and you saying U couldn't find? Pretex 99.90.196.227 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(I explain this not so much for 99.90.196.227 as for the record of what was done with this paragraph.) When the two sentences were added to the article in December 2013 [9], they were about finger and there is no indication whatsoever that the editor who added it meant anything other than finger. The problem is that they were placed right before a sentence referencing the Reich paper, making it appear six years later as if the whole sentence string came from Reich. When the new analysis of the finger bone came out a few weeks ago, I needed to add a sentence not from Reich into the sentence string, and mistakenly thinking it was all from Reich, I duplicated the Reich citation so that the portions both before and after my interpolation retained verifiability.[10] This was an erroneous assumption on my part, and when the issue was raised and I looked (again) at Reich it was immediately evident that paper said nothing about the finger being robust. This would have justified immediate removal of the text that had been added without citation, but if a reliable source for the information could be identified, the information could be preserved, so I first flagged it.[11] However, I then spent several hours the next day looking for any reliable source published prior to December 2013 that might have served as the basis for this text, or published after that date and clearly not derived from the Wikipedia page that could nonetheless verify it, and failed to find any. This left no choice but removal.[12] Agricolae (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thx. Because apparently i have nothing to with this can i edit ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Agricolae don't you like Little Red Riding Hood but Hansel and Gretel 78077 or 761258 times ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

another mirepresented source

You did put over attributed to great Jacob &a citation the words ike the 'trace amount DNA fallen perhaps, mean paste over my edit, from news of of this gracile on head newsraporter. The one who did imo did monumental fake job, over psraying biopolitics buzzwords mixing names, taxons, logic & numBERS . his ref just next . Is it subscriptive to add such lole sources? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• this nonsense 'trace amount DNA' fixed but the next sentence need closer look. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC) do you like wider explanation ? Short: as method not; as 6% not. Only make as aDNA but not in 'modern-day(sic) Indonesian'

substitution "trace to small" show the fixer do not know what about is in the source. Interperting result as method prove how deeply this editor is confused. What to do in such cases? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No such confusion has taken place. Agricolae (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Very good, i appreciate it. Now we talking and i have partner for meritoric discussion. Would you please then explain why you did that change. (or only) What is the numeric value behind that change 'trace' to 'small' ? Maybe i am confused and that info will help me get it and i will understand it. I hope this is a proper way to reach consensus. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There are no numeric values for those words, both being subjective. Trace can be used to represent, with increasing imprecision, 'orders of magnitude less than other content', 'amounts so small it is barely detectable', 'in minuscule amounts' or simply 'not very much'. Though the last, least precise, is what I had in mind when I originally used the word 'trace', it is entirely subjective what constitutes 'not very much'. What constitutes 'small' is also subjective but it is more generic and does not carry more precise alternative meanings that don't match the observed amount. Agricolae (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have in focus {doi:10.1038/nature09710}? Quote please because i almost shure this is evidence for more that WP:OR some kind of wp:of := original fantasy and your byte flooding typing exorcize(sic) aimed to cover biopolitic agenda by exhausting audience patience. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on both the analysis of ancient DNA from Denisovan fossils and trace>small amounts of Denisovan DNA surviving in the genomes of modern humans through introgression, three distinct populations of Denisovans have been identified.[43]

I 'had in focus' the source I cited. Agricolae (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

[The space above contains the hidden (why?) response 99.90.196.227 made, an uncontextualized url of one of their edits. Talk pages are intended to contain exchanges aimed at improving the page. This purpose is rather thwarted by hiding one's comments, but then a bare URL without any indication of why it is there isn't going to further discussion much even if it is visible.] 07:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Images in fossil chart

Added images to fossil chart for Xiahe mandible and Densiova 11 Meredithmeyer (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Does it have a taxonomy? Like Homo denisova or something? Booger-mike (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it is different depending on whom you ask. See the last sentence in the first paragraph, and the Taxonomy section of the article. Agricolae (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

incomplete

It is important whether the Denisovan DNA in modern humans is mitochondrial or Y chromosome. If it's in there and I missed it, please let me know which paragraph it's in. 100.15.127.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is autosomal admixture (neither mitochondrial nor Y-DNA). There are no known surviving uniparental (direct maternal or paternal) lineages fom Denisovans (or other archaic hominins) in modern humans. Skllagyook (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Denisova Molar.jpg
• Denisova Phalanx distalis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Human timeline

The template is huge and 93% of it is irrelevant to this article. It's also completely unsourced and full of errors. Why does H. erectus stop at 500 kya when the last known population lived ~110 kya? Where did they get earliest cooking to be ~600 kya? We know humans reached China by 2 mya so the date for dispersal from Africa is false. Who put the chimpanzee split so recently at 6 mya? The layout seems to suggest that all those Miocene apes are human ancestors. And if we include Paranthropus robustus (which it's clearly doing seeing as it survives past 2 mya), Australopithecus goes extinct at earliest 1 mya   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Your alternative timeline is confusing and unhelpful. It is not only in Portuguese but has unexplained numbers and links. I would delete both timelines. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding File:Filogenia Homo Hibridação.png, it accompanies the text pretty well, and I explained the numbers in the description based on the source. What links are you talking about?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I should have written arrows rather than links. I do not see where the numbers are explained and I do not know what Homininio Desconhecicdo means. The graphic appears to me unhelpful, but if you think it should go in you can start a thread to get other editors' views. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I can put a request on Commons for an English version. Also I don't think you read the description if you're still confused on the numbers. The arrows go from one lineage to another, so it seems rather intuitive this indicates gene flow from one lineage to the other, and dashed probably means uncertain   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The description is "Graphic of archaic human introgression through time (in Portuguese)". There is nothing about the numbers, and they are confusing because they are superfluous if they merely indicate date order. That is obvious anyway, so the numbers ought to be for citations, but these are not supplied. Also the arrows are misleading as they indicate one way gene flow whereas often it was both ways. I find parts of the graphic unclear as I am colour blind, but it does seem to show the Denisovans evolving after 150,000 years ago, much too late. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Only the fringes of each lineage is colored, the Denisovan branch begins 450,000 years ago. The absolute beginnings of "H. sapiens" and "Neanderthals" aren't defined at all so this seems like a good visual representation. The arrows can be easily fixed if I ask for an English version. Since you aren't reading the description, I'll copy/paste it here:

"Schematic representation of human evolution focusing on the lineages leading to modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans, and highlighting probable interbreeding (numbered red arrows)

• 1: 2.5–5.8% Denisova genome from archaic hominin having diverged 0.9–1.4 mya
• 2: mtDNA introgressed c. 270 kya into a Neanderthal (Hohlenstein-Stadel, Germany) from an African lineage leading or related to AMH
• 3: at least 0.5% genome coming from a Neanderthal population closer related to the Atai Neanderthals
• 4: 1.0–7.1% gene flow from AMH into Altai Neanderthals
• 5,6,8,9: multiple introgressions from Neanderthals into various modern human populations outside Africa resulting in about 2% (regionally and inter-individually variable, slightly more in East Asia) Neanderthal DNA
• 7: Denisova introgression resulting in about 2–4% Denisovan DNA in Melanesia (less in e.g. South Asia)."

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |::::::push to talk  23:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I assumed that by description you meant the caption in the article. Images should be easily comprehensible to readers who are not Wikipedia experts, and most will not know that they have to open the image file to have it explained. The image is far too complex for most readers and presents a misleadingly exact presentation of views of some palaeontologists at one point in a fast moving picture. For example, it shows European Neanderthals surviving until 25,000 years ago, which few people now believe. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77 and Dudley Miles: and others - Thank you *very much* for your comments re the {{Human timeline}} template - the "original template" was smaller (see below) ( also see comparison at => "Template talk:Human timeline#Original vs New Templates - comments welcome" ) but was increased to improve font size based on the concerns of some editors - the smaller version could be presented for use as well of course - the template is "clickable" to further details and sources - and is completely modifiable with better updated information - for example, the noted "Homo erectus" concern can easily and quickly be updated to the better sourced information if presented in the "Homo erectus" article - likewise, re the earliest cooking and other concerns noted - the layout is a timeline based on the best available facts - interpretation of those facts may be a different matter - should note that the template has been worked on by over 35 editors since being created in 2016 and has been translated into over 20 languages - updating the template to better known sourced facts is welcome of course - Comments Welcome by other editors - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

ORIGINAL (2016-2021)	NEW (2021) (current) (test version/sandbox5)

• I don't know how the template formatting works, so I can't fix it. But if no one's contesting its inaccuracy, I'll be removing it from the article in the meantime   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Dunkleosteus77: I can try to update the template on your behalf - please list specific updated information (and related WP:RS sources) if possible - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

[13] Last appearance of H. erectus 117–108 kya, [14] human/chimp split occurs 10–7 mya, [15] first fire (which includes cooking), [16] earliest evidence of Homo outside Africa 2.12 mya, and it omitted a lot of species for seemingly no reason (rudolfensis, naledi, antecessor, floresiensis, luzonensis, and I guess longi now). I still object to the inclusion of anything before Hominini because the structure implies a direct ancestor–descendent relation, and I don't feel like this structure is the best way to present this information anyways   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77 and Dudley Miles: (and others) - Thanks again for your reply - and specific notes - updated the template with nearly all of the suggestions made so far (see below) - should now be an improved template - and more accurate based on the references noted - several outstanding items are currently being considered (also see related discussion at => "Template talk:Human timeline#Template updates"):

•  Done 0.114 mya => [17] Last appearance of H. erectus 117–108 kya
•  Done 1.7 mya => [18], [19] [20] first fire (which includes cooking)
•  Done 2.12 mya => [21] earliest evidence of Homo outside Africa 2.12 mya
•  Done 8.5 mya => [22] human/chimp split occurs 10–7 mya
•  ToDo Needs specific dates/references - and prioritizing in importance - since template space may be a limiting factor => rudolfensis, naledi, antecessor, floresiensis, luzonensis, longi

References

Hope these template improvements help in some way - some outstanding items are in process (very busy with one thing or another - some real-world - at the moment) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wonderwerk fire is 1.7 mya. The title says "Fire-Making by about 1.7 Million Years Ago"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

On your graphic, H. erectus only goes up to 0.25 mya   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing - made a substantial improvement over earlier - may need a bit more tweaking - Thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: - Template should now be better - Thanks again for your help with this - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• I still don't agree this template is suitable for this article, and Dudley has said the same. It's just too large and poorly formatted (like the top 4 species are all getting crushed up there, and the remainder is a lot of empty space and other genera which are wholly irrelevant to the scope of this article)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Icelandic confusion?

I found some confusing statements in introduction 3rd paragraph: "Denisovans apparently interbred with modern humans, with the highest percentages (roughly 5%) occurring in Melanesians, Aboriginal Australians, and Filipino Negritos. Additionally, 3.3% is present in the Icelandic genome, but less than a fifth of a percent in other populations."

1) 5% of what? Entire genome, archaic fraction of the genome or something else? Same question for the "fifth of a percent".

2) according to note 35, it is 3.3% of the "archaic fragments" and NOT the complete genome. The archaic fraction of the complete genome is itself small (1% to 4% ?). The denisovian fraction of the entire "icelandic" gemone would then be around 0.1%, which is in line with "other populations".

The phrasing makes it look like both the 5% and the 3.3% are from the entire genome but as far as I understand, it is not the case. It also makes it look like Iceland people are very different from, say, other European people.

My understanding is that the only thing special about Iceland is that it is where that particular study was made. The 3.3% is not from the entire genome and therefore is not comparable with the 5% from Melanesians etc.

Am I correct?

Regards,

LimeTraveller (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the material in the third paragraph of the lead is an over-simplified summary of the third paragraph of the Modern humans section, which cites an article about "The nature of Neanderthal introgression revealed by 27,566 Icelandic genomes." The article states that 3.3% of the archaic fragments found in the genomes were Denisovan, a higher-than-expected rate. I'm having trouble reconciling parts of that paragraph with the cited article, but will not try to edit it tonight. If no one else has addressed it by tommorrow, I'll take another look after I've had my coffee. - Donald Albury 01:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at the WP article and the abstract of the cited source again, I have trimmed the "Modern humans" section to remove the statement about the percentage of the Icelandic genome deriving from Siberian Neanderthals. The bit about 3.3% of the archaic genome fragments in the Icelandic population is supported by the cited source. I will note that over 27,000 genomes is a robust sample of the Icelandic population. I also removed the sentence about the Icelandic genome results from the lead, because it was not clear to me what was being compared. It is clear from the cited source that it is 3.3% of the archaic fragments in the Icelandic genomes that derive from Denisovans, not 3.3% of the total genome, while the rest of the sentence I removed seemed to talking about the total genomes of other populations. - Donald Albury 11:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be back on this but there is a couple more sentences in the body of the article that need attention:

in paragraph 2 "Demographics" there is still a sentence that is misleading:

"Icelanders also have an anomalously high Denisovan heritage, which could have stemmed from etc."

The article "The nature of Neanderthal introgression revealed by 27,566 Icelandic genomes" mentions researchers were "surprised" to find 3.3% Denisovan DNA (of the 2% archaic DNA) not because (I am guessing) it is very high but because prior to this study, it was thought that people in western Eurasia had none. But then, no study that thorough (28000 people) was ever done before, which explain that the 0.066% (3.3% of 2%) was missed. A similar study somewhere else in Europe, Middle-East etc. likely would show a comparable result.

So IMO, when mentioning the Iceland population, it should be worded in a way that says it is not special but is used as an example of "Western Eurasia people" and only because it has been studied much more thoroughly than any other.

in paragraph 5.2 "Modern humans"

"However, about 3.3% of the archaic DNA in the modern Icelandic genome descends from the Denisovans, and such a high percentage could indicate a western Eurasian population of Denisovans which introgressed into either Vindija-related Neanderthals or immigrating modern humans etc."

1)in that sentence, maybe be we should write "...about 3.3% of the archaic DNA (0.066% of complete genome)..." to make it plain how little it is compared with the 5% of Melanesians etc.

2)is 0.066 "such a high percentage" and does it indicate anything more than Neanderthals did interbreed with Denisovans, which was known since the 2016 analysis of Denny's DNA, and Neanderthals migrated back and forth, which is expected?

Thanks

LimeTraveller (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)