Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2004 Feb 3;101(5):1147-52.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0308085100. Epub 2004 Jan 26.

Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences

Affiliations

Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences

Katerina Harvati et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

Abstract

The taxonomic status of Neanderthals lies at the center of the modern human origins debate. Proponents of the single-origin model often view this group as a distinct species with little or no contribution to the evolution of modern humans. Adherents to the regional continuity model consider Neanderthals a subspecies or population of Homo sapiens, which contributed significantly to the evolution of early modern Europeans. Paleontologists generally agree that fossil species should be equivalent to extant ones in the amount of their morphological variation. Recognition of fossil species therefore hinges on analogy to living species. A previous study by one of the authors and recent work by other researchers [Schillachi, M. A. & Froelich, J. W. (2001) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 115, 157-166] have supported specific status for Neanderthals based on analogy to chimpanzees and Sulawesi macaques, respectively. However, these taxa may not be the most appropriate models for Pleistocene humans. Here we test the hypothesis that Neanderthals represent a subspecies of H. sapiens by comparing the degree of their morphological differentiation from modern humans to that found within and between 12 species of extant primates. The model taxa comprised >1,000 specimens, including phylogenetic (modern humans and African apes) and ecological (eight papionin taxa) models for Pleistocene humans. Morphological distances between model taxon pairs were compared to the distances between Neanderthals and modern humans obtained by using a randomization technique. Results strongly support a specific distinction for Neanderthals.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Landmarks (white dots) used in this study, as seen in lateral (Left) and ventral views (Right). Although only one side is shown, both were included for bilateral landmarks. (Left) Lateral view, counterclockwise from far right: inion, bregma, glabella, frontomalare temporale, nasion, prosthion, superior aspect of the temporozygomatic suture, inferior aspect of the temporozygomatic suture, and porion. (Right) Ventral view, counterclockwise from bottom: inion, opisthion, basion, prosthion, inferior aspect of the temporozygomatic suture, and porion. Lines do not represent data but are shown for the purposes of visualization.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Mean D2s for intraspecific(Upper) and interspecific(Lower) pairwise comparisons between model groups. Open bins are significantly smaller than NMD2, shown in black. Hatched bins are not significantly smaller than NMD2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Cluster diagram (unweighted pair-group method, arithmetic average) of studied populations based on the mean D2 among samples.

Comment in

References

    1. Stringer, C. (2002) Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B 357, 563–579. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wolpoff, M. H., Hawks, J., Frayer, D. W. & Hunley, K. (2001) Science 291, 293–297. - PubMed
    1. Pilbeam, D. R. & Zwell, M. (1972) Yrbk. Phys. Anthropol. 16, 69–79.
    1. Kimbel, W. H. & Martin, L. B. (1993) Species, Species Concepts, and Primate Evolution (Plenum, New York).
    1. Plavcan, J. M. & Cope, D. A. (2001) Evol. Anthropol. 10, 204–222.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources