Re: DISCOVER/Neanderthal/Homo Sap.
Gerrit Hanenburg (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 6 Sep 1995 18:24:23 GMT
email@example.com (H. M. Hubey) wrote:
>On the other hand, we do [at least according to some who've
>become quite vocal about this] have evidence [in the fossil
>record] that there are transitional types between the so
>called modern types and the Neandertals.
>Now the whole problem boils down to whether these "transitional
>type skeletons/skull_pieces" are really transitional and
>why or why not?
>Recalling what was shown on the TV show, I was convinced that
>the transitional types existed from the shapes of the
>skulls, and apparently so are Trinkhaus and Wolpoff and
So,when it comes to justifying the claim that Neanderthals and modern humans
were interbreeding,morphology is important but when an appeal to morphology
is made to justify separate species status it is degraded to "some bumps" on
the skull.Why this different attitude?
And what exactly is a transitional type?It seems the proponents of the one
species hypothesis already know exactly what a transitional type is.
Is a specimen with some browridge development and slight occipital bunning
but otherwise modern morphology transitional or is it a variant of the basic
modern bauplan?Is a specimen with reduced retromolar space and "incipient"
chin but otherwise Neanderthal morphology transitional or is it a variant of
the Neanderthal plan?