Our Species Mated With Other Human Species, Study Says

National Geographic ^ | March 6, 2002 | Hillary Mayell

[Pelham]

Our Species Mated With Other Human Species

Well that's hardly news. We also mated with snakes, as James Carville is living proof.

[blam]

Read this book for the answer.

[ValerieUSA]

Okay! Thank you for that - you have almost redeemed yourself *L*

[Bernard Marx]

They are all cats but there are no known crosses between leopards and lions or tigers.

Not true. Ligers (lion/tiger mixes) exist. Years ago there was one named Shasta I used to visit with my kids at Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City. They're not abundant but definitely exist.

I just reread your statement and maybe I misunderstood it. Are you saying leopards can't mate with either lions or tigers? Maybe so. But lions and tigers get it on productively.

[Redcloak]

Wouldn't this imply that H. Sapiens Sapiens and the "archaic" H. Sapiens forms are really the same species? Kinda plays hob with the ol' timeline, don't it?

[freebilly]

Thanks for the book reference. I'll check it out.

[Redcloak]

It's taboo in West Virginia? When did that happen?

[blam]

"Not true. Ligers (lion/tiger mixes) exist. Years ago there was one named Shasta I used to visit with my kids at Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City. They're not abundant but definitely exist."

Same here. The wild Bobcats will mate and have off-spring with the domesticated cats. My dad (Bless his soul), years ago, had some that were mixed.

[freebilly]

It's taboo in West Virginia? When did that happen?

Las' December. Y'ain't heared the news, yet?

[powderhorn]

It suggests that modern humans (Homo sapiens) interbred with archaic humans (Homo erectus and Neandertals) who had migrated earlier from Africa, rather than displacing them.

This is an interesting possibility. But the title is all wrong. There are many species of primates, and they can all be said to be of different species...unless they can produce offspring. If they could, in fact, produce offspring then they would not be different species. They would be different varieties, or possibly different races. Because there seems to be a definite progression from Homo Erectus as the prototype, (and including several varieties in between) and the Neandertals and modern Homo Sapians as later developments, it would be most proper to call them different varieties. Different races would be more appropriate if there were several types of Home Erectus or several types of Neanderthal.

[VietVet]

"They are all cats but there are no known crosses between leopards and lions or tigers."

I myself have cross breeds between tigers and lions. They were, of course, bred in captivity (wild lions today are all almost exclusively from Africa, while tigers are from Asia), but the first ones occured by accident: a male and a female of different species penned together because it was thought nothing could happen. Later crosses were done deliberately.

And of course, there is the well known cross between the horse and the donkey, the mule, and lesser known cross-breeding between horses and zebras.

Not to mention the crosses between dogs and wolves. I've seen and touched one of those, too.

But what this latest evidence means to me is that for all their apparent differences, the division of the family of Man into separate species, Erectus, Neadertalis, Sapiens, is artificial, and we should rather consider them as one species, which has changed morphologically through time, but not that much genetically.

[freebilly]

Not true. Ligers (lion/tiger mixes) exist. Years ago there was one named Shasta I used to visit with my kids at Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City. They're not abundant but definitely exist.

Dang! Learned something new tonight. Just did a quick search and found there are actually Zorses (Zebra/Horse), Wholphins (False Killer Whale/Dolphin); Cama (Camel/Llama); and Cattalo (Cow/Bison).

Also discovered there's a something called a Dasshole which is a cross between a Democratic Senator and a Sphincter.

[VietVet]

"They are all cats but there are no known crosses between leopards and lions or tigers."

I myself have seen cross breeds between tigers and lions. They were, of course, bred in captivity (wild lions today are all almost exclusively from Africa, while tigers are from Asia), but the first ones occured by accident: a male and a female of different species penned together because it was thought nothing could happen. Later crosses were done deliberately.

And of course, there is the well known cross between the horse and the donkey, the mule, and lesser known cross-breeding between horses and zebras.

Not to mention the crosses between dogs and wolves. I've seen and touched one of those, too.

But what this latest evidence means to me is that for all their apparent differences, the division of the family of Man into separate species, Erectus, Neadertalis, Sapiens, is artificial, and we should rather consider them as one species, which has changed morphologically through time, but not that much genetically.

[WRhine]

But what this latest evidence means to me is that for all their apparent differences, the division of the family of Man into separate species, Erectus, Neadertalis, Sapiens, is artificial, and we should rather consider them as one species, which has changed morphologically through time, but not that much genetically.

Your points and others are well taken. The fact is we really don't know what happened some 100,000 years ago other than previous hominoid species died out and our specie continued to thrive. I have an open mind about the subject (I really do) but I suspect that this debate will be raging for many decades to come.

[ValerieUSA]

Also discovered there's a something called a Dasshole which is a cross between a Democratic Senator and a Sphincter.

My teen-age sons love the word "sphincter" - it's just so all-purpose in the world of crass insults. *LOL*

[WRhine]

Thanks for the link blam. This is a fascinating subject.

[freebilly]

My teen-age sons love the word "sphincter"

Yup. I've got two teenage sons, also. The "sphincter" word gets a certain amount of airtime here, too.

[capitan_refugio]

I read your interesting comment from the old "redhead" thread for which you provided the link. I am not sure about the Basque aspect, but it has been long recognized the Scots-Irish linkage, and the Irish-Galician linkage (Galicia is the part of Spain in the northwest corner of the Iberian Peninsula, not to be confused with Polish Galicia.)

The name "Galicia" is derived from the Celtic people who lived there prior to the time of the Roman conquest (the "Gallaeci"). There had apparently existed a fishing/sailing/trading commerce between Galicia and the British Isles and Ireland for centuries. Today, many red-headed, green-eyed Spaniards can trace geneological roots to Galicia. The modern Galician dialect however, has Portuguese roots, the Celtic origins having been almost obliterated. Galicians are considered by other Spaniards as something like country bumpkins.

[capitan_refugio]

OUCH!

[PatrickHenry]

General ping. Lesson of the thread: Don't trace your family too far back if you want to stay happy.