[mamelukesabre]

Ok. If you want to enforce your definition of "species", then the title of the artical could simply be changed to "our sub-species mated with other human sub-species, says study". I think we can agree on the meaning of the title, regardless of the terms or definitions of those terms, can't we?

[Polybius]

Ok. If you want to enforce your definition of "species", then the title of the artical could simply be changed to "our sub-species mated with other human sub-species, says study".

That would be the taxonomically correct way to phrases it.

I think we can agree on the meaning of the title, regardless of the terms or definitions of those terms, can't we?

As long as the author was just careless in his definitions and not trying to convey a sensationalist "Tarzan mated with Chita to produce Boy's ape-man step-brother" headline.

My own personal opinion is that Homo sapien males probably never mated with Neandertal females until they had invented alcoholic beverages. ;-)

[gore3000]

The problem with the article is not in the definition of species. The problem is that it is complete bunk. We have no DNA of any humanoids other than Neanderthal. Therefore the "scientist" (better call him propagandist, or whore of evolution) who did this "study" had nothing to compare to. This is not science, it is fantasy. You cannot compare an apple to an orange if you never saw an orange.