Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote -1 down vote favorite

For some time, scientists have debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Some morphological studies support the view that Homo neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies.

Is there any conclusion about Neanderthals?

And about their extinction, is there a theory which is accepted?

share|improve this question
1  
I know there is a project to sequence Neanderthals DNA – aceinthehole Jan 21 at 22:27
1  
So you simply ask: if a neanderthal and a homo sapiens sapiens had a baby, was it capable of further reproduction or not? I'm afraid it's off-topic on history SE. – kubanczyk Jan 21 at 23:14
Perhaps biology.stackexchange.com would be a better fit. – lins314159 Jan 22 at 0:05
@kubanczyk My question is if finally the scientists have accepted the Neanderthals as a separate species and about the extinction theories, is there one that is accepted finally or not yet. – Ioanna Jan 22 at 16:05

closed as off topic by Russell, choster, DVK, Steven Drennon♦ Jan 22 at 18:07

Questions on History Stack Exchange are expected to relate to history within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote

The answer is: Yes / it depends / this isn't a meaningfull question!

Neanderthals and your ancestors probably did interbreed. We (for at least some populations) have Neanderthal DNA (very probably, the results aren't totally conclusive)

But species isn't a very meaningful concept for such close organisms. Is Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens a different species? Is there any point in differentiating Homo-Sap groups into sub species based on cultural advances?

It's also worth pointing out that grouping humans into species based on how developed they are (or well they make cave paintings) has had some recent unfortunate consequences.

share|improve this answer
Want definitely to hear the account about that led to "unfortunate consequences". I won't -1 if you expand :) – astabada Jan 22 at 11:02
@astabada, perhaps I was being a bit too discrete. Making HSS a new species when they started making cave paintings (even if the are biologically the same) is a lot like later deciding that native americans or africans must be a sub-species because they don't have the same tools. – mgb Jan 22 at 13:51
up vote 0 down vote

Maybe; it depends a lot on how you define "species".

A 'species' is generally understood as population where the all males and females can mate to produce fertile offspring -- at the very least, for large mammals. So for example, horses and donkeys can be mated, but mules (each the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse) are not fertile. However there are exceptions. For example, lions and tigers are certainly considered different species, but ligers (each the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger) are fertile in some pairings.

As for humans and neanderthals then (and as mentioned previously,)humans and neanderthals did likely interbreed. But currently, we know neither about the frequency with which this occurred (in any great detail), nor the fertility of resulting offspring.

share|improve this answer
For what it's worth, a study that casted some doubt on whether humans and Neanderthal interbreeded gained a lot of coverage last year. – Drux Jan 22 at 8:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.