Talk:Denisovan

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BurntCna, Liz Bruschetta, Meredithmeyer, Jakirasilas (article contribs).

New discoveries reported at Denisova cave

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00353-0 Ancient-human species mingled in Siberia’s hottest property for 300,000 years Neanderthals and Denisovans both called Denisova Cave home — and Homo sapiens might have, too.

With cites to new papers, also at Nature. Interesting stuff. I don't have time to put it in the article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the cave was occupied by different homo sapiens but at different time intervals. Be careful to assume otherwise. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Denisovan and Zhang Dongju to Chen Fahu, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

make paragraph: Denisovan component in modern populations

you should find a better word than component; contribution is very generic— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4105:b300:a486:5f72:2389:eb7d (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Read WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph describing genetic contribution of Denisovans to human genetic pool in modern-day descendants of Denisovans already exist. Article was improved wikilinking to this #interbreeding subsection/paragraph, but let us wait for explanation why 'Not an improvement'. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Because the thrust of the sentence in question is simply to indicate that the taxonomy is undecided, and the qualifiers only muddy the waters. This is not a distinction that is based on interbreeding - there was introgression whether they were a species or a subspecies. Them being a subspecies (vs a species) is based on phylogeny, not temporality - the term 'temporal' is used with relation to the species concept to describe when one species is thought to have evolved into a successor species. Based on the current understanding of the modern human/Denisovan relationship, this does not apply whether they are called different species or subspecies. Thus, describing them as either a species or an interbred temporal subspecies establishes a false dichotomy wherein both qualifiers of the second option are misleading, with 'interbred' applying irrespective of whether they are a species or subspecies, and 'temporal' applying to neither. (It was also not an improvement for technical reasons - because linking extinct species to a page that is nothing but a list of lists is less helpful than retaining the link to species, and it is decidedly atypical to link a word in the first sentence of an article's lede to a section in the very same article.) Agricolae (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

OK so let give up wikilink to extinct species until this 2012 redirect will be replaced sound article. I propose following rework:

The Denisovans or Denisova hominins ( /dɪˈniːsəvə/ di-NEE-sə-və) are an 1 extinct species or 2 inbredeed temporal subspecies of archaic humans in the genus Homo.

Of course without the numbers . I give it only as pointer to conceptualize this alternative. See also Species#Change, Reproductive isolation 99.90.196.227 (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The simple elimination of the flawed link to extinct species does nothing to resolve the core problems with this language as detailed above: that they interbred (not interbreeded, which isn't a word) is accepted whether Denisovans are H.denisova or H.s.denisova, so it does not distinguish the two models, adding it to the description of just one is misleading, and adding it to both is superfluous. 'Temporal' is misused, as indicated above: there is no indication of a temporal (sub-)speciation taking place - the fact that they interbred means they were both distinct and contemporary, not one deriving from the other. And we generally don't Wikilink within the same article. In terms of 'conceptualizing this alternative', I do not see this alternative given sufficient coverage in scholarly/reliable source discussion for this pointer in the first sentence of the article's lede to be anything but WP:UNDUE.

I would actually prefer going the other way, to eliminate this species/subspecies duality from the first sentence of the lede, The Denisovans or Denisova hominins . . . are a group of archaic humans in the genus Homo. The very next sentence makes clear by implication that there is no taxonomic consensus over the (sub-)species issue, and hence it is redundant to indicate this in the first sentence as well, and it gets in the way of a simple statement of 'Denisovans are X'. Agricolae (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Pragmatically OK, it will be a plus. (with shortcomings, which now, for sake of simplicity i prefer to not discuss now.) Please change as you suggest. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I added (bold italic for visualization) text to reflect content described in chapter Denisovan#Interbreeding.

The Denisovans or Denisova hominins ( /dɪˈniːsəvə/ di-NEE-sə-və) are an extinct group of archaic humans in the genus Homo or not extinct group of Homo sapiens.

Is any argument for following [1] rejection ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As a species, Denisovan are extinct. The fact that there is a remnant DNA in some current Homo populations, does not make Denisovans an extant species. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

For that matter, as a subspecies, they are also extinct. Agricolae (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

(Assuming WP:GF) When did they extinct ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The number of surviving fossils is far too few for any sensible estimate. According to this article in the New Scientist modern humans and Denisovans are thought to have interbred 50,000 years ago, but a new study finds evidence for another interbreeding episode 15,000 years ago. The article is presumably based on this article, but I do not have access to it and it is too early to know whether the new date will be generally accepted. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Or to simply turn the question around, if they are not now extinct, show me a living Denisovan (not just someone with small amounts of Denisovan introgression). Agricolae (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This 'living Denisovan' is like cheeking for living grand^N parent to find if they grand children happily living ever after. (IMO there is no) but can you put WP:VER extinction date? Should I explain the DNA percent too? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not like that. If there are not living Denisovans, Denisovans are extinct. That there are living descendants does not mean that the ancestral species isn't extinct (example - the ice age cave bear is extinct, even though grizzlies have about 10% cave bear DNA through introgression). An extinction date cannot be given, because the fossil record is extremely limited - 5 total samples, spread over more than 100,000 years. We can't just point to the newest fossil and say that was the last Denisovan ever. Then there is suggestion of late persistence in the recent Cell paper, which is too recent to have been taken on-board as the accepted consensus by the larger scientific community, and even then, that is the date for the most recent detected interbreeding, not extinction. As to explainign the DNA percentages, what do you want to explain? Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Cave bear has WP extinction date but Denisovans do not:). But guess why 'taxonomic conclusions' are mentioned when aDNA sequence suggest cave bear survived by inbreeding with other bears?.

This dispute underlay cognitive aspect of species definition. This sourced "+ or non extinct group of Homo sapiens" is logically cohesive with 21 century definition contextually breviated as "species:= population exchanging genetic information by sexual reproduction. Species out-group by infertility barrier of reproductive isolation". From postulates above i suspect near/predarwinian or Chronospecies definition rule but who ask not guess: which species definition is being used ?

In the paper posted just above by Dudley Miles is (like for children) a map. Just looking on this map one can estimate (lover bound) that ,year round, every second 6 Denisovans descendants are born, which wouldn't if they ancestor were extinct. As the for the 'DNA %' calculate DNA ranges you/one could inherited from one of grand^20 parent (living only few hundred years ago). 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you read that paper you just cited? That they are not going to wade into the species/subspecies taxonomic dispute is entirely irrelevant. The very first sentence of the cave bear paper reads "Although many large mammal species went extinct at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, their DNA may persist due to past episodes of interspecies admixture." This is the real 21st century (genomic era) definition of a species in operation. These authors find it entirely reasonable for a species to be extinct, even if the DNA of that extinct species persists through introgression. They also specify interspecies admixture - between species, so they are obviously not using the restrictive definition of species that you are, but instead are perfectly comfortable with the proposition that rare interbreeding events can transfer DNA from one species to another without having to thereby automatically reclassify as subspecies. I earlier asked you to show me a living Denisovan, but more importantly since this is Wikipedia, I now ask you to show me that a sufficient number of mainstream scientists in relevant fields who consider Denisovans to be non-extinct. Without that, it has no business being in the article, no matter how much an individual Wikipedia editor prefers that interpretation. Agricolae (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Are Cro-Magnon extinct ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Why ask me? I am not a WP:RS. This appears to be an attempt to make a logical argument, but sources, not opinions or logic, are the basis for Wikipedia. Show us sources wherein experts in the field think Denisovans are extant and we have something to talk about. Agricolae (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"think Denisovans are extant" < Because to abstract (to wrote summary) logic is needed. Sources are already in article. Do we now see - are you rejecting logic? Expecting exant palaeolithic chronospecies/(chrono-subspecies) is example of this anti semantic fallacy flashed again on this page (& contrary to evolution's principia). Do you think any researcher who wrote 'ancestral to E Asia' , 'H s denisova' or 'D. decendants .. present day' thought they lineage terminated without progeny in paleo/neo-lite or even up to contemporary times. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

IP 99.90.196.227, I'm not sure as to whether you're following the discussion. In the simplest of terms, Wikipedia is WP:NOR. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

early H erctus mtDNA ?

− The mtDNA analysis further suggested that this new hominin species was the result of an earlier migration out of Africa, distinct from the later out-of-Africa migrations associated with modern humans, but also distinct from the even earlier African exodus of Homo erectus

So where is this ++1Mya mtDNA? it will be snsstional find. 99.90.196.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

What 1Mya DNA? It doesn't say anything about 1Mya DNA. It is talking about migrations. They conclude that 1) the early OOA migration of AMHs posited in this study was distinct from both 2) the later OOA migrations of AMHs associated with all other modern Eurasians, but also from 3) the really old migration of H.erectus. Agricolae (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

and what are the aproximate dates of 1 and 2 ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent African origin of modern humans states that anatomically modern H. sapiens (AMH) left Africa 115,000 to 270,000 years ago, although those lines are believed to have died out, with all living humans outside of Africa being descended from migrations of AMH no older than 60,000 to 70,000 years ago. As the line leading to Neanderthals and Denisovans separated from the line leading to living humans up to 800,000 years ago, it seems reasonable to assume that the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa as early as 800,000 years ago, as they remained reproductively isolated from humans in Africa until after the AMH migration out of Africa. - Donald Albury 14:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you consulted with Agricolae or do you do mind reding ? but anyway which date is 1 and which 2 ? (imo not those dates but i can't change anything here :)99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Homo sapiens denisova subspecies of Homo sapiens

Do somebody doubt that taxon named "Homo sapiens denisova" is classified as subspecies of Homo sapiens. This request regrading only Homo sapiens denisova (as verbatim string). 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no established scientific name for the Denisovan clade, and disagreement as to whether Denisovans (and Neanderthals) are sub-species of H. sapiens, or distinct species of Homo (i.e., the dispute between "lumpers" and "splitters"). - Donald Albury 14:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

User 99.90.196.227 has been told that by several users now, and it is reflected in the scientific literature. He is cherry-picking. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I did put condition 'as veratim string' and you talking not on this subject. Can you agree on one statement at all? Too confusing? Would be the following easier to conceptualize so you stay on the subject.

---

Do somebody doubt that taxon (if and only if) named "Homo sapiens denisova" is classified as subspecies of "Homo sapiens"? This request regrading only "Homo sapiens denisova" (written as verbatim string). (not if in sources they wrote as species of genus!!! eg Homo Dneisova, Homo altaiensis or any other "Homo" (if any) without word "sapiens" immediately following it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

lets vote finger or tooth

I bringing hypothesis H0 that this was tooth. What do you believe? Just put your finger eventually like me tooth and signature. Can we/you reject H0 with sufficient margin eg P=0.95 5 votes and i give up ?

---

• tooth 99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

---

not vote by action

• nonesential [2] Agricolae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Don't 'vote' for someone else. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• finger (+ jaw bone?) [3]

This is not something subject to a vote, nor can it be presented as an 'or' statement in the article. If finger is wrong, it is wrong, and the whole sentence and at least one other sentence in that paragraph need to be rewritten. It is nonsensical to just say 'finger (or tooth)' in that sentence and leave the rest intact. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

But you and other are leading it here reverting my edits. There is much more such stupid edits and merithoric misreading of sources here . You did wrote at least twice that "alternative A or B" is too complex for you (repeated by u:s.) so how we can get agreement at all? Restore the vote or admit uduno. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The disputed text was added in late 2013 into a paragraph already containing the reference that follows, so it need not (and indeed does not) derive from the cited Reich paper. Reich does not describe the finger (nor does the earlier paper first reporting it), and of the tooth he just says that the roots are short but robust, not that the tooth is broad and robust. Thus neither finger nor tooth are supported by the cited paper. The way forward is not to have an opinion poll, and not to replace finger with tooth, which would be equally unsupported by the cited source, but to either do a broader survey of pre-2014 sources to see if the origin of this claim can be identified, or to remove the sentence entirely (which the consequent changes to following text made necessary by its removal). Agricolae (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL you did put the finger back [4] 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I reverted a nonsensical change. The statement either correctly refers to the finger and can stand as accurate (with an appropriate citation), or the whole paragraph needs to be fixed. You adding '(or tooth)' only exacerbates the problem. Agricolae (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So here you have problem with clear informative alternative ? But alternative 'A species of genus Homo B subspecies of Homo spaiens ' you have not (and it in lede). More you push "intentionally ambiguous']" antisemantic wording to obfuscate stupid simple alternative A|B . IM0 either you I)cant see underlined simplicity from surfacial complexity (and vv) or J)... do you have instructions? Why it cannot be (A or B), who forbiding informativeness. (b iopolitics?) Why "the lede has chosen" but not 'we did chose it because 1,2,3 so to open subject for discussion' for best? or maybe K) . If I accept it. If J resist it. If K then what it is ? Please help mi understand. Why not clear A or B in lede? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC) ps maybe GPG sig?

I did simplified by re-engagement those deemed so complex section (if I). Greetings .99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You might have been trying to say something insightful, but what you have written here is completely incoherent. Agricolae (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OK dont wory it was to BOB he get it. Now case I is reduced by 0.3. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL you didn't fix it. You reverted me keeping the finger while you admitted you know it is false because tooth is in source. ("Knowingly spreading falsehood" isn't it defined as lie?) To propagate lie to keep intact fake narration. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We report what sources say, not our own interpretations of data. Sources call it a finger. If you have a reliable source that calls the bone a tooth, bring it here and we can discuss it. Guettarda (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the source does not say finger - the source was already in the paragraph before the sentences about robustness were interpolated into it. The source has no description of the finger bone at all. I have been unable to find the original source for a robust finger bone, so better to delete it. It can be restored if the source can be found. (The source doesn't say this about the tooth either, and a simple substitution of one for the other is equally inaccurate.). Agricolae (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes Agricolae is here (partialy:) right and i agree here with him. The source say not about robust finger but tooth and nicely picture it (Fig. 4b)

qu: "The tooth is an almost complete left, probably third, but possibly second, upper molar ...The roots are short but robust and strongly flaring. Overall, the tooth is very large (mesiodistal diameter, 13.1 mm; buccolingual, 14.7 mm). As a third molar, it is outside the range of normal size variation of all fossil taxa of the genus Homo, with the exception of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, and comparable to Australopithecines (Fig. 4c)"

but from here i must lower my support to above u:A post. The source also say abuot finger and do it from beginning in its bolded abstract:

qu: "Using DNA extracted from a finger bone found in Denisova...to about 1.9-fold coverage. This individual is from a group that shares a common origin with Neanderthals. ...the data suggest that it contributed 4–6% of present-day Melanesian"

Which is not a description of the finger bone. Agricolae (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if confusion "what source say" is sufficient reson to remove this interesting source and reverting my edit. Is it? Suspecting that source was lost therefore here is this ref doi:10.1038/nature09710. If you(plular) get next time confused ask question it is a honest way of proceeding. And now what?99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

So, was it finger or tooth:) ? It this was description of the finger bone why did you deleted it ? 'several hours today trying what' take 5 minutes ? they must be writing those sci papers in alien language or after verification the source do not fit GAOPR

1 open https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Denisovan&oldid=916661735#Anatomy

2 look for [21] at end of this sentence

3 open and search for string 'robust'

• But you inserted {cn} [5] which was there never, and were not needed and you saying U couldn't find? Pretex 99.90.196.227 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(I explain this not so much for 99.90.196.227 as for the record of what was done with this paragraph.) When the two sentences were added to the article in December 2013 [6], they were about finger and there is no indication whatsoever that the editor who added it meant anything other than finger. The problem is that they were placed right before a sentence referencing the Reich paper, making it appear six years later as if the whole sentence string came from Reich. When the new analysis of the finger bone came out a few weeks ago, I needed to add a sentence not from Reich into the sentence string, and mistakenly thinking it was all from Reich, I duplicated the Reich citation so that the portions both before and after my interpolation retained verifiability.[7] This was an erroneous assumption on my part, and when the issue was raised and I looked (again) at Reich it was immediately evident that paper said nothing about the finger being robust. This would have justified immediate removal of the text that had been added without citation, but if a reliable source for the information could be identified, the information could be preserved, so I first flagged it.[8] However, I then spent several hours the next day looking for any reliable source published prior to December 2013 that might have served as the basis for this text, or published after that date and clearly not derived from the Wikipedia page that could nonetheless verify it, and failed to find any. This left no choice but removal.[9] Agricolae (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thx. Because apparently i have nothing to with this can i edit ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Agricolae don't you like Little Red Riding Hood but Hansel and Gretel 78077 or 761258 times ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

another mirepresented source

You did put over attributed to great Jacob &a citation the words ike the 'trace amount DNA fallen perhaps, mean paste over my edit, from news of of this gracile on head newsraporter. The one who did imo did monumental fake job, over psraying biopolitics buzzwords mixing names, taxons, logic & numBERS . his ref just next . Is it subscriptive to add such lole sources? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• this nonsense 'trace amount DNA' fixed but the next sentence need closer look. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC) do you like wider explanation ? Short: as method not; as 6% not. Only make as aDNA but not in 'modern-day(sic) Indonesian'

substitution "trace to small" show the fixer do not know what about is in the source. Interperting result as method prove how deeply this editor is confused. What to do in such cases? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No such confusion has taken place. Agricolae (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Very good, i appreciate it. Now we talking and i have partner for meritoric discussion. Would you please then explain why you did that change. (or only) What is the numeric value behind that change 'trace' to 'small' ? Maybe i am confused and that info will help me get it and i will understand it. I hope this is a proper way to reach consensus. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There are no numeric values for those words, both being subjective. Trace can be used to represent, with increasing imprecision, 'orders of magnitude less than other content', 'amounts so small it is barely detectable', 'in minuscule amounts' or simply 'not very much'. Though the last, least precise, is what I had in mind when I originally used the word 'trace', it is entirely subjective what constitutes 'not very much'. What constitutes 'small' is also subjective but it is more generic and does not carry more precise alternative meanings that don't match the observed amount. Agricolae (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have in focus {doi:10.1038/nature09710}? Quote please because i almost shure this is evidence for more that WP:OR some kind of wp:of := original fantasy and your byte flooding typing exorcize(sic) aimed to cover biopolitic agenda by exhausting audience patience. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on both the analysis of ancient DNA from Denisovan fossils and trace>small amounts of Denisovan DNA surviving in the genomes of modern humans through introgression, three distinct populations of Denisovans have been identified.[43]

I 'had in focus' the source I cited. Agricolae (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

[The space above contains the hidden (why?) response 99.90.196.227 made, an uncontextualized url of one of their edits. Talk pages are intended to contain exchanges aimed at improving the page. This purpose is rather thwarted by hiding one's comments, but then a bare URL without any indication of why it is there isn't going to further discussion much even if it is visible.] 07:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

What wrong? Agricolae and others

What wrong ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Images in fossil chart

Added images to fossil chart for Xiahe mandible and Densiova 11 Meredithmeyer (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Does it have a taxonomy? Like Homo denisova or something? Booger-mike (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it is different depending on whom you ask. See the last sentence in the first paragraph, and the Taxonomy section of the article. Agricolae (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

incomplete

It is important whether the Denisovan DNA in modern humans is mitochondrial or Y chromosome. If it's in there and I missed it, please let me know which paragraph it's in. 100.15.127.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is autosomal admixture (neither mitochondrial nor Y-DNA). There are no known surviving uniparental (direct maternal or paternal) lineages fom Denisovans (or other archaic hominins) in modern humans. Skllagyook (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Denisovan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 21:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing your article over the next few days. starsandwhales (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• Would it be appropriate to use a taxobox for this article?

it's not a taxon so no   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe instead of saying the body part as a part of the the name for each fossil, it could be a separate column?

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• The Tattersall book looks interesting.

He only makes mention of Denisovans in 2 places   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• In the lead, would "similarities" make more sense than "close affinities" when talking about Neanderthals? Since it's unclear whether they ever cohabitated the cave.

No, affinities as in taxonomic affinity, as in they're more closely related to each other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• In the modern humans section it would make it clearer by grouping the information about each region together. The topic sentence of that section works well as an introduction to the ideas, but the information that follows could be better organized.

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is it possible to make the divergence times diagram larger so that the timeline can be read without opening the image?

You'd have to make it too big   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is all of the dating done by assuming that the genes mutate at the same rate as humans? How would the mutation rates used to calculate time compare to humans? Were all of the specimens' nDNA tested or were only a few of them tested?

different authors use different mutation rates. Reich extracted nDNA from Denisova 3.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• How was the time the two Denisovan populations split calculated?

I'm having some trouble finding their methods, I'll get back to you on that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Those were my main questions. Everything is well written, the article looks good.

Denisovan genes in Icelanders

From the study "The nature of Neanderthal introgression revealed by 27,566 Icelandic genomes":

Here we examine the effect of this event using 14.4 million putative archaic chromosome fragments that were detected in fully phased whole-genome sequences from 27,566 Icelanders, corresponding to a range of 56,388–112,709 unique archaic fragments that cover 38.0–48.2% of the callable genome. On the basis of the similarity with known archaic genomes, we assign 84.5% of fragments to an Altai or Vindija Neanderthal origin and 3.3% to Denisovan origin; 12.2% of fragments are of unknown origin. We find that Icelanders have more Denisovan-like fragments than expected through incomplete lineage sorting. This is best explained by Denisovan gene flow, either into ancestors of the introgressing Neanderthals or directly into humans.

...

The results indicate that the observed characteristics of Denisovan-like fragments in Icelanders are not compatible with a simple introgression from a Vindija-like group without that population having had prior admixture with a Denisovan-like group (Supplementary Information 3.3.3 and Supplementary Fig. 3.1.1). An equally intriguing scenario that cannot be ruled out is direct admixture from a Denisovan-like group into the common ancestors of non-Africans before the main Neanderthal admixture event

Could you add information on results of the study to the section "Modern humans"?

There also in entry for the study at 2020 in science.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Denisova Molar.jpg
• Denisova Phalanx distalis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

More images

No immage of le monke. Just teeth. No full skeleton. 0/10