

Neither Neanderthal nor sapiens: new human relative IDed - ulysses
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/neither-neanderthal-nor-sapiens-new-human-relative-ided.ars

======
btilly
The article asserts that this species is separate from _h. foresiensis_ , but
I'm curious how closely they might have been related. Sure, they are separated
by geography and 50,000 years, but it seems more plausible that there were 3
rather distinct branches of humans wandering around at the time than 4. And
there is a cladistic analysis suggesting that _h. floresiensis_ diverged more
recently than _h. habilis_ which would make the timeline for the one fit the
genetic evidence for this new species.

~~~
nopassrecover
Why does it seem more plausible there were 3 distinct branches than 4 distinct
branches? There are many more distinct branches of apes right now.

~~~
btilly
The more currently unknown branches there were walking around, the more
surprising it is that we haven't found more fossils from the ones that are
currently unknown.

~~~
fforw
This might be a stupid question, but has anyone ever considered that a higher
intelligence or some other attribute might enable a species to just not end up
fossilized so much?

"Hey Grok, don't go there, the gods will kill you."

------
defen
Hopefully a yeti...

See
[http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_d...](http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/denisova-
krause-2010.html) for an anthropologist's take on it.

------
tjpick
> IDed

you know you've seen too many ads when you read that and think it's a new
apple product. Scary.

