Talk:Denisovan

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) [reply ]

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

You write that Icelanders have 3% of their dna from denisovians. Is it the same 3%. Or do different people carry a different 3%? Parklandbob (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

There is a new report of a tooth from Laos identified by the authors as Denisovan. I am a little conflicted over whether this should be listed as a Denisovan specimen (and put on the map), or among the 'other fossils that possibly are Denosovan' paragraph. The article itself uses a title without equivocation, but the publisher, Nature, is much more equivocal about the identification in their science news reporting on the report. A survey of a few other sources that are usually decent at reporting science news are split more or less equally between buying into the identification and equivocating, with some even throwing some shade on the Xiahu identification (which we list unequivocally as a Denisovan specimen). I personally would prefer waiting to see how scholars in the field treat this in their reviews and the summaries of past discoveries int he introductions of future papers, but given the nature of Wikipedia, somebody is going to put it in before a scholarly consensus becomes evident, so I would rather be proactive in raising the question. Anyone have an opinion on how this should be treated? Agricolae (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Original paper:

• [1]

Some coverage:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

• How about "A lower molar discovered in Tam Ngu Hao 2 cave in northern Laos in 2018 has been identified with high probability as coming from a Denisovan female. A Neanderthal individual is considered less likely but cannot be ruled out. The tooth is dated to between 164 and 131 thousand years ago." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

It seems I overlooked that it has already been added to the article, but inexplicably placed at the end of the 'Demographics' section, which isn't really the proper place for it. Agricolae (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2022 and 20 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: ParisMacB.

— Assignment last updated by ParisMacB (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Is this overview in the NYT worth including? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/02/science/denisovan-neanderthal-dna.html 136.36.180.215 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Section "Tibet,"In 1998, five child hand- and footprint impressions were discovered in a travertine unit near the Quesang hot springs in Tibet... The original paper only said "Given the age of unit II the artists could have been Homo sapiens or perhaps more likely a Denisovan given that a Denisovan-like hominin has recently been found and dated (∼160 ka BP) on the edge of the Tibetan Plateau (Baishiya Cave, 3200 m a.s.l.; Fig. 1a) ."This paragraph may misunderstand the content of the paper。original article link NoteDamn (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Further down the article says "may have been made by Denisovan children". It is not saying it is definite. I do not understand why the source says that modern humans were possible as it dates the unit with the hand prints to "185.7 ± 15.74 to 219.2 ± 10.5 ka BP", long before modern humans reached Tibet. I think our article get it right mentioning the uncertainty without going into further discussion. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedia good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• Wikipedia In the news articles
• GA-Class level-4 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• GA-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• GA-Class Anthropology articles
• High-importance Anthropology articles
• GA-Class Primate articles
• Mid-importance Primate articles
• Wikipedia requested images of primates
• WikiProject Primates articles
• GA-Class Palaeontology articles
• Mid-importance Palaeontology articles
• GA-Class Palaeontology articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Palaeontology articles
• GA-Class Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia articles
• GA-Class Australian history articles
• Low-importance Australian history articles
• WikiProject Australian history articles
• GA-Class Demographics of Australia articles
• Low-importance Demographics of Australia articles
• WikiProject Demographics of Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• GA-Class Indonesia articles
• Low-importance Indonesia articles
• WikiProject Indonesia articles
• GA-Class Oceania articles
• Low-importance Oceania articles
• WikiProject Oceania articles
• GA-Class Philippine-related articles
• Low-importance Philippine-related articles
• Unknown-importance Philippine History articles
• WikiProject Philippines articles
• GA-Class Melanesia articles
• Low-importance Melanesia articles
• GA-Class Papua New Guinea articles
• Low-importance Papua New Guinea articles
• WikiProject Papua New Guinea articles
• GA-Class Solomon Islands work group articles
• Low-importance Solomon Islands work group articles
• Solomon Islands work group articles
• GA-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance GA-Class Russia articles
• GA-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• GA-Class Russia (demographics and ethnography) articles
• Demographics and ethnography of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• GA-Class Southeast Asia articles
• Low-importance Southeast Asia articles
• WikiProject Southeast Asia articles
• GA-Class Malaysia articles
• Low-importance Malaysia articles
• WikiProject Malaysia articles
• GA-Class Polynesia articles
• Low-importance Polynesia articles
• WikiProject Polynesia articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles
• Wikipedia pages using copied template