Running Head: HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS AND HOMO SAPIENS HYBRIDS 1

Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Hybrids:

A Study in Paleoanthropological Plausibility

Troy C. Beglinger

Butte College

ANTH 2

Fall, 2012
HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS AND HOMO SAPIENS HYBRIDS 2

Abstract

This paper, containing a comparative analysis of research done in the fields of genetics and
morphology as pertains to studying early human evolution, takes a neutral stance on both the research
conducted and the field of paleoanthropology. It provides the reader with information concerning the
plausibility of hybridization between Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens, with proofs offered
via comparisons of HLA alleles and analogies to the understood development of hybrids in Camelidae.
It also includes a summary of the current limitations posed by both genetic testing and morphology as
relates to the accuracy of species classification efforts in beings more than a few hundred years old.

Keywords: species; genetic; Neanderthals; Homo Sapiens; limitations; interbreeding; Homo

Neanderthalensis
HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS AND HOMO SAPIENS HYBRIDS 3

Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Hybrids:

A Study in Paleoanthropological Plausibility

Since the first discovery of Neanderthal remains in the mid-1800s, their place in humanity’s
family tree has been a topic of much debate. Physically, Neanderthals were shorter than humans, had
shorter limbs and thicker bones, a protruding mid-face with more pronounced brow ridges, a receding
chin, a morphologically different vocal tract, and a raised larynx. However, there were also enough
similarities to make scientists wonder whether the remains were of a progenitor to Homo Sapiens, or if
they were, in fact, a separate species.

Recently, the debate has taken a new turn, as several studies have come forth which suggest that
many modern humans share genetic traits with Homo Neanderthalensis. So, since Neanderthals
traditionally get treated as a distant cousin to Homo Sapiens, this paper will attempt to examine in more
detail whether it is even plausible that the two divergent groups could have procreated with one
another. And, if so, whether we can tell with any certainty by using the means at our disposal.

Literature Review

According to Parham, et al. (2011), we have shed light on the subject through research focusing
on human leukocyte antigens, a group of about 200 highly variable genes essential to the composition
of our immune system. When comparing the HLA genes of people from around the world with those of
their Neanderthal and Denisovan counterparts, he uncovered evidence that pointed to interbreeding
between Homo Sapiens and other hominids as a potential key factor in the eventual dominance of
Homo Sapiens.

Two alleles, in particular, the HLA-C*0702 and HLA-A*11, were only likely to appear in the
Homo Sapiens’ genes through interbreeding, as they were initially only present in hominids of non-
African descent, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. This point of logic, Parham, et al. concluded, is
in keeping with the fact that the Neanderthals and Denisovans had been living outside of Africa for
over 200,000 years before encountering Homo Sapiens, providing them with plenty of time for their
HLAs to adapt to the local diseases.

These findings reinforce the fact that while roughly 6% of the modern non-African genome
comes from other hominins, the amount of HLA mutation gained via interbreeding is far higher. With
European HLA-A alleles, for instance, roughly half come from other hominins. For modern humans
living in China, this figure rises to 72%, and for those in Papua New Guinea, the figure is over 90%.
This also agrees with the theory that as Homo Sapiens moved further into regions infested with tropical
disease-carrying organisms, the mutations that allowed for greater varieties of disease resistance
became increasingly selected for.

According to Mason and Short (2011), while modern humans and Neanderthals share a small
percentage of nuclear DNA, they do not possess the same mitochondrial DNA. Therefore, when we
consider how interspecific hybridity works, coupled with the fact that mitochondrial DNA is solely
inheritable through the maternal line in mammals, it would seem that interbreeding between
HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS AND HOMO SAPIENS HYBRIDS 4

H. Neanderthalensis and H. Sapiens is possible. However, only male Neanderthals would have been
able to mate with female H. Sapiens. Thus, if Haldane’s Law applied to the progeny of Neanderthals
and H. Sapiens, female hybrids would survive, while male hybrids would be wholly absent, very rare,
and/or sterile. Therefore, interbreeding between male Neanderthals and female humans is the only
viable scenario, since it would also account for latent Neanderthal nuclear DNA, the scarcity of
Neanderthal Y-linked genes, and the lack of mitochondrial DNA in modern H. Sapiens populations.

As supporting proof for Mason and Short’s claims, we find an examination of the chronological
and geographical overlap between Neanderthals and H. Sapiens occurring as recently as 50,000-80,000
years ago in the Middle East, and a reference to hybrid specimens which feature both Neanderthal and
H. Sapiens features; said specimens, having been mosaic fossils with human cranial and dental features
superimposed upon a Neanderthal’s body. Despite that, they have documented no clear speciation
events.

Going on, Mason and Short assert that even if H. Neanderthalensis and H. Sapiens were, in fact,
separate species, they could still have interbred successfully. As proof of this concept, they expound
upon the example of how the Camelidae originated in Florida before spreading across South America
to become the llama, alpaca, vicuna, and guanaco. While each species is phenotypically distinct from
one another, they can still interbreed successfully, even creating fertile hybrid offspring. Some larger
hybrids, however, have experienced phenotypic differentiation caused by geographical isolation. For
instance, the hybrids which migrated across the Rockies and the Bering Strait into northern China
created the dual-humped Bactrian camel, while others eventually made their way into India, Persia, and
Saudi Arabia, where they became the single-humped Dromedary camel.

Most interesting, perhaps, is a reference found by Mason and Short as to the creation of camas,
whereby researchers had inseminated female alpacas with dromedary semen. The experiment, while
successful in producing fetuses, could not create live-born young. Martin and Short posit that this
occurred because the two species had diverged some 10-12 million years before, as opposed to the few
hundred thousand years that Neanderthals and H. Sapiens would have had to overcome. This argument
is in keeping with the commonality of successful (albeit predominantly female) hybrids amongst
Camelidae, Equidae, and Anatidae.

Discussion

Limitations of the Studies

The discrepancies identified may result from several limitations found in the materials reviewed
by Parham, et al., Mason and Short. These limitations can result from technological constraints,
demographic factors, or issues of modality. We will examine each of these limitations in further detail
below.

Technological limitations. When relying on DNA evidence to support claims of shared lineage
amongst organisms, several major technological limitations act to prevent the consolidation of opinions
about the proper identification of speciation. These limitations include the degradation of sample
materials, the need to correlate sample materials with pre-existing sample libraries, and the refinement
HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS AND HOMO SAPIENS HYBRIDS 5

of the testing equipment being used.

For instance, Liu, et al. (2007), stated that poor probe designs caused by incomplete sequence
knowledge, MPSS sequencing errors, highly complex transcriptional activities, heterogeneity in
polyadenylation cleavage sites, and various sequence-introduced biases, can cause problems for
geneticists testing samples. Further, factors such as strain, gender, diet, and circadian variation can
influence the genetic expressions found in an individual organism’s tissues, and storage following
excavation, soil chemistry, and the time of year when the animal died can affect the quality of the
sample being examined. What this means, is that no amount of proof based on ancient DNA evidence
can conclusively represent an entire species, and, likewise, we cannot even assume it provides a full
picture of the individual the sample came from.

To make matters worse, according to Allentoft et al. (2012), DNA only has a half-life of 521
years. Therefore, even after a mere 521 years of typical degradation, half of the genome would already
be missing, thereby making any true identification pure speculation at best. As we are dealing with
attempting to map the genome of species that have been extinct for over 50,000 years, however, we are
therefore working with materials wherein less than one nonillionth (or to be precise, less than
1/2(521/50,000)) of the original genetic structure survives; an extremely small amount, to say the least. Due
to that fact alone, an argument based on genetic sampling cannot currently hold water when identifying
such an ancient species. Further, as a sample reaches 1.5 million years, it would become unreadable,
and at 6.8 million years it would virtually cease to exist, as every bond within the genome structure
would have broken down completely. This, of course, meaning that attempting to trace modern human
origins back to species such as Australopithecus Afarensis would be utterly impossible.

Unfortunately, turning to morphology for help in categorizing species is no better, as there is

still no concrete ability to label anything definitively. The high number of variations that can occur
within even a single species makes it utterly impossible to determine anything conclusively. At most,
morphology is useful for pointing one to the class of a subject. Anything beyond that often requires
further deductive reasoning based on the provenance of the subject and genetic testing to reach any
definitive conclusions. If this were not the case, an anthropologist looking at the skeletons of a dwarf
and a person with gigantism may readily assume them to be of two different species.

Demographic limitations. Because of the necessity for comparing the DNA of biological
sample materials against pre-existing libraries for classification, and the vast numbers of variations in
genetic expression which can occur within a species, the creation of a proper base profile requires a
large collection of high-quality samples. With early hominins, however, this is impossible, as we have
only uncovered a few remains, all of which are in a highly degraded state.

Modality limitations. Tattersall and Schwartz (1998) posit that paleoanthropology has been far
too focused on towing the party line of neo-Darwinian evolutionary synthesis. This bias by researchers
creates a situation wherein the scientists combine their sensitivity to within-species variation, with their
desire to show that the lineage of Homo Sapiens has existed far longer than it logically could have
been, based on the fossil record. Also, this approach towards researching the true lineage of H. Sapiens
attempts to create a lineage in the most linear way possible, ignoring the fact that evolution is far more
complex and varied than the gradualist model put forth by the theories of synthesis which formed
HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS AND HOMO SAPIENS HYBRIDS 6

in the 1950s.

For example, Tattersall and Schwartz point out that in observing the morphological traits of a
species, it is common practice to demand that a particular anatomical condition must either be present
in all specimens of a species or be absent in all other species for it to be a trait of the specimen’s
species. However, as every species is a relative of another, either living or extinct, doing so misses the
point of what variation truly is.

Namely, the process of speciation includes periods of reproductive isolation between parent and
daughter groups that originally belonged to the same species. This is something that becomes obvious
when observing the traits of living mammals, which confirm that the diverged species rarely, if ever,
differ from one another in characteristics such as bones and teeth. These same kinds of markers
are prevalent in determining speciation from fossil records, as the ranges of variation displayed within
parent/daughter or sister species often have large portions of overlap, if not total overlap. Therefore,
basing any conclusions on the amount of overlap or uniqueness observed is ultimately inconclusive.

Conclusions and Future Study

Taking into account the problems with the study of morphology, it may logically be
extrapolated that some of the same issues can produce misleading results when studying the
morphology of genetic structures within a species, as well. After all, not all members of a given species
will have the same genetic structure as one another, and gene expressions can vary widely within a
given species. An Inuit, for example, has a far different genome and morphology than an African
Bushman, yet we still currently view them as being part of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Combining the issues with morphology with the limitations of genetic testing for samples from
ancient species, it is highly implausible that the results of past or current research are trustworthy.
Basing any species classification on the use of genetic samples containing far less than 1% of the total
genome cannot be accurate, and since so little genetic material exists for most ancient species, it
logically cannot even offer a reliable source of secondary verification for those wishing to begin their
comparisons from the morphological viewpoint.

Therefore, since we have been working from a very limited fossil record with nearly non-
existent genetic materials, it is likely that we may one day find that our family tree is wholly different
from what we have devised it to be. Neanderthals could be ancient humans or vice versa, and without
the ability to confirm or deny such theories conclusively without observer bias, all such fields of
research remain purely speculative. The only option available, given our current level of technology,
would be to construct a complete genome for each individual from hundreds, if not thousands of
samples of the same source materials, which would likely destroy them and prevent further study.

If, however, we could somehow retrieve genetic material from ancient remains in a way that
restores the degraded materials to their former completeness, a true revolution in species classification
would occur, as the multitude of theories which exist could finally find more substantial grounds for
verification.
HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS AND HOMO SAPIENS HYBRIDS 7

References

Allentoft, M., Collins, M., Zhang, G., Scofield, R. P., Holdaway, R., Bunce, M., et al. (2012). The half-
life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils. Proceedings of the Royal Society,
279(1748), 4724-4733.

Liu, F., Jenssen, T., Trimarchi, J., Punzo, C., Cepko, C., Ohno-Machado, L., et al. (2007). Comparison
of hybridization-based and sequencing-based gene expression technologies on biological replicates.
BMC Genomics, 8, 153.

Mason, P., & Short, R. (2011). Neanderthal-human Hybrids. Hypothesis, 9(1), e1.

Parham, P., Norman, P., Abi-Rached, L., & Guethlein, L. (2012). Review article: Human-specific
evolution of killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptor recognition of major histocompatibility complex
class I molecules. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367(1590), 800-811.

Tattersall, I., & Schwartz, J. (1998). Morphology, Paleoanthropology, and Neanderthals. The
Anatomical Record: Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology, 253, 113-117.