h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What's your source for that information? I'd like to read it myself.

Mmm... So would I, I know evidence was found on the Iberian peninsular for Homo sapiens sapiens and Neaderthals interbreeding. Could that be what you are thinking of?

It's impossible to show for certain that such interbreeding did or did not take place - just that they were in the same place at the same time.

At the moment opinion seems to be that such interbreeding is unlikely, but that opinion may of course be subject to future revision.

Noggin

Well I don't think would be physically possible for a male homosapiend to breed with a femal homo erectus, the skull of the child would have been too large. Where as a with a Neaderthal female was evolved to give birth to children with very slightly larger skulls than humans.

It's more a question of "sexual selection". They may have been genetically capable of interbreeding, but would they have selected partners who were noticeably different from themselves?

Noggin

I think Stealth is right. My human evolution knowledge is next to nil, but I do remember there was a significant difference between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens' pelvises to accomodate skull size. A Homo erectus mother and hybrid baby would have both died in childbirth.

Wasn't the neanderthal braincase actually bigger than ours?

Well, when it comes to homo erectus the only way I could imagine interspecial breeding taking place would be with a male raping a human female. Going by brain size homo erectus was just a walking ape with the mind of a 2 year old, where as Neaderthals has some form of culture and language.

Modern humans have on average a brain of 1350 cc compared to the Neanderthal's average brain size of 1582 cc, I think a chimp has about 400 cc but is more intelligent than a gorilla with it's brain of about 460 cc. Gorillas are peaceful animals compared to chimps who are more agressive, I think Neaderthals were gorillas to our chimp.

If logic is correct there would have been no major knoledge between either of the two species and therefore the intelligence factor would be of little import. The fact that both species shared the same territory during an ice-age supports the theory of co-habitation between the two. In such a circumstance inter-species breeding is bound to occur

You're talking about Neaderthals and humans?
I'd say intelligence and behaviour as well as how 'human' they looked would all be factors...

This is exactly it. I don't really have any great interest in this topic I just like to play devils advocate in chat forums such as this. Imagine me as hanging the minds of all those who speak to me upsidedown shaking them just to see what will fall out of their pockets.

Oh good... I was wondering if you were trying to suggest that our ancient ancestors were happy to sleep with anything that moved... I suspect bestiality did exist then... but perhaps more as some sort of spirital rites rather than the modern excuses...

Homo frodoensis anyone? This is surely the most bizarre fossil ever to breathe life into a dormant thread. Any comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3948165.stm

It's is fascinating...
Though I'm not fond of the 'Hobbit' angle...

I like it- it's rather descriptive, and it can let the general public (at least those who have read/seen/heard of LOtR) get a handle on how important this discovery is!

Maybe... but from the shape of the bones and the artst's impression they were nothing like the Hobbit's, more like Elves or Imps in appearance and behavior.

This is just a train of thought. All canines can interbreed to some extent as they come form the same genetic stock, if Homo Sapien and Homo Erectus came from the same genetic stock it is possible that interbreeding could occur and the offspring survive us being the result.

Yeah, but crossing erectus with sapiens kind of amounts to crossing a Chihuahua with an English Mastiff- it's genetically possible to produce viable offspring, but not physiologically probable.

I wish to go back to an earlier statement of mine and explore the pyhsiology involved in an Erectus/Sapien mating. All of the points that state that Homo Erectus have larger heads, raised by other people in this conversation, assume that the father of the mating in all cases is Erectus. If the mother of the cross-breed was Homo Erectus and the father Homo Sapien then the points raised over the mothers inability to give birth due to the size of the head of the offspring fail to have any relevence. Furthermore if primitive male Homo Sapien is anything like his modern counterpart he is likely to chase anything in a skirt.

No, Erectus has the smaller head, and therefore the smaller pelvis. Sapiens has the larger head!