Of Manatees, Sasquatch and Men Options

[Wyomingite]

Interesting new critter from the Amazon. Well, not that new, I first caught wind of this a year or so ago and have been awaiting the formal description. Now, I understand how van Roosmalen came up with the genetic information. What I'm not familiar with is the conventions/standards of phylogenetics which allow him to designate it as a new species, all the rules and protocol if you will. There is no doubt that this population forms an evolutionary significant unit. Is it standard practice to use the mutation rate in splitting a population into a new species despite genetic similarities to a known species? Is it dependent on situation, on a case by case basis? Or am I misreading something? (cue: BlueGenes) Anyways, I hope he published this elsewhere, in print, cuz IIRC the ICZN does not recognize formal descriptions distributed via electronic means, including the web.

Regardless, on a broader level, the implications in bigfoot research are interesting. I don't see how an alleged sample that tests "human" can be dismissed as contaminated. A small DNA sample of this dwarf manatee, such as from a patch of skin or molar without proof of the source (the body), would have tested as T. ininguis and would have likely been dismissed as belonging to a juvenile of the same rather than coming from an adult of a separate species (or a separate population of dwarfed individuals). If two populations of manatee with vastly differing phenotypes and behaviors can share an identical haplotype, there is no reason why a similar situation couldn't exist with Homo sapiens and sasquatch.

I'm not trying to incite a pro-kill vs. no-kill debate or a discussion on the necessity of having a body. Just thinking a little outside the box, along the lines of "what if" BF separated from Homo sapiens not so long ago...

Comments?

WYite

[BlueGenes]

Wy: Reading your post was like a breath of fresh air! The past few days I have been dealing with highly educated biologists and ecologists concerning rare species reintroduction and augmentation. I wish they would put thought into this subject and ask questions such as you have.

I did a (admittedly quick) search on the web to find a formal description of this species. I found nothing. You are correct when you stated a new species desciption can not be "published' via the web. It must be published in a printed peer reviewed journal.

You bring up two important points. First, can you measure if a species is truly a "new" species based on nucleotide differences. Officially no. There must be some morphological differences first and foremost. If differences in the DNA data back up your divergent morphology, it's just icing on the cake. Some have argued that DNA should be allowed to be the sole criteria for new species descriptions, but so far this is not an accepted concept. For the life of me I don't understand why the zoologists describing this species used the gene they did? They knew is was slow evolving gene in manatees. Why not used another faster evolving, and hence more informative gene?

Second, what is a species? Literally, many books have been written on this subject. I fear that there is still no consensus amoung biologists about what a species really is. I once attended a weekly discussion group, where for weeks we debated this topic. After ten weeks we could not agree on any one species concept. The last day we each presented our own individual speices concepts to the rest of the group. Most concepts were long drawn out definitions about interbreeding, population genetics and so forth. My description was short. I said "In my own head I intuatively know what a species is. If it quacks like a species, it must be a species". Yes, it was a wiseass remark, but I was also serious. Although as humans we can not create a definition of what a species is, most of use can recognize one when we see one.

So how does this fit into a BF discussion? You are correct. A body, or at least a piece of a body is most desireable to describe BF as a new species. Although, I recently learned that a body is not always required. In the case of very rare species a physical type specimen is not mandatory. A good quality photo can be submitted instead. And no, I don't think the PG film would qualify.

You bring up the point about BF posibly sharing a very similar haplotype (mtDNA) with humans. This might be because the two "species" diverged very recently. I've been thinking about this alot lately myself, so I'm very pleased you brought it up. It could certainly be the case. However, I maintain that some gentic difference must exist between BF and humans. You just have to look in the right place. In the case of the manatees, they did not look in the right place. Obviously these zoologists have "found" a new species, but the gene they sequenced did not support this. I would argue: sequence another gene!

My brother and I are as closely related as two humans can be (twins are notable exception). If one were to sequence a gene from our mitochondria it's almost certain those sequences will be identical. But, if you look long and hard enough you will find genetic differences between us. This example is an extreme case. I suspect differences between BF and humans would be consistant enough to distinguish the two species reliably and consistantly. We just need to find the correct gene/s to use.

I'm sorry if my discussion seems a bit murky and hazey. If I have learned one thing, it's that biology is a messy business. Often the plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria don't follow the rules as we'd like them too.

[HarryHenderson]

"Just thinking a little outside the box, along the lines of "what if" BF separated from Homo sapiens not so long ago..." I think that's along the same lines as MK Davis's thinking in his new 'documentary' about the nature of the subject in the PGF. I'm not sure how long ago 'not so long ago' is - aproximately how many years are you meaning - a million years? 100,000 years? 10,000 years? Or am I way off? I don't think we can discount the possibility you mention, but how does that account for the complete lack of tool/fire use and other matters attributed as common to homo sapiens for the last, say, half a milllion to million years?

"...Often the plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria don't follow the rules as we'd like them too." That's a function of our human fallibility. Our seeming need to precisely define something with X amount of words often trumps 'reality'. Whatever happens happens, independent of our observation (or lack thereof) of such. IMO, our sometimes misguided attempts to do such scientific 'definition wrangling' (with its subsequent fallout) takes away as much or more than it gives. I understand there has to be an initial 'basis' from which to move forward, but when such basis is necessarily based on only theoretical assumptions and conjecture (i.e. not empirical), moving forward in smaller, more deliberate steps has to be 'more better' (scientifically) than giant leaps that regularly (and inevitably) get called back on 'technicalities'.

[BobZenor]

"Just thinking a little outside the box, along the lines of "what if" BF separated from Homo sapiens not so long ago..." I think that's along the same lines as MK Davis's thinking in his new 'documentary' about the nature of the subject in the PGF. I'm not sure how long ago 'not so long ago' is - aproximately how many years are you meaning - a million years? 100,000 years? 10,000 years? Or am I way off? [I don't think we can discount the possibility you mention, but how does that account for the complete lack of tool/fire use and other matters attributed as common to homo sapiens for the last, say, half a milllion to million years?

A million years is probably a bit recent but I am assuming the fossils found were actually human ancestors and I have personal bias. You may be making assumptions that all hominids of a particular species have the same technology. Has that ever been the case in history. Many take it much further and assume that completely different species all have the same technology. Being forced to hide and live a primitive lifestyle is plenty of reason to lose technology even if it did descend from a once more technological hominid. All you need is a single lineage of hominids to be technological and for some reason almost everyone assumes that they all are, even different species.

"...Often the plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria don't follow the rules as we'd like them too." That's a function of our human fallibility. Our seeming need to precisely define something with X amount of words often trumps 'reality'. Whatever happens happens, independent of our observation (or lack thereof) of such. IMO, our sometimes misguided attempts to do such scientific 'definition wrangling' (with its subsequent fallout) takes away as much or more than it gives. I understand there has to be an initial 'basis' from which to move forward, but when such basis is necessarily based on only theoretical assumptions and conjecture (i.e. not empirical), moving forward in smaller, more deliberate steps has to be 'more better' (scientifically) than giant leaps that regularly (and inevitably) get called back on 'technicalities'.

People get ideas in their heads for whatever reason. The real world doesn't often follow our preconceived notions. It is amazing to me how much many people think they actually know about ancient hominids because of a few skulls and fragments of bones. The tool use is almost impossible to assign to a fossil hominid except that it was, in some cases, almost certainly made by a hominid in the area. We "know" that two species can coexist even after such an apparently brief separation as occurred between habilis and erectus. I am speaking of the ~1.5 million year old recent find. It is not unreasonable to assume that multiple species existed and it would stretch credibility if someone asserted otherwise.

[BlueGenes]

It is often, and incorrectly assumed that humans represent the top of the evolutionary chain. It also follows that human characteristics, such as the use of tools represent an evolutionary advance that other species must match to reach our level.

Just because a species has evolved some particular characteristic, it does not mean it will always retain it. For example: the ancestors of dolphins were land mammals. And the ancestors of all land mammals were aquatic. So, if you follow the evolution of dolphins, you have an aquatic species that evolved into a terrestrial species that evolved back into an aquatic species. It seems a reasonable hypothesis that BF may have evolved from a tool and fire using species, as humans did. But in the case of BF, it has evolved into a species that no longer has those characteristics. Of course this is just speculation.

Back to my original thought about humans not being at the top of the evolutionary chain. Yes, we are clever, have cool tools, and can "adapt" to a wide range of habitats. But we are not the most evolved at everything. Far from it. Take this scenario: Toss me into the middle of the ocean. After a few hours I'll grow weary of swimming and start to drown. A dolphin might swim by and think "silly human.......you haven't evolved to be a very good swimmer, have you? Maybe someday your species will evolve to be as advanced us".

[HarryHenderson]

"...All you need is a single lineage of hominids to be technological and for some reason almost everyone assumes that they all are, even different species." Which begs the question. Is it possible a species like Bigfoot, that seems by all appearances to aproximate a 'large man', could not or did not learn to use their hands with their minds the way we have? Despite having the seeming ability, it's just never materialized? Another question is, if they 'could not', would such a species have to be considered immensely less intelligent than us for 'not figuring it out'? Meaning more of a true 'animal dumb'? Or could it be attributed to something like they're 'perfectly adapted' for the environment in which they live? That they just don't need the use of 'technology' to survive? And one more. Can something have true self awareness without being 'highly intelligent'? I'm asking because I don't know.

This post has been edited by HarryHenderson: Oct 17 2007, 08:02 PM

[Wyomingite]

Thanks, BlueGenes. Clarified some things for me and confirmed some others. All in all, I felt the entire description was a little sloppy and hastily thrown together, as was the description of the new species of peccary that is available on van Roosmalen’s homepage.

For the most part, HarryHenderson, I agree with your statement about the infallible need to precisely define "things", whatever those things may be, but I'll add "in terms that are comfortable and familiar." I've only started thinking of BF in terms of "possible human" since mid-August, I've fought the entire concept for some of the exact reasons you mention. As much as we wrangle, it is just as likely that it belongs to the genus Homo as to Gigantopithecus. Better yet, it may belong in a genus of its own. It may not fit nicely into the Homininae nor the Ponginae, warranting a third subfamily of the Hominidae, one currently unknown or unrecognized. Heck, for all we truly know BF could be the result of convergent evolution in a platyrrhine primate, which subsequently migrated north after the Panamanian isthmus rejoined North and South America in the late Miocene or early Pliocene, LOL. Some pretty radical thinking there, I know.

I was thinking along the lines of a separation at app. 300 kyr, give or take a bit, roughly around the same time Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis separated into their respective lineages. I know there is debate on just when all this occurred and just how it all occurred; this just seems like the ideal time for a population to fragment from the main population and start heading down a separate evolutionary path. Lack of resources and isolation from other groups could explain lack of technology, coupled with physical adaptations eliminating the need for those technological advances. I really don't have any real answers there or any real theory. This is all a spur of the moment response and I know my times aren't dead on, and I simplified things to maintain brevity, so cut me a little slack. I think I do get the concept across, though. I just have this nagging feeling that there is more here than a mere bipedal gorilla.

As for MK Davis and his theories, don't know much about him other than he's done a lot with the PG footage.

[Former_Northwest...]

And one more. Can something have true self awareness without being 'highly intelligent'?

I'd say no, it takes high intelligence to be truly self-aware. If you think through the steps it takes to be self-aware in more than a simple manner, it is profound. It requires the ability to keep a lot of information simultaneously spinning in the brain, and drawing connections between disparate information to form an image or "consciousness" about the information.

[BobZenor]

One principal is often taught in biology but it is more of a general rule of thumb in my opinion. It states something to the effect that only one animal can occupy a particular niche. Assume that a group of habilis or very early erectus managed to survive from more aggressive hominids by hiding and they were forced to live a non-technological life. It couldn't occupy the niche of human ancestors because to do so would mean that it would have to come out of hiding and compete. The selection pressures to adapting to the world would be totally different if it lived like that than they were for our ancestors. Selection could even reduce the brain size as it seems to have done in the case of the Hobbit or floresiensis. They would be something different from us and different from their ancestors. Another rule of thumb in biology is that animals tend to lose what they don't use. If you are forced into a less ideal environment you will be selected to adapt to that niche. You could lose or never evolve those supple wrists that are useful to flake flint. It would be some other feature that was more useful to that lifestyle that would be selected for. It is pretty hard to know what would drive selection and what the result would be.

[Minister_of_Info...]

I'd say no, it takes high intelligence to be truly self-aware. If you think through the steps it takes to be self-aware in more than a simple manner, it is profound. It requires the ability to keep a lot of information simultaneously spinning in the brain, and drawing connections between disparate information to form an image or "consciousness" about the information.

Or, you have to think about thinking to be self aware (cogito ergo sum). Most humans are able to maintain 5-9 discrete items in short-term memory simultaneously, so I think that allows us to reach a level of abstraction where we are able to abstract the thought itself, something along the lines of object > subject > thought > mind > self reflection.

As to the issue of technological culture, I am reminded of the example of the Tasmanian aboriginals, who due to environmental factors appear to have lost nearly all of the culture they brought to the with them to the island, so technology itself is not always self-perpetuating. Morphological resources being limited we can speculate that BF represents a physically robust line that did not sustain an investment in the morphology that facilitates technology. Technology in its fundamental forms is of course a way of multiplying physical power. BF may simply not need to live this way, perhaps after an earlier 'dabbling' in it that led to some behavioral changes. It seems clear that he is not averse to using sticks and stones anyway.

One other thought. Lineage relationships may not be as linear as they are often thought to be. For instance, you may have had several imperfectly isolated populations that continued to interbreed on some level for a long time after separation. In fact I have often wondered if this kind of reinforcement from a "mother" population may have kept a severely challenged, small population of human ancestors going. I wonder if episodes of drift alone can explain our morphological development, I suspect that heavy selection bordering on sustained near-extinction may have played a role.

This post has been edited by Minister_of_Information: Oct 18 2007, 03:36 AM

[Wyomingite]

I know my last post last night really didn’t detail my thoughts well. I had a sinus headache and the cold medicine was kicking in. Anyways, I was too tired to explain my idea as well as I would have liked. BobZenor and MoI have pretty much already clarified the points that came to mind after rereading the thread this morning, probably better as I didn’t realize that Aboriginal technology had regressed in Australia. I’ll add that, personally, I don’t believe lack of tool use necessarily indicates lack of intelligence.

Did some research on M.K. Davis and, if I understand correctly what he is proposing based on what I can find, no, I’m not suggesting the same thing. I’m suggesting that BF evolved in isolation and that it split from the main population that became Homo sapiens relatively early. If you look at the yeti, almas, yeren, sasquatch, etc. they all are reported mainly from heavily forested or mountainous regions, areas that often were not well explored or at least were seldom utilized prior to European expansion. Isolated locations where contact with Homo sapiens would have been limited and /or easily avoided. Start at the Caucuses, continue through the Himalayas and Altay mountains, through the Siberian taiga, across the Bering land bridge and down the western coast of North America. All have a history of hairy, “wild man” sightings. As “small” as the world has become with human technology, I think we often forget that a desert, a mountain range or other natural feature can be one heck of a barrier to travel and interaction.

I knew anything I posted last night wouldn’t make much sense, but the old mind was still going, so I drew a little cladogram in paint to organize my thoughts. Again, I know times and lineage are subject to debate.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[BlueGenes]

Some very good points have been brought up in this discussion. I often attend talks that present phylogenetic trees. The trees show nice neat bifurcating relationships between various species or populations. As I think MOI was eluding to, real biology is not that simple. Species hybridize quite often and the result is often a new species in and of itself. And then things like bottlenecks throw another monkey wrench into the machine. There are almost too many factors to keep track of.

I really like your phylogenetic tree Wy!!! If only the trees I have to endure looking at, during the boring talks I regularly attend, looked so good. And don't worry about not getting your point across. I, at least, think I got your point very well. Yours is certainly a good hypothesis that deserves study (if we ever get the time, money and DNA to do it).

Just to think out loud: I wonder if your date of the human-BF split is too old? How does a split of 10,000 - 20,000 years ago sound? Is that crazy and totally implausible?

At any rate......great discussion people (MIO, Bob, Wy, Harry and FM). It's certainly good to hear your thoughts on the subject.

[Wyomingite]

Glad you liked the cladogram. It was meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek, hoping to incite a giggle or two.

The Toba Catastrophe theory proposes a genetic bottleneck in the human population app. 75 kya due to the eruption of the Toba caldera in Indonesia. The theory suggests a reduction in the human population to a few thousand individuals. Now, IIRC, research suggests a mitochondrial DNA "Eve" app. 140 kya and a Y-chromosomal "Adam" app. 60 kya. What if two populations survived that catastrophe, or something similar? Isolated from each other? Allopatric evolution at it's finest, with one population exhibiting extreme directional selection toward more "primitive" traits such as greater size, longer and thicker body hair and greater mass not only to promote strength/stamina but also to decrease the surface area-to-mass ratio to maximize homeostatic efficiency. A lack of available resources for one population isn't too outrageous in this scenario. In 10,000 years there would be maybe 600 generations, assuming an age of 15 for female sexual maturity. That might be enough, but I don't know if the separation would have had to occur that late. If the separation occurred 50-80 kya, then the mitochondrial DNA would still be very similar, correct? At 60 kya, that would be in the neighborhood of 3,500 generations for significant deviations in phenotype to develop. I don't know enough about human genetics, or genetics in general, to say if it is plausible. My experience is in wildlife management; range management, forage quality and biomass, predator/prey ratios and interactions, disease control and prevention, harvest allocation, etc. Typical jack-of-all-trades, master of none. And as I said, I've been away from that for a fair number of years now.

I'm not pushing the Toba theory (nor decrying it ) BTW, it just happened to be a convenient way to illustrate the scenario I had in mind. I have to admit I waffled a bit in earlier posts. 80 kyr just seems like too late a split to cause the differences in BF and Homo sapiens and I was expecting a good deal of incredulity. Never expected someone else to suggest a more recent split.

[dogu4]

A 10 to 20 KY date for speciation sounds too recent to me also, but I'm curious, Blue Genes, if there were something in particular that would make you suggest that timeframe? It does suggest that the speciation was concurrent with the onset of the holocene. The earlier dates are roughly concurrent with the onset of the pleistocene, I think and these geologic eras have climatic and biologic characteristics that imply new species arising with and adapting to the changing conditions, so maybe a more recent date is correct.
Thanks wyomingite, the cladogram is very nice and clear, though I think we all kinda suspect that speciation is what Stephen J. Gould described as more like a bushy shrub with lots of intertwined branches, some of which have fused back onto other branches (a nice graphic here could be usefull and even aesthetically engaging)...showing a pronounced pinch as a result of the Toba event. The question being, how many other species of hominids survived the bottleneck too.

[Wyomingite]

dogu4, I intentionally left out branches for a continuing H. erectus lineage, H. hiedelbergensis, H. floriensis and H. antecessor (for those who consider that it may be a distinct species from hiedelbergensis and possible ancestor of both the neanderthal and modern human lineages) in order to focus on the theory that BF branched directly from the H. sapiens lineage, and to prevent a debate on the validity of any particular cladogram or species. I left out H. ergaster as I'm not aware of any specimens outside of Africa and possibly the Middle East, and I would think H. habilis would be too far removed temporally. H. rudolfensis, H. georgicus, H. rhodesiensis, and H. cepranensis are so poorly known I won't even attempt to figure out how they fit in, nor will I tackle Atlanthropus and the reassignation of those fossils to the genus Homo (either as H. erectus or as a new species). No argument Homo evolution is a bush, not a tree, I'm just keeping it simple, as my intent is to focus on the end result and not the beginning. I know of a couple of alleged BF samples that have tested as human, and if this keeps occuring, then sooner or later the explanation that contamination is the reason will need to be examined. BTW, I have the utmost respect for Gould's work.

You lost me with the comment on the other dates being roughly concurrent with the onset of the pliestocene: that was 2-2.5 million years ago (mya or myr ago), not 200-300 thousand years ago (kyr ago or kya). I'm waiting for BlueGenes to comment back as well on why he suggested 10-20 kya. I'm curious as to what his thinking is.

This post has been edited by Wyomingite: Oct 20 2007, 02:57 PM

[Minister_of_Info...]

Perhaps this is mere prejudice, but it is hard for me to imagine that a.m.h.'s could have morphed into BF in the past 20k years. Plus, if you accept the "call" evidence I would think you have to postulate laryngeal sacs, which are not present in a.m.h.'s.

[dogu4]

Wyomingite...thanks for catching me on that pleistocene onset dating...couple of zeroes...a few hundred thousand years and before you know it...
And again, appreciate the simplified version too.
I remember first reading Gould's writing, looking for what I'd hoped was a more simple and elegant explanation, but instead developed an appreciation for the complexity and rich textural expression of the biological code. Still elegant and adhering to still emerging principles...and still fascinating.
And I will admit to a fascination with this 200KYA time period, geologic table not withstanding, since it points to a time when conditions were right for a nearly modern h. sapiens expansion into eurasia and (if the recent finding from Sibera and Northern China prove to be just the tip of the iceberg) possible expansion into North America.

[Minister_of_Info...]

Are you talking about H. sapiens idaltu?

[dogu4]

Yeah...I think so. I wiki'd Idaltu and they do fit the picture for that time frame. Climatically, there would have been a very critical interglacial period waiting in the wings about the time these relatively gracile social hominids were occupying a cooler and damper North Africa. As things warmed up and dried out the natural trend for the herds would be to go north and so would the hunting apes.

[BlueGenes]

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Obligations to the kids, wife and work have been rather time consuming. I'm sure you understand.

My 10 -20 kya date is pure speculation, and I will admit, an "out of the box" hypothesis. I was merely wondering if a split occured soon after humans migrated to North America. Yes, that does seem like rather short a period of time for BF to evolve, but evolution can and does do some remarkable things very quickly.

Well...back to the salt mine.........

[dogu4]

That time, 10-20kya, span is conventionally identified as the split between the pleistocene "ice age" and what is essentially the current climatic regime in which we are now, the holocene. Lately it's been sticking in my processing center, in part I think because there's been the recent news about the evidence for a major meteoric event over the canadian sheild dated to a fairly precise 13.9Kya.(if my memory serves me correctly). It would have been a fantastic natural experiment in rapid evolution with the incredible climate change it is thought that this gigantic explosion could have triggered; evolution's crucible, y'know.

[Minister_of_Info...]

That time, 10-20kya, span is conventionally identified as the split between the pleistocene "ice age" and what is essentially the current climatic regime in which we are now, the holocene. Lately it's been sticking in my processing center, in part I think because there's been the recent news about the evidence for a major meteoric event over the canadian sheild dated to a fairly precise 13.9Kya.(if my memory serves me correctly). It would have been a fantastic natural experiment in rapid evolution with the incredible climate change it is thought that this gigantic explosion could have triggered; evolution's crucible, y'know.

I remember reading about a layer of algae across the southern half of the US, dating to around that time period (implies a great flood). Hmmm, kind of makes you wonder about the Atlantis / worldwide flood of Noah mythos.