• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

The Sygmani

rfmcdpei

SOC-12
Back in 2003, I created a minor human race for a mashup setting I'd started work on combining elements of 2300AD with Traveller and Transhuman Space. The minor human race in question was located in a planetary system on a frontier region just beyond the fringes of human space (Beta Virginis, beyond Arcturus at the tip of the French Arm but in the opposite direction from Kafer space, if you're curious).

That setting was never completed. Speaking specifically to the Sygmani, I was never sure if I had gotten the whole point. Non-Terran races--other human races especially--have to have something distinctive to them if they're to be interesting. The Vilani have their history, Zhodani their psionics, Darrians their technology and their ears, and so on. I never figured out what made the Sygmani distinctive apart from their origins in a regional population of humans assimilated/exterminated by a more successful human populations, and their long history.

Anyway. I thought I'd take the old draft and post it here, for others' sake and maybe also my own. Suggestions?

***

The Sygmani are a minor human race (Homo sygmanensis) settled in the Beta Virginis system, on the world of Sygman in the Sygman/i-Sygman (literally, "earth" and "not-earth") binary planet system. Both worlds are approximately Earth-sized and appear to have been gravitationally linked to each other in their present orbit since their creation, but research has revealed that the two worlds were lifeless until 300 thousand years ago. At that time, a precocious interstellar civilization ecopoeticized the two worlds with Earth-derived ecologies and installed a population of homo sapiens neandertalensis on Sygman. This population survived the unknown civilization's devastating internecine war and spread across the surface of Sygman. Circa 20 000 BCE, the Sygmani developed their first industrial-era civilization; however, resource shortages (particularly of fuel) and international war quickly destroyed these civilizations and disrupted the planetary ecology. Circa 5000 BCE, a Sygmani civilization reached a post-industrial level, developing space technology and successfully establishing a small Sygmani colony on i-Sygman before its collapse. Two thousand years later, an i-Sygmani world empire managed to develop ocean-thermal power-generation techniques and extensive undersea colonies, transferring the required technologies to Sygman before its collapse, freeing Sygmani civilization from its resource shortages and allowing industrial-level civilizations to remain active.

In following millennia, Sygmani civilization remained on a plateau, with a kaleidoscopic geopolitical structure that manifested itself alternatively as competing nation-states, unstable global empires, dynastic federalisms, fragmented city-states, and ideological hegemonies. The undersea colonies on Sygman and i-Sygman were able to provide enough resources (energy, minerals, food) to sustain industrial civilization on both worlds. They rarely were enough, however, to support more than limited spacefaring between Sygman and i-Sygman, much less full-fledged interplanetary travel to the sister worlds of the Sygmani binary planet. One notable exception was the launch of a slower-than-light starship by a federation of i-Sygmani nation-states to the marginal terrestrial world known to exist at DM+0 2989 a, but this burst of energy exhausted the federation.

When a Sung trading vessel arrived at Beta Virginis c-I and c-II in 2317, Sygman and i-Sygman wee unified for the fifth time in a single imperial structure. The Manler Empire was founded upon a dynastic union of three major i-Sygmani states and two Sygmani states, later joined by voluntary allies and cemented by a century-long war against holdout states, and unified by relatively extensive use of space technology (used both to maintain regular communications between Sygman and i-Sygman and to reinforce space-based weapons platforms). The Manler Empire differed radically from its previous predecessors in that it combined a taste for interventionism (many of its opponent states were not maintained as protectorates but abolished outright, while internal administration was rationalized on bureaucratic lines) with a degree of popular input (semi-democratic regional and imperial diets regularly voted on the imperial budget and local affairs). The Imperial government was committed to a sort of heavy-handed egalitarianism, opposing slavery and hereditary castes on universalistic moral grounds and favouring a meritocratic biplanetary economy and polity, dominated in places by the Sygmani's ancient economic conglomerates but including large continental areas with relatively balanced economies. The Manler Empire, in short, had the potential to break from the mold of Sygmani civilization given sufficient external impetus.

The Sygmani of the Manler Empire were shocked by first contact with the League. The Sygmani did not have, in their literature or popular mythology, any particularly common concept of intelligent beings of non-Sygmani origin; the closest approximation to this was the idea that lub-Sygmani might return to their native system. The recent history of the Kafer Wars came as a shock to the Sygmani masses--the recorded atrocities committed on a half-dozen worlds were terrifying, as was the news that Beta Virginis appeared to have been a Kafer target for colonization before the Second Kafer War. News of the Sygmani relationship with Earth and with homo sapiens sapiens also came as a surprise; reports that homo sapiens neandertalensis had been exterminated on Earth in prehistoric times by homo sapiens sapiens were rather disturbing to the Sygmani. For its part, the Manler Empire was also aware of its technological and military backwardness, as the primitive weapons systems orbiting Sygman and i-Sygman would be completely useless against a determined attacker. As news of the outside universe permeated into the Beta Virginis system, the Sygmani became aware that they were encircled: the Beta Virginis system lay deep within the self-contained Virginis Sector, and there were only four other Earth-like planets in the entire sector. Their limited technological base meant that these were the only worlds that they could colonize, but already outside powers were encroaching upon Sygmani space--DM+16 2404 a had already been taken by the Indochinese, and Klaxun was under a League protectorate. Obviously, the Sygmani needed to expand, in order to ensure their civilization sufficient space to thrive.

Sygmani foreign policy in the remainder of the 24th century was based on the need--shared by the rulers and ruled of the Manler Empire--to keep the League out of the Virginis Sector long enough for Sygmani colonies to be spread throughout the area, while maintaining a friendly relationship with the League that would let the Manler Empire narrow the gaps separating it from the League. By the 2330's, the Manler Empire had opened direct diplomatic relations with the League of Nations and with most of the stutterwarp-capable powers; there was a Manler embassy on Stark, and before the collapse of the rimward portion of the Ziru Sirka there were even preliminary discussions of a Manler embassy on Vland. The Manler Empire politely refused offers of immediate membership in the League; its ambassadors explained that the Sygmani preferred to maintain their independence for the time being, not while not being friendly. The Sygmani economy staggered under the effect of the imported technologies; living standards dropped even as taxation and unemployment rose. The economic conglomerates survived, if barely, through joint ventures with League partners (offering them a stake in the maturing Sygmani economy in exchange for technology and capital), while the Imperial state survived by co-opting many of the most dangerous dissidents and making examples of the remainder.

The Manler Empire bought a fleet of stutterwarp-equipped transport ships--old York-class models--from the shipyards of Beta Canum in 2337. Although several of these transports were modified to serve as ad hoc system dominance vehicles, their true value to the Manler lay in their ability to transfer large numbers of people from one planetary system to another. In 2341, this fleet was used to transport Manler soldiers from Beta Virginis to lub-Sygman, which was incorporated into the Empire as an satellite world, providing raw materials and colonists for further expansion. Some elements of the Manler transport fleet were placed on permanent detail on the lub-Sygman route, while smaller contingents were assigned to support outposts in the planetary systems in the immediate hinterland of Beta Virginis. Most of the fleet, however, was tasked with supporting the new colony world of vot-Sygman in the DM+10 2531 planetary system, three stutterwarp intervals from the Beta Virginis planetary system.

The experience that the Manler Empire gained from operating its own fleet of stutterwarp transports soon proved to be quite useful as the Sygmani developed their own indigenous space capacity. By the end of the 24th century, the Manler Empire and the major economic conglomerates were all operating their own interstellar-capable spacecraft, visiting the major colony worlds and outposts in nearby barren systems. The Sygmani maintained outposts in most of the planetary systems in the Virginis Sector, with Sygmani space vessels being not uncommon at points as far afield as Lambda Serpenti and Beta Canum. Although Sygmani technology tended to be a patchwork of imports, with most elements being comparable to that of mid-21st century Earth, the Manler Empire had succeeded in making the Sygmani a starfaring race.
 
OK... sorry to not focus on the subject matter, but I have a question.

Just what does ecopoeticized mean?

I've never seen it before, and a quick Google shows the only places it is used on the entire internet is in your posts (here, on TrevellerRPG.com, and on the Yahoo 2300noncannon board) and in your live journal.


Even my 3000+ page 3-volume Websters New International Dictionary (3rd edition) doesn't have it.


Since you are the only one on the internet using it, I would like you to explain it.
 
Last edited:
Politically correct way of saying terraformed (i.e. eviscerated the existing ecology)? :devil:

It comes from ecopoesis, describing the initial seeding of life on a lifeless world that's the first stage of terraforming. I got that from Martyn Fogg, who said it would be possible to give Mars an "arid and chilly Precambrian" environment that would be much more hospitable than the current apparently sterile state even if not fully Earth-like.
 
Thanks for the info.

Wiki-waki said:
Robert Hall Haynes, OC, FRSC (August 27, 1931 – December 22, 1998) was a Canadian geneticist and biophysicist. He was the Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Biology at York University. Haynes was best known for his contributions to the study of DNA repair and mutagenesis, and for helping promote the concept of terraforming through his invention of the term, ecopoiesis.

1984, Haynes creates the word ecopoiesis, a term that came to be widely used by writers and some proponents of terraforming and space exploration.

Interesting... I have read lots of fiction involving terraforming that was written since 1984, and also a number of articles and papers of varying levels of scientific content written since 1984, and still, your use is the first time I have seen either word.

So I suspect someone is "buffing" the degree of use and acceptance of Hayne's invented word.

Besides, terraforming is a concept that was well-known, even among non-Sci-Fi/nerd society, long before Haynes made up that word, so someone is post-crediting Haynes for something more than he actually did.

But then, that's common on Wiki.
 
Thanks for the info.

Interesting... I have read lots of fiction involving terraforming that was written since 1984, and also a number of articles and papers of varying levels of scientific content written since 1984, and still, your use is the first time I have seen either word.

So I suspect someone is "buffing" the degree of use and acceptance of Hayne's invented word.

Besides, terraforming is a concept that was well-known, even among non-Sci-Fi/nerd society, long before Haynes made up that word, so someone is post-crediting Haynes for something more than he actually did.

But then, that's common on Wiki.

Martyn Fogg and Christopher McKay, both thinkers fairly central to terraforming thought, both used the word, however--I linked to the "arid and chilly precambrian" essay where Fogg used the world in my reply.

Anyhow.
 
OP, are you still working on this one?


I like the history, and I like the concept of a Neanderthal descended Minor Human Race.

A few thoughts and questions:

  • Have to incorporated any of the most recent developments in studies of Neanderthals into this? I'm thinking in particular of the evidence for interbreeding with modern Homo Sapiens, outside Africa.
  • Are there significant physiological differences between these guys and standard Solomani/Terrro-Humans?

  • Was there much microevolution after they were deposited on Sygman? How harsh was the environment, if the world had only recently been terraformed?
    What about gravitational and other effects of the binary planet system?




  • What about psychology? Anything different there?
 
OP, are you still working on this one?


I like the history, and I like the concept of a Neanderthal descended Minor Human Race.

A few thoughts and questions:

  • Have to incorporated any of the most recent developments in studies of Neanderthals into this? I'm thinking in particular of the evidence for interbreeding with modern Homo Sapiens, outside Africa.
  • Are there significant physiological differences between these guys and standard Solomani/Terrro-Humans?

  • Was there much microevolution after they were deposited on Sygman? How harsh was the environment, if the world had only recently been terraformed?
    What about gravitational and other effects of the binary planet system?




  • What about psychology? Anything different there?

I think you've hit another dead end, unless he's lurking. This seems to have been his last post here. We could explore the issue on our own. For one thing, I think a binary planet system with planets big enough to hold atmosphere is going to have the pair tidally locked to each other. That'll have an implication for trying to import Terran flora and fauna, especially coastal sea life.
 
I like the history, and I like the concept of a Neanderthal descended Minor Human Race.
Had the Neanderthal evolved 300,000 years ago? I thought they were more recent (200-250,000 years ago).

Have to incorporated any of the most recent developments in studies of Neanderthals into this? I'm thinking in particular of the evidence for interbreeding with modern Homo Sapiens, outside Africa.
Keep in mind that whatever is the case in the Real Universe1, in the the TU Homo sapiens did exist 300,000 years ago and Neanderthal is a subspecies.

1 And it seems to me that the only thing keeping biologists from labeling them a subspecies of Homo sapiens, 0.12% difference in DNA or not, is a preconceived determination to keep them a separate species regardless of any inconvenient evidence.

Was there much microevolution after they were deposited on Sygman? How harsh was the environment, if the world had only recently been terraformed?
If they are a separate species now, they must have diverged after being transferred to Sygman.


Hans
 
Had the Neanderthal evolved 300,000 years ago? I thought they were more recent (200-250,000 years ago).


Keep in mind that whatever is the case in the Real Universe1, in the the TU Homo sapiens did exist 300,000 years ago and Neanderthal is a subspecies.

1 And it seems to me that the only thing keeping biologists from labeling them a subspecies of Homo sapiens, 0.12% difference in DNA or not, is a preconceived determination to keep them a separate species regardless of any inconvenient evidence.


If they are a separate species now, they must have diverged after being transferred to Sygman.






Hans


As I understand it, in our world, the fossil evidence does not show modern humans or Neanderthals extant as of 300 K years ago.
They might have existed, but that's speculative.

But as you have rightly pointed out, there's the in-universe fact of Homo sapiens existing 300 K years ago in the OTU. Thus I think we can safely assume Neanderthals also existed when the Ancients showed up. Canon supports that, IIRC GURPS Humaniti correctly. The Kargol come from Neanderthal origins, don't they?
Are the Ziadd ( from Signal GK) canonical? They have Neanderthal origins too, I think. Please correct me if I am wrong.


RE the subspecies vs. different species arguments. I leave that to the experts. Suffice it to say I regard Neanderthals as having been our close relatives and fellow humans. They have long since become extinct as a group. Their genetic heritage evidently survives as a minor but measurable element in many human population groups today, including your ancestors and mine (being as we are both mostly European in origins and background- yes? IIRC only SubSaharan African populations show little to no Neanderthal influence. But it's a small percentage of genetic material in any group)


EDIT- If one did do away with the canonical idea of modern Homo Sapiens existing 300K years ago, then the Ancients would have found archaic types of humans. These people would have been same genus but not the same species as us.
That's obviously an ATU idea, because it runs counter to canon in a notable fashion.
It suggest a wider degree of natural divergence among the races of Humaniti, less ability to interbreed.
Might be worth a new thread?
 
Last edited:
I think you've hit another dead end, unless he's lurking. This seems to have been his last post here. We could explore the issue on our own. For one thing, I think a binary planet system with planets big enough to hold atmosphere is going to have the pair tidally locked to each other. That'll have an implication for trying to import Terran flora and fauna, especially coastal sea life.

I seem to be grabbing at dead ends. :)

But, sure, exploring this further would be cool.
 
OP, are you still working on this one?


I like the history, and I like the concept of a Neanderthal descended Minor Human Race.

A few thoughts and questions:

  • Have to incorporated any of the most recent developments in studies of Neanderthals into this? I'm thinking in particular of the evidence for interbreeding with modern Homo Sapiens, outside Africa.
  • Are there significant physiological differences between these guys and standard Solomani/Terrro-Humans?

  • Was there much microevolution after they were deposited on Sygman? How harsh was the environment, if the world had only recently been terraformed?
    What about gravitational and other effects of the binary planet system?




  • What about psychology? Anything different there?

Had the Neanderthal evolved 300,000 years ago? I thought they were more recent (200-250,000 years ago).


Keep in mind that whatever is the case in the Real Universe1, in the the TU Homo sapiens did exist 300,000 years ago and Neanderthal is a subspecies.

1 And it seems to me that the only thing keeping biologists from labeling them a subspecies of Homo sapiens, 0.12% difference in DNA or not, is a preconceived determination to keep them a separate species regardless of any inconvenient evidence.


If they are a separate species now, they must have diverged after being transferred to Sygman.


Hans

As I understand it, in our world, the fossil evidence does not show modern humans or Neanderthals extant as of 300 K years ago.
They might have existed, but that's speculative.

But as you have rightly pointed out, there's the in-universe fact of Homo sapiens existing 300 K years ago in the OTU. Thus I think we can safely assume Neanderthals also existed when the Ancients showed up. Canon supports that, IIRC GURPS Humaniti correctly. The Kargol come from Neanderthal origins, don't they?
Are the Ziadd ( from Signal GK) canonical? They have Neanderthal origins too, I think. Please correct me if I am wrong.


RE the subspecies vs. different species arguments. I leave that to the experts. Suffice it to say I regard Neanderthals as having been our close relatives and fellow humans. They have long since become extinct as a group. Their genetic heritage evidently survives as a minor but measurable element in many human population groups today, including your ancestors and mine (being as we are both mostly European in origins and background- yes? IIRC only SubSaharan African populations show little to no Neanderthal influence. But it's a small percentage of genetic material in any group)


EDIT- If one did do away with the canonical idea of modern Homo Sapiens existing 300K years ago, then the Ancients would have found archaic types of humans. These people would have been same genus but not the same species as us.
That's obviously an ATU idea, because it runs counter to canon in a notable fashion.
It suggest a wider degree of natural divergence among the races of Humaniti, less ability to interbreed.
Might be worth a new thread?

~200,000ya was the transition point between Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Neanderthalensis in Europe.

It was also the end of Homo Erectus elsewhere and the beginning of Homo Sapiens (Cro-Magnon, etc).

The dates are pretty vague, as shown in the first attached picture.

http://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/timeline-of-hominid-evolution_517f2065cdb2b_w1500.png

However, in this interactive Smithsonian timeline, it is a bit clearer - when the "magnification" function is applied:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive

 
Last edited:
According to the article in Wiki:

Homo heidelbergensis — sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis — is an extinct species of the genus Homo which lived in Africa, Europe and western Asia from at least 600,000 years ago, and may date back 1,300,000 years. First discovered near Heidelberg in Germany in 1907, it was described and named by Otto Schoetensack.[1][2][3] It survived until about 200,000 to 250,000 years ago. Its brain was nearly as large as that of a modern Homo sapiens.

Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans are all descended from Homo heidelbergensis. Between 300,000 and 400,000 years ago, an ancestral group of H. heidelbergensis separated themselves shortly after they had left Africa. One group branched northwest into Europe and West Asia, which eventually evolved into Neanderthals. The other group ventured eastwards throughout Asia, eventually developing into Denisovans. Homo heidelbergensis evolved into Homo sapiens approximately 130,000 years ago.

Denisovans or Denisova hominins /dəˈniːsəvə/ are a Paleolithic-era species of the genus Homo or subspecies of Homo sapiens. In March 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans.[1][2][3] Two teeth and a toe bone belonging to different members of the same population have since been reported.

Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the finger bone showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans.

A team of scientists led by Johannes Krause and Svante Pääbo from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, sequenced mtDNA extracted from the fragment. The cool climate of the Denisova Cave preserved the DNA.[3] The average annual temperature of the cave remains at 0 °C, which has contributed to the preservation of archaic DNA among the remains discovered.[14] The analysis indicated that modern humans, Neanderthals, and the Denisova hominin last shared a common ancestor around 1 million years ago.[4]

The mtDNA analysis further suggested this new hominin species was the result of an earlier migration out of Africa, distinct from the later out-of-Africa migrations associated with modern humans, but also distinct from the earlier African exodus of Homo erectus.[4] Pääbo noted the existence of this distant branch creates a much more complex picture of humankind during the Late Pleistocene.[12] This work shows that the Denisovans were actually a sister group to the Neanderthals,[15] branching off from the human lineage 600,000 years ago, and diverging from Neanderthals, probably in the Middle East, 200,000 years later.

Thus, diverging from the branch of Homo Erectus that became Neanderthals about 400,000ya.

This also shows the vagueness of the dating of the evolutionary divergences, as this allows for Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Cro-magnons to have already begun differentiating from Homo Erectus by 600,000-400,000ya.

800px-Spread_and_evolution_of_Denisovans.jpg
 
As I understand it, in our world, the fossil evidence does not show modern humans or Neanderthals extant as of 300 K years ago.
Nor do modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) exist 300,000 ya in the TU. However archaic humans (Homo sapiens antiquus) did exist, and those were the ones the Ancients took. It's possible that they also took other species of genus Homo, but that hasn't been established.

Meanwhile, on Earth humans evolved into H. sapiens sapiens, on Vland they evolved into H. sapiens vlandensis, on Zhdant they evolved into H. sapiens zhodotlas, and so on and so on. But they didn't evolve enough to become different species, just different subspecies (on other worlds they did evolve that much, e.g. the Luriani).

But as you have rightly pointed out, there's the in-universe fact of Homo sapiens existing 300 K years ago in the OTU. Thus I think we can safely assume Neanderthals also existed when the Ancients showed up. Canon supports that, IIRC GURPS Humaniti correctly. The Kargol come from Neanderthal origins, don't they?
You have a point there, but I think it's moot. Regadless of whether H. sapiens neanderthalensis diverged from H. sapiens antiquus 350,000 years ago or 250,000 years ago, in the OTU they were and remained H. sap..


Are the Ziadd ( from Signal GK) canonical? They have Neanderthal origins too, I think. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Never heard of them.

RE the subspecies vs. different species arguments. I leave that to the experts.
What you see as experts I see as people with axes to grind. :devil:


Hans
 
Last edited:
...Are the Ziadd ( from Signal GK) canonical? They have Neanderthal origins too, I think. Please correct me if I am wrong.
...

Clarifying, you mean Signal GK the magazine, not the adventure? Perhaps you could tell us more? I don't have any of that source.

...What you see as experts I see as people with axes to grind. :devil: ...

Or detectives struggling to make sense of the ancient world based on tiny scraps of clues that have managed by sheer chance to survive for hundreds of thousands of years, usually in an altered state. Advances over the past few decades have made it very clear that our understanding of the distant past is fragmentary and subject to change as new evidence comes to light. It might be best in game terms to assume that there will be further surprises in archaeology in the distant future, revealing evidence of ancient H. Sapiens 300,000 years ago, rather than trying to pin things to our present evolving knowledge base.
 
Or detectives struggling to make sense of the ancient world based on tiny scraps of clues that have managed by sheer chance to survive for hundreds of thousands of years, usually in an altered state. Advances over the past few decades have made it very clear that our understanding of the distant past is fragmentary and subject to change as new evidence comes to light.
It's not the nature of the available evidence that I have an issue with. It's the interpretation that baffles me.

Here's how I see the argument going:

Biologist A: "The Neanderthal were a subspecies of Homo sapiens."

Biologist B, C, and D: "No no, they were a separate hominid species."

Biologist A: Guess what, gene analysis shows that the Neanderthal were interfertile with Cro-Magnon, so they must have been the same species.

Biologist B: But that would mean that I was wrong, and that cannot be. Interfertility means nothing! Look here, gene analysis also shows that their DNA differed by 0.12% from ours. That means they must have been a different species! And I'm sure my esteemed colleagues C and D will agree with me!"
Sure there are cases where the interfertility criterion is inadequate or perhaps even misleading. But I fail to see any reason to believe that it doesn't apply in the case of two branches of hominids for which proof positive have been found that they were capable of producing viable, fertile offspring.

I trust we can agree that the presence of Neanderthal genes in modern humans proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the two were capable of producing viable, fertile offspring?

So why does a 0.12% difference in DNA make them different species? Different, sure. Different sub-species, sure. But what makes them different species?


Hans
 
Last edited:
... I trust we can agree that the presence of Neanderthal genes in modern humans proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the two were capable of producing viable, fertile offspring? ...

Well, that or some Ancient practical joker with a very long view of things decided to mess with our future minds. :D

I think we can agree that labels can often be misleading or self-serving. They help us understand the universe by dividing it into discrete groups that we can more easily grok, but the universe does not care two whits where we draw the lines. Very often, we're trying to draw lines through something that the universe does on a continuum. Is Pluto a planet, and what new label will they invent when they discover an Earth-size planet out in the Oort still working hard at clearing its orbit? Where does red stop and orange begin? Depends on who you talk to and where - and why - they draw the lines.

I can't see a way to get Neanderthal genes into the Sapiens gene pool without interfertility or some artificial intervention, but I'm no expert on genetics. Perhaps there's a possibility for limited interfertility, where the offspring are sometimes fertile and sometimes not, or where the odds of producing offspring are significantly lower but still possible. I understand that while mules are almost always infertile, you do on rare occasions get a fertile mule mare (though apparently never a stallion). That could lead to a line of horses or donkeys with some genes from the other species if the mare bred back to a horse or donkey. Are there other modern species that give us some examples of such situations? That might be what causes some scientists to balk at accepting the presence of genes alone as evidence. However, I don't know if we have enough details about Neanderthal genetics to be able to make a reasoned guess as to whether or not there might be genetic conflicts reducing interfertility.

Thankfully, the Signal GK fanzine is online:
http://www.dot-communications.org.uk/234

BLESS YOU!!
 
Back
Top