<story><title>New human-like species discovered</title><url>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34192447</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>kissickas</author><text>A species cannot be clearly defined until you try to mate it with something else and it fails to produce a viable offspring, as far as I&amp;#x27;m aware. No DNA analysis is indisputable with what we currently know.</text></item><item><author>JoeAltmaier</author><text>Do we still depend on bone structure to define species? DNA analysis is indisputable. Its all speculation until that is done.</text></item><item><author>mootothemax</author><text>The Guardian&amp;#x27;s coverage of this contains a fair amount of scepticism:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Christoph Zollikofer, an anthropologist at the University of Zurich, said that many of the bone characteristics used to claim the creature as a new species are seen in more primitive animals, and by definition cannot be used to define a new species.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;“The few ‘unique’ features that potentially define the new species need further scrutiny, as they may represent individual variation, or variation at the population level,” he said.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley, goes further. “From what is presented here, they belong to a primitive Homo erectus, a species named in the 1800s.”&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;--&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;“Intentional disposal of rotting corpses by fellow pinheads makes a nice headline, but seems like a stretch to me,” said Jungers. Zollikofer agrees. “The ‘new species’ and ‘dump-the-dead’ claims are clearly for the media. None of them is substantiated by the data presented in the publications,” he said. Hawks is open to other explanations, but said that disposal made sense. “The evidence really tends to exclude the idea that they entered the chamber one at a time, alive, over some time, because we have infants, small children, and very old adults who would almost certainly not have managed to get into this chamber without being deposited there.”&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;science&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;sep&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;new-species-of-ancient-human-discovered-claim-scientists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;science&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;sep&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;new-species-o...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>scarmig</author><text>There are multiple definitions of species, and we choose whichever abstraction is most useful for a given approach.&lt;p&gt;The concept of species exists purely as a human, scientific abstraction: evolution&amp;#x2F;biology doesn&amp;#x27;t give us absolute categories that you can unambiguously put any organism into.</text></comment>
<story><title>New human-like species discovered</title><url>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34192447</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>kissickas</author><text>A species cannot be clearly defined until you try to mate it with something else and it fails to produce a viable offspring, as far as I&amp;#x27;m aware. No DNA analysis is indisputable with what we currently know.</text></item><item><author>JoeAltmaier</author><text>Do we still depend on bone structure to define species? DNA analysis is indisputable. Its all speculation until that is done.</text></item><item><author>mootothemax</author><text>The Guardian&amp;#x27;s coverage of this contains a fair amount of scepticism:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Christoph Zollikofer, an anthropologist at the University of Zurich, said that many of the bone characteristics used to claim the creature as a new species are seen in more primitive animals, and by definition cannot be used to define a new species.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;“The few ‘unique’ features that potentially define the new species need further scrutiny, as they may represent individual variation, or variation at the population level,” he said.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley, goes further. “From what is presented here, they belong to a primitive Homo erectus, a species named in the 1800s.”&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;--&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;“Intentional disposal of rotting corpses by fellow pinheads makes a nice headline, but seems like a stretch to me,” said Jungers. Zollikofer agrees. “The ‘new species’ and ‘dump-the-dead’ claims are clearly for the media. None of them is substantiated by the data presented in the publications,” he said. Hawks is open to other explanations, but said that disposal made sense. “The evidence really tends to exclude the idea that they entered the chamber one at a time, alive, over some time, because we have infants, small children, and very old adults who would almost certainly not have managed to get into this chamber without being deposited there.”&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;science&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;sep&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;new-species-of-ancient-human-discovered-claim-scientists&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;science&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;sep&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;new-species-o...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>GFK_of_xmaspast</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s a junior high level of explanation tho. &amp;#x27;Species&amp;#x27; is ultimately an attempt to impose a quantization of nature, and nature can&amp;#x27;t always be quantized in a way we&amp;#x27;d like.</text></comment>