Thank you for highlighting the new Denisovan article in Science. I found the short "News" review on the paper hoping to find a source for the stunning image you posted at the top. But no, "DNA from ancient bones reveals how Indigenous Americans got their mucus" shows a ginormous jaw with teeth. Do you have a source for illustration of the handsome fellow you posted?
Great question! I actually created that image with Photoshop, using the Harbin skull as a reference for proportions and Firefly for skin and tongue textures and lighting. It's not really up to the standards of a scientific illustrator for hominins, but Denisovans have really been a blank spot—I think due to the lack of a cranial reference until this year. Hopefully we'll start seeing some commissions for Denisovan reconstructions now that the Harbin skull provides a model for artists to build from.
OMG that’s fantastic, John. I know how creative you are and how much you value visuals to help all of us picture the ancient world. This depiction really grabbed me. I’m thrilled to know how you built it — from the skull to skin to color and texture. It’s SO good. And it made me laugh, too. Big old tongue.
I want to write a post about the paper and use your illustration. And include your description making the image. Would that be OK with you?
Thanks so much! There is a lot of sensitivity—very justified—on the part of many artists about the use of generative AI tools, and Firefly is one of those tools that I know folks have very divided opinions on. I’m personally supportive of all artists making a living especially in the realm of paleoart. So I’m hesitant to go for the kind of write up you’re suggesting just yet. As I’m continuing to experiment and think through how to employ these approaches with the science side, I’d be really interested in following up for something with you!
I've developed a habit of noticing whether the AI generated images of Neanderthals have a chin. The tongue of your feature image brilliantly blocks this part of their anatomy.
I would never post an image that got the chin blatantly wrong! But an external appearance of a chin does not correspond that well with the degree of mental eminence of the mandible, and an anterior view is worst for trying to assess this, so even without the tongue this one would be a tough call.
This is a really great exposition on the article (itself wonderfully interesting)! Upon initially reading the article I was struck by how inaccurate the Editor's Summary was.
It's just wrong to say that "this introgression occurred in Indigenous Americans during their migration to the Americas".
Depending on which introgression is referred to (i.e., D into N, or the NDN "sandwich" into OoA AMHs), that statement is wrong by tens to hundreds of thousands of years.
We expect better from ScienceMag. The next time you chat with Razib Khan I hope you guys scold ScienceMag.
(I also very much enjoyed your recent chat with him!)
Lastly, the old editor in me has to report a "72-bp" typo in your superb write-up.
Thanks for this comment! My experiences with the journal Science lately suggest this is no exception, there's been a real falling off there editorially, especially in this area of research.
I always appreciate folks who spot typos, that's one of the hardest things in writing!
The Altai Neanderthal is 120k years old and is missing this introgression but the much younger 80k Chagyrskaya (close to Altai) and Vindija 50k (much further away in Croatia) both have this haplotype. I believe that same Altai Neanderthal is the one that after some re-analysis was found to have had some modern human-ish ancestry on the order of I think 5-10% (I don't recall the exact estimate).
To me this begs the question, if that Neanderthal all the way in far Central/Inner Asia was part human, how Denisovan overall were later Neanderthals like Chagyrskaya and Vindija? As you said, we don't really seem to have a good understanding of the haplotype structure of these archaic Homo even though we actually have a decent amount of high quality samples of both Neanderthals and Denisovans (but maybe for that sort of analysis we would need more to make the haplotype assembly/mapping more robust)? I have a strong suspicion that if these later Neanderthals really were as much as 10% human, they must also have a solid amount of Denisovan as well, probably more.
Is there any word on when more will be known about the genome of Denisova 25 that Peyrégne and colleagues sequenced? It would be interesting to see which version(s) of MUC19 he has.
I looked in vain for any additional information about this genome. I concur it will be very interesting to see how this genome differs from the later Denisova 3.
Thank you for highlighting the new Denisovan article in Science. I found the short "News" review on the paper hoping to find a source for the stunning image you posted at the top. But no, "DNA from ancient bones reveals how Indigenous Americans got their mucus" shows a ginormous jaw with teeth. Do you have a source for illustration of the handsome fellow you posted?
Great question! I actually created that image with Photoshop, using the Harbin skull as a reference for proportions and Firefly for skin and tongue textures and lighting. It's not really up to the standards of a scientific illustrator for hominins, but Denisovans have really been a blank spot—I think due to the lack of a cranial reference until this year. Hopefully we'll start seeing some commissions for Denisovan reconstructions now that the Harbin skull provides a model for artists to build from.
OMG that’s fantastic, John. I know how creative you are and how much you value visuals to help all of us picture the ancient world. This depiction really grabbed me. I’m thrilled to know how you built it — from the skull to skin to color and texture. It’s SO good. And it made me laugh, too. Big old tongue.
I want to write a post about the paper and use your illustration. And include your description making the image. Would that be OK with you?
Thanks so much! There is a lot of sensitivity—very justified—on the part of many artists about the use of generative AI tools, and Firefly is one of those tools that I know folks have very divided opinions on. I’m personally supportive of all artists making a living especially in the realm of paleoart. So I’m hesitant to go for the kind of write up you’re suggesting just yet. As I’m continuing to experiment and think through how to employ these approaches with the science side, I’d be really interested in following up for something with you!
Thanks for your thoughts, John. I’m loving watching the evolution of art with AI tools. Your approach is unique and especially engaging.
I’ll refrain on writing about your illustration — no problem. And happy to talk with you any old time.
I've developed a habit of noticing whether the AI generated images of Neanderthals have a chin. The tongue of your feature image brilliantly blocks this part of their anatomy.
I would never post an image that got the chin blatantly wrong! But an external appearance of a chin does not correspond that well with the degree of mental eminence of the mandible, and an anterior view is worst for trying to assess this, so even without the tongue this one would be a tough call.
This is a really great exposition on the article (itself wonderfully interesting)! Upon initially reading the article I was struck by how inaccurate the Editor's Summary was.
It's just wrong to say that "this introgression occurred in Indigenous Americans during their migration to the Americas".
Depending on which introgression is referred to (i.e., D into N, or the NDN "sandwich" into OoA AMHs), that statement is wrong by tens to hundreds of thousands of years.
We expect better from ScienceMag. The next time you chat with Razib Khan I hope you guys scold ScienceMag.
(I also very much enjoyed your recent chat with him!)
Lastly, the old editor in me has to report a "72-bp" typo in your superb write-up.
Thanks for this comment! My experiences with the journal Science lately suggest this is no exception, there's been a real falling off there editorially, especially in this area of research.
I always appreciate folks who spot typos, that's one of the hardest things in writing!
The Altai Neanderthal is 120k years old and is missing this introgression but the much younger 80k Chagyrskaya (close to Altai) and Vindija 50k (much further away in Croatia) both have this haplotype. I believe that same Altai Neanderthal is the one that after some re-analysis was found to have had some modern human-ish ancestry on the order of I think 5-10% (I don't recall the exact estimate).
To me this begs the question, if that Neanderthal all the way in far Central/Inner Asia was part human, how Denisovan overall were later Neanderthals like Chagyrskaya and Vindija? As you said, we don't really seem to have a good understanding of the haplotype structure of these archaic Homo even though we actually have a decent amount of high quality samples of both Neanderthals and Denisovans (but maybe for that sort of analysis we would need more to make the haplotype assembly/mapping more robust)? I have a strong suspicion that if these later Neanderthals really were as much as 10% human, they must also have a solid amount of Denisovan as well, probably more.
Is there any word on when more will be known about the genome of Denisova 25 that Peyrégne and colleagues sequenced? It would be interesting to see which version(s) of MUC19 he has.
I looked in vain for any additional information about this genome. I concur it will be very interesting to see how this genome differs from the later Denisova 3.