cm0002@lemmy.world to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 7 days agoWe’ve had a Denisovan skull since the 1930s—only nobody knewarstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square6fedilinkarrow-up141arrow-down10cross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected]
arrow-up141arrow-down1external-linkWe’ve had a Denisovan skull since the 1930s—only nobody knewarstechnica.comcm0002@lemmy.world to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 7 days agomessage-square6fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected]
minus-squarejust_another_person@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down3·7 days agoPictures would be nice since this article specifically is talking about the features of the skull. The other issue is we need a rather large sample to find out if this is a one-off, or a standard of a defined species. Interesting either way.
minus-squarejordanlund@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down2·edit-27 days ago? Article has pictures, well, looks like scans, really. Bottom one is a comparison of 2 different skulls showing we may have other Denisovan fossils and just not realize it.
minus-squarejust_another_person@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down3·7 days ago The face of a Denisovan And then proceeds to describe a face. A skull is not a face.
Pictures would be nice since this article specifically is talking about the features of the skull.
The other issue is we need a rather large sample to find out if this is a one-off, or a standard of a defined species.
Interesting either way.
? Article has pictures, well, looks like scans, really.
Bottom one is a comparison of 2 different skulls showing we may have other Denisovan fossils and just not realize it.
And then proceeds to describe a face. A skull is not a face.