Much Older divergence dates for Denisovans, Humans, and Neanderthals: Implications

I have already posted about this, reporting it last October: The dates for the splits between the different archaic groups has revised in a paper published in Science last September. Research by Xiabo Feng et al., 2025 suggests that a skull unearthed in China known as Yunxian 2 belongs to an Asian group of hominins known as Homo longi, which encompasses the Denisovans (the clade's name is relatively new and was created to formalize the diverse remains from the Middle Pleistocene of East Asia, including Denisovans). It places the split between humans and Denisovans at 1.32 million years ago (Ma) and proposes that Neanderthals split even earlier: 1.38 Ma. The Homo sapiens are much older than previously assumed: 1.02 Ma.

This is the article: Xiaobo Feng et al., The phylogenetic position of the Yunxian cranium elucidates the origin of Homo longi and the Denisovans. Science 389, 1320-1324 (2025). DOI:10.1126/science.ado9202.

Today's post will look into the implications of these earlier dates for our lineage.

A very early split with a different sequence to it

The accepted view is that the ancestor of modern humans and the group leading to Neanderthals and Denisovans split first, and then, Neanderthals and Denisovans separated into two different groups in Eurasia, Neanderthals heading west, into Europe and the Caucasus while Denisovans headed east into Siberia, Tibet, Southern, Southeastern and Eastern Asia. This paper upends that notion. The Neanderthals split first, then humans and Denisovans (called Longi clade in this article) split.

The authors, considering the very old age of Yunxian2 (~1 million years old) push the roots of Human-Neanderthal/Denisovan split further back ("deeper"): "Both the H. sapiens and H. longi clades have deep roots extending beyond the Middle Pleistocene and probably experienced rapid early diversification." The current dates for the Human - Neandersovan split is around 500,000 to 700,000 years ago, this paper suggests it is older: ".The origin of the longi clade can be inferred to be about 1.2 Ma, slightly older than the Yunxian fossils. The origin of the sapiens clade is estimated to be about 1.02 Ma, also close to the age of Yunxian. The divergence between the longi clade and the sapiens clade is at about 1.32 Ma. The monophyletic Neanderthal clade, widely thought to be sister to H. sapiens, diverged from the longi and sapiens clades at about 1.38 Ma in our analysis."

The paper includes the following dated phylogenetic tree (click here for full size image or click on the image below to enlarge it):

Fig. 4. Phylogeny and divergence time of the 57 selected fossil operational taxonomic units from the genus Homo.
The topology of the tree was the majority consensus of the most parsimonious trees from the parsimony analysis in TNT (34). The divergence time was inferred from the Bayesian tip-dating analysis in MrBayes 3.2 (35). Branch lengths are proportional to the division age in thousands of years (Ka). Numbers at the internal nodes are the median ages, and the blue bars indicate the 95% highest posterior density interval of the node ages. The red half-brackets on the right indicate the ranges of the Neanderthal, longi, and sapiens clades. The numbers in red highlight the ages of division of the three clades. Yunxian is also highlighted in red. Xiabo Feng et al., 2025

The shape of the skull is interpreted by this paper as having a "mosaic morphology, which retains plesiomorphies seen in H. erectus/H. ergaster, Kabwe, and Petralona while developing apomorphies shared with H. longi and H. sapiens" Indeed, Homo erectus present in Eurasia since ~2 million years ago is surely linked to the root of the Denisovan (Longi) clade.

Implications

Neanderthal Dispersal

By having Neanderthal split first, 1.38 Ma, we can imagine the pre-longi/sapiens group remaining in Africa and the Neanderthals heading out of Africa into Eurasia. This clade includes the Sima de los Huesos (SH in the phylogenetic tree, above) specimen, which is old, and linked to Neanderthals, and places it as an early split of that clade. Mainstream Neanderthals appear 781 to 600 kya.

Adopting a position embraced by Chinese scholars (and government), they move Neanderthals further away from modern humans, and place Denisovans (H. longi) closer to us; after all, Neanderthals are Western Eurasians, and Longi are East Asian (Chinese!).

See Qiang Ji, 2021 version for Western consumption, and the Chinese version in The Innovation, Qiang Ji et al., 2021 from which the following image was taken, showing the Neanderthals displaced by Longi as our sister clade:

Graphical abstract . Qiang Ji et al., 2021

However Qiang Ji et al., (2021) in their detailed phylogenetic, dated tree (Fig. 4), give later dates than >Xiabo Feng et al., 2025: ~1 Ma for the Neanderthal split, 949 kya for the Denisovan-Human split, and 770 ky for the root of H. sapiens. See below, highlight is mine. Note: OTU = operational taxonomic unit, a name used for genetically similar creatures, analog to a species definition.

" Harbin cranium and H. sapiens shared a common ancestor at ∼949 ka (1,041.41–875.25 ka). The Neanderthal-H. sapiens divergence time in our analysis was ∼1,007 ka (1,114–919 ka). This estimation falls in the range based on mtDNAs for the split between the basal Neanderthal (Sima de los Huesos) and the H. sapiens lineage, but is much older than the estimation based on nuclear DNAs for the splits between the Neanderthal and H. sapiens lineages. However, it is possible that this younger estimated divergence date is an artifact of statistical averaging between “super-archaic” and “recent gene flow” events. The common ancestor of the H. sapiens OTUs included in our analysis is as old as ∼770 ka (922–622 ka), suggesting that the H. sapiens clade has a much deeper origin time than previously estimated. The Eurasian H. sapiens OTUs share a common ancestor ∼416 ka (534–305 ka) old. Outside of Africa, however, the earliest known H. sapiens fossil is only ∼210 ka."

Qiang Ji et al., 2021 suggest that "Sympatric isolation of small populations combined with stochastic long-distance dispersals is the best fitting biogeographical model for interpreting the evolution of the Homo genus...multi-lineages of Homo coexisted in Africa, Europe, and Asia during the Middle and Late Pleistocene. These Homo lineages probably had a strong capability of dispersing for long distances, but remained in relatively small and isolated populations." Sympatric isolation means that even though they shared the same overlapping territory, they evolved separately, not because of physical barriers, but by other ones (genetic, environmental, adaptative, reproductive, specializations), that keep them apart.

What would keep Neanderthals, who during the later period 120-50 kya spanned Western Eurasia from Altai to Portugal, from moving on into America. They could have skirted the Denisovans (who seem to be more adapted to temperate and tropical climates) by living in colder, glacial spots, in Europe and Asia. They could have gone across West-Central Siberia, Northern Siberia and Northeastern Siberia to Bering, and into America. Nobody digs deep enough to find remains 1.3 million years old!. I am not joking, sediments deposit at a rate of 0.10 to 0.12 mm/year (Source) that is 14 times smaller than 1/16th of an inch. Over one million years it represents 120 m of sediment (393 feet). Archaeologists have only scraped the surface (of course, when digging in areas scoured by previous erosion, or by river banks, other elements factor in, recucing sediment buildup.

Neanderthals, well adapted to ice-cold climates, could have easily reached America 1.38 Ma.

Denisovans

The phylo tree built by Xiabo Feng et al., 2025, follows the line set by Qiang Ji. It has older dates, and places the Homo Antecessor at the base of the Denisovan tree, H. antecessor is a Western European specimen, discovered in Atapuerca, Spain. This suggests a very wide territory for Denisovans.

Although their presence has been described in the temperate and tropical parts of Asia, like the Philippines, Sunda, Southern and Southeastern Asia, they also lived in Tibet, and overlapped Neanderthals in Denisova Cave, Altai, Russia, further north, in colder climes, ~200 kya. The Harbin individual, ~146 kya lived in Northeastern China which even nowadays is cold. Xijung Ni et al., 2021, state, regarding the Harbin remains that "the northerly location of the Harbin site also has implications for Middle Pleistocene human adaptive capabilities, since, even in the present interglacial, this region has winter temperatures averaging more than 16°C below zero [3.2°F] The very large size of the Harbin individual (as judged from the size of the cranium) may indicate physical adaptation to such conditions."

This suggests that they too could have moved northeast towards Beringia. Did they reach America 1.32 Ma?

Humans

Homo sapiens is pushed back 700,000 years, from the commonly accepted date of 300 kya to one million years ago. In Africa, alone, isolated from the Denisovans and Neanderthals who left them for Eurasia.

The Gap in the fossil record

The oldest members of the human branches are the Irhoud, the 300 ky old human from Morocco, the Tabun 2 person from Israel, and Florisbad a H. Heidelbergensis from South Africa. But there is a gap of 700,000 years between them and the split date with Denisovans!

Xijung Ni et al., 2021 who proposed an older than the commonly accepted date for the split "(∼416 ka (534–305 ka) old", yet much shorter than the 1 million years proposed by Xiabo Feng et al., 2025, wonder why there is such a gap between the first fossils and the split date. The team favors an African origin for Homo sapiens offers the following explanation:

"There is a large time gap between the hypothetical common ancestor of Eurasian H. sapiens and the actual fossil record, from the Bayesian tip-dating analysis. One plausible hypothesis is that the ancestral population of Eurasian H. sapiens may have diversified in Africa for many millennia before they dispersed into Eurasia. Genetic studies on ancient DNA suggest that the initial genetic exchanges between Neanderthals and H. sapiens occurred between 468 and 219 ka, or between ∼370 and 100 ka, and the introgression may have originated through gene flow from an African source. Interestingly, not only does the estimated time of the introgression event between Neanderthals and H. sapiens roughly overlap our prediction for the age of the common ancestor of Eurasian H. sapiens, but the African origin of the introgression is also consistent with our African ancestral population hypothesis."

Perhaps the fossil record is incomplete because we haven't found the specimens. Humans are intelligent so they were not easy prey or caught in quicksand, they were surely buried. So, unless we dig deep enough in the right places and find burials, we won't find them.

I believe that there was "diversification" within Africa as ancient archaics that indeed lived in Africa (H. naledi) and others admixed with Africans not too long ago, providing them with divergent alleles. But, why imagine an African origin at all?

Middle Eastern Origin of Modern Humans

Below is a possible and probable sequence for the origin of modern humans outside of Africa following the timeline given further up.

The first to enter Eurasia were H. erectus, from the Horn of Africa in Ethiopia, across the Middle East to the Caucasus where we find them in Dmanisi, Georgia. The map below (Map 1) shows the source and the destination, as well as a tentative migration route (red arrow). I deliberately painted their territories in different colors, they would become isolated and mutations would differentiate African from Eurasian erectus.

Map 1. Erectus leaves Africa . A. Whittall ©2026

Then, 1.9 to 1.7 Ma., H. erectus migrated westwards into Europe, and east, along southern Asia into Southeast Asia, Sunda, and China. Their remains have been found in Eurasia. In Africa, they must have also migrated though we have no evidence (poor fossilizing conditions in tropical Africa). Map 2 reflects these migrations and the color changes denote evolving differences between the groups. Ice and mountain ranges guide their migration

Map 2. Erectus migrates across Eurasia and Africa . A. Whittall ©2026

Map 3 shows separate evolution of the H. erectus clades ~1.5 Ma., splitting in smaller groups, losing territory in the north as the Ice Ages progress, living in more isolation, and moving to better regions (arrows). Some groups become extinct. All differentiate and diverge. Asian, European, and Africans remain isolated, perhaps some interchange in Gibraltar between North Africa and Spain. Erectus people move into Northern China. The group in the Middle East will become relevant in the following phase.

Map 3. Erectus diversify, and evolve across Eurasia and Africa . A. Whittall ©2026

In Map 4 the evolved Eurasian ancestors of Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Modern Humans located in the Middle East (yellow-black star) see the Neanderthals move out, north and west into Europe and the Caucasus and replacing the other descendants of erectus there, possibly leading to the Sima de Los Huesos individual. Their territories are colored yellow.

The H. erectus in the Far East have modified their territories, becoming extinct in some sites, and evolving. The African descent of the erectus are still living in small groups, moving around the continent, diversifying, evolving. Color changes imply changes in the populations.

Map 4. Neanderthal dispersal (their territory in yellow). A. Whittall ©2026

Map 5 below shows the split that took place 1.38 Ma, centered in the Middle East (star) with Denisovans heading west along a southern coastal route into Asia, the same followed by erectus over 600 ky before them, and their inroads into erectus territories in Sunda and East Asia. They also crossed Neanderthal regions heading towards Central Asia (Altai) mingling with them. The pink color marks Denisovan areas. Africans continue splitting into isolated groups, some very archaic, exchanging genes occasionally. They are many very divergent groups, some are more archaic than the rest.

Map 5. Denisovan dispersal (their territory in pink). A. Whittall ©2026

The final move is the one involving modern humans (Map 6, below) shows how modern humans spread, 1 million years ago, from the Levant, into Africa, admixing with the until then isolated, separated, divergent, archaics there. Into Europe admixing and replacing Neanderthals, and west into Asia. The orange color marks their initial territory as they advance on Neanderthals (yellows) and Denisovans (pink) admixing along the way.

Map 6. Modern Humans dispersal into Africa and across Eurasia (their initial territory is colored orange). A. Whittall ©2026

This, at least, is my take on the subject. Of course, fossils are needed to validate it, and further (improved) genetic tools and models are necessary too.

A very early appearance of humans, would imply that mutation rates are slower than currently estimated, only 1/3 of the accepted rate (because it would have taken 1 My instead of 0.3 My for our species to evolve. With modern humans around 1 My ago, they could have also moved on, into America at any time over the past million years. The problem is, that nobody is looking for such ancient signs.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Bipedal Apes first appeared in Europe (March 2026 paper)

A paper published on March 4, 2026 by Spassov, N., Youlatos, D., Böhme, M. et al. A (n early form of terrestrial hominine bipedalism in the Late Miocene of Bulgaria. Palaeobio Palaeoenv (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12549-025-00691-0) posits that the analysis of the bones of a hominine that is possibly a Graecopithecus discovered in Azmaka (Bulgaria), which is 7.2 million years old, including a very well preserved femur, shows it walked on two feet-

In line with my previous posts, this paper supports a Eurasian origin for hominines, and their migration back into Africa, as ancestors of gorillas, chimpanzees, and our homo ancestors: "The wooded-grassland savanna environment of the early Messinian locality of Azmaka suggests that terrestrial bipedalism likely evolved in a non-forested setting. The early Messinian age is critical to our understanding of mammalian palaeobiogeography and the intercontinental dispersals between Eurasia and Africa. We hypothesise that the descendants of the Azmaka hominine may have dispersed from Eurasia into Africa under the influence of climatic and environmental changes in the eastern Mediterranean. If such dispersal occurred, it may have been associated with subsequent re-occupation of more forested settings in both the ancestors of African apes and hominins."

Graecopithecus was a hominin

The paper in its final comment concludes that "If the Azmaka femur is attributable to Graecopithecus, the fact that it is bipedal (although transitional) represents additional evidence that this genus is a hominin".

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Western and Eastern Neanderthals Were Very Divergent

New research published last week revealed the genetic makeup of a Neanderthal man (Denisova 17) who lived in the Denisova cave in Altai, 110,000 years ago. The paper reached some surprising conclusions.

This is the paper: D. Massilani,S. Peyrégne, et al. A high-coverage Neandertal genome from the Altai Mountains reveals population structure among Neandertals, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 123 (13) e2534576123, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2534576123 (2026).

Key findings:

• Population Replacement. The Denisova 17 Neanderthal man was closer to the older (~120 kya) Altai Neanderthal from Denisova (a woman known as Denisova 5) than to more recent European Neanderthals (the Vindija Cave woman, from Croatia and the Goyet female) and to the Neanderthal woman from Chagyrskaya Cave in the Altai region (80 kya, called Chagyrskaya 8 (Chag 8 for short). Suggesting that more recent Neanderthals replaced the older population in Altai.
• Denisovan admixture. The 120 and 110 kya Neanderthals from Denisova Cave (Denisova 17 and Denisova 5) had Denisovan admixture. This is not seen in the later Neanderthals of Western Europe or Chagyrskaya Cave.
• The estimated age of the common ancestor of the Y chromosome of Denisova 17 and modern human beings is ~395 ± 44 kya.
• The Eastern Neanderthals lived in groups of less than 50 individuals, these were smaller, and also more isolated than those of Western Eurasian Neanderthals.
• Replacement. The Western Neanderthals moved eastwards across Eurasia and replaced the older Eastern Neanderthals. But there was no admixture so the authors conjecture that both populations never met "perhaps because the older Neandertal population disappeared before the younger population from the west appeared in the Altai Mountains... Western-derived Neandertals are thought to have replaced the Eastern Neandertals in the Altai Mountains, and presumably elsewhere, sometime between ~110,000 and ~70,000 y ago."
• Interaction with modern humans: comparing non-African modern human genes with Neanderthal genes and counting the matches, the authors find that Western Neanderthals, especially the Vindija type were closest to the Neanderthals who admixed with humans. Those matching Eastern Neanderthals were four-times smaller. I wonder if modern humans leaving Africa mated with Western Neanderthals, who may have carried Eastern alleles? or perhaps they also intermingled with Eastern Neanderthals.

Mutation Rate and Divergence

The most interesting part is how divergent both Western and Eastern Neanderthal were, when compared to modern human beings. The paper states that:

"... it is striking that the allele frequency differentiation between Eastern Neandertals (D5 and D17) and Western Neandertals (Vi33.19 and others) (FST = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.31) exceeds that of even the most differentiated pairs of present-day populations, such as the Mbuti of Central Africa and the Papuan Highlanders of New Guinea (FST = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.27). The divergence between Mbuti and Papuan is estimated to have occurred 130 to 220 kya, resulting in separate genetic drift along the two lineages over 260 to 440 ky. The divergence between Eastern and Western Neandertals occurred about 35 ky before D5 and D17 and about 80 ky before Vi33.19 lived resulting in separate genetic drift along the two Neandertal lineages over about 115 ky. This suggests that Neandertal populations reached greater levels of differentiation over shorter timescales than modern humans did. This is also illustrated by the modest differentiation between a ~45,000-y-old modern human genome from Siberia (Ust’Ishim) and present-day populations (FST = 0.052, 95% CI: 0.049 to 0.056)."

The authors suggest that the small bands of Neanderthals underwent higher genetic drift, that led to high frequencies of different alleles in the two populations. So even though they were not far apart in Eurasia, they were, nevertheless isolated from each other. The point is that "Neandertal populations accumulated allele frequency differences more rapidly than the ancestors of present-day human groups." So much for the molecular clock and its regular ticking rate.

In my previous posts on the MUC19 allele that introgressed into humans from Denisovans via Neanderthals wo were not related to the Altai Neanderthal (Denisova 5), I wondered if the Neanderthals who were ancestral to the Chagyrskaya and Vindija individuals but not to Denisova 5, the Altai Neanderthal were the ones who had admixed with modern humans. This paper seems to suggest it was them.

If there was an Early peopling of America by Neanderthals, it was surely done by the Older Eastern Neanderthal Group.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

MUC19 - Part 3 (The early peopling of America)

This is the third, and final post on MUC 19 (links to part 1 and part 2). Following the MUC19 gene inherited by Humans from Neanderthals, who in turn got it from Denisovans, led me to a paper by Peyrégne et al., 2020 which adds a very interesting piece of evidence about the introgression dates of Denisovans and Neanderthals into Americans, one that the authors find inconsistent with accepted theories (it is far too old!). In this post we will look into these very early dates.

When did Denisovans and Neanderthals Admix with Humans?

In Peyrégne et al., 2020 paper in the section Dating Denisovan gene flows into modern humans the authors "estimated Denisovan admixture times using the exponential decay of the linkage disequilibrium between alleles inherited from Denisovans in present-day individuals" What this means is that groups of genes that are close to others along a DNA strand tend to be inherited together, as a group, in a non-random manner (this is the definition of Linkage Desequilibrium) these chunks of genes imply a shared origin or inheritance, introgression. The "exponential decay" means that these connected genetic packets tend to decay, or break down over time (due to processes like recombination), across generations, following a mathematical rule, which follows an curve known as an exponential curve.

This enabled the researchers to "estimate Denisovan admixture times of 50-39ka in South Asians and 44-35ka in East Asians, approximately 20% and 29% more recent than Neandertal admixture time estimates in these populations (62-49ka – the range of estimates obtained for Eurasians), respectively." They displayed these results in the paper's Extended Figure 3 Estimation of Denisovan and Neandertal admixture dates and in Supplementary Note 11. Below you can see Figure 3. The introgression dates are given in generations. But since the paper states that generation time is 29 years, I converted the values to years in the table further down.

Extended Figure 3: Estimation of Denisovan and Neandertal admixture dates. (A) Admixture dates in present-day Oceanians . (B) Admixture dates in other present-day populations . Source

As you can see, for each Eurasian group and the Oceanians (Papuans), the Denisovan admixture generation number ranges from 937 to 1511 generations ago, but form the Mexican (Los Angeles) or MXL group the figure is 50% higher: 2097 generations. A similar effect can be seen in the Neanderthal introgression date for non-Americans it varies between 1070 and 1862 genertions, the MXL have a value of 2097 generations.

The caption acknowledges this incongruency and gives a vague explanation (excuse): "The estimate of the Neandertal admixture in Native Americans is inconsistent with estimates for all other groups. This seems to be driven by over-estimates of the recombination rates in the population-specific recombination maps perhaps due to the complex admixture history of Native Americans." Many words, but no beef!

Heading to Supplementary Note 11 on page 170, the authors write (highlighting is mine): "we re-analyzed the admixture linkage disequilibrium decay in the 1,000 Genomes populations... using the same ascertainment strategy described above while measuring genetic distance based on the respective recombination map available for each population. This yielded Neandertal admixture time estimates that are consistent with previous estimates, except for American populations where the estimates are older (Figure S100). This discrepancy likely represents uncertainties in inferring recombination rates in these admixed populations, as similar biases were observed when using the recombination map inferred in American populations to measure genetic distance in other populations. A similar trend was observed for the Denisovan admixture time, with estimates ranging between 1,146 and 1,705 generations ago (33ka-49ka) in most populations, and between 2,069 and 2,469 generations ago in American populations (Figure S100)."

Below is the Figure S100 mentioned above, I only show the data for Americans:

Figure S100 in Peyrégne et al., 2020

I prepared the following table with the data given by the authors and calcualted the date in years using the generation time of 29 years:

Table showing introgression dates in years and generation dates for different modern human groups. A. Whittall

The Large Gap in Introgression Dates

Comparing the MXL individual with the Han Chinese, the Denisovan and Neanderthal introgression in the former took place 24 ky before the latter one!

The authors, in the supplementary material note some anomalies regarding the Native American groups: "We see that Native Americans exhibit lower match rates to Denisova 3 and Vindija 33.19 for both Denisovan-like and Neandertal-like segments, respectively, than other populations (except Oceanians, where some Denisovan segments may be misidentified as Neandertal segments; Figure S102 andFigure S103), suggesting a higher false positive rate in Native Americans (i.e. modern human ancestry misidentified as archaic ancestry)." Interestingly, Denisova 3 is a recent Denisovan, from Altai, and the Vindija individual is from Croatia, in Europe, so one would not expect them to be present in the American Natives who had already received the introgression of a different, and more diverse group of Denisovans and Neanderthals as their admixture was earlier than that of the other groups (Figures and table above).

The authors explain it away: "It is likely that the results for Native Americans are confounded by greater genetic drift between the allele frequencies of Native Americans and those of Africans used as reference for distinguishing archaic and modern human ancestry."

The other thing noted by the authors (highlight is mine) is that "Native Americans and West Eurasians include considerably lower match rates than observed in Oceanians and South Asians, these likely represent a larger proportion of false positives (i.e. Neandertal or modern human ancestry) among the few Denisovan-like segments identified in Native Americans and West Eurasians. Restricting the analysis to segments of 0.1cM or longer removes most segments with a low match rate to Denisova 3 in both populations, which is consistent with an increased false positive rate in these populations, while the results remain consistent for other populations (Figure S106). As the difference in match rates for Native Americans and West Eurasians compared to Denisova 25 and Denisova 3 are then only marginally significant (p>0.01), it remains unclear whether these two populations also carry a more divergent Denisovan ancestry."

The MUC19 gene in Americans came from a Denisovan closer to the older clade of Denisovans living in SE Asia, and is distant from the Denisova 3 individual. This could account for the "low match rate to Denisova 3", regarding Europeans, they have a very low Denisovan admixture, so it isn't surprising it comes from another source and not the distant Altai Denisova 3.

According to Villanea et al., the MUC19 gene supposedly "... was inherited by modern humans through introgression with a population closely related to the Chagyrskaya and Vindija Neanderthal" Considering these individuals lived, in Altai, Siberia, Asia, and Croatia, Europe, respectively, this statement can only refer to a population of West Asian Neanderthals.

Admixture and an early date for the peopling of America

Çonsidering this data, the best explanation for the dates and populations is the one I outlined in part 2 of this series: The Humans that eventually reached America, were part of the first population to enter Eurasia, and admixture with older Neanderthals ~100kya in the Caucasus, Mesopotamia or Zagros Mountain region of Turkey, Georgia, Iran, Armenia, Irak (see Guran, Yousefi, Kafash & Ghasidian, 2024 with a great analysis with maps on the exact spot where introgression took place), on the fringe area between non-Altaian Denisovans (the ones that introgressed with SE Asians and Papuans, and probably are the source of the Austronesian signal in Amerindians), and West Asian Neanderthals. They then headed into Central Siberia.

This is in line with Yuan K, et al., 2020, and the admixture they found in the remains from Ust'Ishim, Siberia, which are 45,000 years old (he predates the admixture times given by Peyrégne et al., 2020 for the Eurasian populations, suggesting his lineage received an earlier introgression (Yuan et al., point out that they "also detected two waves of Neanderthal-like introgression in the Ust’-Ishim genome: a recent one (1.41–1.57%) that occurred 61.4–57.8 kya and a weaker and more ancient one (0.04–0.20%) that occurred 204.1–95.6 kya."

It is likely that Ust'Ishim is just a sample, of a sub-population that remained behind, part of the people who moved across Siberia, far from the Altai Denisovans, heading North (possibly the 38 kya Yana people in Northern Siberia are another sub-population along the migration route towards America. A group of people who entered the New World around 35-40 kya.

Index to this series of posts on MUC19

• Part 1 of the MUC19 posts
• Part 2 of the MUC19 posts
• Part 3 of the MUC19 posts(This one)

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

MUC19 - Part 2 (Neanderthal and Denisovan admixing)

My previous, first post on MUC19 gene ended with a question: Where (and when) did the Denisovans admix with the Neanderthals (Denisovans closer to the Sunda group than to the Altai group) passing the MUC19 variant to them, and when did Neanderthals mix with the Humans that eventually carried MUC19 to America?

Denisovans, Neanderthals and Humans how we split and mated along the way

The current consensus is that the lineage of the common ancestors leading to Neanderthals and Denisovans split from the branch leading to the ancestors of Modern Humans around 630,000-744,000 years ago depending on the study and the criteria adopted by the authors. As usual, genetics and bones don't quite match so there is an uncertainty in the actual date.

The split took place in Africa, with the Neanderthal-Denisovan ancestors leaving Africa, and our ancestors, who became Homo sapiens, remained in Africa.

Prüfer et al., 2017 find the following dates: "The estimated population split time between the Vindija Neandertal and the Denisovan is 390 to 440 ka and that between the Vindija Neandertal and modern humans 520 to 630 ka, in agreement with previous estimates using the Altai Neandertal. The split time between the Vindija and the Altai Neandertals is estimated to be 130 to 145 ka." Vindija is in Croatia, Europe, Altai is 5,131 km (3,188 miles) further east, in Asia, where China, Russia, Monglia, and Kazakhstan meet. Both Neanderthals are at the opposite ends of the Neanderthal territory.

Rogers, Bohlender, & Huff, 2017 disagree with Prüfer et al., and propose an earlier date: "our own date estimates inherit the uncertainty of the molecular clock. Using the YRI.CEU data, our point estimate of the Neanderthal–Denisovan separation time is 744 kya. Many authors prefer a higher mutation rate... Under this clock, our estimate becomes 616 kya..."

In 2020, the same Rogers of the 2017 paper, teamed with Harris and Achenbach, reviewed this work and updated its conclusions: "Our point estimate, 737 ka ago, is remarkably old... We suggest that around 700 ka ago, neandersovans expanded from Africa into Eurasia, endured a bottleneck of population size, interbred with indigenous Eurasians, largely replaced them, and separated into eastern and western subpopulations—Denisovans and Neanderthals."

I have posted about a paper published last September, Xiabo Feng et al., 2025 suggests a much older date for these splits: it includes Denisovans in a newly named clade, called Longi (name proposed in 2021): "The origin of the longi clade can be inferred to be about 1.2 Ma, slightly older than the Yunxian fossils. The origin of the sapiens clade is estimated to be about 1.02 Ma, also close to the age of Yunxian. The divergence between the longi clade and the sapiens clade is at about 1.32 Ma. The monophyletic Neanderthal clade, widely thought to be sister to H. sapiens, diverged from the longi and sapiens clades at about 1.38 Ma in our analysis." So it is exciting to see that the age of our branch of hominins is growing older, between 2 to 3 times older than previously suggested, I will expand on this in a future post.

Split in Western Asia

The introgression with "indigenous" Eurasians mentioned by Rogers, Harris, and Achenbach is an interesting point, and it could involve Homo erectus or the Homo antecessor (probably descended from the erectus group). There is of course the Homo heidelbergensis question. Vincenzo and Manzi, 2023 place the H. heidelbergensis as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Modern Humans. So it probably lived in Africa and Western Eurasia at that time. Due to the lack of consensus (see Buck and Stringer, 2014 for a good review of this hominin), I will not mention it in this post.

Roger et al. 2020 have the Neanderthals moving west, into Europe, and the Denisovans heading east into Asia. There were no humans in Eurasia at this time ~600 kya, and it would remain this way until the first Out of Africa event some 120 kya.

Was it was during this period that the Denisovans and Neanderthals admixed and the MUC19 of the Denisovans introgressed into the Neanderthals?

Before trying to find out where and when this admixing took place, let's look at how the Denisovans spread across Eastern, Central, and Southern Asia after parting ways with the Neanderhtals in the Middle East around 440 kya

The Denisovan Groups

The Denisovan dispersal according to Rikai Sawafuji et al., 2024 took place as follows (it begins where Rogers left them):

"The common ancestor of Denisovans and Neanderthals which occupied around the Middle East interbred with a super-archaic hominin, and afterwards the Denisovan ancestors diverged from the Neanderthal ancestral group and moved into Asia. Some of them spread towards Papua and settled in Island Southeast Asia (D1). Another group remained in South or Southeast Asia (D2), and from there, another group moved further north into East Asia (D0, D3). During the early phase of this migration, they encountered a super-archaic hominin population and interbred. The D0 group settled somewhere in East Asia. The D3 group reached the Altai in Siberia (D3), where they met and interbred with Neanderthals. It is important to note that this only reflects the history of the Denisovan population that interbred with modern humans. If there were other populations that went extinct without any admixture, analysis of modern human genomes would not provide any information about these."

This distribution can be seen in the map below, which includes an undated phylogenetic tree, and shows what we currently know about Denisovans. It comes from Ongaro and Huerta-Sánchez, 2024 (free access here).

By the way, there are very few bones that have been assigned to Denisovans, and most of our knowledge comes from genetics.

Potential distribution of Denisovan lineages and their phylogenetic relationship
Ongaro and Huerta-Sánchez, 2024, Fig. 3

There is an additional clade not shown in this map, reported by Larena et al, 2021, the Denisovans of the Philippines: "Philippine Ayta... possess the highest level of Denisovan ancestry in the world —∼30%–40% greater than that of Australopapuans— consistent with an independent admixture event into Negritos from Denisovans. The Philippine archipelago is thus likely inhabited by multiple archaic groups prior to the arrival of modern humans."

Timeline

Using the information provided by Rikai Sawafuji et al., 2024, the D1 and D2 data from C. Jacobs et al., 2019m and D3 from Ongaro and Huerta-Sánchez, 2024, we can define a chronology.

I also included the cates proposed by Choin et al., 2021, which differ from the others and highlighted them in bold font.

• D0 : split from Altai Denisovans more recently. Territory: East Asia, China, Mongolia (100-150 kya) Here I have included the fossil from Harbin (with close affinities to Denisova 3), Baishiya Karst Cave (BKC), and Tibet, Penghu, Taiwan.
• D1 : split from the line leading to Altai Denisovans 283 kya (261–297 kya) - 222 kya. Territory: New Guinea and nearby islands (Island South East Asia).
• D2 : split from the line leading to Altai Denisovans 363 kya (334-377 kya) - 409 kya. Territory: Oceania and Southern, and Southeast Asia, India, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia.
• D3 : Altai Denisovans, Siberia (200-30 kya. More details below).
• D4? : ~300 kya?. Territory: Philippines.

The Altai cave in Denisova, Russia, the site of the original Denisovan find includes the the D3 group, has produced several fossils, and they are grouped into two separate periods: the remains of Denisova 2, 8, 19, 20, and 21, and the Harbin, China, specimen, are Early Pleistocene, with ages ranging from 123 to 217 kya. The Late Pleistocene Denisova 3 and 4 are much more recent: 52 to 84 kya (Fu et al., 2025 and Z. Jacobs, 2025). I suspect the more recent Denisovans are associated to the D0 group.

The MUC19 introgression from Denisovans to Neanderthals

Neanderthals and Denisovans mixed many times, we know that they overlapped and shared the Denisova cave in Altai, over tens of thousands of years (Z. Jacobs, 2025), the remains of Denny a Denisovan-Neanderthal hybrid, was reported by Slon et al., 2018 (Denisova 11), who lived 90 kya. Her Neanderthal genes were a combination of alleles that were also found in a pure Altai Neanderthal genome and in the Vindija 33.19 Neanderthal genome (from Croatia). The genetic analysis suggests two possible hypothesis that are not mutually exclusive: " eastern Neanderthals spread into Western Europe sometime after 90 ka or that western Neanderthals spread to Siberia before that time and partially replaced the local population." Her Denisovan father also "had some Neanderthal ancestry... it is likely that there was more than one Neanderthal ancestor in his genealogy, possibly as far back as 300–600 generations before his lifetime [9000 - 18,000 years]... the Neanderthals that contributed to the ancestry of Denisova 11’s father were from a different population than her mother."

Furthermore, the first Denisovan to be identified, Denisova 3. (52-76 kya) also carries a small percentage of Neanderthal ancestry (between 1.8-2.5%, related to an old 120 ky Neanderthal group to which the Altai Neanderthal —Denisova 5— belonged).

So here we have evidence of Denisovans with Neanderthal genes (indicting admixture) from 52 to 108 kya. That Eastern and/ Western Neanderthals moved across Eurasia to and from Siberia.

Peyrégne et al., 2020 studied a specimen known as Denisova 25, 219,000 years old, who carried alleles of Neanderthal origin (3.6-5.2%). They found that the Altai Neanderthal specimen known as Denisova 5, had received gene flow from Denisovans and that Denisova 25 received his "Neandertal ancestry comes from a yet undescribed Neandertal population that split over 200,000 years ago from the Neandertal populations for which we have genomes" The team stresses that "both Denisovans inherited their Neandertal ancestry from multiple gene flow events... This indicates repeated contacts between Neandertals and Denisovans throughout their history."

But, we also have to consider which group interacted, because the MUC19 paper by Villanea et al. used Denisova 3 as the "Altai Denisova" in their analysis but specified that it was not the source of this allele.

The Supplementary Data Section S5 in Villanea's work says the following (my comments in bracketes, in regular font): "we believe that the sequenced Altai Denisovan [Denisova 3, with Neanderthal alleles belonging to Clade D0 or D3] belongs to a population that is divergent from the donor Denisovan population that interbred with modern humans [so the Denisovan was D1, or D2, the D4 were in the Philippines]...by analyzing the sequence divergence distribution of Denisovan introgressed tracts in Papuans, we confirm that the sequence divergence observed between the introgressed haplotypes and the Altai Denisovan at the focal 72kb region is consistent with a scenario of Denisovan introgression. However, the source of this introgressed segment likely did not originate directly from the population represented by the Altai Denisovan [ratifying D1 or D3 clades as the source]... This result suggests that the Denisovan-like segment observed at the focal 72kb region, while of Denisovan origin, was inherited by modern humans through introgression with a population closely related to the Chagyrskaya and Vindija Neanderthal"

The Neanderthal from Chagyrskaya Cave (Siberia) lived 100 km (62 mi.) from the Denisova Cave, while the Neanderthal from Vindija Cave lived in Europe, in Croatia. They both belong to recent Neanderthals who lived 50 to 60 kya. They are more similar to each other than to the Altai Neanderthal discovered at the Denisova cave (Denisova 5 specimen), who lived around 120,000 years ago.

The image below clarifies the situation, as it shows the convoluted interactions between all groups, it also includes some of the named specimens.

Relationships of Denisova 25 to archaic and modern humans.
Nuclear, mtDNA and Y-chromosome information, Fig. 2 in Peyrégne et al., 2020

Where and When did these introgressions take place

The D1 or D2 clades of Denisovans, in Southern, Southeastern, and Island South Asia, New Guinea and Australia are the ones that introgressed the MUC19 variant into Neanderthals. Though we have no evidence of Neanderthals in this vast region. Then the Neanderthals, close to the late Croatian and Altai individuals carrying that allele passed it on to modern humans who carried it into America, and some in East Asia and South Asia have an extremely low frequency of these MUC19 alleles, stray members of the group heading to America perhaps?

The most simple explanation is that the branch of Denisovans that led to D1 and D2 clades which must have moved along the south coastal route of Asia, carried the MUC19 variant. This was before these clades originated the D3 and D0 clades (200-100 kya). During this period they passed it on to a group of Neanderthals: "the introgressed haplotype at the 742-kb MUC19 region has a high affinity for the... two late Neanderthals, but not the Altai Neanderthal." So these Neanderthals were ancestral to the Chagyrskaya and Vindija individuals but not to Denisova 5, the Altai Neanderthal. As mentioned further up (Prüfer et al.) these two groups split around 130-145 kya

This would imply an admixture between D1 or D2 Denisovans and pre-split Neanderthals around 130 kya, and Neanderthal- Human mixing after the Out of Africa event (First? or Second?) which could have taken place around 120 kya or later (1st OOA), some 60 kya (Final OOA).

I came across an interesting analysis of archaic introgressions with modern humans and how the first Out of Africa event 120-60 kya and the second one >60 kya interacted with Neanderthals and Denisovans. The paper is this one: Yuan K, Ni X, Liu C, Pan Y, Deng L, Zhang R, Gao Y, Ge X, Liu J, Ma X, Lou H, Wu T, Xu S. Refining models of archaic admixture in Eurasia with ArchaicSeeker 2.0. Nat Commun. 2021 Oct 29;12(1):6232. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26503-5. PMID: 34716342; PMCID: PMC8556419. It mentions the Ust'Ishim Siberian man who died 45,000 years ago. He was a human being and carried Denisovan introgression, and Neanderthal alleles, from two events: "we also detected two waves of Neanderthal-like introgression in the Ust’-Ishim genome: a recent one (1.41–1.57%) that occurred 61.4–57.8 kya and a weaker and more ancient one (0.04–0.20%) that occurred 204.1–95.6 kya."" This seems, in my opinion to point at an admixture during the first out of Africa event around 100 kya. In the Southern border between both groups, and one that allowed a route across Central Siberia. Possibly in the Caucasus region.

The telling inconsistency...

I am always on the look out for conflicting, incompatible, contradictory, or discrepant data involving Native American genetics and ancestry, ant this paper by Peyrégne et al., 2020 contains incongruous information. It adds one juicy piece of evidence about the introgression dates, of Neanderthals and Denisovans into Amerindians, one that the authors find inconsistent and try to explain away with vague, unfounded interpretations. The incongruity is that the admixture date for American data: it is far too old! Older than any Eurasian admixture events!. But this will be the subject of my third and final post on MUC19.

Index to this series of posts on MUC19

• Part 1 of the MUC19 posts
• Part 2 of the MUC19 posts (This one)
• Part 3 of the MUC19 posts

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

UAP photographed by the University of Magallanes, Chile

Odd lights in the sky have been reported across Patagonia since pre-Hispanic times: Tthe Mapuche natives had the Cherruve, or Cherufe, a mythical being that was linked to comets, volcanoes, will-o'-the-wisp, and fire in the sky.

In the past, I posted about the sightings of strange lights in the sky reported by historical figures such as Sarmiento de Gamboa in the late 1500s and Capt. FitzRoy in the early 1800s. I also mentioned a sighting of lights in Ancud in 1906. Today's post is much more recent, and it was reported by scientists from the University of Magallanes, Chile.

This is a Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) as defined by the U.S. govenment All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)

The university published the sighting that took place close to Punta Arenas, Chile, on its website in an article titled Universidad de Magallanes registra inédito fenómeno luminoso con cámara trampa de proyecto científico en la Patagonia (University of Magallanes records unprecedented luminous phenomenon with camera trap of scientific project in Patagonia) on Aug. 18, 2025.

The article says the following:

"To the great surprise and astonishment of researchers from the Environmental Studies Group (GEA) at the University of Magallanes (UMAG), they released images of an unexpected discovery made during the Public Baseline Project for the Magallanes and Tierra del Fuego Provinces. One of their wildlife monitoring camera traps had recorded an unusual luminous phenomenon, unprecedented in the context of scientific research in the region.
The recording was obtained in the middle of summer 2025, specifically in the early morning of January 21 (12:22 a.m.), 54 kilometers north of Punta Arenas. At that moment, one of the 65 devices deployed between continental Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, which monitors terrestrial ecosystems, captured, in just two seconds, three photographs showing intense lights moving downwards. Specialists ruled out the possibility that it was wildlife or a common phenomenon."

Since the lights tripped the movement detector of the camera, they had a physical entity, not just a distant light floating by. The article includes the following images, which, from top to bottom show: a daylight view at the spot a few hours before the event, the sequence of three pictures, and one of them enlarged.

The text continues:

"“In a camera that was on the edge of a meadow quite far from any public road, with no nearby trails used by ranchers, and focused towards a fairly flat horizon, some lights appeared that we cannot explain, because the camera is “set” to take three photos simultaneously when the sensor is activated and it takes those photos in just seconds, so in that micro-period, these lights, which apparently appear to be far away —unless they are very small lights— come closer and end up in front of the camera, dazzling it, in a movement that seems to be downward,” explained biologist Alejandro Kusch Schwarzenberg, in conversation with the LBP Podcast program of UMAG TV.
For Rodrigo Bravo Garrido, also a researcher at GEA UMAG, this event recounted by Kusch represents a unique occurrence: “Phenomena in Patagonia have indeed existed; there are reports, records, and a history, but for it to be the first time it has been scientifically investigated and recognized by the academic in charge of this project, or this part of it, I believe it is unprecedented. Furthermore, it opens a door to understanding that perhaps these phenomena, which were captured by chance or fortuitously, should be investigated in greater depth at some point.”
In light of this, the professional notes that, in Magallanes, accounts of this type of sighting already included the so-called “evil lights” and other oral traditions of indigenous peoples, which reinforces the historical basis of the phenomenon in the region.
Bravo also reported that the case was referred to the General Directorate of Civil Aeronautics (SEFAA), the UFO Museum of La Serena, and specialists in anomalous aerial phenomena for analysis."

The "evil light" or, in Spanish, luz mala, is a common belief in Southern South America, associated with ghosts and wandering, restless spirits. However, the evil light may be a different phenomenon, associated to the will-o'-the-wisp. This case, the lights seem to be similar to ball lightning.

A Plasmoid?

The article then cites a UFO investigator, Freddy Alexis Silva (now we enter the realm of pseudoscience), who after examining the pictures analyzed the trajectory of the lights and did a spectral analysis and concluded that the objects were moving at 947 km per hour (588 miles per hour) or 0.7 match, almost the speed of sound. Silva concluded it is a UAP suggesting it was a plasmoid, a form of exotic plasma that has a very short duration and has been studied by Russian researchers.

A Plasmoid is a real physical entity, and defined as follows: "Plasmoid: A plasmoid is a luminous, plasma-based structure that has a well-defined plasma boundary and is created in a gas environment through the influence of an electromagnetic field. Electrons from the surrounding area are drawn into the plasmoid along magnetic fields to maintain a balance of charge" (Source).

Plasmoids may be the explanation for phenomena like ball lightning, which still remains unexplained despite some papers on the subject, like the excellent analysis of video images by K. Stephan, R. Sonnenfeld, J. Bertoloni, 2025 of a ball lightining in Montana, US., that looks strikingly similar to the ones posted above. Other papers hint at other explanations involving dark matter (Zhitnitski, 2025) or incandescent / inflammable gases (Singer, 1980; Y. H. Ohtsuki and H. Ofuruton, 1991) and a weird "optical theory" proposed by V.P. Torchigin and A.V. Torchigin, 2020 plus a paper reporting a Ball Ligthning Burns caused by one that entered a home through the chimney and burned a man and his daughter! (Selvaggi et al, 2003).

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Cherruve the Mapuche fire—comet creature

The "lights" on Lake Nahuel Huapi (posted yesterday) reminded me of a Patagonian entity that I mentioned in the Spanish version of my book's second edition (I added it after writing and publishing the English version of the 2^nd Edition), the Cherruve.

Cherruve is a mythical entitiy of the Mapuche people. It has been described with different features, with sharp contrasts and in different ways depending on the chronicler who depicts it. For some, it was a wild man, like the chilludo (a hairy hominin). But, it had many representations.

Cherruve as a dragon

Lenz, in his Araucanian Studies, also refers to the Cherruve, which appears in various Mapuche folktales adopting different forms. In one case, it is a “sea monster that comes back to life when thrown into the water”; in another, it is a dragon with seven heads.

Lenz believes that the natives fully assimilated tales from “European folk literature” and it seemed to him “beyond doubt that the Cherruve […] is none other than the famous dragon of Indo-Germanic mythology, [sic] that devastates the land until it is vanquished by the hero with supernatural strength whose name and lineage, be it Heracles, Beowulf, Siegfried or Huenchumir, are of little consequence.” and that “the famous volcano monster, the Cherruve: so often was it nothing more than the European giant [sic], dragon or sorcerer in disguise.”

The Cherruv or Cherrufe, according to Guevara, could resemble a dragon that lived near volcanoes. It is also a destructive being: “it almost exterminated [sic], they say, those bread men,” the Kofkeches dwarf people of the Arauco region. However, it also has human traits: a house, a wife, a daughter, a servant, and a flock of sheep. It is a multifaceted being.

As a Fireball - Meteor - Comet

Meteor fireball

In its most primitive aspect, it was a deity associated with comets or meteorites. Father Félix de Augusta mentions it in his dictionary as “cheurfe, cheurfue, cheurpue, a fiery phenomenon known as a ‘fireball’.”

According to Lenz, in its origin, “this monster corresponds to the will-o'-the-wisp. ” The English name comes from "Will with a wisp", where Will is the name of a folk-figure who was a joker, and wisp is a torch or a bundle of straw. Its Spanish name Fuego fatuo" name originated from the Latin words ignis fatuus (“foolish flame”). This is a natural phenomenon in which small, pale flames are produced by the combustion of gases, such as methane, in contact with oxygen in the air. These gases are produced by the decomposition of certain organic materials, particularly in cemeteries and marshy areas. They are seen more clearly at night, and superstition associates them with goblins or other creatures.

Lenz mentions that Febrés and Valdivia related the cherruve to “the comet and the fiery exhalations seen at night.” Havestadt, for his part, defines it as “Cheurvoe: comet.” Possibly alluding to St. Elmo's fire, a natural phenomenon which can take place during thunder storms or volcanic eruptions, when a strong electric charge excites the electrons in the atmosphere close to the tips of branches, masts on vessels or high spots, creating plasma that shines with a pale luminosity.

Finally, Lenz suggests that “it is evidently a personification of the power of fire, like the Pillan; probably lightning, the fire of volcanoes reflected in the clouds.” In the tales he compiled, he appears with a telluric face: he breathes fire from his mouth, causes earthquakes when he sits on the rocks, and his house is on the summit of a volcano.

It could be linked to the mysterious earthquake lights spotted in the Andes in Patagonia, a tellurian, geologic phenomenon, or to lightning balls.

Before continuing with my series on Denisovans, Neanderthals, and the introgressed MUC19 gene, I will add one more post about a strange ball of light photographed by the University of Magallanes last year, close to Punta Arenas, Chile, close to the ground, which tripped one of their remote, movement-activated trail cameras, which may represent a phenomenon that originated the Cherruve myth.

Sources

Augusta F. (1916). Diccionario Araucano - Español y Español - Araucano. Santiago. Impr. Universitaria. p. 21.
Guevara T. (1925). Historia de Chile: Chile prehispano. Santiago: Balcell. Chapter I.
Lenz R. (1895-97). Estudios Araucanos. Santiago, pp. 222, 235, 256, 271, 277, 326.
Havestadt B. (1883). Chilidúgu sive Tractatus linguae chilensis.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Nahuel Huapi (waves or creature?)

Leaving my series of posts on Denisovans, Neanderthals and modern humans, this post will go back to the basics of this blog, Patagonian "monsters". The video in the link below is captioned "Strange Lights in the Nahuel Huapi", it shows what in my opinion is a wave front on a calm lake, seen from a mountain called Cerro Otto (street view from the mountain), overlooking the lake Nahuel Huapi in Bariloche, Argentina. It was published on August 27, 2025.

The "lights" are the reflection of the sun on these waves. This is the link to the Youtube video shown below.

No monster, just a wave.

It could be a soliton or the wake of a boat on the other side of the lake.

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall © 

Strange Denisovan variant found in a Sub Saharian San and Amerindians (revisited) MUC19 Part 1

I have already posted about this paper paper published by Villanea et al., (2025) that looked into the MUC19 gene and suggested that it introgressed into Eurasians and Native Americans through Neanderthals, but that its ultimate origin was Denisovan. The interesting part of this research, is that it was also found in a Sub-Saharan individual of the San people. How did it get there? Furthermore the Migration Route into America is not clarified. I decided to give it another go.

The paper is this one: Villanea, F. A., Peede, D., Kaufman, E. J., Añorve-Garibay, V., Chevy, E. T., Villa-Islas, V., Witt, K. E., Zeloni, R., Marnetto, D., Moorjani, P., Jay, F., Valdmanis, P. N., Avila-Arcos, M. C., & Huerta-Sánchez, E. (2025). The MUC19 gene: An evolutionary history of recurrent introgression and natural selection. Science, 389(6762), eadl0882. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl0882

The MUC19 Gene

There is a gene called MUC19 in chromosome 12 that codes proteins called mucins, they are involved in mucus and mucus membranes, and therefore have a relationship with immunity (mucus, think snot, protects tissue as a barrier against pathogens in the gut and the lungs). Villanea et al., found that the gene originated in Denisovans, who passed it on to Neanderthals , who in turn passed it on to modern humans.

The Denisova variant is quite rare, but found in higher frequencies among people with Native American genes. This paper suggests that it has been positively selected among Amerindians due to its immune protecting effects. It probably had the same effect in Neanderthals. As these people entered new environments (America) this gene improved their odds of survival.

The gene is long, and it has what is known as a variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) polymorphism where a specific sequence that is 30 base pairs long is repeated many times (from 250 to 900 times). This increase in the number of repeats may make a difference in the immune-protecting effect of the gene. For instance some individuals living in America, with Native American roots, have over 800 repeats and an average of 417, far more than the Eurasian average of 250-350.

The authors, in a 2023 pre-print Biorxiv file state that "2e found that non-American populations range from an average of 345 to 355 repeats. In contrast, admixed individuals from the Americas have on average 417 copies."

The paper number of tandem repeats in the ancient samples are quite low: Altai Denisovan: 296 copies; Altai Neanderthal: 379; Vindija Neanderthal: 268, and Chagyrskaya Neanderthal: 293.

Proteins have two tips, one with a carboxilic acid group (‐COOH), the other with the amino group (—NH₂) hence the name aminoacids for the building blocks of proteins. The MUC19 gene codes both tips, the tip related to the amino group is coded by the N-terminal part of the gene which contains three sectors known as von Willebrand factor type D domains, VWD for short. This study found that there is a chunk that is 72,000-base-pairs-long (72 kbp) that came from Denisovans, which overlaps two of the three VWD domains. Those carrying variant (haplotype) also shared "nine Denisovan-specific missense variants", single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs in the MUC19 gene. This surely modifies how the gene works, but, we don't know the effect of this introgression or mutation. Below is a figure from the paper explainig how MUC19 evolved.

The proposed evolutionary history of MUC19. The Denisovan-like haplotype (in orange) was first introgressed from Denisovans into Neanderthals and then introgressed into modern humans. The introgressed haplotype later experienced positive selection in populations from the Americas. The introgressed MUC19 haplotype is composed of a 742-kb region that contains Neanderthal-specific variants (blue). Embedded within this Neanderthal-like region is a 72-kb region containing a high density of Denisovan-specific variants (orange), and an exonic variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) region (gray). The box below the 742-kb region depicts zooming into the MUC19 VNTR region, in which admixed American individuals carry an elevated number of tandem repeat copies. Source

Two later Neanderthal genomes, one from Chagyrskaya and the other from Vindija, carry one copy of the same 72-kb Denisovan variant. And genetic data shows that it is found at high frequencies in modern samples from Mexicans living in Los Angeles (MXL), Peruvians from Lima (PEL), Colombians in Medellin (CLM) and People from Puerto Rico (PUR). It is also found, at lower frequencies in East Asia: in Beijing (3% frequency) and Chinese Dai in Xishuanagbanna, China (CDX) close to Myanmar and Vietnam in Southern China.

Interestingly, ancient Americans samples that were analyzed carried these variants at even higher frequencies than modern ones (Fig. 3 in the paper and Table S29). Roughly 36-40% frequencies vs. current levels of 30% in MXL, 21% in PEL, 7% in CLM, and 9% in PUR. As a reference, the Neanderthals had ~50% frequency. The CDX Chinese have ~12%, while samples of ITU (Indian Telugu in the UK) and STU (Sri Lankan Tamil in the UK) with South Asian ancestry both carry ~11% and BEB (Bengali in Bangladesh) has 15%, KHV (Kinh in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam) has 8.5%, and GIH (Gujarati Indian from Houston, Texas, USA), 10%. As you can see, some Asians carry this variant in higher frequencies than the Colombian or Puerto Ricans! In Western Asia and Europe it is found at very low frequencies.

But the origin does not seem to be among the Denisovans of Altai. The paper suggests it was another group of Denisovans that carried the mutation: "the introgressed haplotype in the 72-kb region is present at low frequencies in other non-African populations including Papuans, where the genome-wide Denisovan ancestry of Papuans has been estimated to originate from a population of Denisovans that was not closely related to the Altai Denisovan."

Its African Presence

The study also sampled 44 African subjects and found this variant at a very low frequency of 1.1%: "all nine Denisovan-specific missense variants at a frequency of ~0.011, in a single chromosome from a Khomani San individual (table S33)." This is a surprise because Denisovans are an Asian species, they did not live in Africa, and also because the San are often touted as the most basal, diverse, original, ancestral root of modern humans. So how did this variant get into the genes of a San person in Sub-Saharan Africa?

The authors explain this incongruence as follows:

"Finally, we find a single San individual who carries the nine Denisovan missense variants in heterozygous form, uniquely among all African individuals considered here. The sequence divergence between this San haplotype and the archaic MXL haplotype at the 72-kb region is high (0.001342), further supporting the origin of the archaic haplotype in non-Africans as introgressed. Khoe-San populations are estimated to have diverged from other African groups 120,000 years ago. Finding a divergent haplotype in the San is consistent with a previous study, as ~1% of their ancestry can be attributed to lineages that diverged from the main human lineage more than 1 million years ago. We note that this San individual does not harbor an elevated number of copies of the VNTR (301 copies), which further supports the importance of the VNTR expansion in the Americas. Furthermore, we cannot determine whether this variant found its way into the San through modern admixture of non-African ancestry into Sub-Saharan populations."

In other words, there are two options: (1) the San admixed with an archaic hominin (this is a great way to explain their diversity, they added divergent genes by mating with ancient hominins that co-existed with them in Africa!), the archaic then carried into Eurasia in Denisovans (They split from our lineage 700 kya) and in Asia it introgressed in Humans via Neanderthals. (2) Back migration. Modern humans carried the Denisovan introgression back into South Africa in more recent times and mating with San, passed it on to them.

The authors mention its presence in Papuans, but do not give a frequency value or indicate if it increased its frequency among them in the final version published in Science, however, in a previous 2023 preprint they indicate a 10% frequency: "We additionally confirmed the presence of the Denisovan-like MUC19 haplotype amongst the 15 Papuan individuals (Denisovan-like haplotype frequency: 0.1)"

It would be interesting to have data from the Australian Aboriginal people who landed in Australia 50 kya? Didn't they have to face a new, hostile environment?.

The Complex Introgression Route

The Denisovan introgression into Neanderthals involves a later population like the Vindija Cave (Croatia) individual ~40 kya, and the Chagyrskaya Cave in the Altai Mountains ~55 kya. But, it did not include the Altai Denisovan, only the ones of Southeast Asia and Indonesia-Sunda region.

Did the Neanderthals and the Denisovans heading for SE Asia admix in Western Eurasia after the Denisovans heading north towards Altai split? Did the Neanderthals of Croatia split and head west into Europe? Then, did these Neanderthal mate with humans heading into East Asia and South Asia? Or did the Neanderthals reach East and South Asia and mate there with humans in each region?

Surprisingly the Neanderthal samples are from Europe and Altai, nowhere near Sunda or India-South Asia!

The authors note that their analysis indicates "that the introgressed haplotype at the 742-kb MUC19 region has a high affinity for the Altai Denisovan and the two late Neanderthals, but not the Altai Neanderthal." The latter is about 110-120 kya. So the introgression into Neanderthals from Denisovans probably took place later.

In my first post on MUC19, I wondered if "Could it be possible that a band of Neanderthals reached America long ago, after trysting with Denisovans, and the later waves of Homo sapiens mingled with them, picked up their mutations?" But, this hypothesis does not explain how the MUC19 spread across Eurasia and at higher frequencies in East and Southeast Asia. Back migration, or a population that remained there in Asia could account for this dispersal, but it does not require Neanderthals entering America before modern humans. The presence in America can be explained by admixture of H. sapiens and Neanderthals in East Asia and then the humans moving on, into America.

The map above shows spots where MUC19 has been mentioned in this text, and the possible (unconfirmed) migration routes of Neanderthals (red arrows), their homeland (Yellow), and Denisovans (blue arrows), the red stars mark the location of the Neanderthal samples from Chagyrskaya (close to Altai) and Vindija, and Denisovan (Altai). The green arrows mark part of the Homo sapiens journey out of Africa, and into America.

Where did the Denisovans mix with Neanderthals? And Neanderthals with humans? For now, we don't know. But, the introgression is a fact, and was mentioned by previous papers, as we will see below.

There are two other papers that noticed an enrichment of MUC19 in Native Americans and the influence of natural selection enhancing its frequency. Both were published before Villanea et al. One noted it was shared by MXL people and Denisovans.

Reynolds et al., 2019, studied Native American populations and reported that "One gene related to immune response (MUC19) also shows a strong signal of selection in the central Mexico population... We also found that the southeastern US and central Mexico populations share signals of selection at two SNPs each in the genes MUC19 and CNTN1..." The authors attribute the selective forces in Central Mexico as caused by disease introduced by the Europeans after Cortés expedition in 1519 that caused a smallpox epidemic and pathogens introduced by African slave trade. The paper adds that "This history likely contributed to genomic signatures of selection seen in the central Mexico population in this study. We see the strongest signal of selection on the mucin gene MUC19 in the central Mexico population. Mucin genes are primarily involved in the immune response to parasitic infection. Past work has shown that parasite load is strongly correlated with latitude, with populations closer to the tropics having higher levels of parasitic infection." The paper links smallpox resistance to MUC19, suggesting that this European disease promoted selective pressure that increased the prevalence of MUC19: "Interestingly, the GenomeRNAi database shows that MUC19 is associated with decreased vaccinia virus (VACV) infection. VACV is a close relative of the variola virus, the causal agent of smallpox, and recombinant versions of the VACV were used as a vaccine against smallpox until it was eradicated in the late 1970s. ... Future work may help us identify the major pathogens afflicting the people of central Mexico during colonial times."

The second paper by Racimo, Marnetto and Huerto-Sánchez (2018) studied adaptive introgression from archaic hominins, admixture that conferred benefits that enhanced survival. The authors point out MUC19 as outstanding: "MUC19. This region is rather impressive in containing 115 sites where the archaic alleles are shared between the Mexican panel (MXL) and the Denisovan genome at more than 20% frequency, when using all populations that are not MXL as the outgroup. However, the actual proportion of individuals that contain a Denisova-like haplotype (though highly differentiated from the rest of present-day human haplotypes) is very small. Only 11.86% of haplotypes in the combined YRI + AMR panel show 69 differences or less to the closest archaic genome (Denisova), and the next closest haplotype has 134 differences (supplementary fig. S51D, Supplementary Material online)."

Index to this series of posts on MUC19

• Part 1 of the MUC19 posts (This one)
• Part 2 of the MUC19 posts
• Part 3 of the MUC19 posts

---

Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall ©