Search This Blog

Thursday, April 18, 2024

Infanticide (zoology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)
Lion cubs may be killed by males replacing other males in the pride.

In animals, infanticide involves the intentional killing of young offspring by a mature animal of the same species. Animal infanticide is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. The practice has been observed in many species throughout the animal kingdom, especially primates (primate infanticide) but including microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.

Infanticide caused by sexual conflict has the general theme of the killer (often male) becoming the new sexual partner of the victim's parent, which would otherwise be unavailable. This represents a gain in fitness by the killer, and a loss in fitness by the parents of the offspring killed. This is a type of evolutionary struggle between the two sexes, in which the victim sex may have counter-adaptations that reduce the success of this practice. It may also occur for other reasons, such as the struggle for food between females. In this case individuals may even kill closely related offspring.

Filial infanticide occurs when a parent kills its own offspring. This sometimes involves consumption of the young themselves, which is termed filial cannibalism. The behavior is widespread in fishes, and is seen in terrestrial animals as well. Human infanticide has been recorded in almost every culture. A unique aspect of human infanticide is sex-selective infanticide.

Background

Infanticide only came to be seen as a significant occurrence in nature quite recently. At the time it was first seriously treated by Yukimaru Sugiyama, infanticide was attributed to stress causing factors like overcrowding and captivity, and was considered pathological and maladaptive. Classical ethology held that conspecifics (members of the same species) rarely killed each other. By the 1980s it had gained much greater acceptance. Possible reasons it was not treated as a prevalent natural phenomenon include its abhorrence to people, the popular group and species selectionist notions of the time (the idea that individuals behave for the good of the group or species; compare with gene-centered view of evolution), and the fact that it is very difficult to observe in the field.

Infanticide involving sexual conflict

This form of infanticide represents a struggle between the sexes, where one sex exploits the other, much to the latter's disadvantage. It is usually the male who benefits from this behavior, though in cases where males play similar roles to females in parental care the victim and perpetrator may be reversed (see Bateman's principle for discussion of this asymmetry).

By males

Hanuman langurs (or gray langurs) are Old World monkeys found in India. They are a social animal, living in groups that consist of a single dominant male and multiple females. The dominant male has a reproductive monopoly within the group, which causes sub-ordinate males to have a much lower fitness value in comparison. To gain the opportunity to reproduce, sub-ordinate males try to take over the dominant role within a group, usually resulting in an aggressive struggle with the existing dominant male. If successful in overthrowing the previous male, unrelated infants of the females are then killed. This infanticidal period is limited to the window just after the group is taken over. Cannibalism, however, has not been observed in this species.

Infanticide not only reduces intraspecific competition between the incumbent's offspring and those of other males but also increases the parental investment afforded to their own young, and allows females to become fertile faster. This is because females of this species, as well as many other mammals, do not ovulate during lactation. It then becomes easier to understand how infanticide evolved. If a male kills a female's young, she stops lactating and is able to become pregnant again. Because of this, the newly dominant male is able to reproduce at a faster rate than without the act of infanticide. As males are in a constant struggle to protect their group, those that express infanticidal behavior will contribute a larger portion to future gene pools (see natural selection).

Similar behavior is also seen in male lions, among other species, who also kill young cubs, thereby enabling them to impregnate the females. Unlike langurs, male lions live in small groups, which cooperate to take control of a pride from an existing group. They will attempt to kill any cubs that are roughly nine months old or younger, though as in other species, the female will attempt to defend her cubs viciously. Males have, on average, only a two-year window in which to pass on their genes, and lionesses only give birth once every two years, so the selective pressure on them to conform to this behavior is strong. In fact it is estimated that a quarter of cubs dying in the first year of life are victims of infanticide.

Male mice show great variation in behavior over time. After fertilizing a female, they become aggressive towards mouse pups for three weeks, killing any they come across. After this period however, their behavior changes dramatically, and they become paternal, caring for their own offspring. This lasts for almost two months, but afterwards they become infanticidal once more. It is no coincidence here that the female gestation period is three weeks as well, or that it takes roughly two months for pups to become fully weaned and leave their nest. The proximate mechanism that allows for the correct timing of these periods involves circadian rhythms (see chronobiology), each day and night cycle affecting the mouse's internal neural physiology, and disturbances in the duration of these cycles results in different periods of time between behaviors. The adaptive value of this behavior switching is twofold; infanticide removes competitors for when the mouse does have offspring, and allows the female victims to be impregnated earlier than if they continued to care for their young, as mentioned above.

Gerbils, on the other hand, no longer commit infanticide once they have paired with a female, but actively kill and eat other offspring when young. The females of this species behave much like male mice, hunting down other litters except when rearing their own.

Prospective infanticide

Prospective infanticide is a subset of sexual competition infanticide in which young born after the arrival of the new male are killed. This is less common than infanticide of existing young, but can still increase fitness in cases where the offspring could not possibly have been fathered by the new mate, i.e. one gestation or fertility period. This is known to occur in lions and langurs, and has also been observed in other species such as house wrens. In birds, however, the situation is more complex, as female eggs are fertilized one at a time, with a 24-hour delay between each. Males may destroy clutches laid 12 days or more after their arrival, though their investment of around 60 days of parental care is large, so a high level of parental certainty is needed.

By females

Jacana jacana females carry out infanticide.

Females are also known to display infanticidal behavior. This may appear unexpected, as the conditions described above do not apply. Males are not always an unlimited resource though—in some species, males provide parental care to their offspring, and females may compete indirectly with others by killing their offspring, freeing up the limiting resource that the males represent. This has been documented in research by Stephen Emlen and Natalie Demong on wattled jacanas (Jacana jacana), a tropical wading bird. In the wattled jacana, it is exclusively the male sex that broods, while females defend their territory. In this experiment Demong and Emlen found that removing females from a territory resulted in nearby females attacking the chicks of the male in most cases, evicting them from their nest. The males then fertilized the offending females and cared for their young. Emlen describes how he "shot a female one night, and ... by first light a new female was already on the turf. I saw terrible things—pecking and picking up and throwing down chicks until they were dead. Within hours she was soliciting the male, and he was mounting her the same day. The next night I shot the other female, then came out the next morning and saw the whole thing again."

Infanticide is also seen in giant water bugs. Lethocerus deyrollei is a large and nocturnal predatory insect found in still waters near vegetation. In this species the males take care of masses of eggs by keeping them hydrated with water from their bodies. Without a male caring for the eggs like this, they become desiccated and will not hatch. In this species, males are a scarce resource that females must sometimes compete for. Those that cannot find a free male often stab the eggs of a brooding one. As in the above case, males then fertilize this female and care for her eggs. Noritaka Ichikawa has found that males only moisten their eggs during the first 90 seconds or so, after which all of the moisture on their bodies has evaporated. However, they guard the egg masses for as long as several hours at a time, when they could be hunting prey. They do not seem to prevent further evaporation by staying guard, as males that only guarded the nest for short periods were seen to have similar hatching rates in a controlled experiment where there were no females present. It seems rather that males are more successful in avoiding infanticidal females when they are out of the water with their eggs, which might well explain the ultimate cause of this behavior.

Female rats will eat the kits of strange females for a source of nutrition, and to take over the nest for her own litter.

Resource competition

The Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

Black-tailed prairie dogs are colonially-living, harem-polygynous squirrels found mainly in the United States. Their living arrangement involves one male living with four or so females in a territory defended by all individuals, and underground nesting. Black-tails only have one litter per year, and are in estrous for only a single day around the beginning of spring.

A seven-year natural experiment by John Hoogland and others from Princeton University revealed that infanticide is widespread in this species, including infanticide from invading males and immigrant females, as well as occasional cannibalism of an individual's own offspring. The surprising finding of the study was that by far the most common type of infanticide involved the killing of close kin's offspring. This seems illogical, as kin selection favors behaviors that promote the well-being of closely related individuals. It was postulated that this form of infanticide is more successful than trying to kill young in nearby groups, as the whole group must be bypassed in this case, while within a group only the mother need be evaded. Marauding behavior is evidently adaptive, as infanticidal females had more and healthier young than others, and were heavier themselves as well. This behavior appears to reduce competition with other females for food, and future competition among offspring.

Similar behavior has been reported in the meerkat (Suricata suricatta), including cases of females killing their mother's, sister's, and daughter's offspring. Infanticidal raids from neighboring groups also occurred.

Other

Bottlenose dolphins have been reported to kill their young through impact injuries. Dominant male langurs tend to kill the existing young upon taking control of a harem. There have been sightings of infanticide in the leopard population. The males of the Stegodyphus lineatus species of spider have been known to exhibit infanticide as a way to encourage females to mate again.

In mammals, male infanticide is most often observed in non-seasonal breeders. There is less fitness advantage for a conspecific to carry out infanticide if the interbirth period of the mother will not be decreased and the female will not return to estrous. In Felidae, birthing periods can happen anytime during the year, as long as there is not an unweaned offspring of that female. This is a contributor to the frequency of infanticide in carnivorous felids. Some species of seasonal breeders have been observed to commit infanticide. Cases in the snub-nosed monkey, a seasonal breeding primate, have shown that infanticide does lessen the interbirth period of the females and can allow them to breed with the next breeding group. Other cases of seasonal breeding species where the infanticidal characteristic is observed has been explained as a way of preserving the mother's resources and energy in turn increasing the reproductive success of upcoming breeding periods.

Costs and defenses

Costs of the behavior

While it may be beneficial for some species to behave this way, infanticide is not without risks to the perpetrator. Having already expended energy and perhaps sustained serious wounds in a fight with another male, attacks from females who vigorously defend their offspring may be telling for harem-polygynous males, with a risk of infection. It is also energetically costly to pursue a mother's young, which may try to escape.

Costs of the behavior described in prairie dogs include the risk to an individual of losing their own young while killing another's, not to mention the fact that they are killing their own relatives. In a species where infanticide is common, perpetrators may well be victims themselves in the future, such that they come out no better off; but as long as an infanticidal individual gains in reproductive output by its behavior, it will tend to become common. Further costs of the behavior in general may be induced by counter-strategies evolved in the other sex, as described below.

As a cost of social behavior

Taking a broader view of the black-tailed prairie dog situation, infanticide can be seen as a cost of social living. If each female were to have her own private nest away from others, she would be much less likely to have her infants killed when absent. This, and other costs such as increased spread of parasites, must be made up for by other benefits, such as group territory defense and increased awareness of predators.

An avian example published in Nature is acorn woodpeckers. Females nest together, possibly because those nesting alone have their eggs constantly destroyed by rivals. Even so, eggs are consistently removed at first by nest partners themselves, until the entire group lays on the same day. They then cooperate and incubate the eggs as a group, but by this time a significant proportion of their eggs have been lost because of this ovicidal behavior.

Counter-strategies

Because this form of infanticide reduces the fitness of killed individuals' parents, animals have evolved a range of counter-strategies against this behavior. These may be divided into two very different classes - those that tend to prevent infanticide, and those that minimize losses.

Loss minimization

Some females abort or resorb their own young while they are still in development after a new male takes over; this is known as the Bruce effect. This may prevent their young from being killed after birth, saving the mother wasted time and energy. However, this strategy also benefits the new male. In mice this can occur by the proximate mechanism of the female smelling the odor of the new male's urine.

Preventive adaptations

Infanticide in burying beetles may have led to male parental care. In this species males often cooperate with the female in preparing a piece of carrion, which is buried with the eggs and eaten by the larvae when they hatch. Males may also guard the site alongside the female. It is apparent from experiments that this behavior does not provide their young with any better nourishment, nor is it of any use in defending against predators. However, other burying bugs may try to take their nesting space. When this occurs, a male-female pair is over twice as successful in nest defense, preventing the ovicide of their offspring.

Female langurs may leave the group with their young alongside the outgoing male, and others may develop a false estrous and allow the male to copulate, deceiving him into thinking she is actually sexually receptive. Females may also have sexual liaisons with other males. This promiscuous behavior is adaptive, because males will not know whether it is their own offspring they are killing or not, and may be more reluctant or invest less effort in infanticide attempts. Lionesses cooperatively guard against scouting males, and a pair were seen to violently attack a male after it killed one of their young. Resistance to infanticide is also costly, though: for instance, a female may sustain serious injuries in defending her young. At times it is simply more advantageous to submit than to fight.

Infanticide, the destruction of offspring characteristic to many species, has posed so great a threat that there have been observable changes of behavior in respective female mothers; more specifically, these changes exist as preventive measures. A common behavioral mechanism by females to reduce the risk of infanticide of future offspring is through the process of paternity confusion or dilution. In theory, this implies that a female that mates with multiple males will widely spread the assumption of paternity across many males, and therefore make them less likely to kill or attack offspring that could potentially carry their genes. This theory operates under the assumption that the specific males keep a memory of past mates, under a desire to perpetuate their own genes  In the Japanese macaque (macaca fuscata), female mating with multiple males, or dilution of paternity, was found to inhibit male-to-infant aggression and infanticide eight times less towards infants of females with which they had previously mated. Multi-male mating, or MMM, is recorded as a measure to prevent infanticide in species where young is altricial, or heavily dependent, and where there is a high turnover rate for dominant males, which leads to infanticide of the previous dominant male's young. Examples include, but are not limited to; white-footed mice, hamsters, lions, langurs, baboons, and macaques. Along with mating with multiple males, the mating of females throughout the entirety of a reproductive cycle also serves a purpose for inhibiting the chance of infanticide. This theory assumes that males use information on past matings to make decisions on committing infanticide, and that females subsequently manipulate that knowledge. Females which are able to appear sexually active or receptive at all stages of their cycle, even during pregnancy with another male's offspring, can confuse the males into believing that the subsequent children are theirs. This "pseudo-estrus" theory applies to females within species that do not exhibit obvious clues to each stage of their cycle, such as langurs, rhesus macaques, and gelada baboons. An alternative to paternity confusion as a method of infanticide prevention is paternity concentration. This is the behavior of females to concentrate paternity to one specific dominant male as a means of protection from infanticide at the hands of less-dominant males. This particularly applies to species in which a male has a very long tenure as the dominant male, and faces little instability in this hierarchy. Females choose these dominant males as the best available form of protection, and therefore mate exclusively with this male. This is especially common within small rodents. An additional behavioral strategy to prevent infanticide by males may be aggressive protection of the nest along with female presence. This strategy is commonly used in species such as European rabbits. Aggressive protection of the nest in an effort to reduce infanticide is observed with the Black Rock Skink. Egernia saxatilis live in small families and adults defend their territories against conspecifics. The small "nuclear families" live in the same permanent shelter and the parents protect their infants from infanticidal conspecifics in this way. Adults attack unrelated juveniles but not their own offspring. The presence of a parent significantly reduces the rate of infanticide because conspecific adults ignore juveniles when a parent is present, likely because another adult is more threatening to the aggressive lizard. Therefore, a juvenile living within its parents' own territory will experience far less attacks from conspecific adults.

Infanticide by parents and caregivers

Damselfish may eat their own offspring.

Filial infanticide occurs when a parent kills its own offspring. Both male and female parents have been observed to do this, as well as sterile worker castes in some eusocial animals. Filial infanticide is also observed as a form of brood reduction in some birds species, such as the white stork. This may be due to a lack of siblicide in this species.

Maternal

Maternal infanticide occurs when newborn offspring are killed by their mother. This is sometimes seen in pigs, a behavior known as savaging, which affects up to 5% of gilts. Similar behavior has been observed in various animals such as rabbits, hamsters, humans and burying beetles.

Paternal

Paternal infanticide—where fathers eat their own offspring—may also occur. When young bass hatch from the spawn, the father guards the area, circling around them and keeping them together, as well as providing protection from would-be predators. After a few days, most of the fish will swim away. At this point the male's behavior changes: instead of defending the stragglers, he treats them as any other small prey, and eats them.

Worker caste killing young

Honey bees may become infected with a bacterial disease called foul brood, which attacks the developing bee larva while still living in the cell. Some hives however have evolved a behavioral adaptation that resists this disease: the worker bees selectively kill the infected individuals by removing them from their cells and tossing them out of the hive, preventing it from spreading. The genetics of this behavior are quite complex. Experiments by Rothenbuhler showed that the 'hygienic' behavior of the queen was lost by crossing with a non-hygienic drone. This means that the trait must be recessive, only being expressed when both alleles contain the gene for hygienic behavior. Furthermore, the behavior is dependent on two separate loci. A backcross produced a mixed result. The hives of some offspring were hygienic, while others were not. There was also a third type of hive where workers removed the wax cap of the infected cells, but did nothing more. What was not apparent was the presence of a fourth group who threw diseased larvae out of the hive, but did not have the uncapping gene. This was suspected by Rothenbuhler however, who manually removed the caps, and found some hives proceeded to clear out infected cells.

Humans and infanticide

Family structure is the most important risk factor in child abuse and infanticide. Children who live with both their natural (biological) parents are at low risk for abuse. The risk increases greatly when children live with step-parents or with a single parent. Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be abused than children who live with both biological parents.

Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child abuse than children living with both biological parents.

Infanticide is a subject that some humans may find discomforting. Cornell University ethologist Glenn Hausfater states that "infanticide has not received much study because it's a repulsive subject [...] Many people regard it as reprehensible to even think about it." Research into infanticide in animals is in part motivated by the desire to understand human behaviors, such as child abuse. Hausfater explains that researchers are "trying to see if there's any connection between animal infanticide and child abuse, neglect and killing by humans [...] We just don't know yet what the connections are."

Infanticide has been, and still is, practiced by some human cultures, groups, or individuals.[citation needed] In many past societies, certain forms of infanticide were considered permissible, whereas in most modern societies the practice is considered immoral and criminal. It still takes place in the Western world usually because of the parent's mental illness or violent behavior, in addition to some poor countries as a form of population control — sometimes with tacit societal acceptance. Female infanticide, a form of sex-selective infanticide, is more common than the killing of male offspring, especially in cultures where male children are more desirable.

Amongst some hunter-gatherer communities, infanticide would sometimes be extended into child cannibalism. This is documented in many regions, but particularly amongst pre-colonial Aboriginal Australian tribes. Infants and young children would often be killed, roasted, and eaten by their mother and sometimes also fed to siblings, usually during times of famine. In non-filial cases when a child was "well-fed" and in the absence of its mother sometimes a man or the whole community would kill and consume the child.

Recent African origin of modern humans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
Successive dispersals (labeled in years before present) of
  Homo erectus greatest extent (yellow)
  Homo neanderthalensis greatest extent (ochre)
  Homo sapiens (red)
Expansion of early modern humans from Africa through the Near East

In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans or the "Out of Africa" theory (OOA) is the most widely accepted model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens). It follows the early expansions of hominins out of Africa, accomplished by Homo erectus and then Homo neanderthalensis.

The model proposes a "single origin" of Homo sapiens in the taxonomic sense, precluding parallel evolution in other regions of traits considered anatomically modern, but not precluding multiple admixture between H. sapiens and archaic humans in Europe and Asia. H. sapiens most likely developed in the Horn of Africa between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago, although an alternative hypothesis argues that diverse morphological features of H. sapiens appeared locally in different parts of Africa and converged due to gene flow between different populations within the same period. The "recent African origin" model proposes that all modern non-African populations are substantially descended from populations of H. sapiens that left Africa after that time.

There were at least several "out-of-Africa" dispersals of modern humans, possibly beginning as early as 270,000 years ago, including 215,000 years ago to at least Greece, and certainly via northern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula about 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. There is evidence that modern humans had reached China around 80,000 years ago. Practically all of these early waves seem to have gone extinct or retreated back, and present-day humans outside Africa descend mainly from a single expansion about 70,000–50,000 years ago, via the so-called "Southern Route". These humans spread rapidly along the coast of Asia and reached Australia by around 65,000–50,000 years ago, (though some researchers question the earlier Australian dates and place the arrival of humans there at 50,000 years ago at earliest, while others have suggested that these first settlers of Australia may represent an older wave before the more significant out of Africa migration and thus not necessarily be ancestral to the region's later inhabitants) while Europe was populated by an early offshoot which settled the Near East and Europe less than 55,000 years ago. In the 2010s, studies in population genetics uncovered evidence of interbreeding that occurred between H. sapiens and archaic humans in Eurasia, Oceania and Africa, indicating that modern population groups, while mostly derived from early H. sapiens, are to a lesser extent also descended from regional variants of archaic humans.

Proposed waves

Layer sequence at Ksar Akil in the Levantine corridor, and discovery of two fossils of Homo sapiens, dated to 40,800 to 39,200 years BP for "Egbert", and 42,400–41,700 BP for "Ethelruda".

"Recent African origin", or Out of Africa II, refers to the migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) out of Africa after their emergence at c. 300,000 to 200,000 years ago, in contrast to "Out of Africa I", which refers to the migration of archaic humans from Africa to Eurasia from before 1.8 and up to 0.5 million years ago. Omo-Kibish I (Omo I) from southern Ethiopia is the oldest anatomically modern Homo sapiens skeleton currently known (around 233,000 years old). There are even older Homo sapiens fossils from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco which exhibit a mixture of modern and archaic features at around 315,000 years old.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the picture of "recent single-origin" migrations has become significantly more complex, due to the discovery of modern-archaic admixture and the increasing evidence that the "recent out-of-Africa" migration took place in waves over a long time. As of 2010, there were two main accepted dispersal routes for the out-of-Africa migration of early anatomically modern humans, the "Northern Route" (via Nile Valley and Sinai) and the "Southern Route" via the Bab-el-Mandeb strait.

  • Posth et al. (2017) suggest that early Homo sapiens, or "another species in Africa closely related to us," might have first migrated out of Africa around 270,000 years ago based on the closer affinity within Neanderthals' mitochondrial genomes to Homo sapiens than Denisovans.
  • Fossil evidence also points to an early Homo sapiens migration with the oldest known fossil coming from Apidima Cave in Greece and dated at 210,000 years ago. Finds at Misliya cave, which include a partial jawbone with eight teeth, have been dated to around 185,000 years ago. Layers dating from between 250,000 and 140,000 years ago in the same cave contained tools of the Levallois type which could put the date of the first migration even earlier if the tools can be associated with the modern human jawbone finds.
  • An eastward dispersal from Northeast Africa to Arabia 150,000–130,000 years ago is based on the stone tools finds at Jebel Faya dated to 127,000 years ago (discovered in 2011), although fossil evidence in the area is significantly later at 85,000 years ago. Possibly related to this wave are the finds from Zhirendong cave, Southern China, dated to more than 100,000 years ago. Other evidence of modern human presence in China has been dated to 80,000 years ago.
  • The most significant out of Africa dispersal took place around 50,000–70,000 years ago via the so-called Southern Route, either before or after the Toba event, which happened between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago. This dispersal followed the southern coastline of Asia and reached Australia around 65,000–50,000 years ago or according to some research, by 50,000 years ago at earliest. Western Asia was "re-occupied" by a different derivation from this wave around 50,000 years ago and Europe was populated from Western Asia beginning around 43,000 years ago.
  • Wells (2003) describes an additional wave of migration after the southern coastal route, a northern migration into Europe about 45,000 years ago. This possibility is ruled out by Macaulay et al. (2005) and Posth et al. (2016), who argue for a single coastal dispersal, with an early offshoot into Europe.

Northern Route dispersal

Anatomically Modern Humans known archaeological remains in Europe and Africa, directly dated, calibrated carbon dates as of 2013.

Beginning 135,000 years ago, tropical Africa experienced megadroughts which drove humans from the land and towards the sea shores, and forced them to cross over to other continents. Fossils of early Homo sapiens were found in Qafzeh and Es-Skhul Caves in Israel and have been dated to 80,000 to 120,000 years ago. These humans seem to have either become extinct or retreated back to Africa 70,000 to 80,000 years ago, possibly replaced by southbound Neanderthals escaping the colder regions of ice-age Europe. Hua Liu et al. analyzed autosomal microsatellite markers dating to about 56,000 years ago. They interpret the paleontological fossil as an isolated early offshoot that retracted back to Africa.

The discovery of stone tools in the United Arab Emirates in 2011 at the Faya-1 site in Mleiha, Sharjah, indicated the presence of modern humans at least 125,000 years ago, leading to a resurgence of the "long-neglected" North African route. This new understanding of the role of the Arabian dispersal began to change following results from archaeological and genetic studies stressing the importance of southern Arabia as a corridor for human expansions out of Africa.

In Oman, a site was discovered by Bien Joven in 2011 containing more than 100 surface scatters of stone tools belonging to the late Nubian Complex, known previously only from archaeological excavations in the Sudan. Two optically stimulated luminescence age estimates placed the Arabian Nubian Complex at approximately 106,000 years old. This provides evidence for a distinct Stone Age technocomplex in southern Arabia, around the earlier part of the Marine Isotope Stage 5.

According to Kuhlwilm and his co-authors, Neanderthals contributed genetically to modern humans then living outside of Africa around 100,000 years ago: humans which had already split off from other modern humans around 200,000 years ago, and this early wave of modern humans outside Africa also contributed genetically to the Altai Neanderthals. They found that "the ancestors of Neanderthals from the Altai Mountains and early modern humans met and interbred, possibly in the Near East, many thousands of years earlier than previously thought". According to co-author Ilan Gronau, "This actually complements archaeological evidence of the presence of early modern humans out of Africa around and before 100,000 years ago by providing the first genetic evidence of such populations." Similar genetic admixture events have been noted in other regions as well.

Southern Route dispersal

Coastal route

Red Sea crossing

By some 50–70,000 years ago, a subset of the bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 migrated from East Africa into the Near East. It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 individuals in Africa, only a small group, possibly as few as 150 to 1,000 people, crossed the Red Sea. The group that crossed the Red Sea travelled along the coastal route around Arabia and the Persian Plateau to India, which appears to have been the first major settling point. Wells (2003) argued for the route along the southern coastline of Asia, across about 250 kilometres, reaching Australia by around 50,000 years ago.

Migration routes of modern humans, showing the northern route populating Western Eurasia, and the southern/coastal route populating Eastern Eurasia.

Today at the Bab-el-Mandeb straits, the Red Sea is about 20 kilometres (12 mi) wide, but 50,000 years ago sea levels were 70 m (230 ft) lower (owing to glaciation) and the water channel was much narrower. Though the straits were never completely closed, they were narrow enough to have enabled crossing using simple rafts, and there may have been islands in between. Shell middens 125,000 years old have been found in Eritrea, indicating that the diet of early humans included seafood obtained by beachcombing.

Toba eruption

The dating of the Southern Dispersal is a matter of dispute. It may have happened either pre- or post-Toba, a catastrophic volcanic eruption that took place between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at the site of present-day Lake Toba in Sumatra, Indonesia. Stone tools discovered below the layers of ash deposited in India may point to a pre-Toba dispersal but the source of the tools is disputed. An indication for post-Toba is haplo-group L3, that originated before the dispersal of humans out of Africa and can be dated to 60,000–70,000 years ago, "suggesting that humanity left Africa a few thousand years after Toba". Some research showing slower than expected genetic mutations in human DNA was published in 2012, indicating a revised dating for the migration to between 90,000 and 130,000 years ago. Some more recent research suggests a migration out-of-Africa of around 50,000-65,000 years ago of the ancestors of modern non-African populations, similar to most previous estimates.

Western Asia

Following the fossils dating 80,000 to 120,000 years ago from Qafzeh and Es-Skhul Caves in Israel there are no H. sapiens fossils in the Levant until the Manot 1 fossil from Manot Cave in Israel, dated to 54,700 years ago, though the dating was questioned by Groucutt et al. (2015). The lack of fossils and stone tool industries that can be safely associated with modern humans in the Levant has been taken to suggest that modern humans were outcompeted by Neanderthals until around 55,000 years ago, who would have placed a barrier on modern human dispersal out of Africa through the Northern Route. Climate reconstructions also support a Southern Route dispersal of modern humans as the Bab-el-Mandeb strait experienced a climate more conductive to human migration than the northern landbridge to the Levant during the major human dispersal out of Africa.

Oceania

It is thought that Australia was inhabited around 65,000–50,000 years ago. As of 2017, the earliest evidence of humans in Australia is at least 65,000 years old, while McChesney stated that

...genetic evidence suggests that a small band with the marker M168 migrated out of Africa along the coasts of the Arabian Peninsula and India, through Indonesia, and reached Australia very early, between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago. This very early migration into Australia is also supported by Rasmussen et al. (2011).

Fossils from Lake Mungo, Australia, have been dated to about 42,000 years ago. Other fossils from a site called Madjedbebe have been dated to at least 65,000 years ago, though some researchers doubt this early estimate and date the Madjedbebe fossils at about 50,000 years ago at the oldest.

Phylogenetic data suggests that an early Eastern Eurasian (Eastern non-African) meta-population trifurcated somewhere in eastern South Asia, and gave rise to the Australo-Papuans, the Ancient Ancestral South Indians (AASI), as well as East/Southeast Asians, although Papuans may have also received some gene flow from an earlier group (xOoA), around 2%, next to additional archaic admixture in the Sahul region.

According to one study, Papuans could have either formed from a mixture between an East Eurasian lineage and lineage basal to West and East Asians, or as a sister lineage of East Asians with or without a minor basal OoA or xOoA contribution.

A Holocene hunter-gatherer sample (Leang_Panninge) from South Sulawesi was found to be genetically in between East-Eurasians and Australo-Papuans. The sample could be modeled as ~50% Papuan-related and ~50% Basal-East Asian-related (Andamanese Onge or Tianyuan). The authors concluded that Basal-East Asian ancestry was far more widespread and the peopling of Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania was more complex than previously anticipated.

PCA calculated on present-day and ancient individuals from eastern Eurasia and Oceania. PC1 (23,8%) distinguishes East-Eurasians and Australo-Melanesians, while PC2 (6,3%) differentiates East-Eurasians along a North to South cline.
Principal component analysis (PCA) of ancient and modern day individuals from worldwide populations. Oceanians (Aboriginal Australians and Papuans) are most differentiated from both East-Eurasians and West-Eurasians.

East and Southeast Asia

In China, the Liujiang man (Chinese: 柳江人) is among the earliest modern humans found in East Asia. The date most commonly attributed to the remains is 67,000 years ago. High rates of variability yielded by various dating techniques carried out by different researchers place the most widely accepted range of dates with 67,000 BP as a minimum, but do not rule out dates as old as 159,000 BP. Liu, Martinón-Torres et al. (2015) claim that modern human teeth have been found in China dating to at least 80,000 years ago.

Tianyuan man from China has a probable date range between 38,000 and 42,000 years ago, while Liujiang man from the same region has a probable date range between 67,000 and 159,000 years ago. According to 2013 DNA tests, Tianyuan man is related "to many present-day Asians and Native Americans". Tianyuan is similar in morphology to Liujiang man, and some Jōmon period modern humans found in Japan, as well as modern East and Southeast Asians.

A 2021 study about the population history of Eastern Eurasia, concluded that distinctive Basal-East Asian (East-Eurasian) ancestry originated in Mainland Southeast Asia at ~50,000BC from a distinct southern Himalayan route, and expanded through multiple migration waves southwards and northwards respectively.

Genetic studies concluded that Native Americans descended from a single founding population that initially split from a Basal-East Asian source population in Mainland Southeast Asia around 36,000 years ago, at the same time at which the proper Jōmon people split from Basal-East Asians, either together with Ancestral Native Americans or during a separate expansion wave. They also show that the basal northern and southern Native American branches, to which all other Indigenous peoples belong, diverged around 16,000 years ago. An indigenous American sample from 16,000BC in Idaho, which is craniometrically similar to modern Native Americans as well as Paleosiberias, was found to have largely East-Eurasian ancestry and showed high affinity with contemporary East Asians, as well as Jōmon period samples of Japan, confirming that Ancestral Native Americans split from an East-Eurasian source population in Eastern Siberia.

Europe

According to Macaulay et al. (2005), an early offshoot from the southern dispersal with haplogroup N followed the Nile from East Africa, heading northwards and crossing into Asia through the Sinai. This group then branched, some moving into Europe and others heading east into Asia. This hypothesis is supported by the relatively late date of the arrival of modern humans in Europe as well as by archaeological and DNA evidence. Based on an analysis of 55 human mitochondrial genomes (mtDNAs) of hunter-gatherers, Posth et al. (2016) argue for a "rapid single dispersal of all non-Africans less than 55,000 years ago." By 45,000 years ago, modern humans are known to have reached northwestern Europe.

Genetic reconstruction

Mitochondrial haplogroups

Within Africa

Map of early diversification of modern humans according to mitochondrial population genetics (see: Haplogroup L).

The first lineage to branch off from Mitochondrial Eve was L0. This haplogroup is found in high proportions among the San of Southern Africa and the Sandawe of East Africa. It is also found among the Mbuti people. These groups branched off early in human history and have remained relatively genetically isolated since then. Haplogroups L1, L2, and L3 are descendants of L1–L6, and are largely confined to Africa. The macro haplogroups M and N, which are the lineages of the rest of the world outside Africa, descend from L3. L3 is about 70,000 years old, while haplogroups M and N are about 65–55,000 years old. The relationship between such gene trees and demographic history is still debated when applied to dispersals.

Of all the lineages present in Africa, the female descendants of only one lineage, mtDNA haplogroup L3, are found outside Africa. If there had been several migrations, one would expect descendants of more than one lineage to be found. L3's female descendants, the M and N haplogroup lineages, are found in very low frequencies in Africa (although haplogroup M1 populations are very ancient and diversified in North and North-east Africa) and appear to be more recent arrivals. A possible explanation is that these mutations occurred in East Africa shortly before the exodus and became the dominant haplogroups thereafter by means of the founder effect. Alternatively, the mutations may have arisen shortly afterwards.

Southern Route and haplogroups M and N

Results from mtDNA collected from aboriginal Malaysians called Orang Asli indicate that the haplogroups M and N share characteristics with original African groups from approximately 85,000 years ago, and share characteristics with sub-haplogroups found in coastal south-east Asian regions, such as Australasia, the Indian subcontinent and throughout continental Asia, which had dispersed and separated from their African progenitor approximately 65,000 years ago. This southern coastal dispersal would have occurred before the dispersal through the Levant approximately 45,000 years ago. This hypothesis attempts to explain why haplogroup N is predominant in Europe and why haplogroup M is absent in Europe. Evidence of the coastal migration is thought to have been destroyed by the rise in sea levels during the Holocene epoch. Alternatively, a small European founder population that had expressed haplogroup M and N at first, could have lost haplogroup M through random genetic drift resulting from a bottleneck (i.e. a founder effect).

The group that crossed the Red Sea travelled along the coastal route around Arabia and Persia until reaching India. Haplogroup M is found in high frequencies along the southern coastal regions of Pakistan and India and it has the greatest diversity in India, indicating that it is here where the mutation may have occurred. Sixty percent of the Indian population belong to Haplogroup M. The indigenous people of the Andaman Islands also belong to the M lineage. The Andamanese are thought to be offshoots of some of the earliest inhabitants in Asia because of their long isolation from the mainland. They are evidence of the coastal route of early settlers that extends from India to Thailand and Indonesia all the way to eastern New Guinea. Since M is found in high frequencies in highlanders from New Guinea and the Andamanese and New Guineans have dark skin and Afro-textured hair, some scientists think they are all part of the same wave of migrants who departed across the Red Sea ~60,000 years ago in the Great Coastal Migration. The proportion of haplogroup M increases eastwards from Arabia to India; in eastern India, M outnumbers N by a ratio of 3:1. Crossing into Southeast Asia, haplogroup N (mostly in the form of derivatives of its R subclade) reappears as the predominant lineage. M is predominant in East Asia, but amongst Indigenous Australians, N is the more common lineage. This haphazard distribution of Haplogroup N from Europe to Australia can be explained by founder effects and population bottlenecks.

The earliest-branching non-African paternal lineages (C, D, F) after the Out-of-Africa event (a), and their deepest divergence among modern day East or Southeast Asia (b), suggesting rapid coastal expansions. Simplified Y-chromosome tree is shown as reference for colours.

Autosomal DNA

A 2002 study of African, European, and Asian populations, found greater genetic diversity among Africans than among Eurasians, and that genetic diversity among Eurasians is largely a subset of that among Africans, supporting the out of Africa model. A large study by Coop et al. (2009) found evidence for natural selection in autosomal DNA outside of Africa. The study distinguishes non-African sweeps (notably KITLG variants associated with skin color), West-Eurasian sweeps (SLC24A5) and East-Asian sweeps (MC1R, relevant to skin color). Based on this evidence, the study concluded that human populations encountered novel selective pressures as they expanded out of Africa. MC1R and its relation to skin color had already been discussed by Harding et al. (2000), p. 1355. According to this study, Papua New Guineans continued to be exposed to selection for dark skin color so that, although these groups are distinct from Africans in other places, the allele for dark skin color shared by contemporary Africans, Andamanese and New Guineans is an archaism. Endicott et al. (2003) suggest convergent evolution. A 2014 study by Gurdasani et al. indicates that the higher genetic diversity in Africa was further increased in some regions by relatively recent Eurasian migrations affecting parts of Africa.

Pathogen DNA

Another promising route towards reconstructing human genetic genealogy is via the JC virus (JCV), a type of human polyomavirus which is carried by 70–90 percent of humans and which is usually transmitted vertically, from parents to offspring, suggesting codivergence with human populations. For this reason, JCV has been used as a genetic marker for human evolution and migration. This method does not appear to be reliable for the migration out of Africa; in contrast to human genetics, JCV strains associated with African populations are not basal. From this Shackelton et al. (2006) conclude that either a basal African strain of JCV has become extinct or that the original infection with JCV post-dates the migration from Africa.

Admixture of archaic and modern humans

Evidence for archaic human species (descended from Homo heidelbergensis) having interbred with modern humans outside of Africa, was discovered in the 2010s. This concerns primarily Neanderthal admixture in all modern populations except for Sub-Saharan Africans but evidence has also been presented for Denisova hominin admixture in Australasia (i.e. in Melanesians, Aboriginal Australians and some Negritos). The rate of Neanderthal admixture to European and Asian populations as of 2017 has been estimated at between about 2–3%.

Archaic admixture in some Sub-Saharan African populations hunter-gatherer groups (Biaka Pygmies and San), derived from archaic hominins that broke away from the modern human lineage around 700,000 years ago, was discovered in 2011. The rate of admixture was estimated at 2%. Admixture from archaic hominins of still earlier divergence times, estimated at 1.2 to 1.3 million years ago, was found in Pygmies, Hadza and five Sandawe in 2012.

From an analysis of Mucin 7, a highly divergent haplotype that has an estimated coalescence time with other variants around 4.5 million years BP and is specific to African populations, it is inferred to have been derived from interbreeding between African modern and archaic humans.

A study published in 2020 found that the Yoruba and Mende populations of West Africa derive between 2% and 19% of their genome from an as-yet unidentified archaic hominin population that likely diverged before the split of modern humans and the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Stone tools

In addition to genetic analysis, Petraglia et al. also examines the small stone tools (microlithic materials) from the Indian subcontinent and explains the expansion of population based on the reconstruction of paleoenvironment. He proposed that the stone tools could be dated to 35 ka in South Asia, and the new technology might be influenced by environmental change and population pressure.

History of the theory

Classical paleoanthropology

The frontispiece to Huxley's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (1863): the image compares the skeleton of a human to other apes.

The cladistic relationship of humans with the African apes was suggested by Charles Darwin after studying the behaviour of African apes, one of which was displayed at the London Zoo. The anatomist Thomas Huxley had also supported the hypothesis and suggested that African apes have a close evolutionary relationship with humans. These views were opposed by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, who was a proponent of the Out of Asia theory. Haeckel argued that humans were more closely related to the primates of South-east Asia and rejected Darwin's African hypothesis.

In the Descent of Man, Darwin speculated that humans had descended from apes, which still had small brains but walked upright, freeing their hands for uses which favoured intelligence; he thought such apes were African:

In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is, therefore, probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere. But it is useless to speculate on this subject, for an ape nearly as large as a man, namely the Dryopithecus of Lartet, which was closely allied to the anthropomorphous Hylobates, existed in Europe during the Upper Miocene period; and since so remote a period the earth has certainly undergone many great revolutions, and there has been ample time for migration on the largest scale.

— Charles Darwin, Descent of Man

In 1871, there were hardly any human fossils of ancient hominins available. Almost fifty years later, Darwin's speculation was supported when anthropologists began finding fossils of ancient small-brained hominins in several areas of Africa (list of hominina fossils). The hypothesis of recent (as opposed to archaic) African origin developed in the 20th century. The "Recent African origin" of modern humans means "single origin" (monogenism) and has been used in various contexts as an antonym to polygenism. The debate in anthropology had swung in favour of monogenism by the mid-20th century. Isolated proponents of polygenism held forth in the mid-20th century, such as Carleton Coon, who thought as late as 1962 that H. sapiens arose five times from H. erectus in five places.

The possibility of an origin of L3 in Asia was proposed by Cabrera et al. (2018).
a: Exit of the L3 precursor to Eurasia. b: Return to Africa and expansion to Asia of basal L3 lineages with subsequent differentiation in both continents.

Multiregional origin hypothesis

The historical alternative to the recent origin model is the multiregional origin of modern humans, initially proposed by Milford Wolpoff in the 1980s. This view proposes that the derivation of anatomically modern human populations from H. erectus at the beginning of the Pleistocene 1.8 million years BP, has taken place within a continuous world population. The hypothesis necessarily rejects the assumption of an infertility barrier between ancient Eurasian and African populations of Homo. The hypothesis was controversially debated during the late 1980s and the 1990s. The now-current terminology of "recent-origin" and "Out of Africa" became current in the context of this debate in the 1990s. Originally seen as an antithetical alternative to the recent origin model, the multiregional hypothesis in its original "strong" form is obsolete, while its various modified weaker variants have become variants of a view of "recent origin" combined with archaic admixture. Stringer (2014) distinguishes the original or "classic" Multiregional model as having existed from 1984 (its formulation) until 2003, to a "weak" post-2003 variant that has "shifted close to that of the Assimilation Model".

Mitochondrial analyses

In the 1980s, Allan Wilson together with Rebecca L. Cann and Mark Stoneking worked on genetic dating of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of modern human populations (dubbed "Mitochondrial Eve"). To identify informative genetic markers for tracking human evolutionary history, Wilson concentrated on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), passed from mother to child. This DNA material mutates quickly, making it easy to plot changes over relatively short times. With his discovery that human mtDNA is genetically much less diverse than chimpanzee mtDNA, Wilson concluded that modern human populations had diverged recently from a single population while older human species such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus had become extinct. With the advent of archaeogenetics in the 1990s, the dating of mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal haplogroups became possible with some confidence. By 1999, estimates ranged around 150,000 years for the mt-MRCA and 60,000 to 70,000 years for the migration out of Africa.

From 2000 to 2003, there was controversy about the mitochondrial DNA of "Mungo Man 3" (LM3) and its possible bearing on the multiregional hypothesis. LM3 was found to have more than the expected number of sequence differences when compared to modern human DNA (CRS). Comparison of the mitochondrial DNA with that of ancient and modern aborigines, led to the conclusion that Mungo Man fell outside the range of genetic variation seen in Aboriginal Australians and was used to support the multiregional origin hypothesis. A reanalysis of LM3 and other ancient specimens from the area published in 2016, showed it to be akin to modern Aboriginal Australian sequences, inconsistent with the results of the earlier study.

Y-chromosome analyses

Map of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups – Dominant haplogroups in pre-colonial populations with proposed migrations routes

As current estimates on the male most recent common ancestor ("Y-chromosomal Adam" or Y-MRCA) converge with estimates for the age of anatomically modern humans, and well predate the Out of Africa migration, geographical origin hypotheses continue to be limited to the African continent.

The most basal lineages have been detected in West, Northwest and Central Africa, suggesting plausibility for the Y-MRCA living in the general region of "Central-Northwest Africa".

Another study finds a plausible placement in "the north-western quadrant of the African continent" for the emergence of the A1b haplogroup. The 2013 report of haplogroup A00 found among the Mbo people of western present-day Cameroon is also compatible with this picture.

The revision of Y-chromosomal phylogeny since 2011 has affected estimates for the likely geographical origin of Y-MRCA as well as estimates on time depth. By the same reasoning, future discovery of presently-unknown archaic haplogroups in living people would again lead to such revisions. In particular, the possible presence of between 1% and 4% Neanderthal-derived DNA in Eurasian genomes implies that the (unlikely) event of a discovery of a single living Eurasian male exhibiting a Neanderthal patrilineal line would immediately push back T-MRCA ("time to MRCA") to at least twice its current estimate. However, the discovery of a Neanderthal Y-chromosome by Mendez et al. was tempered by a 2016 study that suggests the extinction of Neanderthal patrilineages, as the lineage inferred from the Neanderthal sequence is outside of the range of contemporary human genetic variation. Questions of geographical origin would become part of the debate on Neanderthal evolution from Homo erectus.

Social privilege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedi...