Homo sapiens reevaluated: Why the definition of ‘modern human’ is undergoing a revamp

A 3D rendering of Homo erectus from an exhibit at the Museum of Natural History in Vienna, Austria. Credit: Frantic00/Shutterstock
A 3D rendering of Homo erectus from an exhibit at the Museum of Natural History in Vienna, Austria. Credit: Frantic00/Shutterstock

One definition of a species is: “Groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups,” according to Encyclopedia Britannica.

However, that definition may not apply for Homo species, as recent research describes evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthals, H. sapiens and H. denisovans (a hominin species discovered in Denisova Cave in Russia).

For example, a 2018 paper published in the journal Nature reported evidence of multiple episodes of interbreeding between Neanderthals and H. sapiens. Another 2018 paper, also in Nature, described evidence of an ancient human hybrid, who had both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

This has led some scholars to argue that many Homo species, including ours, should be lumped together, [human evolution expert Chris] Stringer said. In this paradigm, modern humans are H. sapiens sapiens, while Neanderthals are H. sapiens neanderthalensis and Denisovans are H. sapiens denisovans.

Stringer, however, maintains that humans and Neanderthals are separate species because their bone structure is different. “If Neanderthals and H. sapiens remained separate long enough to evolve such distinctive skull shapes, pelvises, and ear bones, they can be regarded as different species, interbreeding or not,” he wrote in an article for the The Natural History Museum in London.

Read the original post

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-10-14-at-11.45.36-AM
Viewpoint: RFK Jr.’s stacked FDA advisory council endorses multicancer screening test from ethically- questionable company that would increase false positives and waste billions of dollars
Screenshot-2026-10-08-at-10.41.33-AM
Viewpoint: Wellness patches: Most vitamin supplements are useless and sometimes even dangerous, but this craze is even worse
newborn baby spit up gerd
Vaccine-preventable congenital infections are a leading driver of autism
Misinformation-Shatters-the-Clockwork-Mind
Viewpoint: The price Americans pay for science denialism
Screenshot-2026-10-15-at-12.13.33-PM
Ahead of the midterms, Meta has paid at least 29 anti-LGBTQ accounts for their posts
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.