Homo longi

Homo longi; Temporal range: Middle Pleistocene 0.146 Ma PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N ↓
	HBSM2018-000018(A) cranium
Scientific classification
Domain:	Eukaryota
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Primates
Suborder:	Haplorhini
Infraorder:	Simiiformes
Family:	Hominidae
Subfamily:	Homininae
Tribe:	Hominini
Genus:	Homo
Species:	†H. longi
Binomial name
	†Homo longi; Ji et al., 2021

Last updated April 12, 2024

Homo longi is an extinct species of archaic human identified from a nearly complete skull, nicknamed 'Dragon Man', from Harbin on the Northeast China Plain, dating to at minimum 146,000 years ago during the Middle Pleistocene. The skull was discovered in 1933 along the Songhua River while the Dongjiang Bridge [ zh ] was under construction for the Manchukuo National Railway. Due to a tumultuous wartime atmosphere, it was hidden and only brought to paleoanthropologists in 2018. H. longi is probably the same species as the Denisovans, though this is unconfirmable without genetic testing.

H. longi is broadly anatomically similar to other Middle Pleistocene Chinese specimens. Like other archaic humans, the skull is low and long, with massively developed brow ridges, wide eye sockets, and a large mouth. The skull is the longest ever found from any human species. Like modern humans, the face is rather flat, but the nose was rather large. The brain volume was 1,420 cc, within the range of modern humans and Neanderthals.

The Harbin individual inhabited a cold, steppeland environment alongside the woolly mammoth, giant deer, Przewalski's horse, elk, buffalo, and brown bear.

Taxonomy

Harbin

Xiahe

Denisova Cave

class=notpageimage|

Locations of the Harbin skull and the Denisovan remains, which Ni et al., 2021, hypothesised represent the same species^[1]

Etymology

The specific name for H. longi is derived from the geographic name Longjiang (literally "Dragon River"), a term commonly used for the Chinese province Heilongjiang.^[2]

Discovery

A local laborer found a nearly complete skull at the riverbank of Songhua River in 1933 when he was building the Dongjiang Bridge [ zh ] in Harbin (at the time part of Manchukuo) for the Japanese-aligned Manchukuo National Railway. Recognizing its importance, likely as a result of public interest in anthropology recently generated by the Peking Man in 1929, he hid it from the Manchukuo authorities in an abandoned well. After the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, ending the Japanese occupation of the region, he concealed his former employment from the Nationalist and later the Communist authorities. Consequently, he could not report the skull, lest he divulge his ties to the Japanese imperialists in explaining its origin.^[1]

Before his death, the third generation of his family learned of the skull, and reclaimed it in 2018. Later that year, Chinese paleoanthropologist Ji Qiang persuaded the family to donate it to the Hebei GEO University for study, where it has since been stored. Its catalogue number is HBSM2018-000018(A).^[1]

Age

Owing to the skull's history, its exact provenance, and thus its stratigraphic context and age, has been difficult to determine.^[3]^[4] In 2021, Chinese geologist Shao Qingfeng and colleagues performed non-destructive x-ray fluorescence, rare-earth element, and strontium isotope analyses on the skull and various other mammalian fossils unearthed around Dongjiang Bridge, and determined that all the fossils from the vicinity were likely deposited at around the same time, lived in the same region, and probably originate from the Upper Huangshan Formation, dating to 309 to 138 thousand years ago.^[3]

Direct uranium–thorium dating of various points on the skull yielded a wide range of dates, from 296 to 62 thousand years ago, likely a result of uranium leaching. They statistically determined the most likely minimum age is 146,000 years old, but a more exact value is difficult to determine, given that the exact provenance is unidentifiable. Nonetheless, the skull is well-constrained to the late Middle Pleistocene, roughly contemporaneous with other Chinese specimens from Xiahe, Jinniushan, Dali, and Hualong Cave.^[3]

Classification

Recent human family tree

	Xiahe

	Harbin

Modern humans

According to Ni et al. 2021^[1] (note, Xiahe and Denisovans are most closely related to Neanderthals according to nDNA and ancient protein analyses.^[5])

In two simultaneously published papers, Ji and colleagues declared the Harbin skull to represent a new species they dubbed Homo longi. The Harbin skull is quite similar to the Dali skull, and when the Dali skull was discovered in 1978, it was given a new nomen H. sapiens daliensis by its discoverer Wu Xinzhi who soon thereafter abandoned the name. Consequently, should the Middle Pleistocene Asian humans represent a single unique species, the nomen H. daliensis might take priority. Though they recommended resurrecting H. daliensis, they argued H. longi is sufficiently distinct, and allocated only the Dali and Hualong remains (often allocated to H. heidelbergensis by convention) to H. daliensis; thus, they claim at least two human species inhabited late Middle Pleistocene China.^[2] One of the authors, Chris Stringer, stated that he would have preferred assigning the Harbin skull to H. daliensis.^[6] However according to a more recent assessment (including among its authors Xijun Ni, one of the describers of the species H. longi), since Wu wrote only that "it is suggested that Dali cranium probably represents a new subspecies" (p. 538, italics added for emphasis) the name daliensis was never validly published according to International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) rules, being proposed conditionally and published after 1960 (and not formally proposed by subsequent workers in the intervening period), and is therefore unavailable and thus could not compete with longi for priority.^[7]

Based on the conspicuously massive size of the molars, they suggested H. longi is most closely related to and possibly the same species as the Xiahe mandible from Tibet,^[2] which has been grouped with the enigmatic Denisovans, an archaic human lineage apparently dispersed across East Asia during the Middle and Late Pleistocene currently identifiable from only a genetic signature. The Xiahe mandible is also anatomically similar to specimens from Xujiayao and Penghu.^[5] Ji, Ni and colleagues further contend that Middle Pleistocene Asian specimens are more closely related to modern humans (H. sapiens) than the European Neanderthals,^[2]^[1] though nuclear DNA and ancient protein analyses place the Xiahe mandible and Denisovans more closely to Neanderthals than to modern humans.^[5]^[8]

Anatomy

H. longi is characterized by a low and long skull, receding forehead, extremely wide upper face, a large nasal opening equating to an enlarged nose (possibly an adaptation to the cold air), large and square eye sockets, inflated and thick brow ridges (supraorbital torus), flat cheekbones (zygomatic bone), a wide palate and large tooth sockets (equating to a large mouth), and a broad base of the skull.^[2] The Harbin skull measures 221.3 mm × 164.1 mm (8.7 in × 6.5 in) in maximum length x breadth, with a naso-occipital length of 212.9 mm (8.4 in), making it the longest archaic human skull to date.^[1] For comparison, the dimensions of a modern human skull average 176 mm × 145 mm (6.9 in × 5.7 in) for men and 171 mm × 140 mm (6.7 in × 5.5 in) for women.^[9] The Harbin skull also has the longest brow ridge at 145.7 mm (5.74 in).^[1]

H. longi had a massive brain at roughly 1,420 cc, above the range of all known human species except modern humans and Neanderthals. Nonetheless, post-orbital constriction (constriction of the braincase just behind the eyes, equating to the frontal lobe, absent in modern humans) is more developed in H. longi than in Neanderthals, although not so much as in more-ancient human species.^[2] Overall, the braincase retains an array of archaic features, though the occipital bone at the back of the skull has a weakly-defined sagittal keel that lacks a protuberance at the midpoint, unlike most other archaic humans. Unlike the Dali and Hualong Cave skulls, the keel does not run across the midline. Unlike modern humans or Neanderthals, the parietal bones on the top of the head do not significantly expand or protrude.^[1]

Despite the face being so wide, it was rather flat (reduced mid-facial prognathism), and resembles the anatomy found in modern humans, the far more ancient H. antecessor , and other Middle Pleistocene Chinese specimens. Nonetheless, the tooth sockets for the incisors were angled outward (alveolar prognathism). The H. longi skull's mosaic morphology of archaic and derived traits converges with some of the earliest specimens assigned to H. sapiens from Africa, notably Rabat^[10] and Eliye Springs. Because the original describers judged the Harbin skull to be closely allied with the Xiahe mandible, they believed H. longi lacked a chin, like other archaic humans, but the specimen's lower jaw was not recovered.^[1] The only preserved tooth, the upper left second molar, is enormous, with a length x breadth (mesiodistal x labiolingual) of 13.6 mm × 16.6 mm (0.54 in × 0.65 in), comparable to the Denisovan molar recovered from Denisova Cave. The Harbin molar is oval-shaped, badly worn, and nearly flat.^[1] In contrast, the average dimensions of a sample of 40 modern human male molars were 10.2 mm × 11.8 mm (0.40 in × 0.46 in).^[11]

Ni and colleagues believed the Harbin skull represents a male, judging by the robustness and size of the skull, who was less than 50 years old, looking at the suture closures and the degree of tooth wearing. They speculated H. longi had perhaps medium-dark to medium-light skin, dark hair, and dark eye color based on reconstructed genetic sequences from Neanderthals, Denisovans, and early modern humans.^[1]

Pathology

The left parietal features shallow indents around the bregma, possibly from a healed injury. The second left upper molar does not appear to have been in contact with the third molar, which means either that the third molar was small (creating a gap), or it was absent in this individual.^[1]

Paleoenvironment

Due to the Pleistocene glaciation (the Ice Ages), the Earth continually swung from frigid glacial periods to warmer interglacials. The period from 300 to 130 thousand years ago spans the Penultimate Glacial Period, and the permafrost zone may have stretched south far past Harbin (although indicators of permafrost activity are lacking so far back in time).^[12] Similarly, the Northeast China Plain during the late Middle Pleistocene was home to the Mammuthus – Coelodonta Fauna, an assemblage of animals adapted for a cold steppe, most notably the woolly mammoth and the woolly rhinoceros.^[13] In addition to the woolly mammoth, the Dongjiang Bridge locality also features the giant deer Sinomegaceros ordosianus , Przewalski's horse, elk, the buffalo Bubalus wansijocki , and the brown bear.^[3]

Related Research Articles

Homo heidelbergensis is an extinct species or subspecies of archaic human which existed during the Middle Pleistocene. It was subsumed as a subspecies of H. erectus in 1950 as H. e. heidelbergensis, but towards the end of the century, it was more widely classified as its own species. It is debated whether or not to constrain H. heidelbergensis to only Europe or to also include African and Asian specimens, and this is further confounded by the type specimen being a jawbone, because jawbones feature few diagnostic traits and are generally missing among Middle Pleistocene specimens. Thus, it is debated if some of these specimens could be split off into their own species or a subspecies of H. erectus. Because the classification is so disputed, the Middle Pleistocene is often called the "muddle in the middle".

Homo is a monotypic genus that emerged from the genus Australopithecus and encompasses the extant species Homo sapiens and several extinct species classified as either ancestral to or closely related to modern humans, including Homo erectus (ancestral) and Homo neanderthalensis . The oldest member of the genus is Homo habilis, with records of just over 2 million years ago. Homo, together with the genus Paranthropus, is probably sister to Australopithecus africanus, which itself had split from the lineage of Pan, the chimpanzees.

Homo antecessor is an extinct species of archaic human recorded in the Spanish Sierra de Atapuerca, a productive archaeological site, from 1.2 to 0.8 million years ago during the Early Pleistocene. Populations of this species may have been present elsewhere in Western Europe, and were among the first to colonise that region of the world, hence the name. The first fossils were found in the Gran Dolina cave in 1994, and the species was formally described in 1997 as the last common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals, supplanting the more conventional H. heidelbergensis in this position. H. antecessor has since been reinterpreted as an offshoot from the modern human line, although probably one branching off just before the modern human/Neanderthal split.

Ceprano Man, Argil, and Ceprano Calvarium, is a Middle Pleistocene archaic human fossil, a single skull cap (calvarium), accidentally unearthed in a highway construction project in 1994 near Ceprano in the Province of Frosinone, Italy. It was initially considered Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, or possibly Homo antecessor; but in recent studies, most regard it either as a form of Homo heidelbergensis sharing affinities with African forms, or an early morph of Neanderthal.

The Steinheim skull is a fossilized skull of a Homo neanderthalensis or Homo heidelbergensis found on 24 July 1933 near Steinheim an der Murr, Germany.

Human taxonomy is the classification of the human species within zoological taxonomy. The systematic genus, Homo, is designed to include both anatomically modern humans and extinct varieties of archaic humans. Current humans have been designated as subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, differentiated, according to some, from the direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu.

Lantian Man, Homo erectus lantianensis) is a subspecies of Homo erectus known from an almost complete mandible from Chenchiawo (陈家窝) Village discovered in 1963, and a partial skull from Gongwangling (公王岭) Village discovered in 1964, situated in Lantian County on the Loess Plateau. The former dates to about 710–684 thousand years ago, and the latter 1.65–1.59 million years ago. This makes Lantian Man the second-oldest firmly dated H. erectus beyond Africa, and the oldest in East Asia. The fossils were first described by Woo Ju-Kan in 1964, who considered the subspecies an ancestor to Peking Man.

Dali man is the remains of a late Homo erectus or archaic Homo sapiens who lived in the late-mid Pleistocene epoch. The remains comprise a complete fossilized skull, which was discovered by Liu Shuntang in 1978 in Dali County, Shaanxi Province, China.

The Denisovans or Denisova hominins(di-NEE-sə-və) are an extinct species or subspecies of archaic human that ranged across Asia during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, and lived, based on current evidence, from 285 to 52 thousand years ago. Denisovans are known from few physical remains; consequently, most of what is known about them comes from DNA evidence. No formal species name has been established pending more complete fossil material.

Tautavel Man refers to the archaic humans which—from approximately 550,000 to 400,000 years ago—inhabited the Caune de l’Arago, a limestone cave in Tautavel, France. They are generally grouped as part of a long and highly variable lineage of transitional morphs which inhabited the Middle Pleistocene of Europe, and would eventually evolve into the Neanderthals. They have been variably assigned to either H. (s.?) heidelbergensis, or as a European subspecies of H. erectus as H. e. tautavelensis. The skull is reconstructed based on the specimens Arago 21 and 47, and it is, to a degree, more characteristic of what might be considered a typical H. erectus morphology than a typical H. heidelbergensis morphology. The brain capacity is 1,166 cc. They seem to have had an overall robust skeleton. Average height may have been 166 cm.

The Red Deer Cave people were a prehistoric population of modern humans known from bones dated to between about 17,830 to c. 11,500 years ago, found in Red Deer Cave and Longlin Cave, Yunnan Province, in Southwest China.

The Ndutu skull is the partial cranium of a hominin that has been assigned variously to late Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis, and early Homo sapiens, from the Middle Pleistocene, found at Lake Ndutu in northern Tanzania.

Penghu 1 is a fossil jaw (mandible) belonging to an extinct hominin species of the genus Homo from Taiwan which lived in the middle-late Pleistocene. The precise classification of the mandible is disputed, some arguing that it represents a new species, Homo tsaichangensis, whereas others believe it to be the fossil of a H. erectus, an archaic H. sapiens or possibly a Denisovan.

Homo naledi is an extinct species of archaic human discovered in 2013 in the Rising Star Cave system, Gauteng province, South Africa, dating to the Middle Pleistocene 335,000–236,000 years ago. The initial discovery comprises 1,550 specimens of bone, representing 737 different skeletal elements, and at least 15 different individuals. Despite this exceptionally high number of specimens, their classification with other Homo species remains unclear.

Jinniushan is a Middle Pleistocene paleoanthropological site, dating to around 260,000 BP, most famous for its archaic hominin fossils. The site is located near Yingkou, Liaoning, China. Several new species of extinct birds were also discovered at the site.

Baishiya Karst Cave is a high-altitude paleoanthropological site and a Tibetan Buddhist sanctuary located on the northeastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau in Xiahe County, Gansu, China. This karst cave is the site of the discovery of the earliest hominin fossil found on the Tibetan Plateau, the Xiahe mandible. The mandible, by way of palaeoproteomic analysis, is the first confirmed discovery of a Denisovan fossil outside of Denisova Cave. This fossil discovery shows that archaic hominins were present in a high-altitude, low-oxygen environment by around 160,000 years ago.

The Xiahe mandible is a hominin fossil jaw (mandible) discovered in Baishiya Karst Cave, located on the northeastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau in Xiahe County, Gansu, China. By the use of palaeoproteomic analysis, it is the first confirmed discovery of a Denisovan fossil outside of Denisova Cave, and the most complete confirmed Denisovan fossil. This fossil discovery shows that archaic hominins were present in a high-altitude, low-oxygen environment around 160,000 years ago. Discover, Science News and Nova all named the discovery of the mandible in their lists of Top Science Stories of 2019.

Hualong Cave is a cave in Pangwang village in Dongzhi County, Anhui Province, China, and situated on the southern bank of Yangtze. It is located on the side of Meiyuan Hill. Palaeontological interest started in 2004 when a farmer accidentally found bones that were later identified as mammalian fossils. Excavations started in 2006 by paleontologists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It has yielded many stone tools and over 30 human fossils, and animal bones including those of Ailuropoda, Arctonyx, Bubalus, Sinomegaceros, Stegodon, giant tapir, and giant pandas. The most notable fossils are those of the Hualongdong people, including Homo erectus described in 2014, and that of a 300,000-year-old archaic human discovered in 2019.

The Nesher RamlaHomo group are an extinct population of archaic humans who lived during the Middle Pleistocene in what is now Israel. In 2010, evidence of a tool industry had been discovered during a year of archaeological excavations at the Nesher Ramla site. In 2021, the first Nesher Ramla Homo individual was identified from remains discovered during further excavations.

The Hualongdong people are extinct humans that lived in eastern China around 300,000 years ago during the late Middle Pleistocene. Discovered by a research team led by Xiujie Wu and Liu Wu, of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, from the Hualong Cave in Dongzhi County at Anhui Province in 2006, they are known from about 30 fossils that belong to 16 individuals. The first analysis of the skull fragments collected in 2006 suggested that they could be members of Homo erectus. For some of the specimens, their exact position as a human species is not known. More complete fossils found in 2015 indicate that they cannot be directly assigned to any Homo species as they also exhibit archaic human features. They are the first humans in Asia to have both archaic and modern human features. They are likely a distinct species that form a separate branch in the human family tree.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ni, X.; Ji, Q.; Wu, W.; et al. (2021). "Massive cranium from Harbin in northeastern China establishes a new Middle Pleistocene human lineage". The Innovation . 2 (3): 100130. Bibcode:2021Innov...200130N. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100130. ISSN 2666-6758. PMC 8454562 . PMID 34557770. S2CID 236784246.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Ji, Qiang; Wu, Wensheng; Ji, Yannan; Li, Qiang; Ni, Xijun (2021-06-25). "Late Middle Pleistocene Harbin cranium represents a new Homo species". The Innovation . 2 (3): 100132. Bibcode:2021Innov...200132J. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100132. ISSN 2666-6758. PMC 8454552 . PMID 34557772.
1 2 3 4 Shao, Q.; Ge, J.; Ji, Q.; et al. (2021). "Geochemical provenancing and direct dating of the Harbin archaic human cranium". The Innovation . 2 (3): 100131. Bibcode:2021Innov...200131S. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100131. PMC 8454624 . PMID 34557771. S2CID 237181197.
↑ Gibbons, A. (2021). "Stunning 'Dragon Man' skull may be an elusive Denisovan—or a new species of human". Science . doi:10.1126/science.abk1691 (inactive 31 January 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2024 (link)
1 2 3 Chen, F.; Welker, F.; Shen, C.-C.; et al. (2019). "A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateau" (PDF). Nature . 569 (7756): 409–412. Bibcode:2019Natur.569..409C. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1139-x. PMID 31043746. S2CID 141503768.
↑ Sample, Ian (25 June 2021). "Massive human head in Chinese well forces scientists to rethink evolution". The Guardian . Retrieved 28 June 2021.
↑ Bae, Christopher J.; Liu, Wu; Wu, Xiujie; Zhang, Yameng; Ni, Xijun (2023-11-13). ""Dragon man" prompts rethinking of Middle Pleistocene hominin systematics in Asia". The Innovation . 4 (6): 100527. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2023.100527. ISSN 2666-6758. PMC 10661591 . PMID 38028133.
↑ Reich, D.; Green, R. E.; Kircher, M.; et al. (2010). "Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia" (PDF). Nature . 468 (7327): 1053–60. Bibcode:2010Natur.468.1053R. doi:10.1038/nature09710. hdl:10230/25596. PMC 4306417 . PMID 21179161.
↑ Li, H.; Ruan, J.; Xie, Z.; Wang, H.; Liu, W. (2007). "Investigation of the critical geometric characteristics of living human skulls utilising medical image analysis techniques". International Journal of Vehicle Safety . 2 (4): 345–367. doi:10.1504/IJVS.2007.016747.
↑ Saban, Roger (1977). "The Place of Rabat Man (Kebibat, Morocco) in Human Evolution". Current Anthropology . 18 (3): 518–524. doi:10.1086/201932. ISSN 0011-3204. JSTOR 2741407. S2CID 144069991.
↑ Bjorndal, A. M.; Henderson, W. G.; Skidmore, A. E.; Kellner, F. H. (1974). "Anatomic measurements of human teeth extracted from males between the ages of 17 and 21 years". Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology. 38 (5): 795. doi:10.1016/0030-4220(74)90402-2. PMID 4530970.
↑ Jin, H.; Vendehnberhg, J.; Luo, D.; et al. (2020). "Quaternary Permafrost in China: Framework and Discussions". Quaternary. 3 (4): 32. doi: 10.3390/quat3040032 .
↑ Kahlke, R.-D. (2014). "The origin of Eurasian Mammoth Faunas (Mammuthus–Coelodonta Faunal Complex)". Quaternary Science Reviews . 96: 32–49. Bibcode:2014QSRv...96...32K. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.01.012.

External links

2021 article in the New York Times

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[Ni2021-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ni, X.; Ji, Q.; Wu, W.; et al. (2021). "Massive cranium from Harbin in northeastern China establishes a new Middle Pleistocene human lineage". The Innovation . 2 (3): 100130. Bibcode:2021Innov...200130N. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100130. ISSN 2666-6758. PMC 8454562 . PMID 34557770. S2CID 236784246.

[Ji2021-2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ji, Qiang; Wu, Wensheng; Ji, Yannan; Li, Qiang; Ni, Xijun (2021-06-25). "Late Middle Pleistocene Harbin cranium represents a new Homo species". The Innovation . 2 (3): 100132. Bibcode:2021Innov...200132J. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100132. ISSN 2666-6758. PMC 8454552 . PMID 34557772.

[Shao2021-3] 1 2 3 4 Shao, Q.; Ge, J.; Ji, Q.; et al. (2021). "Geochemical provenancing and direct dating of the Harbin archaic human cranium". The Innovation . 2 (3): 100131. Bibcode:2021Innov...200131S. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100131. PMC 8454624 . PMID 34557771. S2CID 237181197.

[4] Gibbons, A. (2021). "Stunning 'Dragon Man' skull may be an elusive Denisovan—or a new species of human". Science . doi:10.1126/science.abk1691 (inactive 31 January 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2024 (link)

[Chen2019-5] 1 2 3 Chen, F.; Welker, F.; Shen, C.-C.; et al. (2019). "A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateau" (PDF). Nature . 569 (7756): 409–412. Bibcode:2019Natur.569..409C. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1139-x. PMID 31043746. S2CID 141503768.

[6] Sample, Ian (25 June 2021). "Massive human head in Chinese well forces scientists to rethink evolution". The Guardian . Retrieved 28 June 2021.

[Bae_et_al_2023-7] Bae, Christopher J.; Liu, Wu; Wu, Xiujie; Zhang, Yameng; Ni, Xijun (2023-11-13). ""Dragon man" prompts rethinking of Middle Pleistocene hominin systematics in Asia". The Innovation . 4 (6): 100527. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2023.100527. ISSN 2666-6758. PMC 10661591 . PMID 38028133.

[Reich2010-8] Reich, D.; Green, R. E.; Kircher, M.; et al. (2010). "Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia" (PDF). Nature . 468 (7327): 1053–60. Bibcode:2010Natur.468.1053R. doi:10.1038/nature09710. hdl:10230/25596. PMC 4306417 . PMID 21179161.

[9] Li, H.; Ruan, J.; Xie, Z.; Wang, H.; Liu, W. (2007). "Investigation of the critical geometric characteristics of living human skulls utilising medical image analysis techniques". International Journal of Vehicle Safety . 2 (4): 345–367. doi:10.1504/IJVS.2007.016747.

[10] Saban, Roger (1977). "The Place of Rabat Man (Kebibat, Morocco) in Human Evolution". Current Anthropology . 18 (3): 518–524. doi:10.1086/201932. ISSN 0011-3204. JSTOR 2741407. S2CID 144069991.

[11] Bjorndal, A. M.; Henderson, W. G.; Skidmore, A. E.; Kellner, F. H. (1974). "Anatomic measurements of human teeth extracted from males between the ages of 17 and 21 years". Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology. 38 (5): 795. doi:10.1016/0030-4220(74)90402-2. PMID 4530970.

[12] Jin, H.; Vendehnberhg, J.; Luo, D.; et al. (2020). "Quaternary Permafrost in China: Framework and Discussions". Quaternary. 3 (4): 32. doi: 10.3390/quat3040032 .

[13] Kahlke, R.-D. (2014). "The origin of Eurasian Mammoth Faunas (Mammuthus–Coelodonta Faunal Complex)". Quaternary Science Reviews . 96: 32–49. Bibcode:2014QSRv...96...32K. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.01.012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]