Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LuisTrinker t1_iv0vbzy wrote

Reply to comment by scottish_beekeeper in Why don't we have Neandertal mitochondrial DNA? by nodeciapalabras

It is also conceivable that the skulls of the hybrid children did not fit through the pelvis of the female Neanderthals.

121

ScottyBoneman t1_iv1cpzr wrote

Definitely could be, but most data we have suggests Neanderthals had larger skulls. Shape and 'at birth' size could be a factor though.

Most likely Neanderthal women were broader and more able to handle larger skulls so I wouldn't count on this explanation if I was starting a thesis.

100

boxingdude t1_iv30jqf wrote

Is think it would be the other way around. Neanderthals have bigger heads than we do.

10

passwordsarehard_3 t1_iv0yw18 wrote

The child would live and be adopted by the tribe and still pass on its genes, we would still have some floating around if that was the only reason.

−29

Denamic t1_iv1bds6 wrote

If their skull did not fit through the mother's pelis, it would not live at all. This was some time before we invented surgery.

47

EazyPeazySleazyWeezy t1_iv23svz wrote

There's ample evidence of Neanderthals with various severe, yet healed, injuries, including severed limbs. Suggesting they at least had enough medical knowledge to mend wounds/severed limbs and possibly even amputate.

It's not a large leap to think they would have had enough intuition to use a knife to cut out a baby if a mother died in child birth.

5

za419 t1_iv2s8sj wrote

Ehhh... Doubtful. C-sections weren't all that successful, even for the child, until fairly recently in the scope of human history.

Given that there'd be a very strong evolutionary pressure against needing a risky procedure to live, and you'd need it to be consistent, it's doubtful that that'd survive very long.

11

OG_ninnyhammer t1_iv27xj1 wrote

Amateur here. Is there evidence Neanderthal skulls were smaller at birth? In adulthood, their brain cases were 100ccm+ bigger than ours, on average.

5

LuisTrinker t1_iv10y48 wrote

I don't want to exclude the possibility that there may have been one or two caesarean sections 40k years ago, but the problem would have been passed on.

18

__princesspeach_ t1_iv2nq8e wrote

This is smart. Sure, maybe there were a few successful caesareans, but what are the chances of continued success throughout the family lineage???

5