Archaeology fossil teeth discovery in Germany could re-write human history

[cubby]

The out of africa theory only really talks to where the modern human evolved. And everyone's ancestors, at one time, lived in africa. Before they lived there, they might have lived elsewhere. But before their ancestors lived there, they weren't what we call homo sapiens.

I mean, they are looking at it. But it's not some big "rewriting of history." It's just archaeology (or, if you prefer, accepted grave robbing).

Gotcha. I'm with you on almost everything you're saying here, just to be clear. And I really didn't realize that the OP had such a racist posting history - I thought it was just a science article to discuss.

Lol re grave robbing.

[Ripster42]

ROFL

Yeah, you left out the biggest ingredient: EGO. Historians are NOTORIOUS for not wanting to admit their prior conclusions are invalidated by new data. Give me a break...

I mean, you not understanding the theory you think this evidence is disproving isn't our fault. It's just another example of your ignorance on display.

[Ethris]

We


wuz


kaisers

[Ripster42]

Gotcha. I'm with you on almost everything you're saying here, just to be clear. And I really didn't realize that the OP had such a racist posting history - I thought it was just a science article to discuss.

Lol re grave robbing.

The reason I said originally that I'm not stating either way about this specific fossil is that we don't have a real clear picture of everything that happened beyond that bottleneck. We've got fossil records, but the genetic clarity we have with the out of africa theory isn't there. The reason it's so easy to trace it to africa is specifically because it bottlenecked there. Before the bottleneck we don't really have a clear picture because we don't have the same sample size of what happened to every line that wasn't us. They all died out, so there's nothing to compare it to, as opposed to the data that led us to africa, currently extant people.

[Tijuana]

It seems that you missed that part that Historians don't do Anthropology. So, why the hell are you even talking about History? No, really, why are you mixing up two heavely distinct sciences?

Ok, hair successfully split. Whatever...

[Independent voter]

So these were running around Germany millions of years ago? I wonder if we Sapiens sapiens wiped them out or the Ice Age did? Or maybe the Neanderthals absorbed them?

[Ripster42]

So these were running around Germany millions of years ago? I wonder if we Sapiens sapiens wiped them out or the Ice Age did? Or maybe the Neanderthals absorbed them?

I literally can't tell if this is a smart post coyly playing ignorant and poking fun of the definition of species with respect to cladistics or a genuinely ignorant one.

[cubby]

The reason I said originally that I'm not stating either way about this specific fossil is that we don't have a real clear picture of everything that happened beyond that bottleneck. We've got fossil records, but the genetic clarity we have with the out of africa theory isn't there. The reason it's so easy to trace it to africa is specifically because it bottlenecked there. Before the bottleneck we don't really have a clear picture because we don't have the same sample size of what happened to every line that wasn't us. They all died out, so there's nothing to compare it to, as opposed to the data that led us to africa, currently extant people.

Ok, I'm glad you said that. I get (now) that the overwhelming scientific data gives us the out of africa evolutionary narrative. I was curious why new information wouldn't at least call a bit of that into question, so I appreciate you laying out the issues for me - thank you.

I'm going to dig into some of those sources and see if I can't learn something new myself, lol.

[primalmatter]

Is it really rewriting history? Seems more changing a foot note.

[Sama-81]

The branch that became Homo Sapiens did so in Africa, and there's been no evidence to contradict that to date.

While I agree on the "Out of Africa"-model in general myself, things have actually become rather more intricate as of late. Particularly so since it seems that Homo neanderthalensis wasn't actually just that, but rather Homo sapiens neanderthalensis - even though the question will propably never be decisively decided upon due to unclear boundaries. The neanderthals were largely thought to have developed from Homo Erectus, outside of Africa, which obviously muddies the former model more than just a little.

Edit: And then I won't even bring up the model pointing towards Homo Erectus actually migrating into Africa, from Eurasia.

[Ripster42]

While I agree on the "Out of Africa"-model in general myself, things have actually become rather more intricate as of late. Particularly so since it seems that Homo neanderthalensis wasn't actually just that, but rather Homo sapiens neanderthalensis - even though the question will propably never be decisively decided upon due to unclear boundaries. The neanderthals were largely thought to have developed from Homo Erectus, outside of Africa, which obviously muddies the former model more than just a little.

Edit: And then I won't even bring up the model pointing towards Homo Erectus actually migrating into Africa, from Eurasia.

This is pretty much just the same problem biologists have had with respects to cladistics they've had since we started actually figuring out what evolution means. It's pretty hard to differentiate what actually constitutes distinct species for cladograms.

They most likely did evolve from homo erectus outside of africa. That doesn't mean their drift was large enough to make them non-viable breeding partners for homo sapiens sapiens, but WAS enough for them to be completely unfit in direct competition with homo sapiens sapiens. Edit here: I should be clear, the prevailing theory is that neanderthal/sapien mixes were selected against at birth because of the cranium/hip ratio making a lot of the pregnancies unviable. Basically the only ones that were viable happened with a sapiens male and a neanderthal female. So, viable breeding partners, but still not really the same species which is why biologists have a hard time classifying them.

Homo erectus migrating into africa from eurasia doesn't challenge the out of africa theory at all. The only thing the out of africa theory really states, once you take all the dogma different people have attached to it, is that modern humans, what we call homo sapiens sapiens, evolved into homo sapiens sapiens there. That's it.

[Endus]

While I agree on the "Out of Africa"-model in general myself, things have actually become rather more intricate as of late. Particularly so since it seems that Homo neanderthalensis wasn't actually just that, but rather Homo sapiens neanderthalensis - even though the question will propably never be decisively decided upon due to unclear boundaries. The neanderthals were largely thought to have developed from Homo Erectus, outside of Africa, which obviously muddies the former model more than just a little.

Edit: And then I won't even bring up the model pointing towards Homo Erectus actually migrating into Africa, from Eurasia.

Like Ripster42 said; the issue of species identification is pretty broad in general, in biology. DNA classification kicked out a bunch of strongly-understood relationships that turned out to be convergent evolution, not linear evolution, for instance. The DNA evidence with neandertalensis and homo sapiens sapiens (us) may indicate we're subspecies, but fertility across a species barrier isn't impossible either; there's tons of hybrids out there, like ligers, and mules, and so forth. Most aren't fertile themselves, but a few are. Humans like distinct barriers, but nature doesn't, really; speciation is a slow drift and there's no point where you can confidently state "that is where speciation occurred"; you can only do that by looking at the two ends of the time frame and saying the process in between resulted in it.

It's a "pile of rice" problem. One grain of rice isn't a "pile". Neither is two. Or three. 30,000 grains, though, is. But there's no specific grain number that you can figure out that means that X-1 is "not a pile" by X "is a pile".


Also, as Ripster42 said, Homo Erectus' migrations wouldn't affect the Out Of Africa theory one whit. The Out of Africa theory, in a nutshell, is;
1> Homo Sapiens emerged in Africa, and prospered there originally, between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago
2> Some Homo Sapiens migrated out of Africa and prospered in new territory, starting about 130,000 years ago (earliest migrations don't appear to have taken long-term hold).

Anything prior to the emergence of Homo Sapiens is basically irrelevant; the Out of Africa theory JUST deals with Homo Sapiens' movements, other hominids only get introduced (neanderthalensis and denisovans) when/where they interbred with Sapiens populations during said expansion.

[Sama-81]

Like Ripster42 said; the issue of species identification is pretty broad in general, in biology. DNA classification kicked out a bunch of strongly-understood relationships that turned out to be convergent evolution, not linear evolution, for instance. The DNA evidence with neandertalensis and homo sapiens sapiens (us) may indicate we're subspecies, but fertility across a species barrier isn't impossible either; there's tons of hybrids out there, like ligers, and mules, and so forth. Most aren't fertile themselves, but a few are. Humans like distinct barriers, but nature doesn't, really; speciation is a slow drift and there's no point where you can confidently state "that is where speciation occurred"; you can only do that by looking at the two ends of the time frame and saying the process in between resulted in it.

It's a "pile of rice" problem. One grain of rice isn't a "pile". Neither is two. Or three. 30,000 grains, though, is. But there's no specific grain number that you can figure out that means that X-1 is "not a pile" by X "is a pile".


Also, as Ripster42 said, Homo Erectus' migrations wouldn't affect the Out Of Africa theory one whit. The Out of Africa theory, in a nutshell, is;
1> Homo Sapiens emerged in Africa, and prospered there originally, between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago
2> Some Homo Sapiens migrated out of Africa and prospered in new territory, starting about 130,000 years ago (earliest migrations don't appear to have taken long-term hold).

Anything prior to the emergence of Homo Sapiens is basically irrelevant; the Out of Africa theory JUST deals with Homo Sapiens' movements, other hominids only get introduced (neanderthalensis and denisovans) when/where they interbred with Sapiens populations during said expansion.

I can't really respond to both, so I'll mostly just pick the last post here. I'm perfectly aware of the issues surrounding speciation, and you are of course quite right that many animal families (as well as other groupings) and the relationships therein have been adjusted after for example mtDNA-analyses have shown that proposed phylogenies lacked the genetic evidence to back them up. Usually, genetic data is a very precise and valuable tool when deciding the evolutionary history of a species or subspecies, that much ought to be obvious to most. Problem is, that this is not always the case - Homo sapiens neanderthalensis being almost an iconic example of the contrary. While it was commonly thought to be another species entirely, genetic material supports it instead being a supspecies, but not with the degree of clarity needed to make a decisive decision in the matter.

Now, you are also correct in stating that cross-species mating does exist, but the important facet here isn't hybrids - it is only fertile hybrids that are of interest within the context, and while they do exist (you have a dolphin species that evolved from hybridization, for example), they are also exceedingly rare within the more advanced animal groups. The intermingling between different (proposed) subspecies of humans (involving, of course, even more actors than just "humans" and neanderthals) would be an entirely astounding biological happenstance, if indeed consisting of different species. Basically, an absolutely unique occurrence, as far as I'm aware. The unavoidable issue at hand is obviously that there are no clearcut rules distinguishing a species; the question here is rather in which grouping it would make biological sense to place, for example, neanderthals. Where, at the moment, the subspecies theory has not only the stronger argument (not least in that it involves not only neanderthals, mind you) but also, I would claim without much doubt, the most proponents (counting authorities in the matter, even if many tend to know a hot potato when they encounter one, and avoid taking 'sides'). Pääbo himself, just as an example, tends to avoid the question, but if we go by statements made by multiple associates...

Even so, we can always agree on Homo neanderthalensis certainly bearing the possibility of being an actual Homo sapiens. Now, as both you and Ripster42 says, Homo erectus migration patterns wouldn't have any effect on the 'Out of Africa'-theory. Well, in regards to your earlier statement, it actually very well might have. If Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (if we do view them as a bona fide subspecies) actually did evolve from Homo erectus, it most likely did so in Eurasia (to put it mildly). Which literally would mean that all Homo sapiens does NOT come from Africa. Which was the statement that you made, that 'Out of Africa' otherwise apply, I do not dispute. As I said, I'm partial to the theory myself.

In response to your numbers, currently research leans toward Homo antecessor being the last common ancestor between neanderthals and sapiens sapiens, and lived around 1.250.000-750.000 years ago. The theory that this is the same species as Homo heidelbergensis, has largely been defunct by now, even if things are obviously still unclear. Since a fossil has been found in Spain, being some 900.000 years old, the idea that Homo sapiens evolved strictly in Africa is in fact very much disputed. A dispute, that by all likelihood will never be decided, since it very much hangs on whether or not the neanderthals were Homo neanderthalensis, or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. That's where the Homo erectus migration patterns come in, by the way, since they bring support to this theory (ie, they could very well have given rise to a last common ancestor outside of Africa, seeing their migration patterns, which was my point there (I certainly could have phrased that one better)).

But again, I'm largely in agreement with the "Out of Africa"-model. My point was, that stating that Homo sapiens developed in Africa, is a very contentious statement, and quite obviously not a strict truth. It's not impossible either, of course, since it pretty much hinges on the actual status of sapiens/neanderthalensis/denisova. Which in terms of your rice analogy, of course far closer resemble 30.000 rice grains, than 3 of them.

Edit: I do feel I have to apologize for the unstructured post, that I simply do not have the time nor energy (rather ill today, I'm afraid) to make more cohesive at this point.

Homo erectus migrating into africa from eurasia doesn't challenge the out of africa theory at all. The only thing the out of africa theory really states, once you take all the dogma different people have attached to it, is that modern humans, what we call homo sapiens sapiens, evolved into homo sapiens sapiens there. That's it.

Something I have not contested, nor will I. Homo sapiens sapiens clearly evolved in Africa. The discussion (or at least the statement I responded to) is whether Homo sapiens did so, in it's entirety.

[Endus]

Even so, we can always agree on Homo neanderthalensis certainly bearing the possibility of being an actual Homo sapiens. Now, as both you and Ripster42 says, Homo erectus migration patterns wouldn't have any effect on the 'Out of Africa'-theory. Well, in regards to your earlier statement, it actually very well might have. If Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (if we do view them as a bona fide subspecies) actually did evolve from Homo erectus, it most likely did so in Eurasia (to put it mildly). Which literally would mean that all Homo sapiens does NOT come from Africa.

There's a few issues;

1> If both Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis originated from Homo Erectus, then Neanderthal aren't Homo Sapiens, pretty much by definition.
2> Two species springing off Homo Erectus in that manner might still be able to produce offspring. Ypu're underestimating the possibility of such occurring, which isn't as fantastically rare as you think, but also that we are, if this is what happened, the product of such, which renders the probability argument pointless, like telling a lottery winner they couldn't have won because the odds are so low (there's a name for that fallacy that I can't recall offhand).
3> If Neanderthal did split off from the main Homo Sapiens branch that became modern humans, it did so and migrated well before the Out of Africa events occurred, and even if you wanted to argue that they were Homo Sapiens at the time, just make for a third major diaspora in that theory.

[Techno-Druid]

While I agree on the "Out of Africa"-model in general myself, things have actually become rather more intricate as of late. Particularly so since it seems that Homo neanderthalensis wasn't actually just that, but rather Homo sapiens neanderthalensis - even though the question will propably never be decisively decided upon due to unclear boundaries. The neanderthals were largely thought to have developed from Homo Erectus, outside of Africa, which obviously muddies the former model more than just a little.

Edit: And then I won't even bring up the model pointing towards Homo Erectus actually migrating into Africa, from Eurasia.

Neanderthals, Homo sapiens and Denisovans all descended from branches of Homo heidelbergensis, an African hominin that spread out across Afro-Eurasia. The African branch evolving into early Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens idaltu), the Western Eurasian branch evolving into Neanderthals and a branch in Siberia and East Asia developing into the Denisovan man.

[Sama-81]

Neanderthals, Homo sapiens and Denisovans all descended from branches of Homo heidelbergensis, an African hominin that spread out across Afro-Eurasia. The African branch evolving into early Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens idaltu), the Western Eurasian branch evolving into Neanderthals and a branch in Siberia and East Asia developing into the Denisovan man.

Actually, a more recent (and better supported) theory suggests that the last common ancestor isn't Homo heidelbergensis, but rather Homo antecessor. And the dispute that is of more consequence here, is whether neanderthals and denisova actually were a subspecies of homo sapiens, not distinct species. Where the former, nowadays, is the more likely scenario,

- - - Updated - - -

There's a few issues;

1> If both Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis originated from Homo Erectus, then Neanderthal aren't Homo Sapiens, pretty much by definition.
2> Two species springing off Homo Erectus in that manner might still be able to produce offspring. Ypu're underestimating the possibility of such occurring, which isn't as fantastically rare as you think, but also that we are, if this is what happened, the product of such, which renders the probability argument pointless, like telling a lottery winner they couldn't have won because the odds are so low (there's a name for that fallacy that I can't recall offhand).
3> If Neanderthal did split off from the main Homo Sapiens branch that became modern humans, it did so and migrated well before the Out of Africa events occurred, and even if you wanted to argue that they were Homo Sapiens at the time, just make for a third major diaspora in that theory.

First and foremost, Homo sapiens sapiens isn't a species, it's a distinct part of a species (or one developed sufficiently from the original, to become its own subspecies). Secondly, Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (if one acknowledges the most likely scenario) are members of the same species - ie, they can absolutely both originate with H. erectus (even if it's unlikely that H. erectus. is the last common ancestor). Why you believe that to be impossible, is beyond me.

Looking at the latest genetic findings, it seems plausible that the last common ancestor actually is H. antecessor. According to that theory, the development would pretty much go H. erectus -> H. antecessor -> H. sapiens denisova/neanderthalensis/sapiens. The details of how development from H. antecessor to H. sapiens came about is unclear, just as with every other theory trying to bridge this gap. One, at least theoretically, possible scenario is that H. antecessor actually is/became early H. sapiens, and that H. s. idaltu is the african branch. Who knows, it is all conjecture at that point.

As for the second statement - yes. It is indeed possible. But you're making a mistake, going by the odds of one such cross-breeding between species taking place. Seeing as how we are talking about not two, but three "species" intermingling, odds are certainly not particularly favourable for such an event taking place (not measurable of course, but it would be pretty much unique), and is the reason for the now (at least from my experience) prefered scenario being the intermingling of subspecies, not distinct species. But, you are correct in it being possible. And likely never being agreed upon by all. The lottery anecdote isn't working very well, though, as in that case only one thing might have happened (a win). In our discussion, two things might have happened (species/subspecies). If the former wasn't the case, it might never have happened (involving three species) at all.

And, as for the third statement - again, yes. The "Out of Africa"-model stays. Both H. sapiens sapiens, and the earliest Homo-ancestor, definitely comes from Africa. That I certainly will not dispute, only that our species must have begun in Africa (H. s. neanderthalensis might be older than H. s. sapiens, for example), or that all of it's evolution took place there (which again hangs on whether or not neanderthals is a sp. or ssp.). Where we developed geographically is entirely irrelevant to me, while I find the question of our relationship with denisovans/neanderthals quite interesting indeed (and intermingled we did, whether species apart or not).

[Endus]

First and foremost, Homo sapiens sapiens isn't a species, it's a distinct part of a species (or one developed sufficiently from the original, to become its own subspecies). Secondly, Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (if one acknowledges the most likely scenario) are members of the same species - ie, they can absolutely both originate with H. erectus (even if it's unlikely that H. erectus. is the last common ancestor). Why you believe that to be impossible, is beyond me.

I'm drawing the distinction between;

	/	Homo Sapiens Sapiens
Homo Heidelbergensis	Homo Sapiens
	\	Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis

And;

/	Homo Sapiens
Homo Heidelbergensis
\	Homo Neanderthalensis

Basically, if Homo Sapiens differentiated itself from Heidelbergensis as a single cohesive new species, and THEN subdivided into Sapiens Sapiens and Sapiens Neanderthalensis, that's different from if Neanderthalensis derived directly from an earlier hominid form.

It's still unsettled, in the science. I'm not trying to argue which is "right", just that there's valid conceptualizations where Neanderthalensis isn't Homo Sapiens itself. And that doesn't mean there wasn't interbreeding, because they'd still be VERY close genetic cousins.

As for the second statement - yes. It is indeed possible. But you're making a mistake, going by the odds of one such cross-breeding between species taking place. Seeing as how we are talking about not two, but three "species" intermingling, odds are certainly not particularly favourable for such an event taking place (not measurable of course, but it would be pretty much unique), and is the reason for the now (at least from my experience) prefered scenario being the intermingling of subspecies, not distinct species. But, you are correct in it being possible. And likely never being agreed upon by all. The lottery anecdote isn't working very well, though, as in that case only one thing might have happened (a win). In our discussion, two things might have happened (species/subspecies). If the former wasn't the case, it might never have happened (involving three species) at all.

Talking about the probability of events that actually occurred, though, isn't helpful. It doesn't matter if it was a 1-100 chance, or a 1-10,000,000, if we're living in the outcome of that vanishingly rare chance, it just means the dice rolled a certain way, it doesn't make our existence impossible.

Particularly as we're really not that sure how big these separations were. One of the biggest issues in biology is that these terms are made-up, and don't always follow clean rules; we're not identifying some "species" coding in DNA or something, we have to make a call as to where that division gets made, and it's not always clear where that is. Take this issue we're talking about here; there may not be a "homo sapiens sapiens". There may just be "homo sapiens". Us. And Neanderthalensis may be a separate subspecies that derived separately. Maybe this means we should BOTH be classed as subspecies of Heidelbergensis, where we're actually Homo Heidelbergensis Sapiens.

This stuff gets weird. The H. Sapiens stuff first emerged as a need to classify us as "superior" to other hominids, such that when it first appeared that Neanderthal was close enough to be a Homo Sapiens as well, we had to add another Sapiens, rather than consider that we might be subspecies of some shared progenitor (and discard the original Sapiens entirely, as above with Homo Heidelbergensis Sapiens).

Since we have no idea if we could interbreed with Heidelbergensis, it's a bit moot. Long story short; all these labels are made-up and abide by rules we also made up, and it's just as likely our rules are fucked up.

[Sama-81]

I'm drawing the distinction between;

	/	Homo Sapiens Sapiens
Homo Heidelbergensis	Homo Sapiens
	\	Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis

And;

/	Homo Sapiens
Homo Heidelbergensis
\	Homo Neanderthalensis

Basically, if Homo Sapiens differentiated itself from Heidelbergensis as a single cohesive new species, and THEN subdivided into Sapiens Sapiens and Sapiens Neanderthalensis, that's different from if Neanderthalensis derived directly from an earlier hominid form.

It's still unsettled, in the science. I'm not trying to argue which is "right", just that there's valid conceptualizations where Neanderthalensis isn't Homo Sapiens itself. And that doesn't mean there wasn't interbreeding, because they'd still be VERY close genetic cousins.

No arguments from me there. While there is a lot to be said about the likelihoods of those alternatives, Im entirely aboard about the statement overall. We simply do not know enough at this point, to completely rule things out.

Talking about the probability of events that actually occurred, though, isn't helpful. It doesn't matter if it was a 1-100 chance, or a 1-10,000,000, if we're living in the outcome of that vanishingly rare chance, it just means the dice rolled a certain way, it doesn't make our existence impossible.

Particularly as we're really not that sure how big these separations were. One of the biggest issues in biology is that these terms are made-up, and don't always follow clean rules; we're not identifying some "species" coding in DNA or something, we have to make a call as to where that division gets made, and it's not always clear where that is. Take this issue we're talking about here; there may not be a "homo sapiens sapiens". There may just be "homo sapiens". Us. And Neanderthalensis may be a separate subspecies that derived separately. Maybe this means we should BOTH be classed as subspecies of Heidelbergensis, where we're actually Homo Heidelbergensis Sapiens.

This stuff gets weird. The H. Sapiens stuff first emerged as a need to classify us as "superior" to other hominids, such that when it first appeared that Neanderthal was close enough to be a Homo Sapiens as well, we had to add another Sapiens, rather than consider that we might be subspecies of some shared progenitor (and discard the original Sapiens entirely, as above with Homo Heidelbergensis Sapiens).

Since we have no idea if we could interbreed with Heidelbergensis, it's a bit moot. Long story short; all these labels are made-up and abide by rules we also made up, and it's just as likely our rules are fucked up.

I don't dispute your general point here, either. Although, I have to say that if we suddenly stop 'making up' distinctions like species/subspecies (although obviously not the most important of examples), start to ignore probabilities between different possibilites or start to declare such matters to be without much consequence either way, then ultimately, science is pretty much dead and buried.

At least biology pretty much would be, that literally is built upon simplifications that gradually grow somewhat less simplified (hopefully) over time, and hypotheses based on what is likely to be true or not (imagine writing scientific articles, without incorporating a p-value). How things fully work, in its entirelty, like say the human brain or all functions and mechanisms at play in a particular cell, is something we might hope to know millennia from now. Our history isn't really the same thing, obviously, but human inquisitiveness will make sure that mystery will never be put to rest. Under those circumstances, I fail to see how applying the scientific method to that process can be bad or unimportant, even though it will obviously be a LOT of hurdles, definition-issues and re-evaluations happening along the way. Among other things. But, again, we pretty much agree in general, of course.

[Independent voter]

So google says Lucy is 3.2 million years old. If these teeth are 9.7 million years old then the creature looked more chimp like than Lucy?

[Orange Joe]

So google says Lucy is 3.2 million years old. If these teeth are 9.7 million years old then the creature looked more chimp like than Lucy?

Stop thinking we evolve from chimps....

For reference. Here is what we have of lucy.





That you think you can discern how "chimplike" she was is laughable.