  A range of a priori hypotheses about the evolution of modern and archaic
genomes are further evaluated and tested. In addition to the well-known
splits/introgressions involving Neanderthal genes into out-of- Africa people,
or Denisovan genes into Oceanians, a further series of archaic splits and
hypotheses proposed in Waddell et al. (2011) are considered in detail. These
include signals of Denisovans with something markedly more archaic and possibly
something more archaic into Papuans as well. These are compared and contrasted
with some well-advertised introgressions such as Denisovan genes across East
Asia, archaic genes into San or non-tree mixing between Oceanians, East Asians
and Europeans. The general result is that these less appreciated and surprising
archaic splits have just as much or more support in genome sequence data.
Further, evaluation confirms the hypothesis that archaic genes are much rarer
on modern X chromosomes, and may even be near totally absent, suggesting strong
selection against their introgression. Modeling of relative split weights
allows an inference of the proportion of the genome the Denisovan seems to have
gotten from an older archaic, and the best estimate is around 2%. Using a mix
of quantitative and qualitative morphological data and novel phylogenetic
methods, robust support is found for multiple distinct middle Pleistocene
lineages. Of these, fossil hominids such as SH5, Petralona, and Dali, in
particular, look like prime candidates for contributing pre-Neanderthal/Modern
archaic genes to Denisovans, while the Jinniu-Shan fossil looks like the best
candidate for a close relative of the Denisovan. That the Papuans might have
received some truly archaic genes appears a good possibility and they might
even be from Homo erectus.
