The Generalist Specialist: Why Homo Sapiens Succeeded

By Gemma Tarlach | July 30, 2018 10:00 am
The generalist specialist, Homo sapiens (left) survived but all other hominins, including Neanderthals (right) are now extinct. Researchers say early humans' unique ecological niche may have made the difference. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Being a generalist specialist, a unique niche, is the hallmark of our species, say researchers — and the reason Homo sapiens (left) are still around but other hominins, including Neanderthals (right), are not. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Some animals are jacks of all trades, some masters of one. Homo sapiens, argues a provocative new commentary, are an evolutionary success story because our ancestors pulled off a unique feat: being masterly jacks of all trades. But is this ecological niche, the generalist specialist, the real reason our species is the last hominin standing?

When paleoanthropologists and archaeologists define what makes our species unique, they usually focus on our use of symbolism and language, as well as our skills in social networking (long before Facebook) and technological innovation. Those arguments for human exceptionalism have been challenged in recent years, however, as researchers have uncovered evidence that other members of the genus Homo, notably Neanderthals, were capable of similar cognitive processes, from artistic expression to producing fire at will.

But maybe, say two researchers, we got it wrong. What defines our species, and has allowed H. sapiens to survive and even thrive after all other hominins went extinct, is not about making better stone projectiles, or networking, or sprucing up the cave walls with a little ochre artwork. We’re the last hominins on Earth because we’re really good at adapting to a huge range of environments, including the extreme.

Over The River And Through The Woods (And The Tundra, And The Desert…)

To make their case, researchers mapped out the likely ranges of archaic members of the genus Homo according to current fossil, paleoenviromental and archaeological evidence. Being a fan of the scientific method, I think it’s worth noting here that this map almost certainly will change as new finds turn up. But for now, working with the best body of evidence we’ve got, it’s clear that early H. sapiens, once they left Africa, seemed to explode across the Old World, moving into territory previously occupied by one or at most two other hominin species.

Map of the potential distribution of archaic hominins, including H. erectus, H. floresiensis, H. neanderthalenesis, Denisovans and archaic African hominins, in the Old World at the time of the evolution and dispersal of H. sapiens between approximately 300 and 60 thousand years ago. CREDIT Roberts and Stewart. 2018. Defining the 'generalist specialist' niche for Pleistocene Homo sapiens. Nature Human Behaviour. 10.1038/s41562-018-0394-4.

A map of the estimated ranges of archaic members of the genus Homo, spanning the period H. sapiens emerged in Africa and dispersed across the rest of the Old World, roughly 60,000-300,000 years ago. (Credit: Roberts and Stewart, 2018. Defining the ‘generalist specialist’ niche for Pleistocene Homo sapiens. Nature Human Behaviour. 10.1038/s41562-018-0394-4)

What might not be immediately evident from the map is that early H. sapiens dispersal wasn’t just about setting foot on a new continent; it was also about moving into new and often extremely challenging environments, from deserts to arctic climes, from treeless, high-altitude plateaus to dense tropical rainforests.

To be clear, there is good evidence that other hominins called extreme environments home. Denisovans appear to have adapted to high-altitude life in Central Asia, for example, while diminutive H. floresiensis was at home in equatorial island rainforests. It’s been argued, heatedly (no pun intended), that Neanderthals were high-latitude specialists. But only H. sapiens turn up in all of those environments.

Nevertheless We Persisted

It’s the “unique ecological plasticity” of our species that’s our defining trait, argue the researchers, and it’s what gave us a leg up on surviving, whether moving into new territories or adapting to changing climate conditions. While this conclusion may seem obvious to us now, it’s only been possible to reach it thanks to the flood of new evidence that’s revised the timeline of human evolution and dispersal.

The new research has shown our species evolved earlier than once thought (our start date is now at least 300,000 years ago) and spread beyond Africa sooner than expected: Consider, for example, the first H. sapiens fossil found in the Arabian Peninsula — once thought inhospitable to early humans — and described earlier this year, or a H. sapiens partial jaw from Israel that’s 177,000-194,000 years old.

The key to proving their hypothesis is correct — and to understanding how this ecological plasticity arose in our species — will be acquiring not just more evidence of a H. sapiens presence at different sites, but also strong paleoenviromental data, particularly in Africa where the earliest H. sapiens lived.

In the meantime, the researchers have coined a novel niche for the intrepid early H. sapiens: the generalist specialist. The team looked at the ecological niche profiles of specialists, such as pandas, and generalists, like the trash panda (aka the raccoon). They concluded that H. sapiens’ unique generalist specialist niche allowed early members of our species to adapt to, and specialize in, living in wildly different environments.

(Credit: Roberts and Stewart 2018)

Pandas are considered specialists because all individuals utilize a single food web. Raccoons, on the other hand (paw?), are generalists adept at exploiting whatever food web they can find, as anyone who has left an unsecured trash can out at night probably knows. Our species has often been considered a generalist, but the authors of today’s commentary propose a new ecological niche for us: the generalist specialist, with different populations capable of adapting to and specializing in a wide range of environments and resources. (Credit: Roberts and Stewart, 2018)

While occupying the unique niche of generalist specialist will no doubt appeal to fans of H. sapiens exceptionalism, it’s unclear that it provides what the researchers describe as a “framework for discussing…how our species became the last surviving hominin on the planet.” Specialists tend to face extinction, for example, only if their specialized ecological niche is wiped out — or they are out-competed by an invasive species. Ahem.

The commentary appears today in Nature Human Behaviour.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Living World, top posts
  • Uncle Al

    Homo sapiens succeeded because it let die of their palsied hands any of its species claiming to be economists, sociologists, psychologists, feminists, or diverse. Think of it as evolution in action.

    • paradigmq

      Are you having a stroke?

      • FluffyGhostKitten

        Perhaps. I suspect it’s a constant state for him.

    • Br_er_Rabbit

      we forgot to kill off the lawyers.

      • Uncle Al

        At face value, sure. OTOH, what economic class is more successful than criminals?

  • John F. Bramfeld

    Judging from the comments, we better hope gratuitously insulting strangers is a powerful survival tool.

    Whatever the cause of our ascendancy, humans are like other animals the way the Uranium 235 is like Uranium 238 or like stars ready to become red giants or supernovae. Extremely similar, but not to be treated as remotely alike.

    • Kamran Rowshandel

      What’s your speciality, asserting eye-for-an-eye and genetic superiority on everyone else? So you want to say we’re an unusual species, hiding behind the fascism of the world’s two most popular books?

      Discover doesn’t need people like John Bramfeld commenting, and neither do peaceful organisms. That’s why I propose that even the institution of democracy he propagandically supports should be disbanded in favor of a worldwide lottery for owner of the universe, so that if anyone is inconsiderate in their suggestions to others as ruler, they will indeed be hit in the head until they are too dead to pass on their genes.

      If only there were none of us left who can fit a whole watermelon slice in their mouth horizontally we wouldn’t have to have someone like me making this retarded comment that no ruler or subject should ever have to make, cause rulers and subjects as a spectrum is the principally most unethical idiotically defended part of life as an employed person in a post-automated world today.

      • John F. Bramfeld

        I’ve thought about it and think you must be right.


    Humans are essentially walking, talking porcine analogs. Our ability to consume just about anything for nutrients is what enables our adaptability across various environments. does it look ok? does it smell ok? might as well eat it. the descendants of the european boar are no different.

  • peterjohn936

    Individuals are not generalist. Within the homo sapien species are many specialist tribes. Tribes that possesses traits that make them good at certain jobs. The tribes that are good at making things, these are called smiths. Then there are the tribes that are good at trading, and the ones that are good at herding, and ones that are good at war.

    • John F. Bramfeld

      Tell that to the Eskimos.

    • OWilson

      Careful in your generalizations. It implies that some are less suited to the virtues you describe.

      We are supposed to be all born equal! :)

      • peterjohn936

        They are not virtues. Think of the human race as socialized apes, a bit like ants and bees. We have groups that perform various tasks. Some are traders, some soldiers, and some are farmers.

        • OWilson

          It was the adjective “good” you assigned at least 5 times to the abilities of various “tribes”.

          By logical extension, you implied, perhaps unintentionally. that there are other tribes are not good at these tasks.

          • John F. Bramfeld

            There are tribes that are not good at those tasks. What point are you trying to make?

            No one should have to say this, but “good” in this context means “skilled.” I think you knew that, though.

          • peterjohn936

            It is not skills because it is not learned. It is innate abilities enhanced thru natural selection. These innate abilities can be improved thru learning. And it improved the ability to learn certain skills.

            I am trying to say we are not identical blanks slates to be written on. We are all different and some of these differences are tribal. And some of these tribes are quite ancient and globally dispersed.

          • peterjohn936

            The proper term is not as good. If your tribe survival depends on your tribe performing a certain task then natural selection will act to enhance that ability. It does not mean other tribes can’t perform the task but it does mean that the tribe whose survival depends on that task maybe a bit better at it.

          • OWilson

            You miss my point, which is that pointing out the lesser “innate” abilities in “certain tribes”, as in “not as good as” others, is a political no no these days.

            Such talk has been described as the prejudice of low expectations, and the subject of much controversy in college admissions, job opportunities, and “glass ceilings”.

            Imagine the outcry if a certain major politician had made those statements! :)

  • hans moll

    Are dogs a good comparison with early humans? They are highly adaptable and diversified but can still mate w any other dog.

  • lyllyth

    I’m pretty sure crows and rats also qualify as generalist specialists.

  • Kamran Rowshandel

    Deciding what causes species to live and die is what you do after you reckon the history of all nucleic acids.

    If only one organism were on Earth and it had bad eyesight and you said it does or doesn’t need to wear glasses without being an organism yourself, there would be no way of finding out what the organism’s vision is normally.

    This is why you can’t judge what causes species to live by looking at individual species’ features and saying uninformed statements that lack reality.

    Of course, I don’t think this writer is standing in the way of progress, so thanks for bringing this to people’s screens.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Dead Things

Digging up the dirt on the latest finds and weirdest revelations, from lost civilizations to dinosaurs.

See More

Collapse bottom bar