A new paper in The American Naturalist should interest some in these parts, Placental Invasiveness Mediates the Evolution of Hybrid Inviability in Mammals:
...Here, we show that the maximum genetic distance at which interspecific mammalian pregnancies yield viable neonates is significantly greater in clades with invasive (hemochorial) placentation than in clades with noninvasive (epitheliochorial or endotheliochorial) placentation. Moreover, sister species with invasive placentation exhibit higher allopatry in their geographic ranges, suggesting that formerly separated populations in mammals with this placental type fuse more readily on recontact.
Here is a high resolution phylogram of mammalian lineages showing those with invasive placentation as solid. Hominidae are invasive.
Since we and Pan seem to both be invasive placenta types (which I assume means that paternally imprinted genes mediate the growth) do you think this finding provides a level of support for the recent paaper on human -chimp hybridization?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/biom-hac051106.php
do you think this finding provides a level of support for the recent paaper on human -chimp hybridization?
no, because it seems totally probable and likely that pre-chimps and pre-humans were interfertile 5 million years BP. i point to this paper to show that in fact hominidae are possibly more liable to hybridization than many other mammal taxa. (please note that john hawks as criticized the methods and conclusions of that paper you refer to, and i lean in his direction)