We do not know what she looked like. DNA research has made some progress in inferring physical characteristics from ancient genomes—the Denisovan genomes carry variants associated with, for instance, dark skin and hair—but these inferences are uncertain, the relevant variants are incompletely understood in their expression, and no full skeleton of Denisova 11 exists for comparison. Any visual reconstruction of this individual is speculative and should be labeled as such. The genome tells us about ancestry. It does not provide a photograph.
The study also does not establish that Denisova 11 was fertile, or that she or others like her contributed to later populations. The Denisovan genomes carry traces of ancient Neanderthal ancestry, suggesting that hybrid individuals sometimes did reproduce and pass on their mixed heritage. But Denisova 11’s own reproductive history is unknown. Whether she is among the individuals whose lineage continued, or whether she is an example of a hybrid individual whose line ended with her, cannot be determined.
—
## After the Publication
The 2018 Nature paper generated immediate wide attention. The story of a first-generation Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid was accessible to general readers in a way that many paleogenomic findings are not. The identification of a parent as Neanderthal and a parent as Denisovan, communicated clearly, is a specific and human story—more immediately comprehensible than the statistical population genetics that typically characterizes ancient DNA research.
The paper was received well within the scientific community. Its methods were transparent and its conclusions were appropriately hedged—the researchers were clear about what the data established and what remained uncertain. Slon’s and Pääbo’s authorship guaranteed a rigorous reception: both researchers had long track records of work that the field had tested and found reliable.