This paper is the second part of the new evaluation of atomic masses, AME2016. Using least-squares adjustments to all evaluated and accepted experimental data, described in Part I, we derive tables with numerical values and graphs to replace those given in AME2012. The first table lists the recommended atomic mass values and their uncertainties. It is followed by a table of the influences of data on primary nuclides, a table of various reaction and decay energies, and finally, a series of graphs of separation and decay energies. The last section of this paper lists all references of the input data used in the AME2016 and the NUBASE2016 evaluations (first paper in this issue).AMDC: http://amdc.impcas.ac.cn/ Contents  The AME2016 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and referencesAcrobat PDF (293 KB)  Table I. The 2016 Atomic mass tableAcrobat PDF (273 KB)  Table II. Influences on primary nuclidesAcrobat PDF (160 KB)  Table III. Nuclear-reaction and separation energiesAcrobat PDF (517 KB)  Graphs of separation and decay energiesAcrobat PDF (589 KB)  References used in the AME2016 and the NUBASE2016 evaluationsAcrobat PDF (722 KB)

No abstract

Mass excesses of short-lived A=2Z-1 nuclei (63)Ge, (65)As, (67)Se, and (71)Kr have been directly measured to be -46,921(37), -46,937(85), -46,580(67), and -46,320(141)  keV, respectively. The deduced proton separation energy of -90(85)  keV for (65)As shows that this nucleus is only slightly proton unbound. X-ray burst model calculations with the new mass excess of (65)As suggest that the majority of the reaction flow passes through (64)Ge via proton capture, indicating that (64)Ge is not a significant rp-process waiting point.

No abstract

The expansion of anatomically modern humans (AMHs) from Africa around 65,000 to 45,000 y ago (ca. 65 to 45 ka) led to the establishment of present-day non-African populations. Some paleoanthropologists have argued that fossil discoveries from Huanglong, Zhiren, Luna, and Fuyan caves in southern China indicate one or more prior dispersals, perhaps as early as ca. 120 ka. We investigated the age of the human remains from three of these localities and two additional early AMH sites (Yangjiapo and Sanyou caves, Hubei) by combining ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis with a multimethod geological dating strategy. Although U–Th dating of capping flowstones suggested they lie within the range ca. 168 to 70 ka, analyses of aDNA and direct AMS 14C dating on human teeth from Fuyan and Yangjiapo caves showed they derive from the Holocene. OSL dating of sediments and AMS 14C analysis of mammal teeth and charcoal also demonstrated major discrepancies from the flowstone ages; the difference between them being an order of magnitude or more at most of these localities. Our work highlights the surprisingly complex depositional history recorded at these subtropical caves which involved one or more episodes of erosion and redeposition or intrusion as recently as the late Holocene. In light of our findings, the first appearance datum for AMHs in southern China should probably lie within the timeframe set by molecular data of ca. 50 to 45 ka.