At 09:32 AM 10/9/2006, Jack Haas wrote:
>Some food for thought. ~ Jack Haas
>
>Compelling evidence demonstrates that 'Hobbit' fossil does not
>represent a new species of hominid
><http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-10/fm-ced100206.php>
>What may be the definitive most interdisciplinary work in a debate
>that has been raging in palaeoanthropology for two years will be
>published in Anatomical Record. The new research comprehensively and
>convincingly makes the case that the skull discovered in Flores,
>Indonesia, in 2003 does not represent a new species of hominid, as
>was claimed in a 2004 Nature study. The skull is most likely that of
>a small-bodied modern human who suffered from microcephaly.
@ Noted back in May. ~ Janice
"Hobbit" Humans Were Diseased, Not New Species, Study Says
National Geographic News ^ | May 18, 2006 | John Roach
Posted on 05/18/2006 6:00:14 PM EDT by nickcarraway
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1634601/posts
New research suggests 'hobbit' was not a new species
18 May 2006 NewScientist.com news service Adrian Barnett
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1634601/posts?page=4#4
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 9 09:57:16 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 09 2006 - 09:57:16 EDT