Re: [asa] More on Hobbit fossil

On 10/9/06, Jack Haas <haas.john@comcast.net> 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.

The debate is not over. I would suggest the conclusions above are less
rigorous than the other. Here's why they conclude not another species.

Because the LB1 skeleton is clearly that of an adult, it should
obviously be compared with "high-functioning" modern human
microcephalics rather than with "low-functioning" microcephalics who
died early. The new study shows that skulls and brain casts from two
modern human microcephalics who survived into adulthood are actually
quite similar to those of the LB1 specimen. This supports the
likelihood that LB1 was microcephalic.

A more detailed analysis was done of the skulls including the modern
human microcephalics and concluded otherwise. Note specifically the
last paragraph of the abstract the better methodology used (IMHO).

In this month's Journal of Human Evolution
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.04.013

Homo floresiensis: Microcephalic, pygmoid, Australopithecus, or Homo?

Debbie Arguea, , , Denise Donlonb, , Colin Grovesa, and Richard Wrightb,

aSchool of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University,
Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
bDepartment of Anatomy and Histology, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Received 27 March 2005; accepted 17 April 2006. Available online 5 July 2006.

Debbie Arguea, , , Denise Donlonb, , Colin Grovesa, and Richard Wrightb,

aSchool of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University,
Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
bDepartment of Anatomy and Histology, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Received 27 March 2005; accepted 17 April 2006. Available online 5 July 2006.

aSchool of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University,
Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
bDepartment of Anatomy and Histology, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Received 27 March 2005; accepted 17 April 2006. Available online 5 July 2006.

Abstract

The remarkable partial adult skeleton (LB1) excavated from Liang Bua
cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia, has been attributed to a new
species, Homo floresiensis, based upon a unique mosaic of primitive
and derived features compared to any other hominin. The announcement
precipitated widespread interest, and attention quickly focused on its
possible affinities. LB1 is a small-bodied hominin with an endocranial
volume of 380–410 cm3, a stature of 1 m, and an approximate geological
age of 18,000 years. The describers [Brown, P., Sutikna, T., Morwood,
M.J., Soejono, R.P., Jatmiko, Wayhu Saptomo, E., Awe Due, R., 2004. A
new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores,
Indonesia. Nature 431, 1055–1061] originally proposed that H.
floresiensis was the end product of a long period of isolation of H.
erectus or early Homo on a small island, a process known as insular
dwarfism. More recently Morwood, Brown, and colleagues [Morwood, M.J.,
Brown, P., Jatmiko, Sutikna, T., Wahyu Saptomo, E., Westaway, K.E.,
Awe Due, R., Roberts, R.G., Maeda, T., Wasisto, S., Djubiantono, T.,
2005. Further evidence for small-bodied hominins from the Late
Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature 437, 1012–1017] reviewed this
assessment in light of new material from the site and concluded that
H. floresiensis is not likely to be descended from H. erectus, with
the genealogy of the species remaining uncertain. Other
interpretations, namely that LB1 is a pygmy or afflicted with
microcephaly, have also been put forward.

We explore the affinities of LB1 using cranial and postcranial metric
and non-metric analyses. LB1 is compared to early Homo, two
microcephalic humans, a 'pygmoid' excavated from another cave on
Flores, H. sapiens (including African pygmies and Andaman Islanders),
Australopithecus, and Paranthropus. Based on these comparisons, we
conclude that it is unlikely that LB1 is a microcephalic human, and it
cannot be attributed to any known species. Its attribution to a new
species, Homo floresiensis, is supported. [Emphasis mine]

Keywords: H. floresiensis; Liang Bua 1; LB1; H. habilis;
Australopithecus; H. erectus; H. sapiens; H. ergaster; Microcephalic;
Multivariate statistics; Phylogenetic analysis; Insular island
dwarfism

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 11:32:47 2006