Hobbit species may not have been human

The Australian ^ | 30 Sep 2009 | Cheryl Jones

[BGHater]

AFTER five years of arguments over the so-called hobbits, the University of New England paleoanthropologist who formally described the tiny new hominin species from the Indonesian island of Flores is facing another wave of controversy.

This time, Peter Brown could raise the ire of some of the scientists who supported him in an academic debate that degenerated into an international scandal.

Brown, who initially placed the species in the human genus Homo and named it Homo floresiensis, is considering stripping the hobbits of their human status.

More remains have been found, and the species is now represented by six to nine individuals, depending on how the partial skeletons are put together. The skeletons range in age from 17,000 to 95,000 years.

And a big body of research, including Brown's own, since the publication of the first papers on the find has forced a rethink of his initial classification.

In a paper accepted for publication in an upcoming special Homo floresiensis edition of the Journal of Human Evolution, Brown and colleague Tomoko Maeda, also of UNE, say the hobbits' lineage left Africa "possibly before the evolution of the genus Homo". (The root of the human family tree stretches back about two million years to Homo habilis, or Handy Man, in Africa.)

Brown says assigning the Flores hominin to a different genus would worry some scholars. "They will think it somehow marginalises Homo floresiensis; that it's a clear statement that it is not a member of our genus, and it's extinct, so we don't have to worry about it any more," he says. "That's nonsense, because it's part of the broader evolutionary story of our species."

[BGHater]

[BGHater]

Ping.

[dead]

I think this may mean that Donna Shalala and Robert Reich were never eligible to serve in the Federal government.

[Hot Tabasco]

is considering stripping the hobbits of their human status.

Had Frodo known about this I'm sure he would have kept the ring instead........

[ClearCase_guy]

"You people are just so insulting."

[a fool in paradise]

Short People got no reason...

[a fool in paradise]

It's a small world after all...

Chinese dwarves set up their own village (Metro.co.uk ^ | September 29, 2009 | staff)

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks BGHater. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[Little Bill]

I am agnostic about the the whole creationist vs Darwinist arguement. Taxonomy, classification of finds, is a tautology, if A looks like B, then B is a descendant of A, it burns my brain.

I have been reading this stuff for over fifty years and the truth bell has not rung.

[AdmSmith]

I have been reading this stuff for over fifty years...expect more stuff to read the next fifty years, like this:

The announcement of a new species, Homo floresiensis, a primitive hominin that survived until relatively recent times is an enormous challenge to paradigms of human evolution. Until this announcement, the dominant paradigm stipulated that: 1) only more derived hominins had emerged from Africa, and 2) H. sapiens was the only hominin since the demise of Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. Resistance to H. floresiensis has been intense, and debate centers on two sets of competing hypotheses: 1) that it is a primitive hominin, and 2) that it is a modern human, either a pygmoid form or a pathological individual. Despite a range of analytical techniques having been applied to the question, no resolution has been reached. Here, we use cladistic analysis, a tool that has not, until now, been applied to the problem, to establish the phylogenetic position of the species. Our results produce two equally parsimonious phylogenetic trees. The first suggests that H. floresiensis is an early hominin that emerged after Homo rudolfensis (1.86 Ma) but before H. habilis (1.66 Ma, or after 1.9 Ma if the earlier chronology for H. habilis is retained). The second tree indicates H. floresiensis branched after Homo habilis.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJS-4WTYXVS-1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F23%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d40a21a61155888f194e3a4e8592a3fc

[Reeses]

[SunkenCiv]

It’s like a scene years ago on the series “LA Law”; Susan Dey’s character was arguing with the other attorney, and they were called into chambers (which happened a lot on that show, it seems to me) where the judge reminded them that the practice of law isn’t about truth, justice, or facts, it’s about advocacy. ;’)

[SunkenCiv]

“Estrada!”

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks AdmSmith.

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

[Little Bill]

Good Lord that is a jaw breaker, thank God, I went to a Government College before they went South.

You post sounds like a diversity seminar at EXELON, EXC on the NY Stock Exchange.

[IYellAtMyTV]

[gleeaikin]

Perhaps the Hobbits were from the Lucy branch of evolution?

[TheOldLady]

Hobbits aren’t human? Whoever thought they were? I mean, Frodo? C’mon.

[SunkenCiv]

“...Nosethingers.” “NoseFINGERS!”

[SunkenCiv]

That means they’re also descended from the Ricky branch! Egad!