Slashdot Log In
More Evidence For Hobbit Sized Species
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Oct 11, 2005 04:14 PM
from the frodo-meets-science dept.
from the frodo-meets-science dept.
GogglesPisano writes "CNN.com reports that scientists digging in a remote Indonesian cave have uncovered a jaw bone that they say adds more evidence that a tiny prehistoric Hobbit-like species once existed." From the article: "The discovery of a jaw bone, to be reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, represents the ninth individual belonging to a group believed to have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago. The bones are in a wet cave on the island of Flores in the eastern limb of the Indonesian archipelago, near Australia."
Related Stories
[+]
Scientists Hope To Settle "Hobbit" Debate 164 comments
Several readers wrote in with news of the debate around the identity of an ancient woman whose diminutive skeleton was found on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2004. Fox News reports that Australian scientists have discovered a subterranean chamber that may contain DNA proof that will settle the question of whether "the Hobbit," as the specimen is called, actually is a representative of a new branch of the human family, or not. The find's discoverers named the putative new race Homo floresiensis. Others in the anthropological field question this identification, arguing that the meter-tall Hobbit was a modern human who had something wrong with her. In a paper just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, with one of the original discovery team as co-author, researchers say they have compared the Hobbit's skull to those of modern humans with various ailments such as microcephaly, and that the Hobbit is different.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Or it could be a dwarf (Score:5, Informative)
And, at least two groups of opponents have submitted their own studies to other leading scientific journals refuting the Flores work.
"This paper doesn't clinch it. I feel strongly that people are glossing over the problems with this interpretation," said Robert Martin, a biological anthropologist and provost of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.
Or it could be a chromosome (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Or it could be a dwarf (Score:4, Informative)
How about the inability to sexually reproduce with the original species? A human with microencephaly can still sexually reproduce with another human that does not have this disorder.
However, to call it a new species seems extremely short sighted.
Parent
Re:Or it could be a dwarf (Score:5, Informative)
Defining species from fossils and bones can be a bit trickier -- can you prove that this population is (a) represented by these bones, (b) genetically distinct, and (c) incapable of creating viable offspring with any other 'human' population.
I would also like to note that there are a great variety of human populations. In Africa alone, there are groups that tend to be quite short and robust, and groups that tend to be quite tall and gracile. In a fossil record, they might bee seen as distinct species, yet we know that they can have children together. Just one of the hazards of fossils, I suppose.
* ancestor and decendant, are, of course, relative
Parent
Re:Or it could be a dwarf (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
All makes sense (Score:4, Funny)
Re:All makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
isn't it obvious to you all? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:isn't it obvious to you all? (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of which...
What is the religious answer to this? Do they contend that these were a failed first protoype of later man? Someone give me an argument to go on...
Parent
Re:isn't it obvious to you all? (Score:4, Funny)
While we're asking religious questions, what is the religous answer to why my truck is burning more oil these days?
Parent
They should check New Zealand (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe it was all of the cave graffiti that says (Score:5, Funny)
Actually... (Score:4, Interesting)
ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmyrel=url2h
Synchronicities abound (Score:5, Interesting)
The most likely explanation seems to be that a population of h. erectus found itself on the island and, through island dwarfing, ended up at their diminutive height. I find the thought of sub-human hominids suriving until that recently both creepy and fascinating. More reading at wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Just as He as taught us. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't get me started about the pirates ...
Idiots! (Score:4, Funny)
It *shrunk*.
Legend of these people in Tonga (Score:5, Interesting)
The interesting bit is that this island is uninhabited as South American slavers came in the mid-1800s and captured all the males off the island. The King then had the women and children rescued and declared the island off limits. When I was there we tried to go to the island for a scientific survey but King Tupou Fa refused. The place is only visited by occasional fishermen.
Re:Ever think.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Ever think.... (Score:5, Funny)
I am sure that idea never occured to the scientists doing the digging. You should write to them and let them know your brilliant theory. That would save everyone involved a lot of time.
Parent
Re:Ever think.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Small people = hobbit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Golem vs Gollum (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:What about modern "Small Folk" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What about modern "Small Folk" (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends on where you do the sampling. In Finland or an Amish country and it could be higher (Cartilage-hair hypoplasia) because these groups don't date outside of their groups enough (genetic shift) to make these "rare" exceptions rare anymore.
If you had a group that lived alone you could get a "tribe" of little people, but they would still be human.
Parent
Re:The AP article actually mentions Hobbits??!? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent