Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

New Hominid Species Unearthed in Indonesia 588

Posted by michael
from the nasty-hobbitses dept.
Radical Rad writes "ABC News is reporting that anthropologists have found the skeletal remains of seven hobbit sized hominids. The population may have been wiped out by a volcanic activity 12000 years ago or according to local legend may have lived up until the 1500's living on in caves and eating food the villagers would leave out for them. Also found were bones of giant lizards and miniature elephants. CBS also has the story." National Geographic and the BBC have good stories.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Hominid Species Unearthed in Indonesia

Comments Filter:
  • by fembots (753724) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:22PM (#10645561) Homepage
    The current explanation for these "hobbits" is they somehow got to this 31-square-mile island, and because of the habitat/food source limition, they grew smaller so that they cooled off more easily, and used less energy.

    However, if they were smart enough to find a way to this island, couldn't they just do another island-hoping to a bigger island like Sumantra, or even Australia?

    The article also mentioned "many anthropologists have argued that in recent years, scientists have been adding too many new species to the human evolutionary tree. They say scientists have become too quick to call what may simply be an unusual individual a member of a whole new species."

    Maybe these tiny people have some kind of sickness (or just look tiny), and were therefore exiled from the main(is)land?
    • by eln (21727) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:27PM (#10645639) Homepage
      Well see, they were originally only out on a three-hour tour, so when their ship wrecked, they had no way of getting back because they hadn't packed the emergency supplies you would normally expect them to have.

      Sure, they had one guy who could make a lot of crap out of coconuts, and they always had some celebrity guests drop in for some wacky hijinks, but they never could quite get off that island. Tragic story, really.
    • Maybe these tiny people have some kind of sickness (or just look tiny), and were therefore exiled from the main(is)land?

      Maybe they just represent the Lollypop Guild.
      • by kzinti (9651) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:53PM (#10645992) Homepage Journal
        Oompa loompa doompety doo
        I've got a perfect puzzle for you
        Oompa loompa doompety dee
        If you are wise you'll listen to me ...

        Oompa loompa doompety da
        If you're not greedy, you will go far
        You will live in happiness too
        Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do
        Doompety do
        • *Ahem* (Score:3, Funny)

          by zephc (225327)
          "Grunka Lunka Dunkity Doo, we've got a friendly warning for you. Grunka Lunka Dunkity Dasis, the secret of Slurm's on a need-to-know basis."

          "Grunka Lunka Dunkity Dingredient, you should not ask about the secret ingredient."
        • by stratjakt (596332) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @05:09PM (#10646884) Journal
          Chumba Womba, Gobaldie Goo
          Life isnt fair its sad but its true
          Chumba Womba, Gobaldie Gee
          When your poor legs are stiff as a tree

          What do you do when your stuck in a chair?
          Finding it hard to go up and down stairs?
          What do you think of the one you call god?
          Isn't his absence slightly odd?

          Maybe he's forgotten you.

          Chumba Womba, Gobaldie Gorse
          Count yourself lucky your not a horse
          They would turn you into dog food
          Or to Chumba Womba
          Gobaldie
          Glue

          Gobaldie Goo
    • by fatmonkeyboy (257833) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:27PM (#10645646) Homepage
      However, if they were smart enough to find a way to this island, couldn't they just do another island-hoping to a bigger island like Sumantra, or even Australia?

      Well, maybe they did...but that doesn't debunk the theory. Europeans found their way to the Americas, but there are still Europeans in Europe.
      • by Mignon (34109) <satan@programmer.net> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:50PM (#10645964)
        ... there are still Europeans in Europe.

        Other than that, it's a lovely place to visit.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @06:38PM (#10647798)
          May be the left the island, got to a bigger island, killed everyone that was there, then they slaved people from other even bigger islands and over the years became paranoid that all neighbouring islands wanted to destroy their way of life which they considered superior to all others, so they voted for the village idiot and invaded an island as far far away as they could find , this island happens to have lots coconut oil but this was just a coincidence.

          May be after all this some of them realised what the had become and came back to their little island, to enjoy their little lifes and not bother anyone else...and there we found them.
      • by werfele (611119) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:45PM (#10646641)
        It's also possible they had a way on to the island, but not off, once the resources contraints began. Look at the case of Easter Island [calacademy.org], whose inhabitants had the technology to travel hundreds of miles from Polynesia, but so thoroughly depleted their resources that they could no longer build boats to leave once the problems began.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:32PM (#10645716)
      Actually the real explanation, as we all know, is that the devil put those fossils there to lead us astray from the path of righteousness. Don't spout atheist evolution nonsense on here please.
    • by greg_barton (5551) * <greg_barton@NOSpaM.yahoo.com> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:46PM (#10645899) Homepage Journal
      Maybe these tiny people have some kind of sickness (or just look tiny), and were therefore exiled from the main(is)land?

      And this sickness also made their arms proportionately longer, created more prominent bone ridges above their eyes, gave them a sharply sloping forehead, and no chin? And it affected at least seven known individuals in the same way over a span of 30,000 of years, with no known fossil evidence of any "normal" hominids co-existing on the same island in that time?

      Riiiight...
      • The grandparent's idea is not that great, but you fail to point out any incoherence.

        There have been cases when a special kind of individuals have been exiled, or killed, even because of their sex. You talk about the improbability for a malformation of the same kind in many individuals. Down's syndrome, for example, is a malformation that looks similar in every individual that has it, and it has morphological particularities, too.
        • From the article - "They add that characteristics seen in modern people who have pathologies causing a small brain were not evident in the ancient remains." I.e. if they were anomolous Homo sapiens, then one would expect their anomoly to be an anomoly found in Homo sapiens. It's not, so they're not.
    • by mikael (484) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:17PM (#10646306)
      The current explanation for these "hobbits" is they somehow got to this 31-square-mile island, and because of the habitat/food source limition, they grew smaller so that they cooled off more easily, and used less energy.

      That's the argument used for living in extreme cold. We were told that ethnic cultures such as the Zulu's were tall because that was the best way to radiate heat (taller == more elongated == more surface area/volume), and that the Innuit were short and round due to the extreme cold (shorter == more spherical == less surface area/volume).

      For reptiles, warmer temperatures usually leads to larger body sizes, while colder temperatures leads to smaller sizes.

      So, maybe the climate went the other way, and everything became colder?
      • by Cyberllama (113628) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:29PM (#10646468)
        In africa, you have some of the tallest tribes in the world in close proximity to some of the shortest. The difference in their environments is not the heat -- the heat is constant -- but rather the humidity. In areas where the humidity is high, being larger does you no good. Sweat won't evaporate so the extra surface area isn't useful.

        In areas where the humidity is lower, being taller is a great way to help get rid of excess heat.

        However that may not be what's going on on this island at all.

        The other lifeforms are textbook examples of foster's rule in action. Foster's rule is the maxim that states that creatures isolated on a small island will experiece dramatic changes in size (or die, adapt or die).

        So, for instance, the pygmy elephants got smaller than the elephants they started as because there simply wouldn't have been enough vegatation on the island to support them otherwise. There was EXTREME selective pressure to get smaller, so it happened fast.

        Meanwhile, because nothing was around to eat these pygmy elephants, those komodo dragons that were born larger than the others were significantly more fit becuase they might be able to exploit the elephants as a food source (which they did -- they sustained themselves on the elephants until they went extinct, at which time humans brought deer to the islands thus providing them with a new food source).

        One creature had selective pressure to get bigger, another to get smaller. In *general*, Foster's rule is that things will get smaller. But occasionally (such as in the example above), the rule can work in reverse.
        • In africa, you have some of the tallest tribes in the world in close proximity to some of the shortest. The difference in their environments is not the heat -- the heat is constant -- but rather the humidity. In areas where the humidity is high, being larger does you no good. Sweat won't evaporate so the extra surface area isn't useful.

          This sounds dubious. I'd argue in favor of nutrition.

          Different tribes may have different diets which could account for the growth differential.

          Look at Japan. The older ge
  • by immerrath (607098) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:23PM (#10645572)
    clearly there was evolutionary pressure to maintain the same size for all species on the island: giant lizards, pygmy elephants, and small humans.
  • by 93,000 (150453) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:23PM (#10645576)
    I dig how they say "Hobbit sized" to capitailize on LOTR's popularity. In '83 they would have said "Ewok sized".
  • by multipartmixed (163409) * on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:23PM (#10645577) Homepage
    1. Is there sufficient DNA material at any of the dig sites to allow us to clone a hobbit?

    2. Would they make good slaves?
  • by lamp77 (147098) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:24PM (#10645595) Homepage
    everyone knows the world was created 6000 years ago.

    jeez.
  • by Shky (703024) <shkyoleary@gma i l . c om> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:24PM (#10645597) Homepage Journal
    Guess Frodo, Bilbo and the remaining elves made a wrong turn on the way to the Grey Havens.
  • Their Frodo should never have tossed the ring into Mount Doom until they were further away.
  • WOW!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by WilliamGeorge (816305)
    Who knew the Shire was in Indonesia!?!? I thought it was in Brittain :)

  • by cliffordski (748991) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:26PM (#10645627)
    How can anything be hobbit sized? A hobbit is a fictional creature; it has never existed. Now a troll...
  • ... did they happen to find any rings nearby? One ring, in particular?
  • ... anthropologists have found the skeletal remains of seven hobbit sized hominids. The population may have been wiped out by a volcanic ...

    If they find any with a ring on their finger, they need to find that volcano and toss the ring in pronto.

  • by pholower (739868) * <longwoodtrailNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:27PM (#10645634) Homepage Journal
    I find it interesting that they could have possibly intereacted with modern humans and their "species" could have overlapped with ours, but I agree with the scientist arguing over naming a new species. Let's rule out any major speculation before we go naming new evolutionary tree branches.
    • by Reziac (43301) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:03PM (#10646127) Homepage Journal
      I was recently reading about African Pygmies, and how Pygmy tribes interact with other tribes -- these naturally pint-sized people (which despite their small stature are still ordinary Homo sapiens, genetically) live in the deep forest, maintain a very primitive lifestyle by choice, and only come to town to trade (or sometimes to beg or work). Some "town tribes" regard them more or less as "forest elves". Their numbers, never great, have declined radically in some areas, and doubtless some Pygmy tribes now exist only as mouldering or even fossilized bones.

      These newly-discovered "hobbitt-sized people" may well be no more than a sort of local pygmy tribe, now extinct.

      OTOH, it's perfectly possible that remnants of genetic side-branches of Homo Whatever persisted into historical times, if sufficiently isolated and protected by their local environment.

      Size is no indication of being a different species; hell, look at dogs, which even among wild species range from 25 to 100 lbs. A closed environment can select for even larger extremes; also, note the radically different brain size among different breeds of domestic dogs, even tho they are all the same species.

    • by geekotourist (80163) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @09:44PM (#10649287) Journal
      These are pygmy Homo erectus, not pygmy Homo sapiens, and the differences between the two are significant.

      Looking at Hominid species and their brain sizes [talkorigins.org], and the actual information about the fossils themselves [talkorigins.org], you can examine the differences.

      While the smallest of the small modern human overlaps with non-pygmy H. erectus, as written here [talkorigins.org]: "The low volume skulls were not primitive or aberrant in any way; their small volume was merely a result of the smallness of the entire skull. So although the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus, their skulls are very different: in H. erectus, the brain case really is smaller in relation to the rest of the skull. In small modern humans, the skull proportions are normal and the brain size is small only because the skull is small." When you compare the two [talkorigins.org], (another example here [talkorigins.org], or look at a comparison of multiple Hominids here [talkorigins.org]) you can see that H. erectus isn't ever going to be mistaken for a small-skulled H. sapiens. The pygmy H. erectus has a brain that's half the size of a regular H. erectus. Floresiensis is smart and a tool/ fire user because Homo had been doing that for 2 million years, not because its a Homo sapiens.

      Summarizing species and brain sizes...

      1. Last common ancestor (Gorilla, Pan, Hominid)
      modern Gorilla (average 500 cc)

      2. Last common ancestor (Pan, Hominid)
      modern Chimp (average 400 cc)
      3. Australopithecus
      (375 to 550 cc)

      4. Homo habilis
      (500 to 800 cc)

      5. Homo erectus-> ->5a.Homo floresiensis
      (750 to 1225 cc) (380 cc)

      6.Homo antecessor
      | \ 6b. H.s. neanderthalensis (average 1450 cc)
      |
      6a. H. s. archaic
      (average 1200 cc)
      (sometimes called H. heidelbergensis)
      |
      7. Homo sapiens sapiens
      (average 1350 cc)

  • No no no, (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    they just found some movie set litter from Peter Jackson and crew.
  • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Blue-Footed Boobie (799209) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:28PM (#10645668)
    Those nasty hominidses. We hates them!
  • the size of fictional beings.
  • Not too surprising (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Camel Pilot (78781) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:32PM (#10645713) Homepage Journal
    When you have some species like Canine's that range in size from Mastif to Chihuahua
    • by ucblockhead (63650) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:01PM (#10646111) Homepage Journal
      Canines were deliberately bred like that. No dog is the direct product of nature evolution but rather is the direct product of human breeding programs.
      • by Camel Pilot (78781) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @05:13PM (#10646919) Homepage Journal
        Yes, but they could not be "deliberately bred like that" unless the genetic variation existed within the genome.

        In reference to the wolf [swipnet.se]
        The differences in size within the species is quite considerable. The biggest is the American timber wolf which grows to a height of over 90 cm, and can weigh up to 80 kg. The Fenno-scandinavian wolf is of average size, height 70 cm and weighs 40 - 50 kg (the record for Sweden was a male wolf that weighed in at 75 kg). They are a little smaller in the south of Europe, weighing about 25 kg.
      • by Colonel Cholling (715787) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @06:37PM (#10647772)
        No dog is the direct product of nature evolution but rather is the direct product of human breeding programs.

        Er, sorry, no. Dogs are the product of natural evolution, which includes human breeding programs. In other words, dogs as a species changed in various ways affected by their living in proximity to, and interacting with, humans. This is no less "natural" than, say, predators and prey developing different ways to catch/evade each other, or symbiotic species developing a dependence on each other. The idea that "nature" somehow stops once you get to humans, and everything we do is its own separate domain, is misleading.
    • by jeavis (198354)
      There is only one species of domesticated dog, Canis lupus familiaris, of which the Mastif and Chihuahua are distinct breeds. The difference between a species and a breed is that species differentiation occurs due to genetic mutation, while breed differentiation occurs due to selective reproduction of animals with desirable traits, in the hope that those traits come out in the offspring.
  • by RsG (809189) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:32PM (#10645715)
    Among the midget hominid remains in Indonesia, a gold ring was also discovered.

    "Antropologists are perplexed as to how a ring found it's way into the hands of a species lacking basic metallurgy or fire. One scientist was quoted as saying 'The precious, er I mean artifact, is a remarkable lovely find. So bright, so beautiful...' He was later heard to remark 'mine, mine, get away!! Filthy little grad students!!'"

    Peter Jackson was not available for comment.
  • Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by retro128 (318602) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:32PM (#10645723)
    Obviously the Hobbits didn't finish off Mt. Doom as well as they thought they did.
  • Here [imdb.com] is the best explanation of what was discovered.

    The Tropi...Was It Human?...Animal?...Or The Living Descendant Of The Missing Link!

  • by raider_red (156642) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:34PM (#10645740) Journal
    Is Snow White's house anywhere nearby?

  • hmmmm (Score:2, Funny)

    by SoupGuru (723634)
    Evolutionary Tree Gets Bushier

    Well, I suppose.... since they didn't have brazilian waxes back then...
  • small brains (Score:3, Interesting)

    by avandesande (143899) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:35PM (#10645756) Journal
    I have seen functioning humans with heads the size of a grapefruit.
  • by general_re (8883) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:36PM (#10645768) Homepage
    "Midget Quest For Fire"? Starring Gary Coleman, Emmanuel Lewis, and that guy from "Willow".

    Okay, maybe I'm all alone on this...

  • by eskwayrd (575069) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:39PM (#10645795)
    Snow White brought in for questioning related to 7 suspicious deaths. Details at 11.
  • by wcrowe (94389) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:40PM (#10645808)
    Someone was always after their Lucky Charms.

  • Super Volcano? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Gogela (750552) <jason@go g e l a .com> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:49PM (#10645941) Homepage Journal
    I recently watched a discovery channel program about super volcanos ( Super Volcano info here [freerepublic.com])that might explain the demise of the Hobbits. Apparently, there was a bottleneck sometime in human history that limited our genetic diversity. According to Discovery, that bottleneck might have been caused by a volcano many thousands of times the power of any volcano we have seen to date. The biggest one they know about is in Yellowstone National Park, and is set to go off again anytime within the next 200,000 years. The theory goes that one of these volcanos erupted and wiped out all but 15-20,000 humans, almost wiping us off the face of the earth. Maybe it killed the Hobbits... and the Orcs... and the Gobblins...

  • by gatekeep (122108) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:52PM (#10645989)
    ... in Japan!
  • Menehune (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ziegast (168305) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:57PM (#10646043) Homepage
    I'm surprised that the article didn't mention Menehune [wikipedia.org] which are "little gods" that frequent Hawaiian and Polynesian folklore and mythology. When the settlers of the Pacific Islands were traveling around settling different islands thousands of years ago, they learned from little natives that seems gifted in surviving on the islands.

  • Oh my god (Score:4, Funny)

    by RealErmine (621439) <commerce@wordPOL ... et minus painter> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:58PM (#10646073)
    "The idea of how they got there is still very much in the air."

    They could FLY!?
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:05PM (#10646156) Homepage Journal
    Hawai'i is full of stories about the "Menehune", the "little people" who lived in the islands before Polynesians arrived and took over. I have seen some of the walls they say were built by the Menehune, and they are different from the walls built by Polynesians and Europeans (and other "globals" following European arrival). The walls are fitted together more closely, with a technique that more resembles the Egyptian and Mayan walls that I've seen, though much smaller in scale. Perhaps we don't have the first global culture?
  • by deft (253558) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:07PM (#10646168) Homepage
    7 of them in caves? Hmm, perhaps working?

    try sleepy, bashful, dopey, sneezy...

    Keep digging, you'll pull up a hot brunette.
  • Ahoy! (Score:5, Informative)

    by The-Bus (138060) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:13PM (#10646244)
    Theeeere's my rejected submission...

    More information on these hobbit-sized wonders can be found at Scientific American which runs a Q&A with Dr. Brown [sciam.com]. As expected, it's a bit more in-depth than "Hobbits Found!"
  • one specimen (Score:4, Interesting)

    by option8 (16509) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:21PM (#10646358) Homepage
    it always concerns me that paleontologists and anthropologists are always so excited over finding *one* specimen. and usually just a partial one at that.

    i'm no paleontologist (and i don't play one on tv, either) so i don't know exactly how well you can really extrapolate a whole species' traits from one specimen. do you know, for instance, that it's genetically "normal" for its species? was it typical of the nutritional, physical, and in the case of hominids, social environment?

    for instance, what would be the inference if a future archaeologist found the skeletal remains of the following: someone born with Down Syndrome, someone with Marfan Syndrome, and someone with one of the 522 different types of dwarfism [dwarfism.org] - skeletons or models of which can typically be found in better natural history and science museums around the world.

    where, for instance, are Lucy's kin? and she's the basis for whole shelves of books on human evolution.
  • by UnkyHerb (12862) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:35PM (#10646531)
    This immediatly reminded me of the Dropa and the Han [20kweb.com]from the Bayan Kara-Ula regin near Tibet. Heres a Picture [20kweb.com] of them. Look around on the web and you can find more information. They were small people. "The Bayan Kara Ula, or Bayan Har Shan, area of China is where the source of Yangtze River is located and where the Mekong River turns south toward Vietnam. It's said to be very isolated and the people there still live in rather primitive conditions, although this is changing very quickly. In January of 1938, a Chinese archaeologist named Professor Chu Pu Tei led a rather routine expedition into these mountains. However, what they discovered in a group of caves shunned by the superstitious local natives was far from routine. In the caves, the expedition discovered a series of graves lined up in rows. On the walls of the caves there were stick-figure drawings of men with elongated heads and representations of the sun, moon, and stars. When they excavated the graves, the archaeologists found skeletons of less than four feet in length with abnormally large skulls." link [msn.com]
  • by Jameth (664111) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:43PM (#10646616)
    The most interesting thing about these are that the natives of the island have many legends about people exactly fitting this description (three feet tall and humanoid) that are extremely detailed. The legends even include that these 'hobbits' had languages of their own.

    First, this would be the first case of modern humans having even psuedo-recorded contact with another intelligent species.

    Second, this rips back open the possibility of our faerie tales being more true than most of us would have expected.
  • Wha? (Score:3, Funny)

    by HarveyBirdman (627248) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:47PM (#10646665) Journal
    may have lived up until the 1500's living on in caves and eating food the villagers would leave out for them.

    So they were pets, huh?

  • by CAIMLAS (41445) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @05:41PM (#10647220) Homepage
    I'm so tired of quack science making it into the mainstream.

    They say that they're 'surprised' that despite the small brain size, they appeared to be quite smart. This is contrary to what we know: brain size seems to have little correlation with intelligence amongst modern humans that are not defective, and there's strong fossil evidence for ancestoral species having fairly large brains as well.

    Also, there's no accounting for the construction of the pyramids with modern man's intelligence/knowledge, so there must've been smart humans at that time as well. Maybe not technologically advanced as we'd see things, but certainly inventive and observant of the world around them.

    It also sounds nuts to me that they'd claim this is an entirely different species. It seems to me that it's just as much a seperate species as blacks are a different species than whites, or what have you. They're still fundamentally human, and can co-populate with other humans. Granted, there's no direct evidence that this was possible, but it seems possible. There are plenty of 4-foot-tall humans today.
    • by juhaz (110830)
      Also, there's no accounting for the construction of the pyramids with modern man's intelligence/knowledge, so there must've been smart humans at that time as well.

      WTF? Pyramids were built no more than 5000 years ago, and the people who did were definitely the same as we still are and just as smart. Now, if you can find me a pyramid built by non-homo sapiens sapiens hominid, that's certaily big news...

      It also sounds nuts to me that they'd claim this is an entirely different species.

      And what reasons you
  • by Jelloman (69747) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @05:52PM (#10647360)
    So the inevitable question for late October of (year mod 4) == 0, does this help Bush or Kerry? Which reaction is more likely:
    • "Hmmm, This hobbit things shatters my belief in assumptions-derived-from-an-English-translation-of -Genesis-as-the-foundation-of-all-truth (which of course is a very scientific belief, not at all in conflict with things I perceive in the world like dinosaur skeletons)! Therefore I guess stem cell research and abortions are OK, so I'll vote for Kerry now."
    • "See, SCIENCE WILL DESTROY US ALL!! ARMAGEDDON IS NIGH!!! REPEAL THE 20TH CENTURY!! VOTE BUSH!!!"
    • "Ah now I understand, George Bush is simply the last Homo floresiensis on the planet, evolved into slightly taller form. My liberal heart loves the underdog, so I'll vote for Bush, since he's a minority now."


    See, Bush wins.
  • by Kamerynn (726494) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @06:29PM (#10647711)
    There is a big mistake in the article. Flores is roughly half the size of Belgium, or +- 14 000 sq km.

    So either it is another island they are talking about (possibly in the vicinity of Flores) or their 31sq km figure should read 31 thousand sq km (not likely given the importance of the small size of the island that explains their evolution to a small skeleton).

    You can see a detailed map or the archipelago here:

    http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/images/indon esia.gif [usda.gov]

    Flores is approximately at 9S 122E

  • It reminds me.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 12357bd (686909) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @08:02PM (#10648607)

    The fascinating history of H.P. Blavatsky 'The People of Blue Mountains [katinkahesselink.net]'.

    Probably those small people of Indonesia had also his own myths about why and how the were there.

  • Cryptozoology (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pajamacore (613970) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @09:48PM (#10649325)
    Orang-pendek [occultopedia.com] anyone? As recently as 1847, gorillas were dismissed as silly native legends. It was then that white men finally laid eyes on them. The mountan gorilla was also thought to be central Africa's Yeti until 1901. Then there's the whole tree-beater/lion-killer ape controversy in Africa right now. The moral is: don't dismiss native stories so easily.

(1) Never draw what you can copy. (2) Never copy what you can trace. (3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.

Working...