Comments on: An upcoming study on Homo floresiensis says they are a separate species

By: A cladistic analysis of 17 hominid skulls « Anthropology.net

A cladistic analysis of 17 hominid skulls « Anthropology.net — Wed, 07 May 2008 04:49:14 +0000

[...] to resolve organization of organisms that show a lot of variation amongst between them, as seen in a recent discussion on H. floresiensis. The authors of this paper acknowledge this as a primary motivation for their research. They write, [...]

By: Correlating genetic and morphology evidence to pinpoint a divergence times for Neandertal and modern Humans « Anthropology.net

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:49:55 +0000

[...] Links An upcoming study on Homo floresiensis says they are a separate species [...]

By: TheMonkeyMan

TheMonkeyMan — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:10:53 +0000

There are two things I really feel I need to comment on here:

1. Why doesn’t someone use geometric morphometric shape analysis of H.floresiensis and other hominids and compare with distance-based methods?

2. Does Bernard Wood no longer agree with his paper with Mark Collard (how reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses) where they heavily hinted they did not trust the results of phylogenetic analysis carried out on craniodental morphology?

By: Kambiz Kamrani

Kambiz Kamrani — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:58:51 +0000

Yeah, I’m really irked at PNAS. Either they are careless with how early the press releases news of new papers or they just don’t have their act together and put out papers much later than they are supposed to be published.

I remember that I read about some news reporting that a study investigated the teeth of Neandertals. I ended up waiting 3 months for that paper to finally come out on PNAS.

By: Simon Greenhill

Simon Greenhill — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:15:25 +0000

Ahh… the utterly bizarre secrecy of PNAS’s magical disappearing papers. God knows what they think they’re doing by hiding them until well AFTER the media interest has died down.

–Simon