April 17, 2008...11:06 am
Bill Jungers’ conclusions on Homo floresiensis bipedalism — the clown-footed hominin
More reports have been coming out of last week’s meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and one that has caught my attention is a news article summarizing Bill Jungers‘ research on the Homo floresiensis foot morphology. Jungers recently published a research paper reanalyzing Orrorin bipedalism, along with his colleagues.
For this presentation, Jungers looked at the more or less complete left foot of LB1 and says that H. floresiensis had, “flat, clown-like feet.” The photo above are the fossilized H. floresiensis foot bones. In relation to the tibia and fibula fragments, these feet are larger.
From the New Scientist article,
Jungers’ team estimated the length of the hobbit’s feet, which were unusually large for its metre-high frame. “Sort of like a young girl wearing her mum’s shoes,” Junger says…
…And because of their long feet, H. floresiensis probably had to bend its knee further back than modern humans do, resulting in a sort of high-stepped gait. “You would watch these hobbits walk and say they’re walking a little funny,” Jungers says.
The foot had other peculiar features as well. For one, its big toe was quite short compared with the others, similar to earlier hominids such as Australopithecus. However, the shape of the toes, even the short big toe, is like modern human ones, Jungers says. “It has a human morphology and an ape-like proportion,” he says.”
So, he’s associating this morphology with a primitive hominid condition. Not all too novel…. a group did the same last fall, but with the wrist bones.
Nonetheless, I’m not convinced. Why?
A 2006 paper in the open access journal Anthropological Science investigated the big feet morphology of modern humans in Polynesia, which is close to Indonesia. That study found out that Polynesians have much longer and wider feet and hands than the other populations tested. The study gets into a discussion on how micro-evolutionary processes affected this phenotype. It is possible something similar happened to LB1. I’m still uncertain whether or not what we call H. floresiensis are anything but mutant modern humans
For those that wanna read the 2006 paper on big feet phenotype in Polynesia, the citation to that paper is right here:
- GONDA, E., KATAYAMA, K. (2006). Big feet in Polynesia: a somatometric study of the Tongans. Anthropological Science, 114(2), 127-131. DOI: 10.1537/ase.00097

5 Comments
April 17, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Sweet catch!
April 22, 2008 at 6:40 pm
[...] relatives had big, flat feet. So the question is: were these humans a different species than us? Anthropology.net thinks not; that is, these humans were of the same species as [...]
April 24, 2008 at 5:53 pm
[...] on Homo floresiensis bipedalism and a bit on Homo floresiensis dental work Jump to Comments A week ago, I shared with you news of Bill Jungers’ conclusions on how the morphology of the Homo [...]
April 25, 2008 at 10:21 pm
You call the LB1 foot bones “fossilised”. None of the LB1 bones were fossilised. They are archaeological bones still consisting of the original collagen and mineals (apatite). I have seen them in original. By use of incorrect terminology myths can be created.
April 26, 2008 at 6:32 am
Thanks for catching that Dr. Henneberg. That was my mistake. You are correct, the original publication clearly writes that LB1’s skeleton is not fossilized:
I appreciate that you’ve taken the effort to clarify this. I’ve corrected the error.
Kambiz
Leave a Reply