Anthropology.net

Researchers from Stony Brook University Medical Center in New York confirmed that the Hobbits, or Homo floresiensis, are indeed a separate “human” species instead of a population of diseases Homo sapiens. The 7th Human Evolution Symposium, Hobbits in the Haystack: Homo floresiensis and Human Evolution was held this year at Stony Brook.

According to the press release, researchers William Jungers and Karen Baab used statistical analysis on the skeletal remains of LB1 (nicknamed Flo) to determine that Homo floresiensis are indeed a distinct species. A few characteristics of LB1 that makes her and her kind a separate species than modern humans.

• LB1′s cranial capacity is about 400cc, about the same size as a chimpanzee.
• The skull and jawbone of LB1 is more primitive looking than any normal modern humans.
• The thigh bone and shin bone of LB1are much shorter compared to modern humans including Central African pygmies, South African KhoeSan (formerly known as ‘bushmen”) and “negrito” pygmies from the Andaman Islands and the Philippines. Jungers and Baab believe that these are primitive retentions as opposed to island dwarfing.
• Using a regression equation developed by Jungers, LB1 was about 3 feet, 6 inches (106cm) tall, far smaller than modern human pygmies whose adults grow to less than 4 feet, 11 inches (150cm) tall.

Read more about the Hobbits at The geometry of hobbits: Homo floresiensis and human evolution (Free Wiley Interscience PDF).

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

The controversies over the hobbits or Homo floresiensis just refuse to end. It seems that the hobbits might not be a Homo after all. I guess they found the index and ring fingers of the hobbits (Sorry, inside joke. Read this post if you want).

Anyway, Peter Brown from the University of New England who first described Homo floresiensis said that he is considering of stripping the hobbits from the genus Homo. Brown and his colleague, Tomoko Maeda, said that the Homo floresiensis lineage possibly left Africa before the evolution of the genus Homo. Their paper had been accepted and will be published in an upcoming special Homo floresiensis edition of the Journal of Human Evolution.

I can’t wait for the paper to come out. In the meantime, you can read this article from The Australian.

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

The 7th Human Evolution Symposium, Hobbits in the Haystack: Homo floresiensis and Human Evolution was held yesterday at Stony Brook. Turnouts were great despite damp and rainy weather. Convened by Richard Leakey, the symposium was an all day event where researchers share their findings on Homo floresiensis. The highlight of the symposium is the first ever complete cast of LB1, or Flo and a host of Homo floresiensis researchers.

The symposium ended with questions and issues for discussion by Richard Leakey. Then, the floor was opened for general Q&A session with the panel.

“Accepting it (Homo floresiensis) will require us to rewrite the textbooks.” – William Jungers, Stony Brook University.

Here is a list of topic presented by speakers during the symposium:

1. “Hobbits in context: life, times and death of Homo floresiensis” by Michael J. Morwood, University of Wollongong, Australia.
2. “Digging up Hobbits: The Excavations at Liang Bua” by Thomas Sutikna, National Research and Development Centre for Archaeology, Indonesia.
3. “Stone Tools and Hominins on Flores” by Mark Moore, University of New England, Australia.
4. “Whence Homo floresiensis? Clues from the brain.” by Dean Falk, Florida State University.
5. “Her Teeth Were Sharp, Her Gums Were Raw, and Spit Was Dripping From Her Jaw: The Little Things That Make Us Human” by Peter Brown, University of New England, Australia.
6. “Why the Tiny Wrist Bones of a Hobbit Tell Us So Much About a Big Chapter in Human Evolutionary Theory” by Matthew Tocheri, Smithsonian Institution.
7. “The Hobbit Shrugged: The Shoulder of Homo floresiensis and its Implications For Human Evolution.” by Susan Larson, Stony Brook University.
8. “Can Island Dwarfing Explain Hobbit Body Size and Shape?” by William Jungers, Stony Brook University.
9. “Virtual Hobbits and Health in Homo floresiensis” by Charles Hildebolt, Washington University in St. Louis.

A list of what Richard Leakey commented and asked during the symposium:

1. We should be careful when using Lucy as model for comparison because Lucy is not representative of the genus Australopithecine in general.
2. We don’t have Homo erectus feet in our fossil record. The fossilized foot prints that were found in Ileret, Kenya has been suggested that it was left behind by Homo ergaster, an earlier version of Homo erectus.
3. There should be more discussion on the types of dating methods used on Homo floresiensis and the artifacts found in association with it.
4. There should be more discussion and research to link lithic materials to the Hobbits, or Homo floresiensis.
5. What were the geographic isolation of Flore? How did the Hobbits ended up in Flores?
6. Were there large carnivores in Flores or lack thereof? Hobbits have ape-like feet that were built for walking but not for running. Did they survive despite that because they have no need for speed to get away from predators?

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

You may have gotten a heads up from John Hawks that a new documentary on Homo floresiensis is around the bend. It is actually going to air tomorrow and you should catch it. It is titled “Alien From Earth,” premiering tomorrow Tuesday, November 11 at 8pm. I’ll definately be watching.

You’ll be seeing clips from Mike Morwood, Dean Falk, Matt Tocheri, Bill Jungers, and David Lordkipanidze explaining several lines of inquiry in regards to whether or not H. floresiensis unusual features are the result of disease, or the result from the “island effect” that often causes large creatures to evolve to be small, or a previously unrecognized branch of the human family tree.

Homo floresiensis foot compared to a modern human's

Dean Falk will be providing an explanation of her 2007 CAT scan of the H. floresiensis brain and the comparisons she did to microcephalic brains. If you don’t remember, she believes the hobbit represents a healthy, and so far unique, specimen of ancient humanity. But as you may also know, the hobbit’s brain size is really small — around 380 cc and the archaeological assemblage attributed to H. floresiensis is way more advanced than what we’ve seen made by other hominids with similar brain sizes.

Matt Tocheri will be providing an explanation of his 2007 analysis of the wrist bones of the hobbit and comparison to African apes. Tocheri argues that based upon wrist bones, Homo floresiensis is for sure a separate species because the bones are indistinguishable from ancestral African apes or other early hominin-like wrists and resemble nothing like modern humans and Neandertals. Bill Jungers will be arguing that he see similarities of the hobbit’s bones to that of Australopithecus afarensis.

Homo floresiensis mandibles

And since the estimated brain to body mass ratio of H. floresiensis lies between that of Homo erectus and the great apes, David Lordkipanidze discusses the possibility that H. floresiensis could be an unsuspected of our evolutionary tree.

All in all this seems like it should be an excellent synopsis on the latest research. I believe I’ve covered most of it before but video is pretty much more entertaining than reading a blog. Anyways, you can see a teaser clip and find more information about the show on the dedicated NOVA web page. And for those that can’t see the show, an online version will appear sometime afterward. Also of related interest is another documentary on H. floresiensis, which Afarensis live-blogged about several days ago. It is titled “The Hobbit Enigma,” and is also viewable online. I’m gonna try and watch that as well. Afarensis clarfied in the comment belowe that “The Hobbit Engima” and “Alien From Earth” are the same documentary — so why not watch it in advance?

Again with more confusing back and forthing…. but this time we leave the Neandertals and focus in on debate over whether or not Homo floresiensis is a novel species. New research published in Science, focuses in on the discovery of a mutation in a gene that causes a rare growth condition called MOPD II. People who are diagnosed with MOPD II have small brains and body size but near-normal intelligence which is what we see evident in the skeletal remains of Homo floresiensis and the associated archaeological artifacts. The MOPD stands for microcephalic (or Majewski) osteodysplastic primordial dwarfism, and the Roman numeral two just stands for the type.

Anita Rauch is first author of this new paper, “Mutations in the Pericentrin (PCNT) Gene Cause Primordial Dwarfism.” As you can tell from the title, PCNT is the culprit here. I did a bit of sleuthing to figure out what PCNT does. I figured out it encodes a conserved centrosome protein. Centrosomes play an essential role in microtubule organization and pull chromosomes apart during cell division. Additionally, PCNT forms a large complex with gamma tubulin and other proteins involved in microtubule nucleation. Ultimately, any mutation in this gene would affect the function of this protein in cellular division and development of the organism.

The research was inspired by two unrelated tiny girls living in northern Bavaria as well as Paddy Ryan, a man living with MOPD II. If Rauch and crew’s conclusion holds up, there’s about 100 known people living today with phenotypes seen Flores like hobbits. These are people who have grown up and live with the mutations in PCNT and display the MOPD type II condition which that leads to them being normally proportioned but half-sized. I once saw a documentary on people with MOPD and had thoughts they were similar to what we call, Homo floresiensis.

Another really important part of this study is that it totally challenges the primitive wrist hypothesis paper that came out last September. I critiqued that paper, where the authors argued that carpal bones of the hobbit hominid display ape-like traits. I had beef in that they said the fusion of centrale in the Homo floresiensis wrist was a primitive trait, even though modern humans sometimes display this feature. Rauch addressed this as well as the other primitive traits seen in the hobbit wrists. She writes that mutations in PCNT make for bony anomalies of the hand and wrist. I’d love to read what the primitive wrist folk have to say about this.