Anthropology.net

Image via Wikipedia

A Homo floresiensis premolar will be drilled, and DNA extracted, according to a Nature News piece passed on by Razib, John Hawks, and Dienekes. This is not the first attempt at extracting hobbit DNA, the news article explains,

“Five years ago, two teams, one from ACAD and one from the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, attempted to recover DNA from another H. floresiensis tooth excavated in 2003. Both attempts failed.

Now, a team led by Christina Adler, a geneticist at ACAD, has found that standard sampling procedures could be responsible for the failure to get DNA from the hobbit and some other ancient specimens.”

I’ve been out of the loop for a couple years and have lost track on the advances made in ancient DNA studies. I do remember there was a big hub-bub regarding contamination from excavators and degradation of DNA. Maybe some of the new techniques overcomes these problems.

The lead, Adler, recently published a paper on the advances, titled, “Survival and recovery of DNA from ancient teeth and bones.” Again, I don’t have time to read it and give you a summary because I am studying for my board exams. It seems like the paper advises extracting DNA from the cementum of teeth which has way more DNA than the normal source of aDNA, dentin… But if you’re curious about ancient DNA sequencing, this should be an interesting read.

Nonetheless, it should be very interesting to see what comes from this attempt. I wish the team the best of luck and eagerly await the results.

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.

Speaking of the Johansons and fossils …

Earlier this year, I’ve blogged about the 2009 Human Evolution Leakey Symposium at Stony Brook that I went to. For more about that blog post, click here.

The symposium, entitled “Hobbit in the Haystack: Homo floresiensis and Human Evolution” can now be streamed live through the Stony Brook website. The website also includes previous Human Evolution Leakey symposia. Click here to watch.

Thanks to Afarensis: Anthropology, Evolution and Science for the heads up!

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio

New analysis by a team led by Australian National University doctoral student Debbie Argue showed that Homo floresiensis, nicknamed hobbits, were early hominin and walked out of Africa to Flores. Their findings supports the argument that Homo floresiensis had a unique wrist anatomy that originated from a lineage that lived long before the common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

With Mike Moorwood from University of Wollongong and Thomas Sutikna from Indonesian Center for Archaeology, Debbie Argue compared 60 skulls and skeletal features from two individual hobbits to those of hominins, chimpanzees and gorillas using cladistic analysis. The result shows that Homo floresiensis “probably took one of two evolutionary paths from Africa to Flores. One began 1.66 million years ago, the other 1.9 million years ago”.

Read more here: Hobbits Walked Out of Africa

Originally posted on The Prancing Papio.

A new paper published in Anthropological Science claims that comparative skull analyses between the hobbit skull and various others from H. sapiens and a plethora of archaic others, indicates to the authors of this study that the diminutive humans, whose remains were discovered on the island of Flores descended from Asian Homo erectus.

The paper is free to access, and although I haven’t had time to read it through, looks set to cause yet more rumblings in the ongoing debate between those who contend H. floresiensis was a microcephalic H. sapiens, and those who believe that an entirely new species of human has been discovered. Here’s the abstract…

Since its first description in 2004, Homo floresiensis has been attributed to a species of its own, a descendant of H. erectus or another early hominid, a pathological form of H. sapiens, or a dwarfed H. sapiens related to the Neolithic inhabitants of Flores. In this contribution, we apply a geometric morphometric analysis to the skull of H. floresiensis (LB1) and compare it with skulls of normal H. sapiens, insular H. sapiens (Minatogawa Man and Neolithic skulls from Flores), pathological H. sapiens (microcephalics), Asian H. erectus (Sangiran 17), H. habilis (KNM ER 1813), and Australopithecus africanus (Sts 5).

Our analysis includes specimens that were highlighted by other authors to prove their conclusions. The geometric morphometric analysis separates H. floresiensis from all H. sapiens, including the pathological and insular forms. It is not possible to separate H. floresiensis from H. erectus. Australopithecus falls separately from all other skulls. The Neolithic skulls from Flores fall within the range of modern humans and are not related to LB1.

The microcephalic skulls fall within the range of modern humans, as well as the skulls of the Neolithic small people of Flores. The cranial shape of H. floresiensis is close to that of H. erectus and not to that of any H. sapiens. Apart from cranial shape, some features of H. floresiensis are not unique but are shared with other insular taxa, such as the relatively large teeth (shared with Early Neolithic humans of Sardinia), and changed limb proportions (shared with Minatogawa Man).

The putative link to H.erectus isn’t entirely unexpected, if only from a geographical perspective, because the island of Flores was also home to these archaic humans some 840,000 years ago – as with the so-called hobbits, nobody is quite sure how they managed to arrive on an island so long ago, when a sea crossing was the only available means of access.

(via Mundo Neandertal)

image via online paper

Reference:

The Origin of Homo floresiensis and its Relation to Evolutionary Processes Under Isolation. (PDF) (HTML) G.A. Lyras, M.D. Dermitzakis, A.A.E. Van der Geer, S.B. Van der Geer, J. De Vos. Anthropological Science 117(1), 33–43, April 2009.

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.

LB1 (Homo floresiensis)

I watched that NOVA special on Homo floresiensis last night. It was extremely well done. The producers covered a lot of angles, interviewed many key players, presented the information in a clear manner and kept it entertaining. I wish more anthropology related documentaries would use this show as a template.

In lieu of resonating more noise in the echo chamber, I’ll pass you onto John Hawks‘ minute by minute review of the show. But I do want to say the show really effectively addressed some of the critics of the Flores hobbit, including me, by reminding us that evolution is not linear. And even though we’ve seen a linear pattern in previous hominid brain size growth patterns and associated archaeological complexity, it is possible a smaller brained hominid also evolved simultaneously. If I were teaching a paleoanthropology class, I would show this documentary for sure.

For those of you who couldn’t watch it, it is online now in both Quicktime and Windows Media formats. Watch it.

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?

According to these press reports, Debbie Argue, of the Australian National University’s School of Archaeology and Anthropology, has produced a new cladistic comparison of Homo floresiensis to many other H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilis specimens. I read the releases, and it seems like some gracile australopithecines were also in the comparison set… at least Australopithecus garhi… not too sure though. Her matrix was based off of 40 character states off of the crania and 30 characters off of the mandibles of H. floresiensis and the comparative sample.

She presented her results to her university’s Archaeological Science Conference in February… the news of it is just leaking out now. Her work suggests that the tiny Homo floresiensis are not a biproduct of strong insular dwarfism. A form of speciation also seen on Flores in several species, including a dwarf Stegodon.

Here’s a summary of her results:

• Homo floresiensis is more similar to H. ergaster or H. habilis, indicating that H. floresiensis and H. habilis share a common ancestor.
• H. floresiensis has an arm-leg length ratio that resembles Australopithecus garhi. I don’t know where this is coming from because her character set seemed to be based soley off of skull measurements and not post cranial measurements. Furthermore, LB1, the type specimen for H. floresiensis has a cranial capacity of 417cc. A. garhi had a cranial capacity of 450cc. To Argue, this indicates,

“Flores seems to have evolved around the time of A. garhi, given its primitive arm-leg ratio, whereas H. habilis was moving towards the modern human ratio around the same time…

…[which] means some hominin must have moved out of Africa about two million years ago, which is half a million years earlier than the Dmanisi hominin, which is supposedly the earliest out of Africa.”

This conclusion is in line with conclusion made by academics in September. But the most liberal assesment of when hominins began occupying Flores Island is around 94,000 years ago, there’s a massive gap in the archaeological and fossil record that needs to be acounted for.