Comments on: Hobbits Alive?

By: Ted Haeger

Ted Haeger — Fri, 06 May 2005 21:03:58 +0000

Carl:
Great materials on H. floresensis! However, why keep using the name “Hobbits?” It really cheapens the significance of this find, and the name could lead astray less scientifically inclined minds. I realize that the discovering team used the term first, but isn’t it just a bit too silly and whimsical?
Thanks,
Ted

By: Lee R. Berger

Lee R. Berger — Wed, 04 May 2005 13:10:43 +0000

While the discussion of pygmies on flores is of great anthropological interest, it is critical to remember that Homo floresienses is based on not just a single skeleton but several remains dug up at the locality. It is also important to remember that H. floresienses has an extraordinarily small, but non-pathological brain - in fact it is very close to the smallest hominin brain ever discovered - and this includes australopithecines. Thus the species is not just a pygmy sized human - with a human sized brain perched on a small body as the “newly discovered” pygmies on Flores are, but a species showing very different relative cranial capacity (and morphology) from any known early or late hominin species. It is also important to note the contradictions in the arguments of the disputing scientists. Take for example the comment by Etty Indriati concerning human evolutionary adapative capacities “But, for humans, their menu is not just one type of food. Despite being isolated, they will try to find other types of food, so their bodies do not become small,” Clearly not only does H. floresienses violate this rather ill founded comment but the very near pygmy-sized people on flores today violate this argument. My own work has shown that pre-humans can adapt in the oppossite direction - towards giantism - as readily as they adapt to smaller sizes under certain ecological conditions. At present - on morphological grounds - H. floresienses stands.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 03 May 2005 00:17:10 +0000

Great article.

The “Homo Floresiensis” was actually only 100cm tall, whereas most modern pygmies are 150cm or above. It’s obvious that Floresiensis was a different more archaic form of human. Infact, they can hardly be considered human at all.

There were many different types of human-like beings in the prehistoric Indonesian past. Meganthropus and many large Erectine specimimens displayed a tendency towards giantism.They cannot be considered “modern humans” either, because their physical features are so outside the norm for modern humans. Likewise, Floresiensis was outside the norm of modern humans.

My conclusion is-They were not modern humans.

By: Thomas N. Headland

Thomas N. Headland — Mon, 02 May 2005 22:37:51 +0000

Dear Mr. Zimmer: I just read your interesting posting of April 29 titled “Hobbits Alive?” I’m not sure what you mean by the term “pygmies,” but I have been studying Asian Negrito foragers for most of the last 43 years. (The term “Negrito” is less problematic than “pygmy,” but perhaps not by much.) I have measured hundreds of adults in the Agta Negrito population in the Philippines, and male adults average 154.4 cm (weight 46.2 kg) and females 143.8 cm (weight 39.3 kg). If you “can’t find a paper to back up [your] recollection at the moment” of a ‘pygmy’ population’s height changes at different times, see John Early’s and my 1998 book, p.118. You can compare Agta heights with those of African Pygmies and other ‘primitive’ and Asian Negrito populations at Table 4 of my 1989 article in the AMER J OF HUMAN BIOLOGY vol 1 p.67. (Ituri Pygmy male heights reportedly average 144 cm and CAR Pygmy males 153.) Homo floresiensis is a fascinating report. So far, I remain skeptical. Thomas N. Headland (www.sil.org/~headlandt/)

By: bhudson

bhudson — Mon, 02 May 2005 16:10:28 +0000

The original article in Nature describes H.floresiensis as being 1m tall, not 1.3m. Regardless of the height, a more recent article by the excavation team found morphological differences between the Hobbit fossil brain cavity and that of various other hominids (and a chimp). So this pygmy village, if true, doesn’t kill the H.foresiensis claim, though it does weaken it.

By: ChL

ChL — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:38:08 +0000

All this mentioning of negritos in the Philippines and the Andamanes just serves to muddy the waters as far as I can tell. They have been well studied, and if they had any similarity with Flores man, that would have been noticed already, wouldn’t it?

By: spiznet

spiznet — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:24:40 +0000

Finally a story that makes sense. A slightly pathological modern from this or other similar village 13kya. Thanks, Teuku J!!

By: Tim Burns

Tim Burns — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:17:16 +0000

Absolutely amazing. This is either a great hoax or a truly amazing find. So what if they really are pygmies, does that really mean the Homo Florisis is not a unique species? How does the social context play into how we define “species”? Scientists, please forgive my layman language, but if they really are pygmies, then isn’t there something broader in the problem of classifying “who” they are in terms of a genetic lineage?