Palanth Forum
May 24, 2012, 12:45:33 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Mini Human Species Unearthed  (Read 7961 times)
Jacques Cinq-Mars
Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156



« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2005, 03:54:47 PM »

All,

Here is more on the unfolding palaeoanthropological saga of Homo floresiensis:

Quote
Flores hominid bones returned - Handover is unlikely to resolve scientific and ethical issues over Homo floresiensis

By Tabitha M Powledge

The Scientist-- February 28, 2005


After a contentious sojourn in the lab of a senior Indonesian paleoanthropologist, most of the ancient hominid bones from the Indonesian island of Flores, published to acclaim in Nature last fall, are back in a new secure storage facility at their home institution, the Centre for Archaeology in Jakarta. Two leg bones from LB1, the 17,000-year-old type specimen nicknamed "The Hobbit" because it is so tiny, were left behind for additional study.

The controversy erupted after Teuku Jacob, professor emeritus of paleoanthropology at Gajah Mada University in Java, took the bones to his own lab. Jacob, who was not involved in the find, has said that this was standard practice and that scientists around the world have done research in the paleontology collections at Gajah Mada, which are particularly rich in Homo erectus fossils. Jacob could not be reached for comment.

"We've put a limit of March 3" for the return of the leg bones, Douglas Hobbs, a member of the joint Indonesian–Australian team that found and analyzed the bones, told The Scientist. "The femur is unique, so they wanted to study it further, just to take more measurements, and we said that was fine," said Hobbs, who was present at the handover. "What was critical to us were the arm bones and an extra jaw that we had found in 2004."

The 2004 discoveries, which came from the same strata as LB1, have not yet been analyzed completely or published. Hobbs said that the lower jaw contains a complete set of teeth, and the arm bones are much longer than those of Homo sapiens.

The return of the bones on Wednesday (February 23) was managed with cordiality and dignity, Hobbs says. But the handover seems unlikely to halt international rancor over scientific and ethical issues surrounding the Flores find.

Click HERE for the full article.

Additonal details of the story are also presented in:

Powledge, Tabitha M. 2005. Researchers Wrangle Over Access to Homo floresiensis - That old saw, "bones of contention," has never been more apt. The Scientist 19(4): 14,

which can be read HERE

Jacques Cinq-Mars



Logged
Jacques Cinq-Mars
Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156



« Reply #46 on: March 03, 2005, 04:43:49 PM »

All,

For your information, here is one of a number of media relases that are now popping up on the web, in the wake of the usual embargo imposed by Science and other scientific journals.

Quote
Hobbit was 'not a diseased human'

By Paul Rincon

BBC News -- Thursday, 3 March, 2005, 19:16 GMT


The famous skeleton from Indonesia nicknamed the "Hobbit" does not belong to a modern human pygmy with a brain disease, as some scientists argue.

That is the main finding of a detailed examination of the creature's braincase, published in Science.

The authors say their study of the Hobbit's brain supports the idea it is a new, dwarf species of human.

However, others contend the report does little to quash their theory it was actually a small, diseased person.

The remains of the small hominid from the Indonesian island of Flores were unveiled last year to worldwide acclaim.

The 18,000-year-old bones were unearthed at a site called Liang Bua, one of numerous limestone caves on Flores, and were designated LB1 and assigned to a human species new to science: Homo floresiensis.

But the skeleton of this tiny female with a brain no larger than a chimpanzee soon became mired in controversy.

Several prominent researchers - including the Indonesian palaeoanthropologist Teuku Jacob - argued that the remains were really those of a modern human (Homo sapiens), probably a pygmy with the brain defect known as microcephaly.

Microcephaly is a pathological condition characterised by an abnormally small head and brain and usually associated with mental difficulties.

Mirror image

The new research partly aims to scotch this theory. It shows that H. floresiensis managed to pack a number of features of more advanced brains into its tiny skull.

This may explain signs of advanced intelligence shown by the hominid, including the ability to hunt with sophisticated stone tools.

"The overall shape of LB1's brain resembles Homo erectus (an earlier ancestor of modern humans) more than anything else. But it's its own thing," said co-author Dean Falk, an anthropologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee.

"It has some very advanced features that harken towards [modern] humans. Those features are at the frontal lobe, the temporal lobes at the sides and at the back of the brain.

"In our opinion, LB1 is not in any way, shape or form, a true microcephalic."

Unless other forms of this condition are characterised by a Homo erectus-shaped brain, says Falk and her colleagues, the theory that LB1 is a microcephalic can be rejected.

Virtual model

Because the brain creates a mirror image of its surface inside the skull, scientists can create a cast by applying several layers of rubber paint to the cavity. When dry, this leaves a hollow rubber model - or endocast - of the brain that can be removed.

Professor Falk and researchers at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology used computed tomographic (CT) scan data on the original skull to create a 3D virtual endocast of LB1's brain.

The dimensions and features of this brain cast were then compared with endocasts from a number of different species: the chimpanzee; a normal modern human including the modern pygmy; an individual with true microcephaly; and Homo erectus.

Further comparisons were made with the ancient human-like creatures Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus aethiopicus; and even with modern gorillas.

Despite some advanced features, LB1's brain is in other ways intriguingly primitive. The ratio of brain size to body size in H. floresiensis is more similar to that of the australopithecines than to what one would expect if Homo erectus were miniaturised.

"I thought that it was really a very good description," said hominid brain specialist Ralph Holloway, of Columbia University in New York, US.

But, he added: "I think the real weakness was using one microcephalic [skull] in their comparison. I don't think true microcephaly was the one to go with."

'Not swayed'

Professor Holloway said the team should have tried to get hold of an individual with a more generalised condition called nanocephaly.

"They've made a convincing case for ruling out pathology to 95% confidence. But I think if they had extended their sample, it would have been more interesting," he explained.

Robert Eckhardt, of Penn State University, US, and a member of the group of researchers that believes LB1 was a microcephalic, said the team's work did not sway the disease theory.

"We have some comprehensive analyses underway which I really think will resolve this question," Professor Eckhardt said.

"What I would say for now is that the specimen has multiple phenomena that I would characterise as very strange oddities and probably pathologies."

But Dr Falk was keen to emphasise that the evidence for LB1's position as a separate species extends beyond a lone skull.

"There are other remains of Homo floresiensis, so it's from a population. And it looks pretty interesting from the neck down. So multiple evidence suggests to us that it's not a microcephalic," argued Dr Falk.

"If others are interested in pursuing that line of enquiry, we welcome that and look forward to reading it in a peer-reviewed journal."

A wrangle over custody of the hominid now seems to be drawing to a close. The bones were temporarily moved from the Centre for Archaeology in Jakarta to Professor Jacob's university so the researcher could study them for himself. This prompted fears that access to the remains might be restricted.

But most of the remains have now been returned to a secure facility at their home institution.

For access to to the original BBC piece and the accompanying images, click  HERE

And here is the exact reference/source for the above BBC article:

Quote
Falk, Dean, Charles Hildebolt, Kirk Smith, Mike J. Morwood, Thomas Sutikna, Peter Brown, Jatmiko, E. Wayhu Saptomo, Barry Brunsden, and Fred Prior. 2005. The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis. Science. Published online 3 March 2005.

Abstract:
The brain of Homo floresiensis is assessed by comparing a virtual endocast from the type specimen (LB1) with endocasts from great apes, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, a human pygmy, a human microcephalic, Sts 5 (Australopithecus africanus) and WT 17000 (Paranthropus aeithiopicus). Morphometric , allometric and shape data indicate that LB1 is not a microcephalic or pygmy. LB1's brain size versus body size scales like an australopithecine, but its endocast shape resembles that of Homo erectus. LB1 has derived frontal and temporal lobes and a lunate sulcus in a derived position, which are consistent with capabilities for higher cognitive processing.

Click HERE for the subscriber's only access to the article, but note that once there, one has free access to the informative "supporting online material”

Jacques Cinq-Mars
Logged
Mikey Brass
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 207



« Reply #47 on: March 03, 2005, 05:14:10 PM »

John Burnside has, on Paleoanthro (Yahoogroups), posted a response by Henneberg in which Henneberg disputes the assertions made by Falk - indeed he disputes the underpinnings of the study:

Falk examines primary microcephaly, but Henneberg maintains it is secondary microcephaly. Also, Falk's comparative sample is small and deficient.

There are other objections, but I cannot word them better than Henneberg has. I do not have permission to reproduce the post here, so those who are curious will need to visit the message archive at Paleoanthro.
Logged

Best, Mikey Brass
Ph.D. student, Institute of Archaeology, UCL
Website: http://www.antiquityofman.com

- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
Daryl Habel
Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 472



« Reply #48 on: March 04, 2005, 11:52:26 PM »

To all,

The Eureka alert from Florida State University announcing the new study of the Liang Bua 1 brain is good reading but doesn't really contain much that's different from most of the other numerous media presentations of the past few days. However, a short excerpt from the press release reads:

Quote
Findings from "The Brain of LB1, Homo Floresiensis" appear in the March 3 edition of Science Express, the online version of the journal Science, and will be featured in a March 13 special edition of Explorer on the National Geographic Channel at 8 p.m. EST/PST.


Just thought some might want to catch the March 13 National Geographic Channel special.  The entire Eureka alert article can be read: CLICK HERE

Dar
Logged

Daryl Habel
Editorial Advisory Committee
PALANTH
Martin Davison
Palanth Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



« Reply #49 on: March 07, 2005, 03:29:30 AM »

Just for info, I understand from the Aussie camp that there are "as many as 8" cranial remains from Liang Bua, not just the LB1 skull and the separate jaw that has been referred to, and that "more information will be published soon".

Presumably this will also include more on LB1's arms, which have variously been reported as "incredibly long" (Peter Brown) or "slightly longer......compared to ourselves" (Richard Roberts), and on what I have seen described as an ape-like knee (can't remember where I read this).

*If* there are eight tiny skulls and arms dangling down to ape-like knees, does the microcephaly argument collapse?

Martin
Logged
Daryl Habel
Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 472



« Reply #50 on: March 07, 2005, 04:57:23 PM »

Just for info, I understand from the Aussie camp that there are "as many as 8" cranial remains from Liang Bua, not just the LB1 skull and the separate jaw that has been referred to, and that "more information will be published soon".

Presumably this will also include more on LB1's arms, which have variously been reported as "incredibly long" (Peter Brown) or "slightly longer......compared to ourselves" (Richard Roberts), and on what I have seen described as an ape-like knee (can't remember where I read this).

*If* there are eight tiny skulls and arms dangling down to ape-like knees, does the microcephaly argument collapse?

Martin

Supposedly with microcephaly, in all of its forms, occuring in modern humans at the rate of only one per several tens of thousands, and *IF* there are eight tiny skulls with enough material to show cranial capacities in the 400-500 cc range, this seemingly would collapse the microcephaly argument.  However, unless some of  these "as many as 8" cranial remains actually are substantial (meaning a cranial capacity can be estimated), rather than eight cranial fragments from which cranial capacity cannot be estimated, there's still going to be no way to demonstrate the probability this is a "population" of small-brained hominins. And it probably would be safe to say that "eight" are not required.  Even two or three separate individuals with demonstrated small cranial capacities would put a big dent in the microcephaly argument.  So far, though, only *one* tiny brain has been published (along with lots of  forthcoming evidence promised 'soon' via the media campaign).

In the case of floresiensis, I've given up all hope that the barrage of media sound bytes give us anything close to an accurate representation of what actually has been found. I'm impatient, I suppose like everyone else, for publication of the remainder of the specimens found, but cognizant of the need to wait for detailed enumeration and especially measures of all specimens so far discovered.  It's impossible to render these conflicting news reports, containing more rhetoric than science, into an analysis that weighs heavily towards one side or the other in the matter of whether or not floresiensis is a tiny-brained species.

Both sides have used arguments containing ambiguous wording, like 'short', long', 'tiny', 'similar', etc., to make their case sound as strong as possible. However, for those of us not privy to the real specimens, there  is a real need for a complete itemization of specimens, with detailed descriptions, and real measures ("soon", I hope) before any of this can be sorted out to my satisfaction.  And for that, we wait...

All in my opinion, of course,
Dar
Logged

Daryl Habel
Editorial Advisory Committee
PALANTH
Don
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 16



« Reply #51 on: March 07, 2005, 09:27:35 PM »

Here's an article from Nature News about it:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html

**********
Critics silenced by scans of hobbit skull
Rex Dalton

Comparisons with pygmies and chimps bolster new species claim.

A computer-generated model of the skull of Homo floresiensis, our diminutive human relative, confirms that the controversial specimens from Indonesia do indeed represent a new species.

The study of the creature's brainpan shows that it was neither a pygmy nor an individual with a malformed skull and brain, as some critics contend. This lends support to the discovery team's assertion that the metre-tall specimen belongs to a species distinct from Homo erectus.
(snip)
********************************
Logged
Daryl Habel
Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 472



« Reply #52 on: March 07, 2005, 11:23:32 PM »

Here's an article from Nature News about it:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html

**********
Critics silenced by scans of hobbit skull
Rex Dalton
(snip)
********************************

Problem with this title is that the critics have not been silenced. They are already howling with counter-arguments (see Mikey's post above on Henneberg's response)  I'm sure this debate will continue at least until more details have been hashed out.

Dar
Logged

Daryl Habel
Editorial Advisory Committee
PALANTH
Pages: « 1 2 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!