Homo floresiensis: reviving the controversy.

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

This is for the record. The story has been making the headlines in science news and blogs for last two ot three days and is primarily based on two technical comments and report by E. Culotta just published in the same issue of Science. The two main papers are:

Martin, R. D.  A. M. MacLarnon, J. L. Phillips, L. Dussubieux, P. R. Williams, W. B. Dobyns. 2006. Comment on "The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis". Science Vol. 312:5776: 999.

Abstract:
Endocast analysis of the brain Homo floresiensis by Falk et al. (Reports, 8 April 2005, p. 242) implies that the hominid is an insular dwarf derived from H. erectus, but its tiny cranial capacity cannot result from normal dwarfing. Consideration of more appropriate microcephalic syndromes and specimens supports the hypothesis of modern human microcephaly.


Falk, Dean, Charles Hildebolt, Kirk Smith, M. J. Morwood, Thomas Sutikna, Jatmiko, E. Wayhu Saptomo, Barry Brunsden, Fred Prior. 2006. Response to Comment on ‘‘The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis’’. Science 312:5776; 999.

Abstract:
Martin et al. claim that they have two endocasts from microcephalics that appear similar to that of LB1, Homo floresiensis. However, the line drawings they present as evidence lack details about the transverse sinuses, cerebellum, and cerebral poles. Comparative measurements, actual photographs,and sketches that identify key features are needed to draw meaningful conclusions about Martin.

As for the most interesting/informative blogs I have had time to look at, they are:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/ (John Hawks) and http://loom.corante.com/ (Carl Zimmer).

Equally interesting is this well illustrated piece from Geology News (Geological Society) I just picked up this morning:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=Flores

All in all, it seems from what I have read so far that the only consensus that has been reached on this issue has to do with the relative laxity of the whole scientific reporting process. As for the true identity of the so-called ‘Hobbit’ it is clearly far from being elucidated to the satisfaction of all. Personally, I think I'll stick with the stones.

Jacques

PS   I find it curious that Peter Brown (the lead author of the original report) does not appear to have been part of this recent discussion.

Addendum
... and to add to your confusion, the following just came out: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/daily/23467/

[AWSX]

All this controversy over microcephally seems to be ignoring the other physical differances in teeth, lack of a chin and limb proportions.

[Daryl Habel]

I might add that, for some unexplained reason, all articles in this week's (19 May 2006) journal Science seem to be available online free in both html and pdf versions.  Thus,

Martin, R. D.  A. M. MacLarnon, J. L. Phillips, L. Dussubieux, P. R. Williams, W. B. Dobyns. 2006. Comment on "The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis". Science Vol. 312:5776: 999, is available in html, at:
CLICK HERE

and
Falk, Dean, Charles Hildebolt, Kirk Smith, M. J. Morwood, Thomas Sutikna, Jatmiko, E. Wayhu Saptomo, Barry Brunsden, Fred Prior. 2006. Response to Comment on ‘‘The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis’’. Science 312:5776; 999, is avalable in html, at:
CLICK HERE

Icons to download the pdf versions are available on the html pages, also on the issue contents page, at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/current.dtl

As I noted, the entire issue contents seem to be available free to all, at least for the time being, so there may be other articles you might find of interest.  In particular is the article:
HUMAN EVOLUTION: Genomes Throw Kinks in Timing of Chimp-Human Split
Elizabeth Pennisi
Science 19 May 2006: 985-986.
CLICK HERE

a news story about another media blitz dealing with the paper published online on 17 May in  Nature by David Reich and his colleagues reporting a possible period of hybridization between early chimp and human ancestors, preceding the final split of their separate lineages.

Dar
 

[lagarvelho]

Dar:

Thanks for all those links.  They look quite interesting, and I'm going to get around to reading them some time later today.  In any case, I've been totally confused about the "hobbits" for some little time, and these "technical comments and their responses have done nothing whatsoever to clear up the confusion, one way or another.  So, whenever and whatever "they" finally decide about these fossils, I'll go along with it,.  Because quite frankly, at this point, I have no idea what to think.
Anne g

[caldararo]

Just a brief comment.  The debate seems to center on necessary meridians of brain size for "human behavior."  This is quite subjective unless you define human behavior and all the necessary abilities.  As Holloway stated in a very important paper in 1966 (Cranial Capacity and Hominid Evolution, Amer. Anth. v. 68), the number of neurons differs in humans and other Primates, brain size, capacity and ability are not equivalent.  He makes a reference (very precient) to microcephaly and the nature of the brain apparatus as being central to our understanding of hominid cognitive evolution.  This is comparable to Jerison's discussion of the evolution of the mammalian brain to a flexed form and should give rise to a very different attitude to the Flores hominids.
   By the way, I just finished teaching a class in Fossil Humans here at State and used Glen Conroy's, Reconstructing Human Origins.  It is a very effective platform to teach from.  The material is comprehensive and balanced.  He has done a great job.

Niccolo Caldararo, Ph.D.
Dept,. of Anthropology
San Francisco State University


 

This is for the record. The story has been making the headlines in science news and blogs for last two ot three days and is primarily based on two technical comments and report by E. Culotta just published in the same issue of Science. The two main papers are:

Martin, R. D.  A. M. MacLarnon, J. L. Phillips, L. Dussubieux, P. R. Williams, W. B. Dobyns. 2006. Comment on "The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis". Science Vol. 312:5776: 999.

Abstract:
Endocast analysis of the brain Homo floresiensis by Falk et al. (Reports, 8 April 2005, p. 242) implies that the hominid is an insular dwarf derived from H. erectus, but its tiny cranial capacity cannot result from normal dwarfing. Consideration of more appropriate microcephalic syndromes and specimens supports the hypothesis of modern human microcephaly.


Falk, Dean, Charles Hildebolt, Kirk Smith, M. J. Morwood, Thomas Sutikna, Jatmiko, E. Wayhu Saptomo, Barry Brunsden, Fred Prior. 2006. Response to Comment on ‘‘The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis’’. Science 312:5776; 999.

Abstract:
Martin et al. claim that they have two endocasts from microcephalics that appear similar to that of LB1, Homo floresiensis. However, the line drawings they present as evidence lack details about the transverse sinuses, cerebellum, and cerebral poles. Comparative measurements, actual photographs,and sketches that identify key features are needed to draw meaningful conclusions about Martin.

As for the most interesting/informative blogs I have had time to look at, they are:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/ (John Hawks) and http://loom.corante.com/ (Carl Zimmer).

Equally interesting is this well illustrated piece from Geology News (Geological Society) I just picked up this morning:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=Flores

All in all, it seems from what I have read so far that the only consensus that has been reached on this issue has to do with the relative laxity of the whole scientific reporting process. As for the true identity of the so-called ‘Hobbit’ it is clearly far from being elucidated to the satisfaction of all. Personally, I think I'll stick with the stones.

Jacques

PS   I find it curious that Peter Brown (the lead author of the original report) does not appear to have been part of this recent discussion.

Addendum
... and to add to your confusion, the following just came out: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/daily/23467/

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

This is for the record. The story has been making the headlines in science news and blogs for last two ot three days and is primarily based on two technical comments and report by E. Culotta just published in the same issue of Science. The two main papers are:

<snip>

PS   I find it curious that Peter Brown (the lead author of the original report) does not appear to have been part of this recent discussion.

<snip>

Following my brief comment regarding Peter Brown’s silence, I have just found out that he has finally manifested himself. Here is the first paragraph in a series of comments apparently directed at debunking the debunkers:

Reacting strongly to the latest round of attacks on Homo floresiensis being conducted more in the media than in reasoned reality, Peter Brown, the co-discover of the new species has told Cryptomundo: “Some people see exactly what they want to see, for a variety of reasons.”

You can read the full interview (?) HERE

Given the nature of the criticism  expressed by Peter Brown, I must say that I find it rather odd that he has chosen (?) to do so through an electronic form of media called a blog, and, not only that but one that goes by the name of Cryptomundo and that seems to be quite interested in ‘Bigfoot’ stories and the like.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[lagarvelho]

Jacques and all:

I was a little surprised myself.  The only thing I know about this Cryptomundo blog is that it's "big" on Sasquatches on the like.  And I *thought* Peter Brown was a respectable archaeologist.  Which means, to me, at least, that Brown would be very careful to stay away from any medium with such dubious links.  The interview itself was, uh, interesting, but not very revealing.
Anne G

[rmacfarl]

This is for the record. The story has been making the headlines in science news and blogs for last two ot three days and is primarily based on two technical comments and report by E. Culotta just published in the same issue of Science. The two main papers are:

Martin, R. D.  A. M. MacLarnon, J. L. Phillips, L. Dussubieux, P. R. Williams, W. B. Dobyns. 2006. Comment on "The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis". Science Vol. 312:5776: 999.

Abstract:
Endocast analysis of the brain Homo floresiensis by Falk et al. (Reports, 8 April 2005, p. 242) implies that the hominid is an insular dwarf derived from H. erectus, but its tiny cranial capacity cannot result from normal dwarfing. Consideration of more appropriate microcephalic syndromes and specimens supports the hypothesis of modern human microcephaly.


Falk, Dean, Charles Hildebolt, Kirk Smith, M. J. Morwood, Thomas Sutikna, Jatmiko, E. Wayhu Saptomo, Barry Brunsden, Fred Prior. 2006. Response to Comment on ‘‘The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis’’. Science 312:5776; 999.

Abstract:
Martin et al. claim that they have two endocasts from microcephalics that appear similar to that of LB1, Homo floresiensis. However, the line drawings they present as evidence lack details about the transverse sinuses, cerebellum, and cerebral poles. Comparative measurements, actual photographs,and sketches that identify key features are needed to draw meaningful conclusions about Martin.

As for the most interesting/informative blogs I have had time to look at, they are:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/ (John Hawks) and http://loom.corante.com/ (Carl Zimmer).

Equally interesting is this well illustrated piece from Geology News (Geological Society) I just picked up this morning:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=Flores

All in all, it seems from what I have read so far that the only consensus that has been reached on this issue has to do with the relative laxity of the whole scientific reporting process. As for the true identity of the so-called ‘Hobbit’ it is clearly far from being elucidated to the satisfaction of all. Personally, I think I'll stick with the stones.

Jacques

PS   I find it curious that Peter Brown (the lead author of the original report) does not appear to have been part of this recent discussion.

Addendum
... and to add to your confusion, the following just came out: http://www.the-scientist.com/news/daily/23467/

In yet more takes on the same subject, here are a couple of articles first posted on sci.anthropology.paleo by Rich Travsky.

First one's confusing in it's position on microcephaly yea or nay:

>  http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060715/fob6.asp

>  Comparisons of a partial Flores skeleton with bones of other human ancestors
>  and modern people weaken recent arguments that that the island finds come
>  either from Stone Age pygmies or from another Homo sapiens specimen with a
>  genetic condition known as microcephaly
...
>  Argue's team determined, however, that the H. floresiensis individual probably did
>  suffer from a type of microcephaly.

...

The second article's very interesting, but I can't help being suspicious that it's the discoverer of Laron Syndrome who's doing the diagnosis that Floresiensis was suffering from the syndrome.:

>  http://www.abstracts2view.com/endo/view.php?nu=ENDO06L_P3-202
>  Did the Small-Bodied Hominins from Flores (Indonesia) Suffer from Laron Syndrome?
>  ...
>  Now, he and his team have compared X rays of patients with Laron syndrome-who in
>  Israel range from 108 to 136 centimeters in height-with data on H. floresiensis.
>  They found numerous parallels: a pronounced ridge above the eyes, absence of a
>  particular sinus in the head, and limbs that are abnormally short in proportion
>  to the trunk  ...
>  As Homo floresiensis replicates most of the diagnostic features of Laron syndrome
>  patients, it can be assumed that the findings from the island of Flores represents a
>  local highly inbred Homo sapiens (or Homo erectus) population in whom a mutation for
>  the GH receptor had occurred.
>  LS has been diagnosed in populations residing or originating from the Mediterranean,
>  Mid-Eastern and Asian regions and thus it can be speculated that the syndrome may
>  have its origins in Flores.

As for me, I shall continue to fence-sit & let the experts battle it out...

Ross Macfarlane

[Daryl Habel]

In yet more takes on the same subject, here are a couple of articles first posted on sci.anthropology.paleo by Rich Travsky.

First one's confusing in it's position on microcephaly yea or nay:

>  http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060715/fob6.asp

>  Comparisons of a partial Flores skeleton with bones of other human ancestors
>  and modern people weaken recent arguments that that the island finds come
>  either from Stone Age pygmies or from another Homo sapiens specimen with a
>  genetic condition known as microcephaly
...
>  Argue's team determined, however, that the H. floresiensis individual probably did
>  suffer from a type of microcephaly.

Hi Ross,

Your Science News article requires a subscription, and therefore not available to most of us.  I don't think this article has been mentioned here at Palanth, so I'll just say I have read the Argue et al. paper, which is an unedited "accepted manuscript", available on the "in press" webpage of Journal of Human Evolution, currently article #4, at: HERE.

JHE requests that it be cited as:

Argue, D., Donlon, D., Groves, C., Wright, R. Homo floresiensis: Microcephalic, pygmoid, Australopithecus, or Homo?, Journal of Human Evolution (2006), doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.04.013

The abstract concludes with the following statements: "Based on these comparisons, we conclude that it is unlikely that LB1 is a microcephalic human, and it cannot be attributed to any known species.  Its attribution to a new species, Homo floresiensis, is supported" (Argue et al. 2006).

So if, as you say they did determine a type of microcephaly (I'll have to re-read), it's clear they think LB1 is not a microcephalic "human".   

...

The second article's very interesting, but I can't help being suspicious that it's the discoverer of Laron Syndrome who's doing the diagnosis that Floresiensis was suffering from the syndrome.:

>  http://www.abstracts2view.com/endo/view.php?nu=ENDO06L_P3-202
>  Did the Small-Bodied Hominins from Flores (Indonesia) Suffer from Laron Syndrome?
>  ...
>  Now, he and his team have compared X rays of patients with Laron syndrome-who in
>  Israel range from 108 to 136 centimeters in height-with data on H. floresiensis.
>  They found numerous parallels: a pronounced ridge above the eyes, absence of a
>  particular sinus in the head, and limbs that are abnormally short in proportion
>  to the trunk  ...
>  As Homo floresiensis replicates most of the diagnostic features of Laron syndrome
>  patients, it can be assumed that the findings from the island of Flores represents a
>  local highly inbred Homo sapiens (or Homo erectus) population in whom a mutation for
>  the GH receptor had occurred.
>  LS has been diagnosed in populations residing or originating from the Mediterranean,
>  Mid-Eastern and Asian regions and thus it can be speculated that the syndrome may
>  have its origins in Flores.

As for me, I shall continue to fence-sit & let the experts battle it out...

Ross Macfarlane

Thanks for this one.  First I've heard of the "Laron Syndrome" theory (just what we need, another theory!!!).  Just to fill in the reference, the abstract comes from:

ENDO 2006, the Endocrine Society's 88th Annual Meeting, Boston, June 24-27.

Scoot over, I'm joining you on the fence.
Dar

[rmacfarl]

In yet more takes on the same subject, here are a couple of articles first posted on sci.anthropology.paleo by Rich Travsky.

First one's confusing in it's position on microcephaly yea or nay:

>  http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060715/fob6.asp

>  Comparisons of a partial Flores skeleton with bones of other human ancestors
>  and modern people weaken recent arguments that that the island finds come
>  either from Stone Age pygmies or from another Homo sapiens specimen with a
>  genetic condition known as microcephaly
...
>  Argue's team determined, however, that the H. floresiensis individual probably did
>  suffer from a type of microcephaly.

Hi Ross,

Your Science News article requires a subscription, and therefore not available to most of us.  I don't think this article has been mentioned here at Palanth, so I'll just say I have read the Argue et al. paper, which is an unedited "accepted manuscript", available on the "in press" webpage of Journal of Human Evolution, currently article #4, at: HERE.

JHE requests that it be cited as:

Argue, D., Donlon, D., Groves, C., Wright, R. Homo floresiensis: Microcephalic, pygmoid, Australopithecus, or Homo?, Journal of Human Evolution (2006), doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.04.013

The abstract concludes with the following statements: "Based on these comparisons, we conclude that it is unlikely that LB1 is a microcephalic human, and it cannot be attributed to any known species.  Its attribution to a new species, Homo floresiensis, is supported" (Argue et al. 2006).

So if, as you say they did determine a type of microcephaly (I'll have to re-read), it's clear they think LB1 is not a microcephalic "human".   

Yes, I actually didn't have access to the Science News article either, but Rich quoted the abstract as follows on SAP:

"
 http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060715/fob6.asp

 New measurements bolster the 2-year-old claim that fossils of a half-size
 human ancestor found on the Indonesian island of Flores represent a new
 species, Homo floresiensis.

 Comparisons of a partial Flores skeleton with bones of other human ancestors
 and modern people weaken recent arguments that that the island finds come
 either from Stone Age pygmies or from another Homo sapiens specimen with a
 genetic condition known as microcephaly that hinders brain growth, concludes
 a team led by Debbie Argue of the Australian National University in Canberra.
 A separate group of researchers originally found the fossils.

 Argue's group compared measurements of the Flores fossils—which range in age
 from roughly 12,000 to 90,000 years—with corresponding data on skull and limb
 bones from two people with microcephaly who died around 2,000 years ago; a
 roughly 4-1/2-foot-tall person previously excavated at a 3,000-to-5,000-year-old
 Flores site; more than a dozen human ancestors ranging in age from 1 million to
 3.2 million years; and 584 modern humans, including members of especially short
 populations.

 After considering these comparisons, Argue finds it "unlikely" that the Flores
 individual was a human with microcephaly or a member of any known species of
 human ancestors. The Flores skull displays notable anatomical differences from a
 pair of human skulls—one unearthed in Greece and the other in Japan—that exhibit
 microcephaly, the researchers say.

 The new study will appear in the Journal of Human Evolution.

 Curiously, the Flores specimen's relatively short limbs resemble those of a
 2.5-million-year-old human ancestor, Australopithecus garhi, the team contends.
 The island species' skull recalls the shape of nearly 2-million-year-old Homo
 finds.

 Argue's team determined, however, that the H. floresiensis individual probably did
 suffer from a type of microcephaly.
 ...

Abstract (sortof):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJS-4KBD4S...

 http://tinyurl.com/g2gap
"

Cheers,

Ross Macfarlane

[Daryl Habel]

Ross,

Thanks for including RT's post of the Science News abstract.  I'll have to re-read Argue et al. (my first reading was little more than a scan) to see what they really say about microcephaly.

Dar.