Hobbit is NOT a separate species

[Rokcet Scientist]

Scientists of the Naturalis museum/Leiden university (Netherlands) have closely studied the other fauna on Flores between 98 kya and 18 kya (the hobbit's presence on Flores). They found that large species (e.g. elephants) had shrunk (to mini elephants the size of a donkey), while small species had grown (rats to 2 feet long, marabus to 6 foot height, komodo dragons to 12/15 feet length, etc.). The cause was 1) isolation, and 2) absence of predators. So: the environment, the situation. The conclusion of the scientists is (of course; how could it be different in the Darwin Year) that species grow or shrink – a.k.a. adapt, or evolve – until they reach their optimum size for their environment. In this case the environment was an isolated island with few predators.
These scientists are now convinced the Hobbit's size was a result of adaptation to their environment, and that HF really was a dwarfed, regressed version of Homo Erectus. I.o.w. an aberration. Not a separate species!

Which posits another question: if Flores was so isolated in the past 100,000 years, then the predecessors of the Papua and the Aboriginals took another route to New Guinea and Oz. Either a northern, probably mostly overland route via Sulawesi/Celebes, or across the open ocean from Java/Bali...
And/or they did it before about 100 kya.

I think they did do it. More than 1 mya. For 99% overland. No pelagic crossing.
Later waves of hominids, less than 1 mya, have probably sailed to Oz. Because they 1) had no alternative (risen sea levels), and 2) because they could. They had developed sailing/navigation.

And Flores was 'forgotten', bypassed, and got well and truly isolated.

[Digit]

Your additions seem reasonable to me RS, but I find the logic of the report somewhat flawed. I cannot accept that because large animals dwarfed we can reasonably assume that Homo did.
It may indeed be so, but the report seems more like guesswork to me.

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I cannot accept that because large animals dwarfed we can reasonably assume that Homo did.

That's not the portent of their conclusion, Roy. They found that large animals dwarfed, while small animals grew. But they all changed.
Their conclusion – looking at all fauna, including hominids – is that species evolve to their optimum size relative to their environment/situation. So some get smaller, some get larger. And some get unusually large feet, very short legs, very long arms, and very small brains. But that's an optimization for their environment/situation. Basic evolution. Probably mixed with an (un)healthy dose of simple inbreeding to confuse 21st century patholog-anatomists.

Given long enough – 200,000 years or so? – that would probably have developed into a really separate species. Alas, the hobbit never made it that long.

[Digit]

Which throws us back to the old discussion as to what is a species? If they bred true surely they were a species?

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Which throws us back to the old discussion as to what is a species? If they bred true surely they were a species?

No: if they can't breed with another apparently similar group, then they are a separate species.

[wxsby]

Which throws us back to the old discussion as to what is a species?

Homo Shortrectus?

[Minimalist]

Wasn't there something, not too long ago, about the foot of Floriensis being more "primitive" than an HSS foot? Or even an HE foot.... or perhaps even a HSE foot?

[dannan14]

Wasn't there something, not too long ago, about the foot of Floriensis being more "primitive" than an HSS foot? Or even an HE foot.... or perhaps even a HSE foot?

i think the wrists too. And the brain structures seen in the endocast also appeared too primitive to be HSS.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Wasn't there something, not too long ago, about the foot of Floriensis being more "primitive" than an HSS foot? Or even an HE foot.... or perhaps even a HSE foot?

i think the wrists too. And the brain structures seen in the endocast also appeared too primitive to be HSS.

The feet are very large, the legs very short, the arms very long, with large hands, and the smallest brain of any homonoid in the last 3,5 mya.
The researchers concluded that the hobbit didn't need to run from predators.

[Digit]

Glad you said that RS, so if the latest work shows that HSN bred with HSS then HSS is dead!
Picture of cofffin etc required here Min!
You also might like to see this RS,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

In that case, a species is defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool.

Roy.

[Beagle]

i think the wrists too. And the brain structures seen in the endocast also appeared too primitive to be HSS.

Quite true from what I've been reading Dannan. The navicular process (wrist bones) have been described as most similar to the Australopithicines. Plus the endocasts show a brain imprint within the limits of a fully cognizant human.

This is gonna take a long time to shake out, I think.

[Digit]

We need to bag a live one!

Roy.

[Beagle]

That would be great Dig, but there is nothing outside of the Ling Bua cave that gives us an inkling. Researchers are looking at outlying populations on nearby islands and find that the only similarity is the very short stature that one might expect with isolated islands. But that doesn't explain the other anomalies that is found with H. Floriensis. I suspect that HF is quite archaic and is a remnant of a species that we thought went extinct a couple of million years ago. But, once again, only time will tell.

[Digit]

Quite Beag, whereas isolation migh cause dwarfism it's stretching credibility to suggest skeletal changes of that nature I would think.

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

You also might like to see this RS,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

In that case, a species is defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool.

Interesting, I'm sure. But not applicable as we don't (yet) have HF DNA.