More Evidence For Hobbit Sized Species

GogglesPisano writes "CNN.com reports that scientists digging in a remote Indonesian cave have uncovered a jaw bone that they say adds more evidence that a tiny prehistoric Hobbit-like species once existed." From the article: "The discovery of a jaw bone, to be reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, represents the ninth individual belonging to a group believed to have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago. The bones are in a wet cave on the island of Flores in the eastern limb of the Indonesian archipelago, near Australia."

Comments

Or it could be a dwarf

[RailGunner]

From TFA: A vocal scientific minority insists the Hobbit specimens do not represent a new species at all. They believe the specimens are nothing more than the bones of modern humans that suffered from microencephaly, a broadly defined genetic disorder that results in small brain size and other defects.

And, at least two groups of opponents have submitted their own studies to other leading scientific journals refuting the Flores work.

"This paper doesn't clinch it. I feel strongly that people are glossing over the problems with this interpretation," said Robert Martin, a biological anthropologist and provost of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.

Re:Or it could be a dwarf

[the phantom]

Traditionally? Speciation occurs when the decendant* line can no longer interbreed with the ancestor* line to produce viable offspring. Sickle cell anemia could be considered an inherited genetic disorder that is possibly a response to Malaria, yet the large populations of Africans that tend to have either full or partial expression of the trait are not a genetically distinct population -- they are still capable of reproducing with other Africans, Europeans, Asians, American Indians, or any other human population.

Defining species from fossils and bones can be a bit trickier -- can you prove that this population is (a) represented by these bones, (b) genetically distinct, and (c) incapable of creating viable offspring with any other 'human' population.

I would also like to note that there are a great variety of human populations. In Africa alone, there are groups that tend to be quite short and robust, and groups that tend to be quite tall and gracile. In a fossil record, they might bee seen as distinct species, yet we know that they can have children together. Just one of the hazards of fossils, I suppose.

* ancestor and decendant, are, of course, relative