Slashdot Mirror


Hobbits' Brains Shrank Due To Remote Home

Hugh Pickens writes "The 'hobbits,' dubbed homo floresiensis, caused a worldwide sensation when they were discovered five years ago, when some scientists claimed that the 18,000-year-old human-like fossils found on the Indonesian island of Flores represented an entirely new species. Now researchers at the Natural History Museum in London believe that the creatures' small brains could have developed to reduce the creatures' energy needs, crucial for surviving in an isolated area with limited resources. 'It could be that H. floresiensis' skull is that of a Homo erectus that has become dwarfed from living on an island, rather than being an abnormal individual or separately-evolved species, as has been suggested,' says palaeontologist Eleanor Weston. 'Looking at pygmy hippos in Madagascar, which possess exceptionally small brains for their size, suggests that the same could be true for H. floresiensis, and the result of being isolated on the island.' Although the phenomenon of dwarfism on islands is well recognized in large mammals, an accompanying reduction in brain size has never been clearly demonstrated before."

26 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Alaska's pretty remote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does that explain Sarah Palin?

    1. Re:Alaska's pretty remote... by Chlorine+Trifluoride · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, because Illinois is such a remote area...

  2. Re:To our retarded brethren by drmemnoch · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have found this phenomenon localized in my community. It's called Wal-Mart.

    --
    Those who can do... Those who can't get a certification from Cisco or Microsoft.
  3. Re:Bunk by LucidBeast · · Score: 5, Funny

    Have you watched episodes of Big Brother or Survivor? Brains shrink in close quarters. I think it's not bunk.

  4. small brains the result of by DrugCheese · · Score: 4, Funny

    over consumption of ale and pipeweed?

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  5. Island brain? by WillKemp · · Score: 3, Funny

    [......] small brains [......] from living on an island [.......]

    Rather like the British then?

  6. 18,000 - amazing by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Informative

    that the 18,000-year-old human-like fossils found on the Indonesian island ... "It could be that H. floresiensis' skull is that of a Homo erectus that has become dwarfed from living on an island...

    An 18,000 year old specimen of Homo Erectus would indeed be an amazing find if true. They were thought to have died out a little less than a million years ago. Thus, 18k is a huge leap. Also, being 18k old may mean that we can extract DNA from it or another like find, and learn more about Erectus, and maybe someday even recreate one ("Erectus Park"). Homo Erectus was a very successful species of proto-human (relatively speaking) and probably the first proto-human to spread deep into Europe and Asia.
       

    1. Re:18,000 - amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not sure that inviting the public to come see Homos in 'Erectus Park' would get you the visitors you are looking for. ..

    2. Re:18,000 - amazing by Kozz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An 18,000 year old specimen of Homo Erectus would indeed be an amazing find if true.

      That seems like kind of a leap of interpretation. Dr. Weston's statement acknowledges that the "hobbit" is H. floresiensis, so when she says "could be that of H. erectus" (considering the 18,000year date) I think we're talking about the former being a descendant of the latter, not a sub-species.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    3. Re:18,000 - amazing by Randle_Revar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why are you so surprised? They have been speculating that H. floresiensis might be a dwarfed H. erectus almost since they found it. And it was clear even in the initial description that it was very recent.

      Anyway, even if you could clone H. floresiensis, you would get, well, H. floresiensis, not H. erectus.

  7. Clearly demonstrated in this article's blurb by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How does "some researchers believe" equate to "clearly demonstrated"? I think whoever wrote that blurb has experienced brain shrinkage!

  8. Their using short-hand by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They don't mean that evolution was looking forward. They are talking to laymen and then getting it reported by a news report so by the end it will get simplified. What they mean is that selective pressure due to critical energy needs favored successively smaller brained individuals who were more able to effectively survive and have fertile offspring. Over the course of many generations, this led to small brains. Everyone understood what they meant when they said that. There's no good reason to nitpick about an attempt to give a short explanation to laypeople.

  9. not a new species? by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ""It could be that H. floresiensis' skull is that of a Homo erectus that has become dwarfed from living on an island, rather than being an abnormal individual or separately-evolved species, as has been suggested," says palaeontologist Dr Eleanor Weston.

    Could someone explain why this wouldn't be a new species, even if it is an adapted homo erectus? isn't that how new species are formed? where is the "species" line drawn?

    1. Re:not a new species? by Randle_Revar · · Score: 3, Informative

      >where is the "species" line drawn?

      theoretically, when populations no longer interbreed. Note that the populations may still be fertile together, as long as they don't naturally and normally interbreed. They may be too far apart, or they may have very different mate attraction strategies that are not interesting to the other group.

      This definition, like many in biology, is in practice rather blurry, especially in plants and extinct organisms.

      In this case, I agree that saying an island dwarfed type of H. erectus *is* H. erectus seems silly, but then I am not a biologist.

  10. Re:Evolution Determines Intelligence by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not only are you a racist, but you're clearly an uneducated one as well. Africa is the most genetically diverse area in the world. Making the sorts of sweeping statements you did, regardless of whether they're racist or not, indicates that you actually have no fucking clue about human evolution.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. i think the aeta are pretty interesting by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    while they aren't hobbits, they are similarly ancient, diminuitive peoples of southeast asia whose history may be instructive of how succeeding waves of human and proto-humans competed with and replaced each other. based on the experience of the aeta, i wouldn't be surprised if the last flores hobbit died at the sharp end of a homo sapien's stick

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

    The term Negrito refers to several ethnic groups in isolated parts of Southeast Asia.[1] Their current populations include the Aeta, Agta, Ayta, Ati, Dumagat and at least 25 other tribes of the Philippines, the Semang of the Malay peninsula, the Mani of Thailand and 12 Andamanese tribes of the Andaman Islands of the Indian Ocean.

    Negritos share some common physical features with African pygmy populations, including short stature, natural afro-hair texture, and dark skin; however, their origin and the route of their migration to Asia is still a matter of great speculation. They are genetically distant from Africans at most loci studied thus far (except for MCR1, which codes for dark skin). They have also been shown to have separated early from Asians, suggesting that they are either surviving descendants of settlers from an early migration out of Africa, or that they are descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans.[2]

    essentially, ancient remnant isolated melanesian populations in largely malay and thai areas across indonesia, malaysia, the philippines, and thailand. the malays took over the coastal areas over time, and now the aeta live in tiny mountain tribes. they also existed in china until recently. han and malay peoples just either outright exterminated them, outcompeted them, or genetically intermarried and swamped them out of existence

    http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-black-african-foundation-of-china-honouring-the-aboriginal-black-people-of-china/

    Chinese historians called them "black dwarfs" in the Three Kingdoms period (AD 220 to AD 280) and they were still to be found in China during the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1911). In Taiwan they were called the "Little Black People" and, apart from being diminutive, they were also said to be broad-nosed and dark-skinned with curly hair. After the Little Black People -- and well before waves of Han migrations after 1600 -- came the Aboriginal tribes, who are part of the Austronesian race. They are thought to have come from the Malay Archipelago 6,000 years ago at the earliest and around 1,000 years ago at the latest, though theories on Aborigine migration to Taiwan are still hotly debated. Gradually the Little Black People became scarcer, until a point about 100 years ago, when there was just a small group living near the Saisiyat tribe. The story goes that the Little Black People taught the Saisiyat to farm by providing seeds and they used to party together.

    in the philippines, the aeta famously came to light after the eruption of mount pinatubo, and this isolated group of peoples, probably living on the mountain isolated for hundreds if not thousands of years, were suddenly driven into the modern world

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/11/11/MN206799.DTL

    the island of negros in the philippines gets its name from the spanish who found large numbers of aeta who lived there, at one time. now the island is almost completely malay

    the dutch hurried along the process of the supplanting of the aeta with more cooperative malay slaves by genocidally emptying some strategic spice islands because the aetas proved uncooperative in the profitable nutmeg trade:

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  12. Still seems silly to me by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Still seems silly to me, when you start renaming actual medical conditions just for fear of hurting the emotions of someone even worse off. Should we also stop calling autism autism, just because someone even more autistic out there could feel unhappy about it? Should we stop calling asthma asthma, just because some people are even more crippled by it?

    The real insulting part in your example would be your using that term as an inherent insult, instead of a medical condition. _That_ is what ends up annoying those who genuinely have that condition.

    But when you get to the point of actually using the euphemisms even for the actual disease, something tells me that you're missing the whole point.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  13. Re:To our retarded brethren by Arthur+B. · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, the species living in wall mart tend to be much larger. It's the opposite phenomenon.

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
  14. Makes sense by Jessta · · Score: 4, Funny

    This makes a lot of sense. A large part of what appears to have encouraged the increase in reasoning ability of human beings has been our complex social interaction. On an island with a small population the social interaction would be simpler and thus less reasoning would be required.

    A monkey can make a spear and hunt for food, it takes a human being to figure out that when your girlfriend is telling you about her problems she just wants to complain about it and doesn't actually want you to help create a solution.

    --
    ...and that is all I have to say about that.
    http://jessta.id.au
  15. Re:To our retarded brethren by Bassman59 · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, the species living in wall mart (sic)tend to be much larger. It's the opposite phenomenon.

    The species that lives in Wal-Mart has an overly-large body with a severely undersized brain. Kinda like the Brontosaurus (or whatever they call that dinosaur these days).

  16. Could someone explain the "brain case" argument? by scorp1us · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I took Human Evolution in college. I really liked it. But there is some phallic fascination with brain case size as being a important factor in approximating intelligence.

    We have parrots that are as intelligent as 4-year olds. We have bears that are dumber. We have cephalopods that have a lot of intelligence in a few cm^3. Brain case volume to me, does not seem to have a determining factor in intelligence.

    The density of brain matter would seem to be relevant as we look at brain function in terms of neural complexity. As density increases required volume decreases. And since to soft tissue survive, we have no idea of neural density. It seems that neural density would be a much better proxy for intelligence - particularly when looking in the same genus. (As opposed to cephalopods which have an entirely different brain morphology)

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  17. Re:TV and the movies by hoooocheymomma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I strongly object to the term "retards".

    By treating the term retard as offensive, you are only feeding into its offensiveness. Retard means slow. If retard has any negative connotation at all, it is because being mentally slow is something that is inherently undesirable, and no matter what window dressing you do to it, the window dressing will always become an insult.

    If you had any depth to you, you would be more focused on trying to emphasize to as many people as possible that being a retard is not something worthy of being hated or abused. The word retard is not harmful at all, and it never will be. It is how people react to people who are retarded. When you focus on something as shallow as a word, you are hurting retards worldwide by misdirecting public attention from their cause.

    The 'Hobbits' are retards. And so are you for getting butthurt over the word retard.

  18. Re:Bunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have you seen soccer moms driving SUVs? My theory is that, much like gold fish, these maternal females grow proportionally to the vehicles' cabin size.

  19. Re:Evolution Determines Intelligence by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Insects are pretty diverse. None of them are very big. Not much variation in number of legs either.

    Thus it would appear that diverse doesn't mean "covers the entire scale on every possible variable". Therefore it does not at all refute GPs post.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. Re:Bunk by Nutria · · Score: 3, Informative

    Have you watched episodes of Big Brother or Survivor?

    No, I haven't, because brains shrink when watching inane "reality" shows.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  21. Re:Evolution Determines Intelligence by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't think you quite understand what genetic diversity means in this case. In this case it means that making claims about Africans as if they were a homogeneous group is ludicrous. We're talking about several distinct populations in sub-Saharan Africa that have more genetic distance between them than every other single human population in the world. Even if there were some populations in Africa that were genetically predisposed to be less intelligent (and there's no evidence whatsoever for that), that would hardly reflect on the other major genetic lineages in the area.

    So yes, genetic diversity plays directly against "black people are dumber" sorts of racists. There is no "black" race to begin with, save as a ethno-cultural artifact.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.