Talk:Homo floresiensis: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:19, 29 October 2004

Latest revision as of 22:47, 31 March 2025

(667 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

{{PrimateTalk}}

{{Article history|action1=FAC

|action1date=23 November 2004

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homo floresiensis

|action1result=Promoted

|action1oldid=7798119

|action2=FAR

Note that the National Geographic headline '"Hobbit" Discovered: Tiny Human Ancestor Found in Asia' is positively misleading, as there is no proof at all that, even if H. floresiensis is confirmed to be a true new species, that they were ancestors of H. sapiens. I'm removing the link, as the ''New Scientist'' one seems much better. -- Anon.

|action2date=23 October 2006, 19:56:59

::It is a very poor title, since no one is even claiming they are our ancestors, in fact quite the opposite. It should say "Tiny Human Cousins" or somesuch. But it does happen to be one of the better articles, since as it points out it was an expedition partly funded by NG. --[[User:Eean|Eean]] 05:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Homo floresiensis/archive1

::The National Geographic headline seems to be using "ancestor" in the non-scientific sense of "forerunner" (merriam-webster). In that sense I think their usage is more or less correct in the popular context, although many will probably feel they should be using it according to the more scientific usage. --[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] 10:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

|action2result=Kept

:::But the really interesting thing about this discovery is that they were not forerunners, but actually (possibly) lived at the same time as the anatomically modern human (only in another part of the world, or possibly even in the same environment as Homo sapiens). — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 10:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

|action2oldid=82907384

|action3=FAR

Does anyone know when this discovery was made?

|action3date=00:45, 22 March 2009

(by the way, I'm the original author of this article - wasn't logged in at the time.) --[[User:Sum0|Sum0]] 18:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Homo floresiensis/archive2

:I heard that they waited almost a year before publishing it. But I don't know wether that means early 2004 or late 2003. Is anyone a ''Nature'' subscriber? — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 10:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

|action3result=kept

|action3oldid=278581723

|action4=FAR

This has got to be the science story of the year, yet it isn't on the front page. - [[User:Xed|Xed]] 20:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

|action4date=18:24, 10 November 2011

|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Homo floresiensis/archive3

|action4result=removed

|action4oldid=459533749

|maindate=December 24, 2004

Good point, although I'm sure it'll be there in the next day or so. ALso congreatualtions to all contributors for getting such an importnant and informative article up so quickly. [[User:Lisiate|Lisiate]] 20:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

|itndate=November 23, 2009

|currentstatus=FFA

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Southeast Asia|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Indonesia|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Mammals|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Primates|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Palaeontology|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Archaeology|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Human Genetic History|importance = mid}}

{{WikiProject Extinction|importance=Mid}}

}}

{{Press|collapsed=yes|first=Alison|last=Flood|date=30 October 2012|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/oct/30/hobbit-banned-prehistoric-hobbit|title=Hobbit banned as title of lecture on prehistoric 'hobbit'|org=[[The Guardian]]|quote="I am very disappointed that we're forbidden by the representatives of the Tolkien Estate to use the word 'Hobbit' in the title of our proposed free public event … especially since the word 'Hobbit' is apparently listed in the Oxford English Dictionary (and hence apparently part of our English-speaking vocabulary), the word 'Hobbit' (in the Tolkien context) is frequently used with apparent impunity in the written press and reference to 'Hobbit' in the fossil context is frequently referred to in the scientific literature (and is even mentioned in Wikipedia on Homo floresiensis). I realise I'm in unfamiliar word proprietry territory (as an earth scientist) … so I've gone for the easiest option and simply changed our event title." said Alloway.}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 250K

|counter = 2

|minthreadsleft = 3

|minthreadstoarchive = 3

|algo = old(180d)

|archive = Talk:Homo floresiensis/Archive %(counter)d

}}

<!--

--><!--

-->

<!-- auto-archiving for sporadic discussions: archive 3 threads when 6 threads are reached -->

__TOC__

Why wait? Even though [[Main Page]] is protected, the page that you wnat to edit is [[Template:In the news]]. (I have done so.)

-- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 22:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== About Scandal over specimen damage ==

----

There are a few things I wish to note here. First, I believe the word ''Scandal'' is not only sensationalism but also an opinion and is therefore subjective and is not neutral. I would like to suggest renaming it ''Specimen damage'' after all that is what the section is really about. Secondly, I have updated citations and added one to a sentence where the <nowiki>{{who}}</nowiki> tag was invoked. I also added an answer for the tag, but I'm not sure how to use the part of ''other "anthropologists"'', since the word in the article was simply "Anthropologists" in addition to the one professor, of course. Should this simply be '', et al'' in relationship to the professor, or something similar? In any case, I hid the <nowiki>{{who}}</nowiki> tag and directed them here. I would like feedback on this.

The BBC article says that the remains aren't fossilised, and might possibly yield DNA... Our front page and this article say that the remains are fossilised. Can someone try to find out which is right and correct our article if necessary? [[User:Fabiform|fabiform]] | [[User talk:Fabiform|talk]] 22:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:Well, "scandal" suggests something improper took place. But there certainly was a row between the team that discovered the remains and Jacob. People who actually uncover fossils often forget they do not necessarily own them. It all depends on the legal system. In this case the team was definitely not amused when they were confronted with the simple fact they had to obey the Indonesian state. They reacted by expressing wild accusations, distortions and exaggerations to the press. In popular science books they portrayed Jacob as the villain of the story. This was reflected by an earlier version of our article. I made the text more neutral last May. "Scandal" might be replaced by "conflict".--[[User:MWAK|MWAK]] ([[User talk:MWAK|talk]]) 07:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record: The front page says it only because our article says it. -- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 23:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:I support the idea of using a more neutral word than "scandal" and I think "conflict" would do that well. I understand you feel passionately about the issues around the handling of the fossils. If you have additional reliable information on that might offer greater insight into Jacob's actions, I invite you to include it in the article. [[User:WynnAurelium|WynnAurelium]] ([[User talk:WynnAurelium|talk]]) 04:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

''Nature'''s own news site agrees that they're not fossils. I will edit accordingly. -- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 23:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Possible coexistence of ''H. floresiensis'' with AMHs ==

Cheers Toby, good investigative work. :) [[User:Fabiform|fabiform]] | [[User talk:Fabiform|talk]] 23:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While we do not know, and may never know, the exact timing for when the settlement of Insular Southeast Asia (specifically Wallacea) by anatomically modern humans started, considering that Australia was certainly starting to be settled by c. 50,000 BP and could well have been first entered as early as c. 65,000 BP (even earlier dates have been proposed, but they are more controversial and widely considered dubious), very likely before 60,000 BP anyway (ultimately, it's more likely because of drowned evidence that an earlier date is correct rather than the latest possible date), and given that Flores was far closer to Sundaland (even neighbouring it, and easily reached over only a small maritime gap), and even ''en route'' (at least if the earliest arrivers used the Timor route rather than the Moluccas route, which is more likely if the earlier rather than later date is correct, compare {{slink|Prehistory of Australia|Arrival}}), ''a fortiori'' it is quite likely that anatomically modern humans were present on Flores as early as 60,000 BP (or even earlier), and therefore co-existed with late ''H. floresiensis'' just prior to its extinction, after all, and may well even have encountered the species. --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 20:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! (Although I forgot to fix the box on the Main Page!) -- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 02:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Classification debate ==

----

Is there a contention regarding the recent edits surround the species' classification? It appeared that recent edits had removed a lot of information, of which I attempted to restore in a balanced fashion. Some clarification regarding any criticism of my edits would be appreciated. [[User:KinthermStopenfi|KinthermStopenfi]] ([[User talk:KinthermStopenfi|talk]]) 03:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

''"The isolated position of Flores suggests that the ancestors of H. floresiensis may have reached the island by boat around 100,000 years ago, suggesting a hitherto unsuspected technological capability."''

: You're readding material that's extraneous or irrelevant. The 2.1 million year old China paper "Hominin occupation of the Chinese Loess Plateau since about 2.1 million years ago" that you readded in support of the early migration hypothesis never mentions ''H. floresiensis'' even once, in the main text (freely viewable [https://core.ac.uk/download/161348818.pdf here]) or in the supplemental material (viewable [https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-018-0299-4/MediaObjects/41586_2018_299_MOESM1_ESM.pdf here]), nor does it even suggest that there was a migration of ''Homo habilis'' or even more primitive humans outside of Africa, so it's clearly a fail of [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material]] to reach a conclusion not in the source by whoever originally added it.

:The Larson et al. 2007 study (freely accessible at[https://web.archive.org/web/20110613054424/https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ro/www/BiologicalAnthropologyJournalClub/Larson%20et%20al.%2C%202007.pdf?uniq=vvve70]) also doesn't argue in favour of ''H. floresiensis'' descending from an early migration either, see page 12 {{tq|We believe these are not chance similarities, but part of a previously unrecognized functional complex that characterized early ''H. erectus'' and was retained in ''H. floresiensis''}}, so I don't see why it is cited in this section as if its in favour of the early migration hypothesis when it's clearly not.

I believe this is incorrect.... The term used to describe the process by which the H. floresiensis may have landed on the island, "rafting", has nothing to do with boats. Rafting means that a piece of some mainland broke off due to some geological process (a mudslide is a possibility), and literally turned into a giant floating raft, carrying plants and animals to whatever it crashes into.

:I have also recently removed the 2007 wrist article [https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/6090/Tocheri_2007the_primitive_wrist_of.pdf], because upon reading it it also doesn't argue that ''H. floresiensis'' wrists are more primitive that ''Homo erectus'' because there was a lack of data on the wrists of ''H. erectus''. The paper was arguing that the wrist was more primitive than ''H. sapiens''.

(These natural "rafts" can be several kilometers across...)

:I really don't like blow-by-blow accounts of the views of different research papers. I think this really bogs the article down and makes it read more like a review paper than an encyclopedia article. A pretty egregious example can be found at [[Early European Farmers]] for excessive use of this style. It also places undue weight on earlier research papers that are now nearly two decades old and quite outdated. I think it's enough to summarise the positions of the two sides of the dispute and simply state the facts without lending undue weight to either side. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 04:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As an extra note, it's possible that certain features of the H. floresiensis can be explained by the [[Founder effect]] (although it should be noted that their small size is not thought to be because of this.)

::I think it should be clear the information in question were not my personal additions. The mentioned text appeared to have been there for a while, and your edits appeared to be a mass removal that I was attempting to restore. However if the sources are irrelevant, I think it would be best to mention so in your edit comments. [[User:KinthermStopenfi|KinthermStopenfi]] ([[User talk:KinthermStopenfi|talk]]) 04:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Could someone please correct this (if they also believe it to be incorrect)? --[[User:GameGod|GameGod]] 19:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::: I am aware that these were not your original additions, but by restoring them you are taking responsibility for them. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 05:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

----

::::Understood, but my intention was to restore, then discuss what to remove on an individual basis; again having edit comments describing why the sources were irrelevant in your removals would have been helpful.

::::But regarding how the debate is presented in the article, the concern is that your edits is favoring the "insular dwarfism" side of the debate, when the due weight should be equal weight. Chris Stringer himself stated recently that it remains an open question, and he could see evidence for both sides. The various phylogenetic trees, published in studies over the years, indicates that there is a good amount support among palaeoanthropologists for the "early migration" position, for example. Also the "early migration" position can encompass any hominin species that diverged before H. erectus, not specifically Australopithecus or specifically H. habilis. The recently published 2024 study should also not be considered a definitive conclusion to the debate, especially since several anthropologists have been publicly skeptical.

::::Regardless, I will follow any community consensus regarding this issue. [[User:KinthermStopenfi|KinthermStopenfi]] ([[User talk:KinthermStopenfi|talk]]) 05:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

== Nickname ==

::I would also like to be clear that I have no objections to removing irrelevant material. My edits were prioritizing on restoring and organizing the existing information first, in which verifying said sources individually would come afterwards. I think most would consider this a more collaborative and less disruptive approach. A concern regarding summarizing the existing sources is that we may start placing our own personal interpretation of the sources into the article, as well as flattening each researcher's specific opinions and positions.

::Regarding the 2018 paper regarding the site in Asia, my understanding is that the paper did not make any statement regarding what species occupied that site, but the site's age raises the possibility of a migrating species outside of Africa earlier than H. erectus, since the 2.1 million year old dating itself may predate the appearance of H. erectus. A Nature article, covering the study's publication, specifically discussed this possibility with palaeoanthropologists. [[User:KinthermStopenfi|KinthermStopenfi]] ([[User talk:KinthermStopenfi|talk]]) 07:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It took me a little bit to figure out whether the nickname "hobbit" was the creation of the popular press. Some of them gave citations like "the dig crew", but I didn't see anything convincing until about a third of the way down [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html], where the name is used in a quotation by one of the ''Nature'' coauthors.

:::If you can find a source about this that specifically mentions ''H. floresiensis'' I would be willing to include it. The problem with having a back and forth of "a (2007) says x, b (2010) says y, c, (2013) says z" etc that your version has is that A. A lot of this is the same few authors repeating their opinions over and over again in successive papers (this goes both for the "early migration" and ''Homo erectus'' camps) and is therefore redundant, and B. many of the earlier papers are close to 20 years old now (time flies doesn't it), and they are therefore somewhat dated and may not reflect the current positions of the authors. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 07:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I mention this in case anybody else has the same suspicions that I had.

::::I found these two academic sources, [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.21863 this] and [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-14157-7_13 this], that discuss how the early sites in Asia inform H. floresiensis, although the full texts appear to not be freely available. And while not an academic source, a co-author of the 2018 paper, Robin Dennell, did an [https://bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44797323 interview] with BBC and shared how he thought his study's findings may support the "early migration" camp for H. floresiensis:

-- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 23:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::::In truth, I am rather ambivalent on whether this article should mention the 2.1 million year old dating in Asia or not. Besides how early it is, the site does not provide critical evidence for the classification debate.

::::I also share your concerns regarding how old or outdated sources are presented, and it seems there were similar concerns on the talk pages of other palaeoanthropology articles. But the community consensus seems to be that such sources are still useful in illustrating the historical development of research, and that it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide when a source is outdated. Doing so would require citing a secondary source. [[User:KinthermStopenfi|KinthermStopenfi]] ([[User talk:KinthermStopenfi|talk]]) 06:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO it's an unfortunate nickname (but should get little kids world-wide excited). [[User:A-giau|A-giau]] 03:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::Regarding the two 2007 papers, again, I was organizing first on good faith that the text in the previous article revision accurately reflected the studies cited, where verifying the sources can be done afterwards. I had placed them under "early migration" because the edited text stated their wrists and joints more closely resembled to apes and early Homo than to modern humans. [[User:KinthermStopenfi|KinthermStopenfi]] ([[User talk:KinthermStopenfi|talk]]) 08:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

: Pinging {{Ping|Dunkleosteus77}} who has extensively worked on archaic human articles for their opinion. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 05:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know why you think it's unfortunate. It seems appropriate to me; my only complaint is that it's too culturally specific. (It would be ''perfect'' if they'd been discovered in Warwickshire.) -- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 05:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::I don't think the Loess Plateau is entirely relevant considering how far removed it is temporally and spatially from Flores and the earliest occupation of the island. As for classification it seemed to me that evolution from ''Australopithecus'' or ''habilis'' was never really widely supported in the first place, more just included in a list of possibilities pending further study. Looking at more recent studies (e.g., [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-50649-7][https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3498]) it seems ''floresiensis'' is pretty solidly characterized as a case of insular dwarfism from local ''erectus'' populations [[User:Dunkleosteus77|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #8B0000;">Dunkleosteus77</span>]] [[User talk:Dunkleosteus77|'''(talk)''']] 19:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the nickname and I don't think we should be promoting it on Wikipedia, though a mention in a section on media coverage would be justified. It merges fact and fiction in the popular consciousness and is better suited to soundbite journalism. &mdash; [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] (coming to you from Warwickshire!) 22:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==Intelligence==

The sample seems to be a little over half the height of modern humans, this should mean about 12.5% the body mass. Which would give it twice the brain to body ration of modern man about 4% on the following scale[http://dubinserver.colorado.edu/prj/jbes03/brain.html].

Species. Brain Weight as % of Body Weight

*human 2.10

*bottlenose dolphin 0.94

*African elephant 0.15

*killer whale 0.09

*cow 0.08

*sperm whale (male) 0.02

*fin whale 0.01

Which put a bit of a diiferent slant on it all.--[[User:Irate|Jirate]] 00:58, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

See [[Brain to body mass ratio]] and encephalization quotient[http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/sexbrain.htm]--[[User:Irate|Jirate]] 01:21, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

* Ah. So they'd be ''elves'', not hobbits. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 01:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

* Now, who says Hobbits are less intelligent than Men? Less intelligent than Dunedain, sure; certainly much less intelligent than Wizards (who are not Men at all in fact). But just because the Hobbits were the stupidest main characters in LotR doesn't change the fact that well-bred-but-ordinary Hobbits certainly held their own in the company of well-bred-but-ordinary Men (like the stewardic house of Gondor, or the royal house of Rohan, but not the royal house of Gondor which was Dunedain). Sure, Gandalf makes Pippin look foolish often enough, but who's to say you or I wouldn't look twice as foolish in the same circumstances (which is to say, in conversation with an angel)? -- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 02:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*Nope, as far as intelligence they were neither hobbits or elves. [http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/multimedia/4311043a_m2.html a good graph] Since they evolved from homo erectus, I guess that means they actually got less smart, probably because brains require so many calories. --[[User:Eean|Eean]] 05:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::The problem with the graph is it's relating a 1D height to a 3D volume, which would seem to be a mistake.--[[User:Irate|Jirate]] 13:33, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought Encephalization Quotient was now regarded as at best a gross oversimplification. It has these little problems like concluding that the sparrow and mouse (and indeed any very small warm blooded animal) are enormously more intelligent than the primates and cetaceans. At any rate, if you want to take a wild guesstimate of the intelligence of ''H. floresiensis'', absent having yet identified any of their artifacts I would think a more productive approach would be to look for primates with similar statistics. In this case, the brain pan volume turns out to be about 10% larger than the average for the [[chimpanzee]], and the body length very similar (identical within the accuracy of the available data). So with all due caveats about the reliability of this process, from this we might conclude that these hominids would be slightly more intelligent than chimps, but not much. [[User:Securiger|Securiger]] 15:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:It is allegedly better to go messure the exit at the base of the skull rather then use body mass, but I can't find any site with that info. CQ is also better but that would require knowing brain anatomy.--[[User:Irate|Jirate]] 19:59, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

== Importance ==

Not to understate the importance of the discovery, but the statement

:The discovery is considered to be the most important of its kind in recent memory.

is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Considered by whom? What kind? How recent?

* Small aside: apparently the WP term for this is "Peacock terms": [[Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms]]. [[User:Securiger|Securiger]] 15:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the big picture in paleoanthropology to put the discoveries in perspective, but I am thinking in particular of the ''recent'' discovery of hundreds of fossil speciments of ''a new [[homo (genus)|homo]] species'' ([http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/antecessor.html homo antecessor]) in [[Atapuerca]], [[Spain]]. &mdash; [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 02:59, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

There are two things that make this find bigger than that find:

* ''H. antecessor'' pushes the boundaries of the ''Homo'' timeline even better than ''H. floresiensis'' does (since ''H. sapiens'' still forms the recent limit). But it pushes the boundaries in the less interesting direction (that is, far from us, who are the centre of our unverse).

* These are frickin' ''little people'', man! They're actually real!!! This is as exciting as the discovery of [[Troy]], only with yet ''more universal'' significance. From a scientific perspective, this may only be "very important", but to humankind in general, this will be '''HUGE'''.

That said, you're right that this kind of vague claim is meaningless. Somebody should have said this, and that somebody should be cited.

-- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] 05:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::I listened to a radio program a few minutes ago ([[Swedish Radio]]). This is a quote:

::&mdash; According to my assessment, this is one of the most sensational scientific discoveries made in the last half-century. No-one could have imagined a finding like this, says [http://www.nrm.se/pz/pe_larsw.html.en Lars Werdelin], senior curator (associate professor) in paleontology at the [http://www.nrm.se Swedish Museum of Natural History], [[Stockholm]], [[Sweden]].

::I bet there are people who's opinions matter more in the world of paleontology, but at least it proves that the claim made does have some support. &mdash; [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 05:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::What with Cassini's Titan encounter it looks like a very important day, John Peel must be pissed of at missing.--[[User:Irate|Jirate]] 13:35, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

:::Don't forget the lunar eclipse! :-). &mdash; [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 17:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Mythical? creatures ==

: "The island had dwarf elephants and giant lizards"

Not only hobbits, but also dragons???

-- [[User:Toby Bartels|Toby Bartels]] (although I didn't think of it) 05:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And oliphaunts! I just want to congratulate Wikipedia on making such a good article in one day. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 06:21, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

:Yes! My thought exactly! Compare that to [http://www.google.se/search?&q=Homo+floresiensis a Google-search]. For the record, that link produces ''zero'' results at the moment (though there are some Google News references). &mdash; [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 06:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::I think the paucity of Google hits is due to the lag time involved in Google recording new pages, and this is a very new news item. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 07:30, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

:::Yep..The database is replaced every three or four days or something like that, according to my casual observations. &mdash; [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 07:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to our [[Flores]] article, the [[Komodo dragon]] can be found on Flores. Are these the giant lizards they are talking about? Can Komodos be dated back to be contemporaries of ''H. floresiensis''? If so, I would imagine Komodos would make a dangerous predator of the poor little fellas. Dragons indeed! [[User:Securiger|Securiger]] 15:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*Komodos are pretty slow and have to bask in the sun, so they are probably pretty easy to evade if you know what you're doing. I read that the Homo flores actually ate the Komodos. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 22:40, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

::Komodos are primarily ambush hunters (and NOT so slow in short bursts!) -- so it would be inevitable that even experienced Hobbinids would have occassionally gotten bushwhacked. So I would expect that this would make them pretty careful, slow, deliberate and observant in their movements. Which would explain their being so hard for even local villagers to run into, even on a middling one-mountain-chain island.

::As for who ate whom: I'm sure a Hobbinid -- being a typical pygmy of a relatively resource-poor environment (I would guess the dry season would be the crunch-time here) -- would very much look forward to returning the favor whenever they ran across smaller komodos; and I don't see why a smart, cooperative hunter like H. Floresiensis, living among komodos for millenia, wouldn't have perfected some method of luring and killing even the bigger monitor lizards: having one of their members act as 'bait' -- the others lying in wait in their own ambush, etc...

::[[User:Pazouzou|Pazouzou]] 06:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Ebu Gogo ==

I get zero google hits on Ebu Gogo too. It can't be a very widespread piece of myth...Where's the reference for that? I find [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/28/whuman228.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/28/ixnewstop.html this in the Telegraph]. Can we find an independent source for this (i.e. not related to the article authors)? &mdash; [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 07:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

* This is a rather obscure, small and very isolated tribe. I'm not surprised they haven't uploaded their complete mythos to a high bandwidth web server.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 14:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

**This is very interesting. It would be nice if we could get some harder data on this. From my reading of the abstracts in ''Nature'', it seems that the claim of extinction 12,000 years ago is based solely on the absence of evidence from one site. Given that, the [[Ebu Gogo]] folklore might be considered ''prima facie'' evidence for a much more recent extinction (or even continued existence, given the wildness of the Flores interior.) [[User:Securiger|Securiger]] 15:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

**The researchers believe that the hominids in the particular site they were studying were wiped out about 12,000 years ago by a local volcanic eruption that also marks the disappearance of other species there. One of the authors has also speculated that is is ''possible'', though "not likely", that surviving hominids of this or similar types might be found on Flores or other Southeast Asian islands.--[[User:146.245.185.20|146.245.185.20]] 16:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== How did the Hobbit reach Flores? ==

The article says "<i>The isolated position of Flores suggests that the ancestors of H. floresiensis may have reached the island by boat around 100,000 years ago, suggesting a hitherto unsuspected technological capability.</i>".

<br>- But could its ancestors have reached Flores overland when the world sea level was much lower in the Ice Age? Or by sea by chance dispersal on trees uprooted and blown out to sea in a storm?

* There has always been a deep trench between Flores and neighboring areas which were united by the low sea levels of the ice age.''Italic text''

* I agree. Concluding that they came by boat is wild speculation. There are many species on these islands, and obviously most of them did not arrive by boat. Speculating that ''H. floresiensis'' were boat builders before even establishing if they were tool makers is drawing a very long bow. However if the date of arrival is correct it would not have been by land-bridge, as 100,000 years ago was the middle of the [[Eemian interglacial era]]. OTOH I don't know how firm that age is at this point. [[User:Securiger|Securiger]] 15:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:I think this [http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1337198,00.html Guardian article] addresses most concerns. It describes the island as having been an island for a million years. "The implication was that the toolmakers, presumably Homo erectus, were capable of navigating the open sea. It is possible that once marooned on Flores, a population of Homo erectus set its own evolutionary course, morphing into Homo floresiensis." --[[User:OldakQuill|[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak]] [[User_talk:OldakQuill|Quill]]]] 17:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::This article [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_1_20/ai_53501818] addresses the same issue, citing the discovery on Flores of what are thought to be ''H. erectus'' stone tools dating to around 800,000 years ago:

::"During the ice ages, sea level was sometimes so low that Java was connected to the Asian mainland. But between Java and Flores lie three straits too deep to have dried out during glacial periods, one of which was more than 15 miles wide. "It's a pretty formidable water crossing," Morwood says. "The vast majority of animals didn't make it." But early humans did." -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 17:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::It's pretty obvious, generally, what happened, really. I can easily imagine these people looking over the strait at this beckoning new land and thinking constantly about getting over there. New sources of food is <i>always</i> a consideration. I doubt they would have even considered an actual trip, however, without knowing how to cross smaller bodies of water, such as rivers, lakes and maybe trips to nearby islands -- trips measured in yards...

:::How they actually accomplished it -- who really knows; but only a simple reed/stick/log/bamboo raft really makes any sense. No dugouts, please! And I think a certain point discussed in the articles is being overlooked too: were they small before they got there? The suggestion is that they weren't pygmy-ized until they got themselves isolated -- so we're not talking about "little people" building rafts here -- we're talking about "normal" H. Erectus.

:::[[User:Pazouzou|Pazouzou]] 07:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Flores is on the other side of the Wallace line, which is a line which separates Autralian/New Guinean fauna from Asian fauna. The line indicates a significant water barrier unaffected by sea-level change. The line is named after [[Alfred Russel Wallace]] and there is more information and a rough map of the line on that WP page.

== Why were they so short? ==

On the radio I heard that the reason why they were so short, was that isolated populations decrease in size for survival and that lack of food also is an explanation. But I have also heard that inbreed (or homozygoty) causes smaller offspring than outbreed (heterozygoty). Does anyone know?

* I reckon they just found a child's skeleton. No big deal really. Hobbits, schmobbits I say--[[User:194.167.114.2|194.167.114.2]] 14:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

** They found five skeletons, and if they say the most complete is an adult female, thy know what they are talking about. The bones of a child have cartilaginous ends, for instance, to allow for growth. &mdash; [[User:Miguel|Miguel]] 15:52, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

* There was limited food availability on the little island which drove the size reduction, the changes being ''allowed'', but '''not caused''' by the isolation of the population. The suture pattern on the skull indicates a 30-year old.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 14:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*It's not a child. Follow the links to the ''Nature'' articles. As well as fragmentary parts of seven other individuals, they found a complete skeleton and skull, with adult dentition. (The article also has a picture of the skull, which is really well preserved. It's very human-like, but it's not quite human.) [[User:Securiger|Securiger]] 15:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In all the papers I have red, they say that there has been an adaption to the food availability. But still, doesn't inbreed normally cause smaller offspring?

**I don't see a reason why it should, but as I said isolated populations do have a general tendency to develop in unusual ways.--[[User:146.245.185.20|146.245.185.20]] 16:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== "See also Pygmies" ==

Why put links to Pygmies, Twa etc. Pygmies are modern humans, and are as unrelated to Flores man as the average European. It's like putting a link to Americans in the Neanderthal article. - [[User:Xed|Xed]] 11:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:Perhaps to compare sizes? As the [[pygmies]] are the smallest non-pathological adult ''H. sapiens'', yet ''H. floresiensis'' is only 2/3 the size. [[User:Securiger|Securiger]] 15:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::OK, I'll put a link to Americans in the Neanderthal article. -[[User:Xed|Xed]] 15:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With only one skeleton being discovered, isn't there a possibility that this is an abnoral Flores man (eg a 30 year old dwarf) and that the average Flores man was of much greater height?

:Actually 6 have been found. From the skeleton you can usually tell age as various joints fuse as we get older. Atleast accroding to what I've seen on [[Timeteam]]--[[User:Irate|Jirate]] 14:53, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

*The Pygmies link does make some sense. I was just talking with my professor in a World Prehistory class and he thought, admittedly before he had seen all the evidence, that they might just be a group of very pygmified modern humans with some primitive-looking facial features like brow ridges, which are not uncommon among modern Australian aborigines.--[[User:146.245.185.20|146.245.185.20]] 16:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the link is offending - delete it. Will this discovery effect the way we see short persons too - are they more prehistoric or waht???

*No, I just meant that they ''might'' be '''modern humans''', which is my professor's idea. In that case they represent a very extreme dwarfing of ''Homo Sapiens'', like in Pygmies or Andaman Islanders but only more so. Not they they would '''not''' be particularly genetically related to Pygmies, only adapted similarly. I don't know if this is an idea others have had, but I wouldn't be surprised if we hear such skepticism of the new species in the coming days and weeks.--[[User:146.245.185.20|146.245.185.20]] 17:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

**Note the recently inserted "'''not'''". The above comment was made by myself earlier, a newbie who had forgotten to log on. I hope my typo didn't confuse anyone.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 07:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The current article says "Pygmy — note that they are members of the Homo sapiens species". Should this important information be put on the article about Belgians as well? - [[User:Xed|Xed]] 23:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to say I thought Xed was trolling or something with what appears to be a complete reversal of position after someone made an edit to satisfy the previous position; but I [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assumed good faith]] and tried to work out what the point is. I ''think'' - and please correct me if I'm wrong here Xed - that Xed feels that the reference to pygmies is somehow implying that pygmies are subhuman. Of course that is not the intention at all, and the editor who added the "note that they are" comment was perhaps trying to respond to Xed's concerns by clarifying that. But Xed is even more offended now because it should not be necessary to state that pygmies are human. To avoid further confusion, I propose the reference to pygmies be removed from "see also" and made into its own paragraph, so that the inclusion can be fully explained. Something like:

:'''Comparison to small modern humans'''

:''H. floresiensis'' is tiny compared to modern humans. The estimated height for an adult ''H. floresiensis'', at 1 m, is considerably smaller than the normal adult height of the shortest phenotypes of modern humans, such as the [[pygmy|pygmies]] (< 1.5 m), [[Twa]], [[Semang]] (1.37 m for adult women), or [[Andaman Islands#The Andamanese|Andamanese]] (1.37 m for adult women). They were also considerably shorter than the typical adult height for the most common form of pathological dwarfism, [[achondroplasia]] (1.2 m).

only better written. Would that satisfy everyone? [[User:Securiger|Securiger]] 01:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: That's so much better. Though I think pygmies prefer to be called Bayaka (which refers to the group not just by their height), but i'm not sure if that's a term used by all pygmies in all regions, and "pygmy" does seem to be the common term. --[[User:Pengo|Pengo]] 11:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==Were they stocky or slender?==

Do we know if HEF was stocky (like a hobbit or a modern human dwarf), or slender? I'm not sure how to visualize a 3-foot human. [[User:The Singing Badger|The Singing Badger]] 17:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:I wonder if we can have the artist's impression that's been splashed all over the newspapers on here as fair use. This would be helpful for people wanting to visualise our new friends. To answer your question they appear to be quite slender, hairier than us sapiens folk but walking fully upright and not like a chimpanzee, nor a pygmy, nor a dwarf human. &mdash; [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] [[User_talk:Trilobite|(Talk)]] 22:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I of course have now put a version of the above in.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 07:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==Natural Selection==

BBC article stated that when large mammals that originated from a large contintent migrate, or become trapped on a smaller land mass, natural selection favours the small, and the mammals evolve into smaller versions of their ancestors. Should this be mentioned here? (explains small size of Homo floresiensis and the dwarf elephants. [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 18:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== "The artist's impression" ==

Most so called artist's impressions of prehumans have black skin (I am white myself). How come? Isn't black skin developed from white (i e non-colored)?

Here's a link that could perhaps be interesting [http://www.becominghuman.org/ Becoming human], or perhaps better elsewhere. It contains a lot of info about human origin, with lots of artist's impressions too. Unfortunatly it doesn't yet have anything about our hobbit.