"Hobbit" update

I've not been posting much on the controversy following the Indonesian find of a diminutive hominid, in large part because so much of the fuss appeared to be a turf battle in which I have had little interest, but also because it has been apparent that it would be a while before reliable and authoritative assessments would be available.

Now, however, we have a rather strong dismissal of the most widely trumpeted claims, from one who initially -- though with due qualification -- endorsed them:

. . . I disavow any suggestion that LB1 or any of the Flores fossils are australopithecines.

Along with four of the best anatomists that I know, I had the opportunity to see detailed pictures of the LB1 postcrania.

The specimen is beyond any doubt or question pathological.

This is very clearly shown by many details that are either not depicted or are not clear in the photos in the original Nature paper . . . this specimen has morphological characters that would indicate severe developmental abnormalities even if the skull had never been found. This is in no way a close call. . .

My suggestion of australopithecine affinity was based strongly on the anatomy of the pelvis and the size of the brain. Since the specimen is pathological, I no longer trust that either feature characterized the Flores population rather than this single individual. . .

The bottom line is that this specimen cannot be assumed to be representative of the population from which it came. Any interpretation that starts with the assumption that LB1 is normal should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

Posted by David on April 14, 2005 8:26 PM