[Taxacom] "Hobbit" research

[John Grehan]

Ken,

Your classification would not be 'worthless' if you cited your
authorities for the various choices you made. If your acceptance of
floresiensis as a member of Homo is based on Gordon et al (2008) then by
stating that source with the classification established a scientific
basis for your classification and its inferred phylogeny because it is
now open for critique.

With respect to crtique, one can now evaluate your reference to their
making a conclusion about floresiensis being "indeed a primitive form of
the genus Homo". I would be inerested to where that conclusion is made.
The abstract makes no such mention. On p. 4654 they state that other
studies "tend so support the evolution of H. floresciensis from H.
erectus or an earlier taxon" (they reference but do no specify the
evidence). 

They then say that "the results of this study [I presume theirs] of
external cranial morphology suggest that a close relationship between
LB1 and australopiths is unlikely, but a close rlationship with H.
habilis cannot be ruled out". I did not see what constituted evidence
for that conclusion - unless it is the cluster analysis they then refer
to. If their conclusion is based on a cluster analysis of cranial shape
then postioning LB1 within Homo becomes purely phenetic.

In the anbsence of specified apomorphies for a Homo clade I find that I
cannot judge whether floresiensis falls within such a genus or not.

John Grehan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 11:11 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] "Hobbit" research
> 
> Dear All,
>        I was just reading a relatively recent paper
> (Gordon, Novell, and Wood, 2008, in Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sciences)
which
> not only summarizes much of the previous literature on the "hobbit"
> debate, but also concludes that floresiensis is indeed a primitive
form
> of genus Homo.  Their analyses show that it falls closest to early
Homo
> erectus (such as georgicus), but they couldn't rule out a relationship
> to Homo habilis.  Excellent paper!!!  The link below will take you to
> the abstract and full text.
>           --------Cheers,
>                         Ken Kinman
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4650.full
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here