[Taxacom] "Hobbit" research

[Kenneth Kinman]

Dear All, 
       My inclusion of floresiensis in genus Homo was not
based on Gordon et al., 2008. However, it does provide new evidence that
further supports such an assignment.   Much of the literature they list
was the basis of my assignment. John's "critique" might be worthwhile if
he would carefully read this paper and some of the references, instead
of making a snap judgment about it.   
       Dismissing their new evidence as just "phenetic" is
not helpful. They clearly have evaluated a variety of other data, and
they make a very good case for an assignment to Homo erectus or it's
ancestor Homo habilis. The only credible alterative, in my opinion, is
an assignment to Australopithecus, and if John wants to make a case for
that, I'm willing to listen. Otherwise, further discussion with him on
this topic is futile, and I simply won't respond.  I believe that if one
is going to criticize the work of others, one should be prepared enough
to offer alternatives.  If you are going to tear something down, also
build something to take its place.
               -------Ken Kinman 

---------------------------------------------- 
John Grehan wrote:
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