[Taxacom] "Hobbit" research

[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

> 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.

Ken referred to Gordon et al (2008) "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." This indicated to me that his placement was based on Gordon et al (2008). There was nothing explicit to indicate otherwise. Now that he has said such I can look into it further.

>        Dismissing their new evidence as just "phenetic" is
> not helpful. 

Dismissing as "phenetic" may not be helpful if one views phenetics as an accurate method for reconstructing phylogeny.

> They clearly have evaluated a variety of other data,

But it is not clear how that evaluation necessarily placed floresiensis within Homo

 and
> they make a very good case for an assignment to Homo erectus or it's
> ancestor Homo habilis. 

No they don't (in my opinion) because all they do is make some measurements of overall similarity in cranial parameters and even then they are hesitant about placement.

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. 

I have no particular opinion about placement other than the lack of substantive evidence for it necessarily lying within Homo and even less for associating it with Asian Homo erectus.

Otherwise, further discussion with him on
> this topic is futile, and I simply won't respond. 

Fine - no problem on my part since the problem I raised was the lack of explicit sourcing of evidence for a claim about phylogenetic placement.

 I believe that if one
> is going to criticize the work of others, one should be prepared enough
> to offer alternatives. 

I've heard that authority argument before. In this case its not relevant. The 'alternative' if you could call it that would be to include sourcing of evidence for the phylogenetic claims represented by the classification.

 If you are going to tear something down, also
> build something to take its place.

Because you say so?

John Grehan

>                -------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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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