Habilis hobbitus
September 24, 2017 5:32 PM   Subscribe

According to detailed analysis of skeletal measurements, Homo floresiensis (previouslies) is most closely related to Homo habilis. "Although the remains of H. floresiensis date to the relatively recent past (roughly 60,000 years ago), their closest relatives appear to have lived two million years ago in Africa." Original paper.
posted by clawsoon (6 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite
 
So they might really be real. It's always seemed so unlikely.
We humans can travel.
posted by Bee'sWing at 5:39 PM on September 24, 2017


I was always taught that of Homo habilis, the only fossils on record are two skulls, the hand tools found with them might come from an earlier species, and that some anthropologists consider habilis an Australopithicine. So this is really interesting, and muddies already super confusing waters. I love it!
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 6:10 PM on September 24, 2017


This suggests that hominids left Africa at a very early point and lends credence to the theory that H erectus may have evolved in Asia
posted by knoyers at 10:12 PM on September 24, 2017 [1 favorite]


So this is really interesting, and muddies already super confusing waters. I love it!

Ain't it, though! Is this a classic island isolate which diverged from a larger population a long time ago and quietly evolved all by itself, or part of an otherwise unknown group? How many different hominid species existed at any one time, and how did they interact genetically, socially and technologically? We get such tiny windows into the millions of years over which all this happened, but we're constantly building such great tools and techniques to squeeze as much data out of each glimpse as we can - the ambiguities and possibilities keep multiplying.

.What a time to be alive...
posted by Devonian at 3:18 AM on September 25, 2017 [3 favorites]


Homo floresiensis . . . is most closely related to Homo habilis.

The big question is: Were they the kind that used a pencil and rule, or the kind that could fix broken hearts?
 
posted by Herodios at 6:46 AM on September 25, 2017 [1 favorite]


Eh, I don't know that I like it. Their Bayesian tree (which didn't use polymorphic characters properly, but in a way that the authors note "is more conservative") still places H. floriensis as outgroup to the rest of Homo. I'd like to see a principle components analysis of the morphology matrix, because I wonder what characters it is that are making H. floriensis group out with H. habilis in the parsimony analysis.

(They also highlighted their Bayesian tree to trick you into thinking habilis and floriensis are sister groups when they're not. I see why they did it, but I think it's naughty.)
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 10:52 AM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]


« Older It Cremates Of Greenness   |   Sun Studio & Muscle Shoals Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments