Indonesian ‘hobbits’ were not humans, new research finds

FEBRUARY 16, 2016

by Chuck Bednar

The unusual species known as the “hobbits” due to their small stature and unusually long and flat feet were not related to modern humans and were actually an entirely different species, according to new research published in the latest edition of the Journal of Human Evolution.

The new analysis, led by Antoine Balzeau of the French Natural History Museum, conducted an analysis of skull bones discovered on the island of Flores in 2003 and determined that the species known as Homo floresiensis could not have been tiny Homo sapiens, as some have suggested.

However, it is unlikely that the new research will put an end to the debate between the two different camps: one arguing that the short, small-brained hobbits originally descended from Homo erectus and had become smaller over time; and another claiming that they were modern humans suffering from some kind of genetic disorder, according to the AFP.

Nonetheless, Balzeau and Philippe Charlier, a palaeopathologist at Paris-Descartes University, used high-tech equipment to closely examine the layers of the Liang Bua 1 (LB1) hobbit skull, the most intact of the nine known Homo floresiensis, the news agency said. The duo’s analysis found “no characteristics” associated with Homo sapiens in the LB1 skull.

Species could still be related to Homo erectus, however

The skeletal remains of the 15,000-year-old hobbits were first discovered 13 years ago on Flores Island, Indonesia, and as the Daily Mail explained, they earned their “hobbit” nicknames because of their resemblance to the creatures featured in JRR Tolkien’s well-known fantasy novels. They stood an average of three feet tall and weighed a mere 55 pounds.

Read more at 

Tiny monkey teeth suggest Flores hobbit was a dwarf

COULD the world's tiniest monkey help unravel the mysterious origins ofHomo floresiensis, the "hobbit" human relative?

The hobbit's skull is similar to that of a taller hominin, Homo erectus. This suggests to some that H. floresiensis, whose remains were found on an Indonesian island 10 years ago, was a dwarf species that evolved from this larger one. However, its brain and teeth are proportionally much smaller than in typical dwarf species, which others say indicates the hobbit is merely an unusual form of our species. But perhaps the hobbit was not a typical dwarf.

Stephen Montgomery and Nicholas Mundy at the University of Cambridge looked at pygmy marmosets (Callithrix pygmaea). They too have previously been put forward as a dwarf species but, again, have unusually small teeth.

"This pointed against dwarfism," says Montgomery. Now, using a primate evolutionary tree, the pair have confirmed that these monkeys did indeed evolve from larger ancestors and undergo dwarfism.

So why the small teeth? The evolution of a dwarf species usually involves shortening the length of pregnancy or infancy, but recently it has been suggested that there might be a more unusual route: pregnancy length stays the same but the growth of the fetus slows down. This might influence brain and tooth size as these develop early.

Montgomery and Mundy found that the pygmy marmoset's pregnancy and infancy are similar in length to their evolutionarily close, larger relations. This suggests they took the unconventional route to small stature (Journal of Evolutionary Biology, doi.org/kpc).

Read on: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729074.300-tiny-monkey-teeth-suggest-flores-hobbit-was-a-dwarf.html