Whence Homo floresiensis ? - The Fossil Chronicles - page 179

family tree, so one might think that determining the evolutionary
origins of Homo floresiensis and its relationship to other hominin spe-
cies would be easy . 83 It is anything but easy, however, because differ-
ent researchers emphasize different traits, use different techniques, and
compare LB1 with different fossil hominins. Furthermore, the sample
sizes for different species can be ridiculously small. To add to the con-
fusion, paleoanthropologists often disagree about the species of some
of the most important early hominins that are used in these compari-
sons, such as those from Dmanisi and some of the early specimens
from Kenya. Thus, one researcher's Homo erectus may be another's Homo
ergaster (e.g., D2700). One's Homo habilis might be another's East African
Australopithecus (e.g., KNM-ER 1813, OH 24). 84
Despite these methodological problems, a number of scientists who
reject the various sick-Hobbit hypotheses are beginning to think along
similar lines regarding Hobbit's evolutionary history. To begin with,
the earlier idea that Homo erectus from nearby Java was the direct ances-
tor of Homo floresiensis is taking a beating—particularly when scientists
put together the information they have collected from Hobbit's entire
skeleton. For example, a study by Debbie Argue, of the Australian
National University, and her colleagues explored the possible place of
Homo floresiensis on the hominin tree by comparing numerous features
from the entire skeletons of African great apes, modern humans, various
fossil hominins, and LB1. 85 This analysis concluded that LB1 was prob-
ably a tiny representative of a species that evolved from early Homo long
ago, but one that did not have a particularly close relationship with
Homo erectus. Instead, the authors think it likely that the direct ancestors
of Homo floresiensis branched of from early Homo right around the dates
for the two Homo habilis specimens in their sample (i.e., 1.7 million to
1.9 million years ago). 86
When Peter Brown combined his recent findings for the jaws and
teeth of Homo floresiensis with information about other parts of the body,
he reconsidered his earlier suggestion that hobbits may have been insu-
larly dwarfed descendants of a larger-brained and larger-bodied Homo