Are the small human-like fossils found on Flores human endemic cretins?

Obendorf, Peter; Oxnard, Charles; Kefford, Ben J.

doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1488

Cited by 65 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Henneberg et al are not alone in this. None of the proponents of the pathology hypotheses has identified characters that align the Liang Bua hominins with H. sapiens [63,66,67]. Thus, our results are not particularly surprising.…”

Section: Ergaster)supporting

confidence: 63%

Bayesian analysis of a morphological supermatrix sheds light on controversial fossil hominin relationships

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phylogenetic relationships of several hominin species remain controversial. Two methodological issues contribute to the uncertainty-use of partial, inconsistent datasets and reliance on phylogenetic methods that are ill-suited to testing competing hypotheses. Here, we report a study designed to overcome these issues. We first compiled a supermatrix of craniodental characters for all widely accepted hominin species. We then took advantage of recently developed Bayesian methods for building trees of serially sampled tips to test among hypotheses that have been put forward in three of the most important current debates in hominin phylogeneticsthe relationship between Australopithecus sediba and Homo, the taxonomic status of the Dmanisi hominins, and the place of the so-called hobbit fossils from Flores, Indonesia, in the hominin tree. Based on our results, several published hypotheses can be statistically rejected. For example, the data do not support the claim that Dmanisi hominins and all other early Homo specimens represent a single species, nor that the hobbit fossils are the remains of small-bodied modern humans, one of whom had Down syndrome. More broadly, our study provides a new baseline dataset for future work on hominin phylogeny and illustrates the promise of Bayesian approaches for understanding hominin phylogenetic relationships.

show abstract

Section: Ergaster)supporting

confidence: 63%

Bayesian analysis of a morphological supermatrix sheds light on controversial fossil hominin relationships

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the development of the supraorbital ridges that is seen in patients with Laron syndrome (see Figure 2 in Hershkovitz et al, 2007) is far too small for H. floresiensis. Furthermore, these patients have delicate faces, marked chins, and thin vaults (Obendorf et al, 2008), none of which is the case in H. floresiensis. Hershkovitz et al (2007) admitted that several differences in cranial anatomy exist between patients with Laron syndrome and H. floresiensis, but considered these differences as entirely due to the different basic cranial anatomy of the populations of Southeast Asian islands compared to those of the Mediterranean region from where their sample came.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these prehistoric skulls still fall within the modern human morphology, whereas LB1 does not. Obendorf et al (2008) describe the hominin fossils from Liang Bua as possible myxoedematous endemic cretins, a form of congenital hypothyroidism resulting in a dwarf-like stature with a small brain induced by a low iodine intake during pregnancy and early development. Their basic argument concerns the size of the pituitary fossa, and consequently that of the hypophysis, which they consider much larger than usual, befitting a patient with a primary hypothyroidism.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This hypothesis has not been contradicted by further studies of the cranial (Gordon et al, 2008), postcranial (Tocheri et al, 2007) and endocranial (Falk et al, 2005) anatomy of H. floresiensis. A completely different path to explain the origin of H. floresiensis was followed by other researchers who considered the small hominid from Flores as a modern human, suffering from some kind of pathology or disorder (Henneberg and Thorne, 2004;Weber et al, 2005;Jacob et al, 2006;Martin et al, 2006;Hershkovitz et al, 2007;Obendorf et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The origin of Homo floresiensis and its relation to evolutionary processes under isolation

Lyras

Dermitzakis

Geer

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its first description in 2004, Homo floresiensis has been attributed to a species of its own, a descendant of H. erectus or another early hominid, a pathological form of H. sapiens, or a dwarfed H. sapiens related to the Neolithic inhabitants of Flores. In this contribution, we apply a geometric morphometric analysis to the skull of H. floresiensis (LB1) and compare it with skulls of normal H. sapiens, insular H. sapiens (Minatogawa Man and Neolithic skulls from Flores), pathological H. sapiens (microcephalics), Asian H. erectus (Sangiran 17), H. habilis (KNM ER 1813), and Australopithecus africanus (Sts 5). Our analysis includes specimens that were highlighted by other authors to prove their conclusions. The geometric morphometric analysis separates H. floresiensis from all H. sapiens, including the pathological and insular forms. It is not possible to separate H. floresiensis from H. erectus. Australopithecus falls separately from all other skulls. The Neolithic skulls from Flores fall within the range of modern humans and are not related to LB1. The microcephalic skulls fall within the range of modern humans, as well as the skulls of the Neolithic small people of Flores. The cranial shape of H. floresiensis is close to that of H. erectus and not to that of any H. sapiens. Apart from cranial shape, some features of H. floresiensis are not unique but are shared with other insular taxa, such as the relatively large teeth (shared with Early Neolithic humans of Sardinia), and changed limb proportions (shared with Minatogawa Man).

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, alternative interpretations of the LB1 partial skeleton have advocated various modern human developmental syndromes to account for its distinctive morphology. These include claims that the LB1 skeleton manifests characteristics of IGF-1 deficiency or insensitivity (Richards, 2006;Hershkovitz et al, 2007), endemic cretinism (congenital hypothyroidism) (Obendorf et al, 2008), and microcephaly with accompanying developmental abnormalities (Jacob et al, 2006). Although a detailed rebuttal to each of these assertions is beyond the scope of this paper, some claims have been based on inaccurate depictions of H. floresiensis morphology, perhaps due in part to the necessary brevity of the original descriptions of the material.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%