I must have missed information regarding this as it was published over 12 months ago. Still a few points I was not aware are covered here, so if you missed it too it is an interesting read.

>>“We can be 99 percent sure it’s not related to Homo erectus and nearly 100 percent chance it isn’t a malformed Homo sapiens,” says Mike Lee, co-author of the study. <<

>>The ANU study involved close analysis of 133 data points from the hobbits’ whole skeleton, including its skull, jaws, teeth, arms, legs and shoulders. In some ways, particularly the jaw, Homo floresiensis appears to be more primitive than Homo erectus.

“Logically, it would be hard to understand how you could have that regression – why would the jaw of Homo erectus evolve back to the primitive condition we see in Homo floresiensis?” says Dr Debbie Argue, lead author of the study. <<

https://newatlas.com/hobbit-humans-evolution-homo-habilis/49167/

PermeateFree said:

I must have missed information regarding this as it was published over 12 months ago. Still a few points I was not aware are covered here, so if you missed it too it is an interesting read.

>>“We can be 99 percent sure it’s not related to Homo erectus and nearly 100 percent chance it isn’t a malformed Homo sapiens,” says Mike Lee, co-author of the study. <<

>>The ANU study involved close analysis of 133 data points from the hobbits’ whole skeleton, including its skull, jaws, teeth, arms, legs and shoulders. In some ways, particularly the jaw, Homo floresiensis appears to be more primitive than Homo erectus.

“Logically, it would be hard to understand how you could have that regression – why would the jaw of Homo erectus evolve back to the primitive condition we see in Homo floresiensis?” says Dr Debbie Argue, lead author of the study. <<

https://newatlas.com/hobbit-humans-evolution-homo-habilis/49167/

> The researchers believe Homo floresiensis was instead related to the earlier species, Homo habilis. The analyses show that on the family tree, Homo floresiensis was likely a sister species of Homo habilis. It means these two shared a common ancestor.

Hmm. I’d need more evidence than that before rejecting that it was a close relative of Homo erectus. I have an intrinsic skepticism about “primitive” vs “advanced” characteristics. When such a separation works it works spectacularly well, but. .. to give you an example, it can be fooled by male vs female and adult vs child in the same species.

There is absolutely nothing in evolution to say that mutations must push morphology in a single direction.

Homo erectus itself changed an awful lot in its 1.3 to 1.7 million year history.

On the other hand, Homo habilis did have a short stature. So the claim based on “133 data points” needs to be looked at very closely.

Our sample comprises 133 cranial, postcranial, mandibular, and
dental characters collected from A. afarensis, A. africanus, A. sediba,
H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. ergaster, H. erectus (Sangiran and Trinil),
H. georgicus, Homo naledi, H. floresiensis, and H. sapiens (Table 1).
Our comparative sample does not include Australopithecus garhi or
Australopithecus anamensis. A. garhi is relatively poorly represented
skeletally, missing 83% of data in our dataset. In comparison, most
taxa included in our comparative sample have much less missing
data; A. afarensis is missing only 4.5%, A. africanus 7.5%, A. sediba
37.6%, H. habilis 19.5%, H. floresiensis 8.3%, H. erectus 29.3%,
H. georgicus 36.8%, H. ergaster 4.5%, and H. sapiens 0.8%, while
H. naledi is missing 51.1% and H. rudolfensis is missing 72.2%.
Possible close phylogenetic relationships between H. floresiensis
and Kenyanthropus, Paranthropus, H. antecessor, Homo rhodesiensis,
H. neanderthalensis, and H. heidelbergensis have not been proposed
and these are not included in our analyses.

mollwollfumble said:

Our sample comprises 133 cranial, postcranial, mandibular, and
dental characters collected from A. afarensis, A. africanus, A. sediba,
H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. ergaster, H. erectus (Sangiran and Trinil),
H. georgicus, Homo naledi, H. floresiensis, and H. sapiens (Table 1).
Our comparative sample does not include Australopithecus garhi or
Australopithecus anamensis. A. garhi is relatively poorly represented
skeletally, missing 83% of data in our dataset. In comparison, most
taxa included in our comparative sample have much less missing
data; A. afarensis is missing only 4.5%, A. africanus 7.5%, A. sediba
37.6%, H. habilis 19.5%, H. floresiensis 8.3%, H. erectus 29.3%,
H. georgicus 36.8%, H. ergaster 4.5%, and H. sapiens 0.8%, while
H. naledi is missing 51.1% and H. rudolfensis is missing 72.2%.
Possible close phylogenetic relationships between H. floresiensis
and Kenyanthropus, Paranthropus, H. antecessor, Homo rhodesiensis,
H. neanderthalensis, and H. heidelbergensis have not been proposed
and these are not included in our analyses.

Below is the abstract from the paper “*The affinities of Homo floresiensis based on phylogenetic analyses
of cranial, dental, and postcranial characters.*” The very same you got your information from. However, you
have misread the part of the paper where they explain the reason for their selection or exclusion of species,
which was not on a whim, but scientific consideration of the material available.

Although the diminutive Homo floresiensis has been known for a decade, its phylogenetic status remains
highly contentious. A broad range of potential explanations for the evolution of this species has been
explored. One view is that H. floresiensis is derived from Asian Homo erectus that arrived on Flores and
subsequently evolved a smaller body size, perhaps to survive the constrained resources they faced in a
new island environment. Fossil remains of H. erectus, well known from Java, have not yet been discovered
on Flores. The second hypothesis is that H. floresiensis is directly descended from an early Homo lineage
with roots in Africa, such as Homo habilis; the third is that it is Homo sapiens with pathology. We use
parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic methods to test these hypotheses. Our phylogenetic data build
upon those characters previously presented in support of these hypotheses by broadening the range of
traits to include the crania, mandibles, dentition, and postcrania of Homo and Australopithecus . The new
data and analyses support the hypothesis that H. floresiensis is an early Homo lineage: H. floresiensis is
sister either to H. habilis alone or to a clade consisting of at least H. habilis, H. erectus, Homo ergaster,
and H. sapiens. A close phylogenetic relationship between H. floresiensis and H. erectus or H. sapiens
can be rejected; furthermore, most of the traits separating H. floresiensis from H. sapiens are not readily
attributable to pathology (e.g., Down syndrome). The results suggest H. floresiensis is a long-surviving
relict of an early (>1.75 Ma) hominin lineage and a hitherto unknown migration out of Africa, and not
a recent derivative of either H. erectus or H. sapiens.

http://b3.ifrm.com/30233/130/0/p3002988/The_affinities_of_Homo_floresiensis_based_on_phylogenetic_analyses_of_cranial__dental__and_postcranial_characters.pdf

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

I must have missed information regarding this as it was published over 12 months ago. Still a few points I was not aware are covered here, so if you missed it too it is an interesting read.

>>“We can be 99 percent sure it’s not related to Homo erectus and nearly 100 percent chance it isn’t a malformed Homo sapiens,” says Mike Lee, co-author of the study. <<

>>The ANU study involved close analysis of 133 data points from the hobbits’ whole skeleton, including its skull, jaws, teeth, arms, legs and shoulders. In some ways, particularly the jaw, Homo floresiensis appears to be more primitive than Homo erectus.

“Logically, it would be hard to understand how you could have that regression – why would the jaw of Homo erectus evolve back to the primitive condition we see in Homo floresiensis?” says Dr Debbie Argue, lead author of the study. <<

https://newatlas.com/hobbit-humans-evolution-homo-habilis/49167/

> The researchers believe Homo floresiensis was instead related to the earlier species, Homo habilis. The analyses show that on the family tree, Homo floresiensis was likely a sister species of Homo habilis. It means these two shared a common ancestor.

Hmm. I’d need more evidence than that before rejecting that it was a close relative of Homo erectus. I have an intrinsic skepticism about “primitive” vs “advanced” characteristics. When such a separation works it works spectacularly well, but. .. to give you an example, it can be fooled by male vs female and adult vs child in the same species.

There is absolutely nothing in evolution to say that mutations must push morphology in a single direction.

Homo erectus itself changed an awful lot in its 1.3 to 1.7 million year history.

On the other hand, Homo habilis did have a short stature. So the claim based on “133 data points” needs to be looked at very closely.

You are of course entitled to your opinion moll, but is it of comparative value to the scientists that have spent considerable time and effort to reach their conclusions. Are you an expert on human evolution, anatomy, etc?

PermeateFree said:

You are of course entitled to your opinion moll, but is it of comparative value to the scientists that have spent considerable time and effort to reach their conclusions. Are you an expert on human evolution, anatomy, etc?

I haven’t told you my opinion yet. All I’ve said so far it that I’m keeping an open mind.

Experts on human anatomy have three conflicting hypotheses, only one of which can be right. Even a cursory examination of the brain morphology of the inside of the skull suffices to discard the hydrocephalus hypothesis. That leaves the experts with two conflicting hypotheses. Which is correct?

PS, we’ve seen conflicts like this between experts on human ancestry dozens of times before, there’s even a chapter about it in a book I recently bought.

So let’s give some thought to what is and isn’t primitive. Certain cranial characteristics are linked to diet. Large molars, smaller canines, stronger jaw, larger muscle attachment regions and smaller brain size are all connected to a vegetarian lifestyle. So these need not be primitive if diet changes. Smaller overall body size, in proportion, need not be primitive. Changes in limb length, in proportion but separate from body size, need not be primitive.

I’m inclined to think that the shape of the brain inside the skull is a good indicator.

So let’s look, at these 133 measurements.

Specimens used:
2 specimens of Homo floresiensis. Cranium, cranial part, postcranium, mandible, lower dentition
19 specimens of Homo erectus. Similar parts.

That’s a good collection.
Looking at the table of 133 measurements, that looks like a good collection, too. But I note that some of these are ratios and some are linear measurements. Those characteristics that are ratios are going to be more reliable indicators than those that are linear measurements.

> Bayesian analyses were performed on datasets A and B using MrBayes 3.2.5 (Ronquist et al., 2012). It should be noted, however,that MrBayes treats polymorphic cells in a phylogenetic matrix as totally unknown to improve computational efficiency; thus, the results for Dataset B (variable taxa coded as polymorphic) are potentially highly conservative.

I’m not sure what they mean by “highly conservative” but the paper is right in treating parsimony ans more reliable, it’s far better to check whether variable taxa should be regarded as polymorphic.

> We employed the appropriate evolutionary model selected by stepping-stone analysis

I need to read up on stepping-stone analysis.

> Finally, analyses were also performed after recoding H. habilis by excluding equivocally-attributed postcranial remains

Hmm. Let’s look at Figure 1.

That means that according to their analysis there’s a 68% chance that the closest species is Homo habilis, a 32% chance that it is not the unique closest species. From Figure 2, where the intraspecific variability is coded as polymorphism, there’s only a 54% chance that the closest species is Homo habilis.

With such low probabilities, it’s good to retain an open mind.

Common factors with H habilis are 15 of the 133 original characteristics:

• External occipital protuberance prominent
• Fissure between mastoid process and petrous crest of tympanic present
• Greatest axis of auditory meatus from inferior margin to superior margin slopes posteriorly
• Supraorbital sulcus present
• Metopic prominence at least variably present
• Temporal line not directly linked with supramastoid crest
• Inferior transverse torus prominent
• Digastric fossa absent
• Contact between metaconid and hypoconid on M2 is Y-shaped
• Lower premolar mesiobuccal grooves present
• Lower premolar distobuccal grooves present
• Lower premolar mesiolingual grooves present
• P3 mesiolingual beak present
• Pilaster on femur shaft at least weakly defined and absent, or absent entirely
• Humerofemoral index medium

(Is there an anatomist in the house?)

One thing I do see, is that the 15 characteristics linking to habilis are all proportional measurements, not absolute measurements. I approve of that.

There are only six common factors that link erectus, ergaster and sapiens, because many features are not present in the erectus specimens we have. These are:

• Medial incursion of the superior temporal lines at coronal suture: inflection at least variably present
• Canine juga absent
• Obelionic depression at least variably present
• Genioglossal fossa shallow or absent
• P3 talonid height in relation to protoconid is moderate
• P3 occlusal crown outline along axis of tooth row at least variably present

If I leave off the three “variably present” and the “moderate” criteria, there are only two common factors left between erectus, ergaster and sapiens. Too small a set to make a decision on.

Their Figure 1 confirms this. It only has a 43% of 62% = a 27% chance of being correct.

There are some limitations to what they’ve done.

They have done a marvellous job of selecting forsil specimens.
They have done a marvellous job of selecting difference critaria.

… but,

Have a look again at Figure 1. All the species at the top of the chart are lined up horizontally. What that is is the wrong assumption that all of these fossils lived at the same time, like now.

To correct that, each fossil needs to be assigned its correct date.

The second problem is the opposite of what I thought it would be. I thought, based on the article linked in the OP, that their assigning of primitive and advanced features a priori might be placing too many constraints on their calculation. Instead, they have made no a priori assumptions about primitive and advanced features at all. That is better, but runs into the opposite problem.

I’m trying to think of a good example to illustrate this, I could choose live birth in reptiles. I could choose the presence of eyes in animals. Both are extremely poor indicators of evolutionary relationships. By putting all 133 criteria on an equal footing, they are including very poor indicators of evolutionary relationship on an equal footing with very good indicators. Not good.

Related to that, they’ve ignored common causes. From a genetics point of view a single genetic change like pituitary function will have multiple physiological changes. From an environmental point of view a single environmental change like food availability will push multiple physiological changes.

I’m not saying that they’re wrong or that I could do better. I just prefer to keep an open mind.

How about supplying some links to where you are collecting this information. I notice you commonly copy and paste chunks of text from various sources and arranged so it is extremely difficult to determine who wrote what.

I refer you to the conclusion of the paper in question on page 24, which addresses many of the points you raise and I remind you that this is a scientific study, not a pub discussion. The existence of the hobbit has been challenged on many occasions and apparently still is and again ignoring the factual evidence.

PermeateFree said:

I refer you to the conclusion of the paper in question on page 24, which addresses many of the points you raise and I remind you that this is a scientific study, not a pub discussion. The existence of the hobbit has been challenged on many occasions and apparently still is and again ignoring the factual evidence.

http://b3.ifrm.com/30233/130/0/p3002988/The_affinities_of_Homo_floresiensis_based_on_phylogenetic_analyses_of_cranial__dental__and_postcranial_characters.pdf

> I refer you to the conclusion of the paper in question on page 24, which addresses many of the points you raise

Exactly. They are completely in agreement with me.

mollwollfumble said:

> I refer you to the conclusion of the paper in question on page 24, which addresses many of the points you raise

Exactly. They are completely in agreement with me.

No they are not in agreement with you, but logically answer your concerns.