Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Flores man

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 27,351 ✭✭✭✭ steddyeddy


    Several commentators have put out their theory that flores man had a small bodied ancestor like an austrailopithocine and there was unsurprisingly a lot of backlash against this idea with many palaeontologists stating it had to be an erectus descendent.

    Personally I think flores man had a small bodied ancestor. A favouraite of mine Jeff meldrum was one of the first to point out that the hips, wrist and feet were quite similar to an austrailopithocine. I recognise that species can suffer from insular dwarfisim but these creatures had developments in their brain that would have needed quite a bit of energy to sustain anyway. They were getting enough food to support an high energy organ like the brain so I cant see how they were affected by insular dwarfisim.

    Whats the view here?


Comments



  • I don´t know much about hominins (isn´t that something ironic to say) or about Homo floresiensis... but it is certainly interesting that it has so much in common with australopithecines... maybe the australopithecines were much more widespread than we thought- I wouldn´t find that strange. I mean, it has often been said that they didn´t leave Africa until their brain was large enough and they were larger with longer legs or whatever, yet plenty of other animals left Africa without having to undergo any significant change. Take baboons for example, they appeared in Africa and eventually reached as far as India- including some very specialized baboon kinds like Theropithecus. Why wouldn´t an adaptable oportunist like an australopithecine be able to leave Africa and reach Asia as well?

    Just my thoughts...




  • Hmmm. The problem I'd personally have with the australopithecine out of Africa model isn't the bone evidence that Dr Meldrum has made some good points on. My problem is dietary. They were herbivorous. Unless a species is a grass eater or the like, it tends to narrow down, slow down or even stop migratory options. Certainly when compared to a carnivore or omnivore. A slightly different ecosystem and you have a load of different plants, any one of which may be poisonous. Carnivores have it easy. If it crawls runs or breathes you can chow down. There are very few poisonous animals out there. Venomous yes, but so long as you avoid the poison sacs you can happily eat a cobra. Erectus had significantly more meat in his diet. This would have made it easier for them to move and spread. Plus animal based diets tend to be more bang for the buck calorie and nutrient wise. Herbivores need to eat much more volume of food than carnivores. Us? three squares a day and can survive on less. Gorillas? Never stop eating.

    Flores appears to be another carnivore/omnivore. So for the australopithecine hypotheses to work, they would have had to change diets, (and body shape) and invent a new tool set along the way. On that point while it's likely they used tools in much the same way as chimps today (maybe a little more sophisticated), they didn't have stone tools as far as we know. Flores man has quite a sophisticated lithic technology. Indeed that has been the surprise, that such a small brain could come up with that. So for me anyway Erectus better fits the bill for the ancestral line of Flores.

    Now steddyeddy makes a good point re the brain size. Then again their brain also shrank in volume(but kept much of the higher organisation) along with their bodies.

    On Jeff Meldrums take on the bones? Like steddyeddy I've a lot of time for that man for all sorts of reasons. Not afraid to think outa the box for a start. That said the features he cites might also be explained by the dwarfing process itself. Various bone features do change in such a process and not just the obvious overall size one.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • Wibbs wrote: »
    Hmmm. The problem I'd personally have with the australopithecine out of Africa model isn't the bone evidence that Dr Meldrum has made some good points on. My problem is dietary. They were herbivorous. Unless a species is a grass eater or the like, it tends to narrow down, slow down or even stop migratory options. Certainly when compared to a carnivore or omnivore. A slightly different ecosystem and you have a load of different plants, any one of which may be poisonous. Carnivores have it easy. If it crawls runs or breathes you can chow down. There are very few poisonous animals out there. Venomous yes, but so long as you avoid the poison sacs you can happily eat a cobra. Erectus had significantly more meat in his diet. This would have made it easier for them to move and spread. Plus animal based diets tend to be more bang for the buck calorie and nutrient wise. Herbivores need to eat much more volume of food than carnivores. Us? three squares a day and can survive on less. Gorillas? Never stop eating.

    Flores appears to be another carnivore/omnivore. So for the australopithecine hypotheses to work, they would have had to change diets, (and body shape) and invent a new tool set along the way. On that point while it's likely they used tools in much the same way as chimps today (maybe a little more sophisticated), they didn't have stone tools as far as we know. Flores man has quite a sophisticated lithic technology. Indeed that has been the surprise, that such a small brain could come up with that. So for me anyway Erectus better fits the bill for the ancestral line of Flores.

    Now steddyeddy makes a good point re the brain size. Then again their brain also shrank in volume(but kept much of the higher organisation) along with their bodies.

    On Jeff Meldrums take on the bones? Like steddyeddy I've a lot of time for that man for all sorts of reasons. Not afraid to think outa the box for a start. That said the features he cites might also be explained by the dwarfing process itself. Various bone features do change in such a process and not just the obvious overall size one.

    Have any studies been made to prove- like really prove- what australopithecines ate? They look like omnivores to me, not necessarily vegans... But like I said I know next to nothing about these guys.




  • AFAIR they've done isotope testing on the bones and found an almost exclusively plant based diet, though some showed tiny bits of animal intake. Their teeth show wear indicative of tough plant diet. Nuts and seeds and the like. Their teeth also have much thicker dentine to adapt to this kind of diet. Erectus(and Flores) has teeth much closer to ours(though more robust), teeth that even though lacking in carnassial slicing type teeth and large canines of pure predators are actually pretty good at chewing meat and appear to have evolved that way. A gorilla while of a magnitude bigger teeth and stronger bite aren't nearly as efficient at chewing meat as say a 15 year old human.

    Body shape wise, australopithecine are more "ape" shaped in the trunk. More like /\ than ||(like Neandertals) or us \/. They look more herbivorous with a larger gut.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • Wibbs wrote: »
    AFAIR they've done isotope testing on the bones and found an almost exclusively plant based diet, though some showed tiny bits of animal intake. Their teeth show wear indicative of tough plant diet. Nuts and seeds and the like. Their teeth also have much thicker dentine to adapt to this kind of diet. Erectus(and Flores) has teeth much closer to ours(though more robust), teeth that even though lacking in carnassial slicing type teeth and large canines of pure predators are actually pretty good at chewing meat and appear to have evolved that way. A gorilla while of a magnitude bigger teeth and stronger bite aren't nearly as efficient at chewing meat as say a 15 year old human.

    Body shape wise, australopithecine are more "ape" shaped in the trunk. More like /\ than ||(like Neandertals) or us \/. They look more herbivorous with a larger gut.

    Very interesting...

    Do you think scientists are trying to make Homo floresiensis a "primitive" hominin for the same reason they've been trying to make it a "freak" or "diseased human"- which IMHO is just vile, thinly veiled anthropocentrism?


  • Advertisement


  • I dunno, though I really doubt Meldrum would be like that. Quite the opposite. I think the Flores discovery is so out of left field and throws a real spanner in the works re early migration, brain size and intelligence and they lived up until recently(much more recently than Neandertals) that it was bound to have people scratching heads and trying to either jam it into the existing science or kick it out of it. Scientific outliers can do that.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • Jamming into existing science or kicking it out of it... I see that happen a lot




  • Adam Khor wrote: »
    I don´t know much about hominins (isn´t that something ironic to say) or about Homo floresiensis... but it is certainly interesting that it has so much in common with australopithecines... maybe the australopithecines were much more widespread than we thought- I wouldn´t find that strange. I mean, it has often been said that they didn´t leave Africa until their brain was large enough and they were larger with longer legs or whatever, yet plenty of other animals left Africa without having to undergo any significant change. Take baboons for example, they appeared in Africa and eventually reached as far as India- including some very specialized baboon kinds like Theropithecus. Why wouldn´t an adaptable oportunist like an australopithecine be able to leave Africa and reach Asia as well?

    Just my thoughts...

    Sorry for the delay in replying for scientific threads like this I like to put more thought into a reply.

    I dont have a problem with australopithecines migrating across land masses but I do have a problem with a creature like homo erectus under going insular dwarfisim. If anything is an adaptable opertunist its an australopithecine.




  • Wibbs wrote: »
    Hmmm. The problem I'd personally have with the australopithecine out of Africa model isn't the bone evidence that Dr Meldrum has made some good points on. My problem is dietary. They were herbivorous. Unless a species is a grass eater or the like, it tends to narrow down, slow down or even stop migratory options. Certainly when compared to a carnivore or omnivore. A slightly different ecosystem and you have a load of different plants, any one of which may be poisonous. Carnivores have it easy. If it crawls runs or breathes you can chow down. There are very few poisonous animals out there. Venomous yes, but so long as you avoid the poison sacs you can happily eat a cobra. Erectus had significantly more meat in his diet. This would have made it easier for them to move and spread. Plus animal based diets tend to be more bang for the buck calorie and nutrient wise. Herbivores need to eat much more volume of food than carnivores. Us? three squares a day and can survive on less. Gorillas? Never stop eating.

    Flores appears to be another carnivore/omnivore. So for the australopithecine hypotheses to work, they would have had to change diets, (and body shape) and invent a new tool set along the way. On that point while it's likely they used tools in much the same way as chimps today (maybe a little more sophisticated), they didn't have stone tools as far as we know. Flores man has quite a sophisticated lithic technology. Indeed that has been the surprise, that such a small brain could come up with that. So for me anyway Erectus better fits the bill for the ancestral line of Flores.

    Now steddyeddy makes a good point re the brain size. Then again their brain also shrank in volume(but kept much of the higher organisation) along with their bodies.

    On Jeff Meldrums take on the bones? Like steddyeddy I've a lot of time for that man for all sorts of reasons. Not afraid to think outa the box for a start. That said the features he cites might also be explained by the dwarfing process itself. Various bone features do change in such a process and not just the obvious overall size one.

    I get what your saying Wibbs and their very good points but I think that one of the dangers from drawing inferences about extinct animals from extant ones is that some factors can change everything. Like lowland gorillas who also consume some termites to supplement their diet Australopithocine could have evolved to cope with a diet more suiting an omnivore as it progessed through asia. Regarding infering territorial range from known herbivores I think the fact that lucy and her ilk were bipedal would have increased therr range considerably.

    Many ungulates have migrated from asia to africa and back again. An intelligent animal like Lucy or many of the hominids would always be looking towards the horizon. I wouldnt equate their lifestyle with that of the gorilla. It also wouldnt have to be an australopithocine for the theory to work.




  • steddyeddy wrote: »
    I dont have a problem with australopithecines migrating across land masses but I do have a problem with a creature like homo erectus under going insular dwarfisim.
    Why though? After all Homo Sapiens have and within a much shorter time period. So called "Pygmy" people scattered all over the place, but most notably in Sub Saharan Africa. Folks like the Ba'aka peoples.

    pygmy3.JPG

    Now in the case of the African lads and lasses, this dwarfism occurred in the last 60,000 years, Erectus had much longer to do so and under higher selective pressures.
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Like lowland gorillas who also consume some termites to supplement their diet
    True but it's a teeny tiny part of their diet.
    Australopithocine could have evolved to cope with a diet more suiting an omnivore as it progessed through asia.
    Possibly.
    Regarding infering territorial range from known herbivores I think the fact that lucy and her ilk were bipedal would have increased therr range considerably.
    Bipedal certainly, but nowhere as bipedal as Erectus. Hell we're not as "bipedal" as Erectus. If one ever shows up at the Olympics in the sprint events, watch Usain Bolt lose for a change. :D
    Many ungulates have migrated from asia to africa and back again.
    Yep, but like I noted in the previous post S, grass eaters have an advantage in that grass grows pretty much everywhere. Most ungulates are "grass eaters". In the middle of the night you could drop a few wildebeest into a farm in west Cork and they'd happily munch down. Might even be better off given the Irish grass is higher in nutrients and the lack of lions a distinct advantage. Might confuse the fook outa the farmer mind you, so if you do this don't come crying to me if a maddened Corkman takes a shotgun to you. :D Lucy was a nut, seed, plant eater. Likely many of these sources were local.

    Another (Big)issue with this idea is while we have Erectus happily outside Africa before Flores man, we have zero evidence for australopithecines outside Africa at any time.

    So to recap...

    Australopithecines:
    A diet that would likely limit large scale migration.
    No stone tool technology.
    No fire.
    No evidence of australopithecines outside Africa.
    No evidence of cultural thought.

    Erectus:
    More carnivorous diet.
    Stone technology(flakes, handaxes, cutting flakes)
    Fire.
    Lots of evidence of erectus outside Africa before Flores.
    Cultural thought(handaxe design, symmetry in same. I'd reckon more, but that's just me :))

    Flores:
    More carnivorous diet.
    Stone technology(flakes, handaxes, cutting flakes)
    Fire.

    So australopithecines would have to radically change diet, get smarter brains, develop a lithic technology(remarkably similar to Erectus), tame fire, find the need and will to migrate a couple of thousand miles without leaving evidence of this migration, become seafarers and magically appear in Flores. Whereas Erectus had all of that and a wanderlust that would put a 22 year old Australian to shame.

    For me, at least, the balance of evidence is so in favour of Erectus or maybe slightly later hominid* as the origin species of Flores that the australopithecine idea really doesn't stand up. TBH I'd like it to, but really can't see it.





    *My personal take is that they may be dwarf versions of some post Erectus human. Reasoning? The stone tools associated with them are more advanced than Erectus, they only go back definitively to 100,000 odd years too(there are apparently older tools going back to 800,000 years, but to my eye anyway are morphologically distinct from the later Flores lithics). Now parallel evolution is well possible and I certainly believe that Erectus and others were more clever than we think currently. After all it wasn't so long ago we thought of Neandertals as being hunched over apes. Flores man does have a tiny brain, however their prefrontal cortex is just below the low end of modern peoples and higher than Erectus, even with this small size. Size ain't everything, it's what you do with it said the bishop to the actress. :) The higher bit and the advanced tool kit interests me.

    Modern humans are very related. Much more than archaics anyway and there were different archaics out there. This is the first time in human history where there is only one human knocking around. My personal take is that Flores man ancestor was one of the "Asian Erectus II" species. Their early version of Neandertal, an Asian Heidelbergensis. Maybe one of the proto Denisovan folks. After all modern people in that neck of the woods carry even more of that heritage than Europeans do of Neandertal. This would explain more for me than the dwarf erectus idea. I wonder has anyone looked at how similar the bone morphology is between Neandertal/Heidelbergensis and Flores?

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.



  • Advertisement


  • I want more details on H. erectus anatomy! Were they really as fast as you say? o-o Do tell more!

    As for all the changes australopithecines would have to undergo to become H. floresiensis... isn´t that what evolution is all about? Some species have evolved in incredibly short periods of time. Why can´t the same changes happen twice in the history of hominins?

    Im not defending the australopithecine idea or going against it, I just wonder...




  • Adam Khor wrote: »
    I want more details on H. erectus anatomy! Were they really as fast as you say? o-o Do tell more!
    Apparently so. They appear to have been built for running. Narrower hips than moderns and other features.
    As for all the changes australopithecines would have to undergo to become H. floresiensis... isn´t that what evolution is all about? Some species have evolved in incredibly short periods of time. Why can´t the same changes happen twice in the history of hominins?
    Oh sure, I agree, however while we can see the evolution and migration of erectus coming out of Africa and making it to east Asia, we have no evidence of Lucy's kind doing so. I'd buy this idea more if we had evidence of australopithecines evolving different diet strategies or lithic technology or evidence of a presence in Asia, or even anywhere outside Africa, but we don't. It's too much of a stretch for me. If you find a dead body with a gunshot wound, you don't issue an arrest warrant for a guy with a bow and arrow.

    PS
    Me wrote:
    I wonder has anyone looked at how similar the bone morphology is between Neandertal/Heidelbergensis and Flores?
    It seems they have. Had a bit of a Google earlier and their wrist and shoulder anatomy is pre Neandertal, more erectus(and different to Lucy) so we're back to insular erectus evolution as an origin. Also found more images of their stone tools and to my eye anyway they're not as advanced as some seem to be saying/claiming. IE Items described as "blades", a technology change considered a major step in human tool tech. Well they really dont look like blades to me. More hard hammer percussion flakes that more by luck than judgement ended up kinda blade like. They're a little more advanced than Erectus, but not by much.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • Slightly off topic, but I had no idea there were so many recognised* sub species of H. erectus.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus#Descendants_and_subspecies

    *I say 'recognised', but some are quite controversial.




  • The problem with hominid research is the rarity in the fossil record. This seems to drive each new fragment into hyperbole and the researchers want the holy grail, a "new" hominid with their name attached. Some of the finds and extrapolations from them are IMHO a bit daft. Some big names in the field have really stretched it. My take would be of fossils from roughly the same time is that they're just regional and individual variation in the one species and that Erectus had a pretty big range of these variations. I mean we're very closely related as moderns, the same species, yet a very robust native Aussie or European has a fair few diffs in the skull to a very gracile Asian. Plus fragments of skull don't tell you gender diffs. Even in moderns where male/female diffs are very reduced men have more robust skulls. In Erectus' case there is evidence for this from the Georgian site. In jaw size there is a huge diff between individuals from the same time. One makes Judge Dredd look chinless, yet another is very dainty. If only one or the other was found I'd reckon researchers would be claiming new subspecies. If it was one of the Leakey's I'd put money on that.

    I'm quite sure regional differences and major changes over time were going on with erectus. Of course, after all they gave rise to at least four new species(though I'd prefer subspecies as a title in this case), Neandertals, us, Flores and Denisovans. We're all Erectus 2.0 really. Well Flores might be more Erectus 1.5. And with every passing month we're seeing that genetically we seem to have felt the same species and got down to some horizontal jogging. Ain't love grand :)

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • I still wanna know more about those traits that made erectus faster... how fast do you think it could run?




  • Can't find decent links on the subject sadly. It's in a couple of books I have. Apparently olympic sprinter level anyway.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • Apologies for the late reply I always intend to put more thought into the science threads. Its not that I think island dwarfisim is impossible wibbs it does happen with various human populations as you pointed out. Its not the body shrinking I have the problem with but the brain. Usually when a mammal undergoes insular dwarfisim or any other biochemical mechanisim or step towards dwarfisim the brain isnt reduced to anywhere near the level the body is. Brain and body size only have limited genetic correlation. Within genera of mammals, brain size scales only at about 20 percent or less of the magnitude of any change in body size.

    Flores man only had a brain size of 380cc where as if flores man was indeed a reduced hominin the brain size would be expected to be around 620-800 cc. Granted there could have been a seperate selection for smal brain size however this is extremely rare in primates.




  • Oh I hear you S. That said brain size reduction in island isolated mammals isn't unheard of http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507185535.htm

    "We found that the brain sizes of extinct dwarf hippos were still up to 30% smaller than you would expect by scaling down their mainland African ancestor to the dwarf’s body size’ explains Dr Weston.

    ‘If the hippo model is applied to a typical H. erectus ancestor the resulting brain capacity is comparable to that of H. floresiensis."


    Against this is if we take the australopithecine making it that far we have to accept that pretty much all of the evidence of australopithecines diet, culture, migration, tool use and timescale is completely wrong. Possible, but I personally doubt it

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • Wibbs wrote: »
    Oh I hear you S. That said brain size reduction in island isolated mammals isn't unheard of http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507185535.htm

    "We found that the brain sizes of extinct dwarf hippos were still up to 30% smaller than you would expect by scaling down their mainland African ancestor to the dwarf’s body size’ explains Dr Weston.

    ‘If the hippo model is applied to a typical H. erectus ancestor the resulting brain capacity is comparable to that of H. floresiensis."


    Against this is if we take the australopithecine making it that far we have to accept that pretty much all of the evidence of australopithecines diet, culture, migration, tool use and timescale is completely wrong. Possible, but I personally doubt it


    Good point wibbs but even a 30% reduction in brain size wouldnt explain flores man's 380 cc brain size. Saying that there is no eveidence apart form similar sizes to back up the australo theory. I have only a hunch to go on at this stage but I have a feeling were going to find that our ancestors were a lot more diverse and widespread than currently accepted!




  • Wibbs wrote: »
    Can't find decent links on the subject sadly. It's in a couple of books I have. Apparently olympic sprinter level anyway.

    Wibbs Im not sure of the exact evidence but wasnt there a grove on the back of Homo erectus femur that was similar to that found on the back of modern sprinter's femurs?


  • Advertisement


  • That sounds familiar alright S. That and their narrower hips on average compared to moderns and other adaptations to running.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • Conversely of course we have the wider hips to allow larger head/brain size at birth. It obviously is a more capable survival trait than fast running, to have a larger brain.

    Well nature thinks so anyway.




  • Wibbs wrote: »
    That sounds familiar alright S. That and their narrower hips on average compared to moderns and other adaptations to running.

    I dont know if you have seen this Wibbs but heres an ineresting paper on the evolution of endurance running that I came across. Hope you enjoy it.

    http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/pdfs/2004e.pdf




  • Cool :) Thanks

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • I wonder what sort of intelligence Homo floresiensis had. I mean, which a brain size so small - would they have had complex speech? A comparable grasp on toolmaking?




  • dlofnep wrote: »
    I wonder what sort of intelligence Homo floresiensis had. I mean, which a brain size so small - would they have had complex speech? A comparable grasp on toolmaking?

    I read somewhere that despite the enormous actual size of their brains, cetaceans have actually small brains when compared to their body size. And they are undoubtely very smart, have been known to use tools (bottlenose dolphins at least) and have some sort of language we still don`t understand. I'm pretty sure Homo floresiensis wasn`t dim witted at all. :cool:




  • Adam Khor wrote: »
    I read somewhere that despite the enormous actual size of their brains, cetaceans have actually small brains when compared to their body size. And they are undoubtely very smart, have been known to use tools (bottlenose dolphins at least) and have some sort of language we still don`t understand. I'm pretty sure Homo floresiensis wasn`t dim witted at all. :cool:

    Perhaps. I'm not entirely up to scratch on the importance of size with relation to certain areas of the brain in hominids - but I assume that all aspects of Flores was reduced, and as such - when compared to homo sapiens, they could have been greatly reduced in intelligence. I'll have a bit of a google tomorrow over a cup of tea on it.




  • They probably wouldn't have been the sparkiest alright. Then again their stone tool culture is pretty advanced for an erectus. That said Ive seen some researchers claim the tool set is even more advanced. Personally and in fairness amateurishly speaking I'd disagree judging by the pics I've seen and these would have been the best examples.. They claim some blade tools, but I can't see it. Even if they were they're rare in the overall pattern.

    Brain size is a funny one alright. It's why some still suggest that Flores man is a deformed modern. Their brains are sooo small. The way their brains appear to be made up could be the difference. Although small overall they have more grey matter in certain areas than their size would immediately suggest. Organisation of the brain makes a diff. Neandertals had bigger brains on average than modern humans. Biggest brains of all hominids so far discovered. They were by no means thick, but likely less sparky than us.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • I'm not sure if Neanderthal was less intelligent than us. I feel that's a bad stigma that follows them. I feel they were perhaps more unfortunate than us, and probably had a smaller population that was outbred. I've no evidence for the above obviously, other than the average brain size was larger than humans


  • Advertisement


  • Brain size is important, that is true, but also the way in which the brain is used is also important.

    For example dogs are pretty clever as a rule but a lot of their brain is used to process the sense of smell. If they had a weaker sense of smell they could utilise the brain for more abstract thinking.

    No I am not suggesting they would be as intelligent as ourselves, I am just using them to illustrate how the use of the brain is as important as it's actual size above a certain point.

    A whale with the brain of an ant would be stupid. But an ant with the brain of a whale would be very intelligent.... if it used it's processing power for thinking.


Advertisement