New skull study shows 'hobbit' is not human

In a an analysis of the size, shape and asymmetry of the cranium of Homo floresiensis, Karen Baab, Ph.D., a researcher in the Department of Anatomical Scienes at Stony Brook University, and colleagues conclude that the fossil, found in Indonesia in 2003 and known as the “Hobbit,” is not human.

They used 3-D shape analysis to study the LB1 skull of the hobbit and found the shape of the skull to be consistent with a scaled down human ancestor but not modern humans. Their findings, reported in the current online edition of the Journal of Human Evolution, add to the evidence that the hobbit is a new species.

The question as to whether the hobbit was human or another species remains controversial. Some scientists claim the hobbit was a diminutive human that suffered from some type of disease that causes microcephaly, which results in abnormal growth of the brain and causes the cranium to be much smaller than the normal human cranium. But Dr. Baab and co-author Kieran McNulty, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, believe their findings counter the microcephaly theory.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The results of this study are also in line with what other researchers in the Department of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University have found regarding the rest of the hobbit skeleton. Drs. William Jungers and Susan Larson have documented a range of primitive features in both the upper and lower limbs of Homo floresiensis, highlighting the many ways that these hominins were unlike modern humans.

Another branch of the tree we were unaware of (or so it seems). Could the same be said of Bigfoot perhaps?

Also, there is this:

'Hobbit' Fossils Represent A New Species, Concludes Anthropologist
- www.sciencedaily.com...

Cheers

I find the Hobbit mystery exciting. My question has anybody done one of those forensic anthropology facial reconstructions yet?
I think that would spur more interest if they have not done so already.


[edit on 24-1-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Probably 'cause the skull has to be conclusively identified and studied first.
If you go off thinking it's the wrong species, you'll get a different visual than what it may be. not terribly far off, but you could be pushing neanderthal characteristics over a modern humans face, for example.

reply to post by RuneSpider


But still the skull itself would dictate the facial features.
This would be a great clue if it was leaning more towards an upright ape or closer to a very short hominid

I can't find a face for the 'hobbit.' It would be interesting to put a face to the skull. Determining if this was a new branch of the homo species or an iodine-starved example of a cretinous family needed cooperation.

Multiple copies were made for various researchers, including National Geographic for facial reconstruction purposes. The production of multiple BioModel replicas from the original CT scans allows researchers from around the globe to perform hands on assessment and reconstructions on an otherwise inaccessible specimen.

This project is a perfect example of the benefits of the non-invasive BioModelling process. Both internal and external features are replicated to within a 1.0mm accuracy. Even the fine details of the skull floor are reproduced, all without the specimen being touched as with traditional modelling techniques.

Source includes images.

It would be intriguing to see a scaled rendition with the face reconstructed. There's a detailed and intelligent report on the likely new classification here at Washington University news.

Frodo never made it to Middle Earth then ...

reply to post by Kandinsky


This cant be it?
It's an artist rendition it has to be