{"id":28013,"date":"2010-09-28T00:53:21","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T08:53:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.discovermagazine.com\/gnxp\/?p=6794"},"modified":"2010-10-02T00:03:14","modified_gmt":"2010-10-02T08:03:14","slug":"the-hobbits-were-cretins-perhaps-or-perhaps-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/2010\/09\/28\/the-hobbits-were-cretins-perhaps-or-perhaps-not\/","title":{"rendered":"The hobbits were cretins. Perhaps. Or perhaps not"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I was thinking a bit about <em>H. floresiensis<\/em> today. Probably my thoughts were triggered by\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/johnhawks.net\/weblog\/topics\/metascience\/dinosaur-species-mistakes-2010.html\">John Hawks&#8217;<\/a> post on the propensity for paleontologists to be &#8220;splitters,&#8221; naming new finds as species when they&#8217;re not. The issue with  <em>H. floresiensis<\/em> is a little more cut &amp; dried: if they weren&#8217;t a separate species they were obviously pathological. The original paper on the Flores hobbits came out in 2004. Is it too much to ask for a little clarity here six years on? <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.discovermagazine.com\/loom\/\">Carl Zimmer<\/a> has covered this story in depth before, so perhaps he&#8217;ll have some insights or inside sources who can shed some light at some point in the near future. <a href=\"http:\/\/johnhawks.net\/weblog\/\">John Hawks<\/a> was sure that the specimens were pathological in the early days, but he hasn&#8217;t said much for a bit now. And from what I hear there are new controversies about <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ardipithecus#Ardi\">&#8220;Ardi&#8221;<\/a>. I was at a talk years ago where <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Tim_D._White\">Tim White<\/a> played up the importance of fossils as the final word, as opposed to the more indirect inferential methods of statistical genetics, but this is getting ridiculous. After the <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.discovermagazine.com\/gnxp\/2010\/05\/the-three-layers-of-the-neandertal-cake\/\">Neandertal admixture<\/a> paper and the <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Denisova_hominin\">Denisova hominin<\/a>, genomic inferences are looking pretty good. I assume there&#8217;s more coming in the near future (though <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Svante_P%C3%A4%C3%A4bo\">Svante P\u00e4\u00e4bo<\/a> may have kidnapped family members of people working in his lab to gain leverage, so word probably won&#8217;t start leaking until a few weeks before the paper breaks). <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman#Genetic_analysis\">\u00d6tzi the Iceman<\/a> is going to have his genome published next year.<\/p>\n<p>With all that as preamble, here&#8217;s a new paper,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.plosone.org\/article\/info%3Adoi\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0013018\">Post-Cranial Skeletons of Hypothyroid Cretins Show a Similar Anatomical Mosaic as <em>Homo floresiensis<\/em><\/a>. It&#8217;s in PLoS ONE, so read it yourself. Does anyone care? I don&#8217;t know enough about about anatomy and osteology to make well-informed judgments about these sorts of things, so to the experts I absolutely defer. But frankly some of the experts strike me jokers. Here&#8217;s the problem:<strong> I don&#8217;t know who the jokers are!<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>I just went back and reread some of the press when the hobbit finds were revealed. New member of the human family tree! Evolution rewritten! And so forth. If <em>H. floresiensis<\/em> turns out to be pathological, I don&#8217;t know what to think about paleontology. More honestly, I might start slotting the discipline in with social psychology or <a href=\"http:\/\/marketplace.publicradio.org\/display\/web\/2010\/09\/21\/pm-dont-bet-on-economic-forecasting\/\">macroeconomic modeling<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I was thinking a bit about H. floresiensis today. Probably my thoughts were triggered by\u00a0John Hawks&#8217; post on the propensity for paleontologists to be &#8220;splitters,&#8221; naming new finds as species when they&#8217;re not. The issue with  H. floresiensis is a little more cut &#038; dried: if they weren&#8217;t a separate species they were obviously [&#8230;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,715,131,30,514],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28013","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anthroplogy","category-h-floresiensis","category-hobbits","category-human-evolution","category-paleontology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28013","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28013"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28013\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28429,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28013\/revisions\/28429"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28013"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.razib.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}