Copyright 2005 Gannett Company, Inc.
USA TODAY
March 4, 2005, Friday through Sunday, FIRST EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 11A
LENGTH: 464 words
HEADLINE: Analysis shows prehistoric 'hobbit' a distinct species
BYLINE: Dan Vergano
BODY:
A peek under the skull of the 18,000-year-old fossil that scientists
have nicknamed "the hobbit" reveals that the tiny being truly
represents a separate human species, researchers reported Thursday.
The find counters suggestions that Homo floresiensis, the ancient
human whose remains were discovered on the Indonesian island of
Flores last year, was part of a known species. Indonesian
anthropologist Teuku Jacob of Java's Gadjah Mada University and
others had suggested that the diminutive creature was a pygmy who
suffered from microcephaly, which causes small brains.
But "we found that generally the overall shape of the hobbit brain
was unique," says anthropologist Dean Falk of Florida State
University in Tallahassee, who led the team doing the brain analysis.
While small, the brain resembles that of Homo erectus, a human
species that preceded modern man, except with a few advanced traits
that made it capable of deep thought, she says. It does not resemble
a modern human's brain, diseased or not, she says.
A little over 3 feet tall, Homo floresiensis people flourished on
Flores from 94,000 to 12,000 years ago, when a volcano killed them
off. They apparently hunted dwarf elephants with spears. Researchers
had greeted the discovery with surprise, both because the creatures
lived so recently and because they used axes, blades and other tools
despite having chimp-size brains.
The analysis, released by the journal Science, of computer scans and
inner skull molds shows that the hobbit's small brain, one-third the
size of a modern human's, had enlarged regions associated with
complex decision-making, name recognition and speech.
"I'm bowled over," Falk says. "I never thought I'd see these advanced
features on such a small brain." The team compared the brain cast to a
microcephalic patient's and found no similarities.
"Overall, this is a very valuable contribution to the understanding
of this enigmatic, tiny hominid," says anatomist William Jungers of
Stony Brook University in New York. Homo floresiensis is clearly not
a pygmy human being because the brain is far too small, says Jungers,
who was not on the analysis team.
Archaeologist Michael Morwood of Australia's University of New
England, who led the discovery team, said the analysis is consistent
with his team's unearthing of stone blades, axes, awls and other
hunting tools with the fossil, and the remains of seven other hobbit
beings. He was a co-author of the report from Faulk's team, whose
analysis was supported by National Geographic.
"I would say that the suggestion that it is most closely related to
Homo erectus appears the best hypothesis," agrees anthropologist
Ralph Holloway of Columbia University in New York, who was also not
part of the analysis team.
GRAPHIC: Different enough: Professor Chris Stringer with skulls of
Homo erectus, from left, Homo floresiensis, and Homo sapiens. At
right, an illustration of Homo floresiensis.
LOAD-DATE: March 04, 2005
|
top