new hominid

John Grehan jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG
Fri Oct 29 10:14:07 CDT 2004


My current understanding is that the skeletal material of Homo has no
identified autapomorphies. If that is the case then assignment of any
taxon to the genus may be problematical.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Ken Kinman
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 7:05 PM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] new hominid
> 
> Dear All,
>       My initial impression is that this is definitely Homo, but I
would
> have been inclined to have named it only as a new subspecies, _Homo
> erectus floresiensis_.   The most recent of this material appears to
be
> about 12,000 years old.
> 
>      Assuming that it is the same as the "Ebu Gogo" on Flores (which
> haven't been seen for over a 100 years), the chances are even better
that
> good DNA samples can be found.  But I think Dr. Gee is overly
optimistic
> that a small extant population might still exist.  In any case, the
co-
> existence of modern man with _floresiensis_ until 12,000 years ago is
> remarkable in itelf.  But even more startling is the small brain size.
>        ------ Cheers,
>                   Ken Kinman




More information about the Taxacom mailing list