kinman2 at YAHOO.COM
Sun Oct 31 21:15:53 CST 2004
Responding to John Grehan's last post. It isn't really necessary that _floresiensis_ shares autapomorphies with genus Homo as a whole (especially if there are no such skeletal autapomorphies YET known for genus Homo).
In fact, I would actually PREFER autapomorphies it shares with some subclade of Homo----either Homo erectus + sapiens, or better yet with Homo erectus (sensu lato) alone.
P.S. Here is a link to an interview with Peter Brown about floresiensis which might help to shed further light on this:
More information about the Taxacom