[Taxacom] "Hobbit" (floresiensis) research

Kenneth Kinman kennethkinman at webtv.net
Thu May 7 12:58:59 CDT 2009

John Grehan wrote: 
 I've still yet to see anything substantial supporting the 'Homo'
placement for the hobbit....  
In terms of clarity I would prefer to see Hominidae apply to all large
bodied hominoids, or just to humans and those fossil taxa more closely
related to humans than the nearest living great ape relative - whatever
that is. For the purposes of the forthcoming human-orangutan analysis,
hominid is restricted to the latter.              
My response:        
      Well, "substantial" is in the eye of the beholder.  I personally
think the available evidence is more substantial for a Homo assignment
than an Australopithecus assignment.  As I pointed out, it should be
interesting when we find a foot of Homo habilis, Homo erectus georgicus,
or Homo erectus ergaster.  I suspect that they (especially habilis and
georgicus) would be similar to the foot of Homo erectus floresiensis (or
alternately, Homo habilis floresiensis).          
     As for Family Hominidae, I am glad you are going to use the
restricted (more traditional) usage.  Once we find more complete
fossils, I might even put Ardipithecus and Orrorin back into Hominidae.
However, I will never expand Hominidae to include chimps, gorillas, or
       ----------Ken Kinman

More information about the Taxacom mailing list