more hobbits?

More small human-like bones found in Indonesia (Afarensis blog). The tone of it, unfortunately, is way out of my league. But if I understand it right, the authors don't think these are hobbits:

[W]e have an intriguing mix of morphology. What do the authors make of it? After cautioning that the traits linking H. erectus, H. floresiensis, and the Palau population could be homoplasies (early in the paper) the authors make an excellent point when they observe that small bodied populations that do not share all the traits considered taxonomically significant in the LB1 material can not support the validity of the H. floresiensis taxon. They conclude the paper by saying:

Based on the evidence from Palau, we hypothesize that reduction in the size of the face and chin, large dental size and other features noted here may in some cases be correlates of extreme body size reduction in H. sapiens. These features when seen in Flores may be best explained as correlates of small body size in an island adaptation, regardless of taxonomic affinity. Under any circumstances the Palauan sample supports at least the possibility that the Flores hominins are simply an island adapted population of H. sapiens, perhaps with some individuals expressing congenital abnormalities.

Well, that clears that up.

Concerning Hobbits

More debate (via Panda's Thumb) on what exactly the deal was with Homo floresiensis - aka, the Hobbits discovered in Malaysia. Are they a different species, or just microcephalic humans (humans with small brain sizes)?

Professor Colin Groves of the Australian National University thinks the former, and has a 7-part YouTube series on the details. (Part 1 here) Panda's Thumb reports from a conference on the subject that the microcephalic theory seems to be failing, and most paleontologists are starting to come around to the separate species view.