[Taxacom] floresiensis (the "Hobbit" hominids) in the news

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi All,

      The "hobbit" fossil humans are in the news again.  I haven't seen the new paper, but the author is quoted as saying that it seems to be a sister species of Homo habilis.  I assume that means H. habilis (sensu stricto), which I classify as a subspecies (Homo habilis habilis).  This would not surprise me, because I have argued for years that floresiensis is more primitive than either Homo erectus erectus (in Asia) or even Homo erectus ergaster (in Africa).  Therefore, my 2009 classification (see below) showed floresiensis as a possible sister to Homo erectus georgicus.  But I don't know if the new paper even discusses H. e. georgicus.


       Anyway, if the "hobbits" are sister to H. habilis habilis, it would actually be slightly more primitive than H. e. georgicus, and would move up in the classification into species Homo habilis (sensu lato).   I would then code them as 2A  H. h. habilis  and then  2B  H. h. floresiensis.  And together they would form the sister group of the clade  {{H. erectus + H. sapiens}} (as shown further below).

---------------Ken Kinman


2009 classification ( if garbled, see original posting at http://markmail.org/message/jdauv2vzzuebvbr2 ):


1 Homo habilis%

1 H. h. rudolfensis

2 H. h. habilis

3 {{H. erectus + H. sapiens}}

_a_ Homo erectus%

1 H. e. georgicus

? H. e. floresiensis ("hobbit")

2 H. e. ergaster

3 H. e. erectus

_a_ {{Homo sapiens}}

_a_ Homo sapiens

1 H. s. antecessor

B H. s. cepranensis

2 H. s. heidelbergensis

_a_ H. s. neanderthalensis

3 H. s. rhodesiensis

4 H. s. idaltu

5 H. s. sapiens

----------------------------------------------

2017??:


1 Homo habilis%

1 H. h. rudolfensis

2A H. h. habilis

2B H. h. floresiensis

3 {{H. erectus + H. sapiens}}