[Taxacom] New article on Homo habilis floresiensis

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi all,

      Yes, as the subject line indicates, I am definitely transferring floresiensis into Homo habilis.  I was happy to learn that all of this new article's analyses even included Homo naledi named in 2015.  Although the exact position of floresiensis is still unclear, it almost certainly is NOT a diminutive form of Asian Homo erectus erectus, much less an abnormal Homo sapiens (as some continue to believe).

      Based on the results in this article, I am not only transferring floresiensis into Homo habilis, but also georgicus (which appears to be closely related to naledi).  Although there are some who have suggested that habilis and these other relatives be dumped into one big Homo erectus species, I am one lumper who thinks that is carrying things too far.  I think three species of Homo reflects its diversity very nicely.  Here is how I plan to cladistically code the five subspecies of  Homo habilis (plus the exgroup marker):


1 Homo habilis%

1 H. h. rudolfensis

2A H. h. habilis

2B H. h. floresiensis

3A H. h. naledi

3B H. h. georgicus

4 {{H. erectus + H. sapiens}}


NOTE: Abstract of article is here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.02.006