Trackback: The Little People Tracked on: Laughing ~ Knees (63.247.72.82) at 2004 10 28 23:50:47
All my life the lure of the old stories about dwarves and giants and elves and ogres always held a unreasoning fascination that seemed all out of proportion to the experience of daily life. Just what is it that draws so many people to love these old stories? It is almost as if some genetic memory from a world far more ecologically diverse and integrated than our world today stimulates us to feel fascination when we stir up pictures of these mythical relatives. And every culture has them; all of us…

#8338: — 11/05  at  06:31 PM
There were "hobbits" in a sense in Europe until early 20th Century. The Swiss dwarves, mostly in the Grey Leagues, were acutely affected by lack of iodine and sunlight and became goitered, daft dwarves and married and had more of the same. Most were employed as shepards in the high, remote Alpen valleys. They ceased to exist when the Swiss government introduced iodine into salt. Poof (like a volcano). Gone.

#8368: — 11/06  at  11:00 AM
John Hawk writes “LB1 must have undergone selection in favor of smaller brains.” Obvious. “It is hard to imagine this kind of selection significantly affecting a primate.” Not so obvious. Most of our brain activity takes place to impress people around. That feature loses its usefulness in a very small and isolated island. LB1 had to adapt to a limited social circle with no subject for conversation.

I have been delighted with the new discovery and although most folks will be fascinated with the external morphology and with the relationship of H. floresiensis to other hominids, the most amazing thing to me is the miniaturazation of the brain. From an evolutionary perspective, this is an extraordinary thing to contemplate in a human, since so much of our self-identity comes from what I like to call "our obscenely large brains"!
I have recently come to believe that it is not tool-making or tool-using (chimps do a lot of that quite well), but our social skills that have commanded such large brains. And those skills would include recognition of others, who is "us" and who isn't, and a multitude of quick decision making behaviors based on our being able to keep our social structures in order. Language would eventually arise, and is probably the thing that most shapes our large cerebrums.
So the interesting question with H. floresiensis becomes how do they survive with a probably loss of some of that brain power?
Perhaps it shouldn't be so surprising that they can make tools and hunt (even the sophisticated tools of the Upper Paleolithic), but would they have lost some language skills? Would they have needed them? I think John Hawks is on the right track when he mentions that a small, indigenous group may be able to survive with less of those skills.
By the way, the brain size of the new hominin is proportionately smaller than that of modern humans...but pygmies and bushmen have normal size brains relative to their body size. Flores lady does not.

#8380: — 11/06  at  03:46 PM
A newly found 'hobbit'? wow....
When I lived in Kupang, people there often talked about 'kurcaci' (little people) that often walk and jump in the evening with their torches around 'Tenau beach'. Some people that often went fishing claimed they saw them (one of them is my friend).
Are they the hobbits?

#8407: — 11/06  at  11:52 PM
Gorilla Girl: The question is not if a small brained humanoid is able to survive, but what kind of evolutionary forces made his brain to contract to under chimp proportions. John Hall writes that it is difficult to imagine what makes a primate to lose brain volume. Above, I suggested the lack of subjects for sustained conversation as a possible cause, hoping that someone will tell me that I am a moron, but it did not happen. In fact, the salient feature of Flores island is the lack of large carnivores. Humanoids in that environment (1) face less competition as hunters, and (2) lesser danger of becoming prey. That means, maybe, that the main force that formed our brain was coevolution in the Kenyan savanna, which is swarming with efficient hunters and alert prey.

#8438: — 11/07  at  02:42 PM
Jaim: Exactly! It is as exciting to speculate about why our brains became so large as it is to ask why they could also become smaller (and apparently still function in the world as skilled toolmakers, if not more).
As to the "evolutionary forces" that "made" the brain get smaller, we are looking of course at natural selection as the process working on the Flores population. Lack of large predators must be an important component: not only did it allow the population to evolve to a smaller form, but small size would also have been an advantage on an island with limited food resources. (These same processes would work on the elephant population there as well.)
Moreover, with reduced stress from predators perhaps the social structure could be looser (we see tightly run troops of savannah baboons, for instance, with complex social interactions and hierarchies being crucial to their survival in the open field grasslands). Perhaps the Flores populations, with reduced need for defense, adequate but limited food supplies, could get by with less talk.

#8441: — 11/07  at  03:02 PM
"Knowing about Flores Man will not put gas in your tank, clear your complexion, pay your utility bill or find you a date. All it does is expand your intellectual horizons."

That won't find you a date? ...~sob~

;)

#8449: — 11/07  at  06:05 PM
Aaron,

If they only wanted you for your looks it would just make you feel cheap .... really.

You do realize that hanging out with us old curmudgeons may not be a direct benefit in the dating game,.... but it will make you far more interesting to talk to once you find the date.

#8455: Maciej Henneberg — 11/07  at  07:33 PM
WHY THE ‘HOBBITT’ MAY NOT BE A NEW SPECIES OF HUMANS

I published what follows in:

"Sunday Mail", Adelaide, Australia, 31 October 2004, p 91



Three days ago the world was stunned by the announcement of a discovery of a new species of humans who survived until, perhaps, historical times. A skeleton of diminutive person was unearthed in Liang Bua limestone cave on the Indonesian island Flores by an Indonesian-Australian team of scientists. In the same cave were found small fragments of skeletons of a few other humans, sophisticated stone tools and bones of animals that were apparently hunted and eaten by inhabitants of the cave. Occupation of the cave extended from over 38 thousand years (ka) ago to 13 ka. During that time surrounding islands and Australia were already settled by people looking like modern humans. The discovery has been made by researchers of excellent professional reputation and published in the leading scientific journal "Nature".
The skeleton belonged to an adult of short stature, around 105 cm, that is equal to that of shortest women among modern pygmies. The most astounding feature, however, is the size of its braincase- mere 380 mililitres (= a stubby bottle of beer’s volume), less than half of the size of the smallest brains of intellectually normal modern people, and clearly below the minimum for even the oldest humans who lived 1-2 million years ago. The face attached to this tiny braincase, however, fits comfortably within normal human size range.
This discovery shatters many long-cherished theories: brain size can no longer be seen as indicative of the level of intelligence, vastly different human species co-existed until very recent times, fairy tales of hobbits, elfs, gnomes and the like become true. It is so amazing that many scholars from around the globe are uncomfortably grappling with its consequences, while others wholeheartedly embrace it. It is not the first time that a breaktrough in our understanding of human evolution was caused by a single discovery. When the first Neandertal was unearthed in mid-19th century, leading scientists became deeply divided: some accepted the discovery while others tried to dismiss it as a modern skeleton that was severely altered by diseases. Today we know that it was a genuine early human skeleton. On the other hand, a discovery of the Piltdown man in the early 20th century turned out to be a fraud inadvertently accepted as genuine by many reputable scholars. Hence the discovery in Flores needs to be carefully examined.
Last Thursday, when I read reports in "Nature" I started going through all I learned from studying human evolution for 32 years and from describing and measuring thousands of skeletons excavated by archaeologists in Europe, America, Africa and Australia. The Liang Bua skeleton did not fit comfortably into my experience: small, but still not really dwarfed, stature, normal face and abnormally small brain – a strange combination at any stage of human evolution. I obtained from the "Nature" website measurements of the Liang Bua skeleton meticulously published there by discoverers. Dimensions of the face, nose and jaws were not significantly different from those of modern humans, but the measurements of the braincase fell a long way below the normal range. The bell rang in my head. I remembered reading a report of a 4 ka old (Minoan period) skull from Crete. This skull has been identified as that of an individual with a growth anomaly called microcephaly (=small brain). This well known condition has multiple causes and affects individuals to a varying degree. Its most severe congenital form (primordial microcephalic dwarfism – PMD) leads to death in childhood. Milder forms of microcephaly allow its sufferers to survive to adulthood though they cause some level of mental retardation. My statistical comparison of 15 head and face dimensions of the Liang Bua specimen with those of the Minoan microcephalic shows that there is not a single significant difference between the two skulls though one is reputedly that of the "new species of humans", the other a member of sophisticated culture that preceded classical Greek civilisation. Deeper down in the Liang Bua cave a forearm bone, radius, was discovered. Its reported length 210 mm corresponds to stature of 151-162 cm depending on method of reconstruction. This is a stature of many modern women, and some modern men, by no means of a "dwarf". Thus, until more skeletons of the purported "new species" are discovered, I will maintain that a well known pathological condition was responsible for the peculiar appearance of the skeleton so aptly described in "Nature" and that we are still a single rational species.

(Prof)
Head, Department of Anatomical Sciences, Medical School, University of Adelaide

#8457: — 11/07  at  08:25 PM
"Above, I suggested the lack of subjects for sustained conversation as a possible cause, hoping that someone will tell me that I am a moron, but it did not happen."

I've often heard it speculated that the a major selective advantage of our big brains -- maybe the crucial one -- is the social edge they give us. Organisms that can make mutually beneficial deals, take advantage of others, and recognize cheaters have a better chance of leaving descendents. On a small island, it becomes easy to remember who's cheated you before, so cheating circuitry becomes less useful. With less cheaters, cheater detection becomes less useful too. Hence, the brain shrinks, and your suggestion is, while improbable, not moronic.

"Thus, until more skeletons of the purported 'new species' are discovered, I will maintain that a well known pathological condition was responsible for the peculiar appearance of the skeleton so aptly described in 'Nature'"

I believe several skeletons were already found: "Further remains of up to seven individuals, some dating to only 13,000 years ago, suggest that there was once a thriving population on the volcanic island."

#8458: — 11/07  at  08:26 PM
* But is microcephaly heritable?

#8460: Maciej Henneberg — 11/07  at  08:43 PM
No, there were no "several skeletons" already found. This is a misleading statement. What was found are VERY SMALL FRAGMENTS of other 5-6 skeletons, that are of small size, but compatible with modern pygmies. No braincases of other individuals were found.
Microcephaly may be heritable. There are many forms of microcephaly, some result from chromosomal aberrations (heritable), others from environmental insults (eg rubella infection- not heritable). In some populations frequency of microcephaly is as high as 1 in 2000. There were some 10 cases of microcephaly found (and published) in various archaeological samples from Americas, Europe and Africa. This find from Asia is nothing unusual. What is unusual is how "discovery hungry" academics can jump to conclusions.

#8475: PZ Myers — 11/07  at  10:41 PM
You can find some stuff on heritable microcephaly right here.

Microcephaly is rare, and it would be especially rare to find it in a hunter-gatherer surviving to adulthood. Not impossible, of course, but finding the other partial remains that also indicate very small size makes it even less likely that this is nothing but an aberrant freak.

This is a case where time will tell, and with the attention this find has received, there will be much more digging on Flores in years to come. If your thesis is supported, then several investigators have just committed academic suicide.

#8485: — 11/07  at  11:20 PM
"Life expectancy for individuals with microcephaly is low and the prognosis for normal brain function is poor. The prognosis varies depending on the presence of associated abnormalities." Would it be safe to say that it is unlikely that a woman with that condition would survive to adulthood on Flores?

#8486: — 11/07  at  11:23 PM
On of the known archeological cases of microcephaly is from Magdalenian Period (upper Pleistocene) Europe. Obviouly a hunter-gatherer. Small bones of others

#8489: — 11/08  at  12:21 AM
One of the archeological cases is an adult male from Minoan period in Crete (4000 years ago). I think there are also two prehistoric adults from former Czechoslovakia. In secondary microcephaly survival is good and intellectual/mental retardation does not always occur in microcephalics.

#8499: — 11/08  at  02:02 AM
Microcephaly is rare, and it would be especially rare to find it in a hunter-gatherer surviving to adulthood. Not impossible, of course, but finding the other partial remains that also indicate very small size makes it even less likely that this is nothing but an aberrant freak.
PZ: Agreed, especially when the pelvic bone is also considered. It is remarkably intact, and appears to be smaller in scale than that of modern pygmies, although not altogether out of range of modern Homo. It will be interesting indeed to see what the next few months/years of research bring.

#8505: — 11/08  at  03:06 AM
Richard,
"As for time-to-morph, many Central American Indians (Olmecs?) already show signs of changing into the Uniform Tropical Human— full lips, darker skin, tightly curled hair, wide nose— after 12,000 years or less."

Olmecs, exactly. The theory is a bit controversial, the year would be not more than 8000 years ago (rather less), and the assumed reason is that there was a migration of people from Eastern Africa across the Atlantic. Common wisdom holds that they couldn't build ocean-going boats at that time, but obviously, H. erectus could cross the sea to Flores - they definitely didn't swim there, but must have been able to build sizable, ocean-going crafts. Then, there is some genetic evidence for the Mesoamerica-Africa connection, not to mention the fact that there was a marked cultural difference between the early Mesoamerican and the contemporary Western African cultures (the latter excelled in working metals, for example), the fact that (if one takes the migration to have taken place at a rather recent date) the pyramid-building cultures in Mesoamerica would to be influenced by the beginnings of the Egypt pyramid-builders (or a lost Central African culture? There are some amazing ruins to be found about noting at all is known except the rough age and the fact that such buildings don't just drop from the skies, but are the product of a considerable time of cultural development and refining), the fact that, some decades after the supposed influx of people from Africa and the skills and knowledge they brought, the Olmec region virtually exploded into building the first Mesoamerican high civilization where there used to be only petty framers dwelling in huts, and last but not least the local myths about god-like dark-skinned guys coming from the East.
Clearly, something has happened to give birth to the Mesoamerican high civilizations and odds are it was some African settlers. Not necessarily many; in fact, rather few than many. As one gets to know ones fellow humans, odds are that a large-scale immigration would not resulted in assimilation, but in slaughter. A small tribe or something, however, could just as well be perceived as strange, god-like beings, especially if they were technologically advanced (and artefacts show that the West Africans were, at that time, technologically MUCH more advanced than the proto-Olmecs. As metallurgists, many Western African peoples were on par at least with Europeans until they got conquered. Check out Benin busts anytime).

Gorilla Girl:
"Perhaps it shouldn’t be so surprising that they can make tools and hunt (even the sophisticated tools of the Upper Paleolithic), but would they have lost some language skills? Would they have needed them?"

The casual mentioning of language skills... Indeed, those folks that settled Flores were obviously not unskilled in boat-building and colonizing islands. Try to do that without language... The funny thing is, there are still people who dispute whether H. neanderthalensis had mastered speech and abstract thought. Well, it seems the debate can be reduced to whether their prose was any good.

"I have recently come to believe that it is not tool-making or tool-using (chimps do a lot of that quite well), but our social skills that have commanded such large brains. And those skills would include recognition of others, who is “us” and who isn’t, and a multitude of quick decision making behaviors based on our being able to keep our social structures in order. Language would eventually arise, and is probably the thing that most shapes our large cerebrums.
So the interesting question with H. floresiensis becomes how do they survive with a probably loss of some of that brain power?"

The brain, big mystery... the only thing we know for sure is that a) brain size is no direct indicator of brain function and that b) the brain is extremely malleable by evolution. All avian brainpower (on a human scale, I'd say the smartest birds - parrots and corvids - would about rank on par with a six-year-old) comes from the (IIRC... correct me if I'm wrong) inner part of the forebrain, which in mammals has evolved into the thalamus/hypothalamus, which house no intellectual functions whatsoever. With us, the outer part of the forebrain does the reasoning.
Then, it's a question of cortex-to-medulla ratio. The medulla is the power lines, the cortex is the switchboard. Homo sapiens females have on average smaller brains than men, but a higher ratio of cortex, which does the thinking, hence, there is no inborn intellectual difference between men and women in our species.
Another thing: it is possible that our large brains are just overkill? A sperm whale, while not exactly dumb, is surely not as bright as any ape, but it has a larger brain and could theoretically have more brainpower. So brainfeed is as important a point as brainpower - manipulative digits will get you a long way. Given the state of technological development of florensis, I wouldn't be surprised if the brainsize increase of humans would turn out a classical Gouldian exaptation - something that evolves because there's energy to burn and at later times happens to find a good use. Neanderthal brains were obviously larger not because these guys were more intelligent (they might have been, because living in a periglacial environment is demanding - but then you'd expect the first increase in brainpower to go to the 'automated' parts of the lower brain - movement, balance, reaction etc), but because of the higher proportion of animal fat and protein in their diets - the stuff brains are made of, more than any other part of our bodies. The Neanderthal example suggests that there is a genetic trend in human/prehuman evolution to invest any valuable fat and protein you might happen to have left over into the brain, no matter whether you can use it at that time or not. Brain size in human evolution does not really parallel technological advance. Rather, evolution seems to have created an oversized brain because it could, because from some point on, humans turned to hunters instead of hunted and thus were living, by and large, in gluttony as far as the stuff brains are made of is concerned. It's like a rich fellow who has some 10 cars - not that he'd need them or even use them to drive around. It's just because he can afford it.
But this is speculation. Speculation that makes sense, but speculation nonetheless. What we'd need is a brain cast of the Flores skull to see if the brain shrank evenly or if there was a marked reduction of the forebrain parts (mid- and hindbrain, which have basically the same or very similar functions in reptiles, birds and mammals, are, relative to body size, generally the same size and have ever been - birds are an exception; they have more brainpower dealing with 3D navigation, which a flying creature obviously needs. Bats - don't know, could be the same). If the latter, they were in all probability less intelligent than contemporary sapiens. If not - we really can't tell. To do so, we'd need to figure out the brain first, and from the scant information we have about it, it seems that the human brain is a) highly redundant and b) has quite some 'reserve' capacity, Thus, a drastic increase in brain size should be possible without too much dimming of the intellectual functions, as long as they did evolve in the first place. Once you have culture, a means of transmitting it over the generations is more important than having a really big brain, it would seem.

(A radically different note: What if you put the whole thing upside-down and really dwell on the big useless brain argument? You could plausibly argue that the human brain is some 70% overkill, that increase in brain size merely speeded up the development of culture but is in itself not really necessary. That the big brain is just a case of evolution running amok because it could - like the moa, which grew to an enormous size because they found themselves in a position where evolution completely messing up their endocine/growth hormone systems just didn't matter, because there was only a single predator which low population densities (until humans arrived). From the point on where humans were a) able to become to a large degree carnivorous and b) able to get themselves out of the whole predator-prey thing by utilizing different kinds of defensive and evasive strategies that were a good bet to get them out of any kind of naturally occurring trouble, brain growth, which is normally restrained by ressources that are being contested by other things, could simply 'run away', freed of constraints: from the beginning of the genus Homo on, humans were effectively top-level predators, that is, nothing had them for dinner on a regular base, while they themselves were theoretically able to hunt, kill and eat anything that moved. That would make them the only top-level predators ???ever??? where brain won over brawn, as far as the utilization of ressources was concerned.
The thing that stopped our brains from growing was the size of the birth channel.
I would't claim that this is true or even likely. But it's totally possible and plausible (correct me if I'm wrong) to go this far and claim that 2/3rds of the human brain size is, effectively, 'just there' without any adaptive purpose whatsoever because we're the only species that can afford it.

Intriguing brain factoid: what IS known is that the learning capacity of humans sort of collapses around age 10-15. You learn new stuff, of course, but learning fundamentally new things is a bit of a problem once your brain is colse to full-grown. Thus, more important than brain size might just as well be the period of infancy. All this illustrates that the one thing about our species that is as mysterious as it gets is the grey pulp inside our heads.)

Phew. That was long.

#8523: — 11/08  at  10:56 AM
Dear #116:

Thanks for the rather exhaustive discussion of brain function, and for the Olmec/Africa connection. With all the Caribe influences, I can only wonder about the value of DNA examination of Olmec descendants. It does seem odd, considering the distances, that African settlers (tribe on the run theory) would have ended up in Central America vice Brazil, but stranger things have happened.

As per the shrinking thing, there doesn't seem to be any link to a modern remote-island population undergoing any change in recordable time, exept the Japanese, who until the 20th Century were far smaller than Malaysians and Philipinos with whoom they share a common ancestery. I read something that Blacks who's families had been living in Canada for ten generations had begun to lose distinctly African features, but it could not be proven at the time of the article (early 80s?) if there had been Caucasian genes coming into the DNA soto voce.

The Polynesians went from mainland Asia and became huge in the Central Pacific. Samoans are the largest humans on earth, but they have a huge amount of protein in their traditional diet. Their ancesters arrived in the CP how many years ago? and they are distinctly different from mainland Malay and Sinitic Stock. But their brains didn't shrink from lack of need.

The Japanese are a good example of a group whose lack of protein led them to be referred to by mainland Asians as the "Eastern Dwarves", but with modern diets, their size has jumped back into the normal realm. Their brains never shrunk to match their previouly reduced size.

#8525: — 11/08  at  12:01 PM
Heteralocha wrote: But it’s totally possible and plausible (correct me if I’m wrong) to go this far and claim that 2/3rds of the human brain size is, effectively, ‘just there’ without any adaptive purpose whatsoever because we’re the only species that can afford it.

You asked to be corrected and I am happy to jump up and oblige. The brain is a very expensive organ to maintain, and current free availability of calories (in our societies, not in south Sudan) is a very exceptional, extremely recent situation. H. sapiens evolved in penurious circumstances and any useless cerebral tissue outgrowth would not be affordable for long.

#8529: — 11/08  at  12:43 PM
Dear Jaime and Girilla Girl:

If we use the "Naked Ape" theory, ie, that man evolved the big brain to be able to coordinate a group hunt for animals outside his individual physical/technological ability, then even tiny cooperative hunters would have needed big brains, regardless the size of their island. If the game was so easily slain as to eliminate the need for abstract spatial thought, and group planning then why haven't other predaters on small islands had a similar reduction? Or have they? Again, open question, has Jarod Diamond written anything on this. I'm dying to know what he thinks.

And as to my earlier question as to what we might use on them if they were pests: Having Googled "Ebu Gogo", it appears that the preferred anti-hobbit weapon was a flaming hay bale.

#8544: — 11/08  at  04:20 PM
jaime: Point taken. And indeed, the whole ting (at least in a radical sense) is in itself contradictory: While 'accidental' evolution towards a larger brain would have been plausible for some short (in evolutionary terms) period of time, if it would really be waste, one would expect that what 'accidentally' went into brains would rather sooner than later be put into brawn instead, just as any other plain old hunting mammal would do. Being able to outwit AND outfight larger prey would have been an advantage; so, if the enlargement of the human brain would have negligible benefits, we'd rather have ended up as (compared to Lucy at least) Schwarzeneggers, not Einsteins - it's not just calories, but calories from animal protein and fat which is the basic stuff from which to build a brain and/or stronger muscles. Neanderthals could afford both because they were forced to live on a diet that was much more rich in meat than that of sapiens.
The whole point of the exercise was to point out that brain size tends to dominate the discussion, while it really shouldn't. Take the New Caledonian crows - about as smart as your average chimp, tool use, complex social system, (nonverbal) 'language', but their brain is, what, 1.5 inches long (they're the size of a strong jackdaw)?

I don't know how far you can reduce the amount of cerebral medulla, but it would be nice to, just for kicks, try and determine the maximum amount of cerebral cortex florensis could habe sported by increase in surface fold and increase of the cortex-medulla ratio, just to see at what figures we'd arrive. I'd guess that from sheer calculating power, they need not have been much different from modern-day small human 'strains' (who have propoartionally larger brains as compared to body size, as has been pointed out).

#8555: — 11/08  at  05:25 PM
Heteralocha:

Now you've got me thinking (it's so much easier just to have an opinion): If it takes a much larger nerve to move a large muscle or group of muscles, does it require a larger medulla to generate those messages in the first place? One assumes that the whole spinal cord would therefore be larger than a tiny person's, but how much smaller the actual message center? Could Ebu Gogo just have downsized its operating harness and kept cortex material? Could we tell this by examination of the lower table of the skull?

As per #102, I wonder how many expeditions are in the planning stages to go looking for more evidence, both of Neolithic and current Ebu Gogo.

#8560: — 11/08  at  08:11 PM
Richard: Well, the distance between 'CPU' and 'periphery' as well as the overall size of nerves determines recion speed. This is one of the reasons (if not THE reason) who it is qute hard to catch flies or mosquitoes in-flight... these buggers react so much faster because of the shorter travel time for the neuronal impulse.
So, there's two possibilties: a) floresiensis kept the basic setup of the CNS intact. That would result in a decrease in intelligence (whether this would have been noticeable or significant is another point), but an increase in reaction speed, 'nimbleness' if you will. b) since floresiensis was obviously assisting itself in surviving with tools, dependence on 'animal' instincts could be reduced, making it possible to increase the amount of grey matter relative to the white. While there still would have been a reduction of brainpower, this could have been largely equalled out so that the overall level of intelligence held (though I seriously doubt they could have gone very far from where they were - compare the stone tools to Mesolithic stuff sapiens made. Floresiensis tools are quite nice, but they're still very much erectus-style).

I'd say a brain cast could give some hints. A simple reduction of medulla for cortex would probably not be enough, so I expect some change of structure and maybe shape/proportion of the forebrain to accompany it.

Note: I just happenen to discover that I've been reading 'florensis' all the time, and writing it too... including in the text I just prepared for our students' mag which mentions floresiensis and Mimivirus as most amazing additions to our knowledge of life. I herewith sincerely apologize.

#8561: — 11/08  at  08:11 PM
Your discussion on CNS reduction is very interesting and elaborate, but it is a simple fact that some microcephalics with brain size about the same as floresiensis are intellectually normal and capable of motor skills required for everyday living. I say this irrespective of my diagnosis of LB1. My own research on living people indicated that brain size is not correlated with mental aptitude. It is how the brain functions, not its size that makes people "intelligent".