In 2003, the remains of a small skeleton were found in a cave called Liang Bua on Flores, a small island in Eastern Indonesia. The individual was nicknamed LB-1 and originally scientists thought it was a child due to the size. However, when they took a closer look at the skull and teeth they realized it was the skull of an adult. Many scientists think this is a new species that they named homo floresiensis, but others argue that it is just a modern human with a mutation. Since 2003, bones and teeth from as many as 12 other homo floresiensis have been discovered. I believe that by examining the bone structure, we can see that the homo floresiensis are a new species.
When conducting my research, I found many sources to use. Two articles I used, …show more content…
This showed that even sources one deems credible can be disproved when new findings arise. I also used four entries from the Journal of Human Evolution, “Homo floresiensis and the evolution of the hominin shoulder,” “Descriptions of the lower limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis,” “Descriptions of the upper limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis,” and “New wrist bones of Homo floresiensis from Liang Bua (Flores, Indonesia).” Like the previous two articles, all the sources used were cited and easily accessible. I also trust these articles as acknowledgements were made of who loaned the authors the casts of the bones as well as different museums that samples were collected from. Originally I was slightly skeptical of my source that I found on nature.com, “The foot of Homo floresiensis.” However, when I looked at their cited resources, they were all credible sources like …show more content…
They compared the bones of the homo floresiensis with that of individuals “in a large Israeli cohort of patients with Laron Syndrome” and found that both had extremely small stature and a small cranial volume. At the end, they believed that homo floresiensis were indeed just an inbred homo sapien population who had a mutation for the GH receptor that causes Laron Syndrome(1). However, two years after the claim was made, the same journal posted an updated story. They stated that many of the claims could not be backed up with ample data and new tests showed that homo floresiensis were not homo sapiens with LS. “LB1 and patients with LS differ markedly in the size and shape of the cranium; thickness and pneumatization of cranial bones; morphology of the face, mandible, teeth, and chin; form of the shoulder, wrist, and pelvis; and general body proportions including relative foot size.”(2) Other scientists have done research looking for comparisons between the skeletal structure of the homo floreisienis and other hominins. They found that “[t]he neurocranial shape of H. floresiensis closely resembles that of H. erectus s.l.” (6) Out of all the homo erectus the neurocranial shape closely represents that of the early Eurasian group. However, scientists are unsure if the resemblance is due to “a close phylogenetic relationship or to a size-related convergence in
When conducting my research, I found many sources to use. Two articles I used, …show more content…
This showed that even sources one deems credible can be disproved when new findings arise. I also used four entries from the Journal of Human Evolution, “Homo floresiensis and the evolution of the hominin shoulder,” “Descriptions of the lower limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis,” “Descriptions of the upper limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis,” and “New wrist bones of Homo floresiensis from Liang Bua (Flores, Indonesia).” Like the previous two articles, all the sources used were cited and easily accessible. I also trust these articles as acknowledgements were made of who loaned the authors the casts of the bones as well as different museums that samples were collected from. Originally I was slightly skeptical of my source that I found on nature.com, “The foot of Homo floresiensis.” However, when I looked at their cited resources, they were all credible sources like …show more content…
They compared the bones of the homo floresiensis with that of individuals “in a large Israeli cohort of patients with Laron Syndrome” and found that both had extremely small stature and a small cranial volume. At the end, they believed that homo floresiensis were indeed just an inbred homo sapien population who had a mutation for the GH receptor that causes Laron Syndrome(1). However, two years after the claim was made, the same journal posted an updated story. They stated that many of the claims could not be backed up with ample data and new tests showed that homo floresiensis were not homo sapiens with LS. “LB1 and patients with LS differ markedly in the size and shape of the cranium; thickness and pneumatization of cranial bones; morphology of the face, mandible, teeth, and chin; form of the shoulder, wrist, and pelvis; and general body proportions including relative foot size.”(2) Other scientists have done research looking for comparisons between the skeletal structure of the homo floreisienis and other hominins. They found that “[t]he neurocranial shape of H. floresiensis closely resembles that of H. erectus s.l.” (6) Out of all the homo erectus the neurocranial shape closely represents that of the early Eurasian group. However, scientists are unsure if the resemblance is due to “a close phylogenetic relationship or to a size-related convergence in