Homo floresiensis: The Disease Proposals

Tocheri, Matthew W. et al.  “The Primitive Wrist of Homo floresiensis and Its Implications for Hominin Evolution.”  Science 317(5845):1743–1745.  Sep 21, 2007.  Three-dimensional shape analysis of three of LB1's wrist bones against modern humans, Neanderthals, early Homo, australopiths and African apes.  Tocheri, then at the Smithsonian, is a specialist in the primate wrist.  Six of the ten authors were members of the Liang Bua excavation team.

1. 1a.

   Page 1743:  “Analysis of three wrist bones from the holotype specimen (LB1) shows that it retains wrist morphology that is primitive for the African ape-human clade. In contrast, Neandertals and modern humans share derived wrist morphology that forms during embryogenesis, which diminishes the probability that pathology could result in the normal primitive state. This evidence indicates that LB1 is not a modern human with an undiagnosed pathology or growth defect; rather, it represents a species descended from a hominin ancestor that branched off before the origin of the clade that includes modern humans, Neandertals, and their last common ancestor.” ↩

2. 1b.

   Page 1743:  “The modern human trapezoid is shaped like a boot (9, 13, 14), wherein the palmar half of the bone is radio-ulnarly and proximo-distally wide (Fig. 1). In contrast, other primates have a trapezoid that is more wedge-shaped with a narrow palmar tip and a wide dorsal base”.  “Instead, they show the general symplesiomorphic pattern exhibited by all extant African apes, as well as fossil hominins that preserve comparable wrist morphology and date before 1.7 Ma”.  "They" are LB1's trapezoid, scaphoid and capitate.  The trapezoid is compared with living apes and baboons;  the fossil comparisons are made on the scaphoid, with Homo habilis, and on the capitate, with two australopiths. ↩

3. 1c.

   Page 1744:  “In modern humans, the trapezoid, capitate, and trapezium arise in the mesenchyme in essentially their adult form by the 11th week of development, long before the processes of chondrification and ossification are complete”. ↩ ↩

4. 1d.

   Page 1743:  “LB1's capitate lacks the enlarged palmarly placed articular surface for the trapezoid observed in modern humans and Neandertals (9, 13) and, instead, shows the waisted neck characteristic of extant great apes and Australopithecus”.  The sentence runs over the page turn to 1744. ↩

5. 1e.

   Page 1744:  “The genes that result in dysplasias, however, do not normally become expressed until after normal shape formation of the carpal mesenchyme (27). Although skeletal dysplasias may include carpal and digit abnormalities related to ossification errors, as well as various forms of microcephaly (27), none are known to result in abnormal carpal morphology that closely mimics a plesiomorphic state. Our diverse modern human sample includes a pituitary dwarf (USNM 314306) and a pituitary giant (USNM 227508) (tables S1 and S2). Both show normal modern human carpal shapes and articular configurations despite their abnormal sizes, demonstrating that LB1's wrist morphology is not the result of allometric scaling, errors in metabolism, or a skeletal growth disorder.”  The passage runs over the page turn to 1745. ↩ ↩

Brown, Peter.  “LB1 and LB6 Homo floresiensis are not modern human (Homo sapiens) cretins.”  Journal of Human Evolution 62(2):201–224.  Feb 2012.  A point-by-point test of the cretinism diagnosis against the clinical literature and against the original bones, by the anatomist who described them, and so a reply by an interested party.

1. 2a.

   Page 201:  “Contrary to published claims, morphological and statistical comparisons did not identify the distinctive skeletal and dental indicators of cretinism in LB1 or LB6 H. floresiensis. Brain mass, skeletal proportions, epiphyseal union, orofacial morphology, dental development, size of the pituitary fossa and development of the paranasal sinuses, vault bone thickness and dimensions of the hands and feet all distinguish H. floresiensis from modern humans with ME cretinism. The research team responsible for the diagnosis of ME cretinism had not examined the original H. floresiensis skeletal materials, and perhaps, as a result, their research confused taphonomic damage with evidence of disease”. ↩

2. 2b.

   Page 213:  “However, when the LB1 endocast is photographed in basal view, the maximum length of the endocast and the antero-posterior length of the pituitary fossa are in different image planes with respect to the focal plane and lens of the camera. Scaling your measurements with a known whole brain length will not allow one to record accurate measurements of a three-dimensional object in another plane, when compressed onto a two-dimensional surface”. ↩

3. 2c.

   Page 213:  “Contrary to claims by Obendorf et al. (2008), a dramatic reduction in brain mass (>60%) has never featured in the clinical literature on human cretinism, and the small size of LB1's brain does not support their speculation about the pathological status of LB1.” ↩ ↩

4. 2d.

   Page 213:  “Using a median sagittal section CT scan and a sectioned stereolithographic model, it is possible to estimate the length of the sella turcica in LB1 at ~8.5 mm (Fig. 9b). Contrary to Obendorf et al. (2008), this is within the normal human range”.  The sella turcica is the bony seat of the pituitary.  Obendorf's figure from the photograph was 12.9 mm. ↩ ↩

5. 2e.

   Page 213:  “The brain volume for LB1 is therefore in the range 310–339 ml, with a weight of 321–351 g”.  Page 215, table 4:  Brain weights of 22 Swiss cretins:  mean 1,275.1 g, standard deviation 153.2, range 1,050 to 1,505 g, against Bavarian means of 1,363.1 g for 529 men and 1,220.3 g for 323 women.  The cretin weights are credited to Finkbeiner 1923 and to the supplement of Obendorf 2008. ↩

6. 2f.

   Page 205:  “there is adequate preservation of dental, cranial and postcranial elements to be certain of adult status and completion of growth (LB1 cranium with fully fused sphenoccipital synchondrosis, worn adult dentition and complete epiphyseal union in LB1/50 humerus, LB1/52 right ulna, LB1/13 right tibia, LB1/9 left femora and LB1/7 left os coxae, LB6 worn adult dentition, and complete epiphyseal union in LB6/2 right radius, LB6/3 left ulna, LB6/4 scapula)”.  The only bones with unfused ends that Brown reports from these levels are the radius and tibia of the child LB4. ↩

7. 2g.

   Page 212:  “It is, thus, clear that the LB1 and LB6 P3s are not retained deciduous teeth and provide no support for delayed development or endemic cretinism in these hominins, contrary to Obendorf et al. (2008).” ↩

Jacob, Teuku et al.  “Pygmoid Australomelanesian Homo sapiens skeletal remains from Liang Bua, Flores: Population affinities and pathological abnormalities.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(36):13421–13426.  Sep 5, 2006.  The founding paper of the pathology school, by Teuku Jacob's team at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, which had the bones for study from November 2004.  It proposes that LB1 is a microcephalic member of a pygmy modern population like the Rampasasa who live beside the cave.  Contributed by K. Hsü, a co-author, under the PNAS rules of the time.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 3a.

   Page 13423:  “Absence of a true chin has been listed as a distinguishing feature (1, 3), but our observations on the Rampasasa population determined that 93.4% of these people have neutral (flat) or negative chins (Fig. 1). It is not valid to contend that chin absence is a taxonomic character in separating the LB hominins from H. sapiens.”  Page 13421:  “Liang Bua 1 (LB1) exhibits marked craniofacial and postcranial asymmetries and other indicators of abnormal growth and development.” ↩

2. 3b.

   Page 13423:  “Compared with our Rampasasa sample, with average cranial capacities of 1,198 ml (n = 41) for females, 1,354 ml (n = 35) for males, and 1,270 ml for the combined sex sample, LB1's cranial capacity directly measured using seed displacement was 430 ml. This volume is slightly higher than other published estimates, but we removed from the endocranial surface some breccia that had lowered earlier estimates. Comparatively, LB1 falls 5.5 SD below the combined sex Rampasasa mean, whereas our estimate for stature falls 3.3 SD below Rampasasa average stature of 1.46 m.” ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩

3. 3c.

   Page 13421:  “We propose that LB1 is drawn from an earlier pygmy H. sapiens population but individually shows signs of a developmental abnormality, including microcephaly. Additional mandibular and postcranial remains from the site share small body size but not microcephaly.” ↩

4. 3d.

   Page 13426:  “Thus, T.J. was given the opportunity to carry out research on the subject in November 2004. T.J. was supported by NRCA for the transportation of the Liang Bua remains from NRCA to the Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta.”  From the acknowledgments.  NRCA is the Indonesian National Research Center of Archaeology in Jakarta. ↩

Morwood, Michael J. et al.  “Further evidence for small-bodied hominins from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia.”  Nature 437(7061):1012–1017.  Oct 13, 2005.  The second season's finds:  LB1's right humerus and ulna, a second adult mandible (LB6/1), a very small adult tibia (LB8), and scattered bones of at least nine individuals.  Its claims of a 12,000-year terminus and of fire use were later withdrawn or unsupported.  Morwood led the Liang Bua project until his death in 2013.

1. 4a.

   Page 1016:  “Abnormal growth seems an unlikely explanation, as growth-hormone-related dwarfism and microcephaly in modern humans result in normal limb and pelvic proportions.” ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 4b.

   Page 1016:  “For example, the humerofemoral index ((humerus length × 100)/femur length) of 85.4 is outside the range of variation for H. sapiens, but is the same as AL 288-1 A. afarensis, and midway between the indices for apes and humans.” ↩

Falk, Dean et al.  “The type specimen (LB1) of Homo floresiensis did not have Laron Syndrome.”  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140(1):52–63.  Sep 2009.  The Liang Bua team's reply to Hershkovitz, comparing LB1 with the clinical literature on Laron syndrome and with the patient images Hershkovitz published.

1. 5a.

   Page 52:  “The statements regarding most of these traits are new to the clinical literature and lack quantitative support. 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. Claims that patients with LS are similar to LB1 in displaying protracted scapulae, short clavicles, low degrees of humeral torsion, flaring ilia, and curved tibiae are not supported by data or corroborating images. … From our review and analysis, we conclude that LB1 did not suffer from LS.”  From the abstract.  LS is Laron syndrome. ↩ ↩

Obendorf, Peter J. et al.  “Are the small human-like fossils found on Flores human endemic cretins?”  Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275(1640):1287–1296.  Jun 7, 2008.  The cretinism proposal.  Obendorf is a biologist at RMIT, Oxnard a senior anatomist at the University of Western Australia.  None of the authors had examined the fossils, which is why the paper calls its hypothesis tentative;  the pituitary measurement was taken from a published photograph of the endocast.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 6a.

   Page 1287:  “We find that the null hypothesis (that LB1 is not a cretin) is rejected by the pituitary fossa size of LB1, and by multivariate analyses of cranial measures.” ↩

2. 6b.

   Page 1288:  “Anteroposterior length of the pituitary fossa and whole brain of LB1 were measured from expanded images of the LB1 endocast (fig. S2E in Falk et al. 2005).”  From the Material and Methods. ↩

3. 6c.

   Page 1294:  “A population (n=25–100) with 1% cretinism is calculated to produce 4–15 deaths of adult cretins per kiloyear, which is enough to explain the discovered remains at LB.” ↩

4. 6d.

   Page 1289:  “Therefore, the putative P3s of LB1 and LB6 appear to be deciduous molars (dm1s) that are retained due to the absence of the (permanent) first premolars that would normally displace them.” ↩

5. 6e.

   Page 1290:  “The pituitary fossa (sella turcica) length of LB1 was measured to be 12.9 mm, within the range of Chinese ME cretins (14.0±3.1 mm, n=58) and outside normals (8.6±1.2 mm, n=5; He 1984), a highly significant (p<0.001, two tailed) result.”  ME is myxoedematous endemic. ↩

6. 6f.

   Page 1290:  “Congenital hypothyroidism can reduce brain size by approximately 50%. Brains of European adult male endemic cretins scaled with height to 735 g (700 cm3) at 1 m, based on the data presented in the electronic supplementary material, table S7 (De Quervain & Wegelin 1936).” ↩ ↩

7. 6g.

   Page 1292:  “The dorsal parts of these trapezoids seem fully consistent in size and morphology with the LB1 trapezoid. … Inspection of the actual carpal specimens of LB1, particularly the palmar surface of the trapezoid, and its articulations onto the scaphoid and capitate would test the presence of bipartite trapezoid.”  "These trapezoids" are two-part trapezoids described in the nineteenth century, with a palmar part and a dorsal part twice as large. ↩

8. 6h.

   Page 1294:  “The reported brain size of LB1 (sample size of 1) is smaller than would be expected of a cretin but consistent with brain sizes reported in small brained populations and undernutrition of cretins in hunter-gatherer societies as well as post-mortem reductions of cretin skull volumes. … However, until the original fossils are examined in relation to the cretinism hypothesis, and until more cretin skeletons can be examined, the cretin hypothesis must continue to be tentative.”  From the Conclusion. ↩ ↩

Baab, Karen L. et al.  “A Critical Evaluation of the Down Syndrome Diagnosis for LB1, Type Specimen of Homo floresiensis.”  PLoS ONE 11(6):e0155731.  Jun 8, 2016.  Tests each Down-syndrome sign claimed by Henneberg against measured samples of people with a documented diagnosis and of unaffected people, using CT of LB1.  Six of the seven authors had already published in defence of the species, Brown and Falk among them;  the clinical measurements are deposited at the Harvard Dataverse and can be re-measured.

1. 7a.

   Page 1:  “Many classic Down syndrome signs are soft tissue features that could not be assessed in skeletal remains. Moreover, a definitive diagnosis of Down syndrome can only be made by genetic analysis as the phenotypes associated with Down syndrome are variable.” ↩

2. 7b.

   Page 10:  “The overall anatomical configuration presented by LB1 and LB6, consisting of a smooth and receding anterior symphysis (no boney hallmarks of a chin), and superior and inferior transverse tori separated by a deep/broad genioglossal fossa posteriorly, aligned them with archaic hominins, including australopiths, rather than modern humans”. ↩

3. 7c.

   Page 19:  “In contrast, the greatly reduced brain size (EV = ~417 cm3) and head circumference of LB1 mark this individual as an outlier relative to those DS individuals evaluated here whose values are much closer to control samples of euploid individuals.” ↩

4. 7d.

   Page 21:  “Of the clinical signs associated with DS, only short distal phalanges, M3 agenesis, possibly hypodontia and possibly hypoplasia of one or more cranial sinuses was consistent with this diagnosis. This list of features are not unique to DS and are not among the most diagnostic (e.g., midfacial hypoplasia). This, combined with the large number of features common to the DS phenotype that were not present in LB1, indicates that it is highly unlikely that this individual had Trisomy 21 or DS.” ↩

5. 7e.

   Page 7:  “Using the data from Aylward, Habbak [73], the average EV of the DS sample was 87% of the average EV from a matched euploid sample. Applying this relationship to the average EV of 1270 cm3 for the local Indonesian population of Rampasasa [17], we estimated an average EV of 1106 cm3 for individuals with DS from Rampasasa. This value was >2.5 times the size of the LB1 EV”.  EV is endocranial volume and DS is Down syndrome.  The Aylward sample is 30 adults with Down syndrome, mean 1,261 cm³. ↩ ↩

6. 7f.

   Page 8:  “Lestrel and Roche [78] found that this disproportionate reduction led to a relatively higher vault in DS than euploid individuals, which contrasts with the low vault of LB1.”  Page 15:  “However, the slightly higher values for the DS versus euploid groups in no way approach the extremely high value of LB1 (Fig 9).”  The foot-to-thigh ratios on page 15 are 0.68 for LB1, 0.56 for the Down syndrome sample and 0.53 for the unaffected sample, both samples adjusted to compare with bone lengths. ↩

7. 7g.

   Section S1 Text, Head circumference:  “Falk et al. [1] first published a measurement of head circumference (HC; a proxy for brain size) of 39.4 cm. … We find this approach unnecessarily convoluted. Head circumference data are available for adult individuals with DS. For example, Tüysüz et al. [4] presented a growth curve for Turkish females with DS from ages 3-18 years. At age 18, the 97th, 50th and 3rd percentiles are 54.2, 51.3 and 48.6 cm, respectively. By comparison, the LB1 soft tissue values (estimated from the osteological measurements using the formula provided by Henneberg et al. [2014]) are 42.2 based on Falk et al. [1] and 41.3 cm based on Henneberg et al. [2], both well below even the 3rd percentile of estimated HC for DS.”  From the paper's supporting text.  Its reference 1 is Falk and colleagues' 2009 reply on Laron syndrome. ↩

Kubo, Daisuke et al.  “Brain size of Homo floresiensis and its evolutionary implications.”  Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280(1760):20130338.  Jun 7, 2013.  A high-resolution micro-CT measurement of LB1's endocranial volume, 426 cc, with about 17 per cent of the surface reconstructed, followed by brain-on-body scaling from two candidate ancestors using slopes fitted across twenty Holocene human populations.  The authors note that the slope is a within-human one extrapolated below the human range.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 8a.

   Page 6:  “Still, the earlier-mentioned results, based on the best available data and various regression methods, suggest that at least 50 per cent, probably much more, of the brain size reduction in H. floresiensis could occur as scaling effect if this little hominin derived from early Indonesian H. erectus. This means that 0–50% of its brain size decrease needs to be explained by other factors.” ↩

2. 8b.

   Page 2:  “Using traditional seed displacement methods, the ECV of LB1 was initially measured as 380 cc [1], whereas Jacob et al. [6] obtained 430 cc after removing some 'breccia' from the endocranial surface. Another report is 417 cc which is based on a virtual endocast from CT data taken by a medical CT scanner, with interpolation of missing areas and adjustment of slight taphonomic distortion [3].”  ECV is endocranial volume. ↩ ↩

3. 8c.

   Page 5:  “we conclude that the original ECV of the LB1 cranium was 426 cc with only a limited degree of error, probably within ±3 cc.” ↩

4. 8d.

   Page 2:  “Martin et al. [7,8] cited values of 0.03–0.17 as intraspecific scaling exponents for H. sapiens when they claimed that the brain of LB1 is far too small to be attributed to intraspecific dwarfism in H. erectus. These figures are from a study on a modern Danish sample [24], and may not be appropriate for this polymorphic and geographically widely distributed species.”  Page 6:  “Although the exponent values cannot be compared directly owing to different scales taken (body weight [7,8] versus FHD (this study)), between-group analyses presented earlier and elsewhere [19] clearly indicate a relatively high level of correlation between body and brain sizes in our species.”  FHD is femoral head diameter, the body-size measure this study uses. ↩

5. 8e.

   Page 7:  “We conclude that evolution from early Javanese H. erectus to H. floresiensis was possible in terms of brain size. Still, in this scenario, some amount of the brain size reduction remains to be explained by factors other than body size scaling, posing a challenge to our current knowledge about human brain size evolution. If H. floresiensis descended from H. habilis-like ancestor, the need for such relative brain size reduction is less significant, but we stress currently we have no convincing fossil evidence to support this hypothesis except for the brain size issue discussed here.”  Page 5, table 2:  The two steepest slopes, the OLS-CC fits, give 438 to 508 cc for males and 400 to 474 cc for females from the 860 cc Javan start. ↩

Line, Peter.  “Revisiting Homo floresiensis.”  Journal of Creation 36(3):82–91.  Dec 2022.  The most recent and most detailed young-earth treatment.  It discusses the 2016 redating and the Mata Menge fossils.  Line holds a doctorate in neuroscience and writes Creation Ministries International's hominin articles.  Its reference list carries Obendorf 2008, Oxnard 2010 and Oxnard's 2012 rejoinder, and not Brown 2012, Baab 2013, Baab 2016, Falk 2007 or Falk 2009;  it also holds that Homo habilis is "an illusory species" and that all australopiths are "extinct apish primates."  Locators are the section headings of the web version.

1. 9a.

   Section Discussion and conclusion:  “Running parallel to the above debate, at least for a while, was the belief by some that Homo floresiensis was a pathological modern human, with the cretinism explanation favoured by me, albeit not necessarily of a modern human.” ↩ ↩

Mitchell, Elizabeth.  “Hobbits of Flores Were an Archaic Human Variety, Studies Suggest.”  Answers in Genesis, News to Know.  Jul 15, 2016.  Answers in Genesis's response to the 2016 redating and the Mata Menge fossils, by a physician on its staff.  It accepts Baab's rebuttal of Down syndrome and reads Mata Menge as evidence of a population.

1. 10a.

   Section Hobbits Likely the Norm on Ancient Flores:  “Hobbit-like fossils newly discovered at a distant site on the island of Flores may soon totally tip the anthropological scale in favor of the view that the Flores hobbits were a unique variety of human, not a few diseased outliers among the island's population.” ↩

2. 10b.

   Paragraph final:  “Whether the entire population manifested some sort of yet-to-be-identified growth disorder, island dwarfism, or genetically inbred characteristics, the remains of these small Flores inhabitants are consistent with our biblically based understanding that variations would have appeared among isolated groups of people after the global Flood and the subsequent dispersion from the Tower of Babel.” ↩

Thomas, Brian.  “New 'Species' Was Just a Tiny Human.”  Institute for Creation Research, Creation Science Update.  Dec 31, 2008.  The Institute for Creation Research's position in 2008, written after Falk 2007 and Baab and McNulty's three-dimensional study of the skull's shape.  The same author reversed it in 2020.

1. 11a.

   Paragraph 3:  “Now researchers have offered even more evidence that these were diminutive, not diseased, people.” ↩

Thomas, Brian.  “How Do Hominids Fit with the Bible?”  Institute for Creation Research, Acts & Facts.  Apr 30, 2020.  A short question-and-answer column sorting hominin fossils into ape, invented and human.  Its two references for the hobbit are Hershkovitz et al. 2007, the Laron-syndrome paper, and Martin et al. 2006.

1. 12a.

   Paragraph final:  “Homo floresiensis (nicknamed "Hobbit") presented a challenge. The skull and other fragments from a remote island in Indonesia came from a small person with a tiny head. Initial reports declared it a possible ancestor, but later work showed an excellent match between Hobbit and people today who have microcephaly. Diseased humans don't show evolution, just sin's curse on creation.” ↩

Martin, Robert D. et al.  “Flores hominid: New species or microcephalic dwarf?”  The Anatomical Record Part A 288A(11):1123–1145.  Nov 2006.  The microcephaly case argued from brain-body scaling, by a primatologist at the Field Museum with a paediatric neurologist, Dobyns, among the authors.  Its scaling model shrinks a 60 kg, 991 cm³ Homo erectus to 16 kg and gets 794 cm³.

1. 13a.

   Page 1123:  “The cranial capacity of LB1 (~400 cc) is smaller than in any other known hominid < 3.5 Ma and is far too small to derive from Homo erectus by normal dwarfing.”  “The specimen was a cast, not the original skull (traced to Stuttgart), from a 10-year-old child with massive pathology. Moreover, the calotte does not fit well with the rest of the cast, probably being a later addition of unknown history.”  Both from the abstract;  the second is of the one microcephalic skull used in Falk et al. 2005. ↩

2. 13b.

   Page 1125:  “modern Rampasasa pygmies on Flores have an average cranial capacity of 1,270 cc (Jacob et al., 2006), similar to the value of 1,204 cc reported by Jacob (1967) for the Flores "pygmoid" described by Verhoeven (1958)”. ↩

Falk, Dean et al.  “Brain shape in human microcephalics and Homo floresiensis.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(7):2513–2518.  Feb 13, 2007.  Virtual endocasts of nine microcephalics, mean capacity 498 cm³, and ten normal humans;  two shape ratios separate the groups and LB1 sorts with the normals.  Its Table 1 gives four of the nine microcephalics as not fully adult and no age for a fifth, which critics raised.  Four of the ten authors were excavators of Liang Bua.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 14a.

   Page 2513:  “Discriminant and canonical analyses are used to identify two variables that classify normal and microcephalic humans with 100% success. The classification functions classify the virtual endocast from LB1 with normal humans rather than microcephalics.” ↩

2. 14b.

   Page 2514:  “LB1 sorted with normal humans (>99% probability) and the other two classified as microcephalics”.  The other two are a modern human dwarf and a microcephalic Basuto woman, used to test the rule on specimens not used to build it. ↩

3. 14c.

   Page 2515, table 1:  The ages of the nine microcephalics are given as 14, 20–30, blank, 10, Sub-adult, Adult, Nearly adult, Adult and Adult. ↩

4. 14d.

   Page 2516:  “Despite the skull's calotte and base having been cast separately, the CT data produced a seamless virtual endocast (Fig. 1 and SI Fig. 6) with a volume of 276 cm3, which is very close to the 272 cm3 initially reported (32). … Because primary microcephalics are believed to achieve their maximum cranial capacities by around four years of age (27), there is no reason to exclude a 10-year-old microcephalic from our analysis.”  The skull is that of Jakob Moegele, the cast Martin criticised. ↩

Orr, Caley M. et al.  “New wrist bones of Homo floresiensis from Liang Bua (Flores, Indonesia).”  Journal of Human Evolution 64(2):109–129.  Feb 2013.  Describes a right capitate, LB20, and two partial hamates, LB21 and LB22, picked out in 2009 from unsorted bone of the 2004 excavation, with three-dimensional shape analysis.  From the wrist team of the 2007 paper, so a reply by an interested party.

1. 15a.

   Page 109:  “The new capitate is smaller than that of LB1 but is nearly identical in morphology. … Because there is no accommodation for the derived, palmarly blocky trapezoid that characterizes Homo sapiens and Neandertals, this individual most likely had a plesiomorphically wedge-shaped trapezoid (like LB1). … Documentation of a second individual with primitive carpal anatomy from Liang Bua, along with further analysis of trapezoid scaling relative to the capitate in LB1, refutes claims that the wrist of the type specimen represents a modern human with pathology.”  From the abstract. ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 15b.

   Section Introduction:  “Although the new LB20 is a right capitate and that associated with the type skeleton (capitate specimen LB1–45) is a left, these two bones certainly represent different individuals. … Although these new carpals have been given unique identification numbers (LB20, LB21, and LB22), their close association with remains attributed to specimen LB6 (mandible and postcranial elements including a metacarpal and manual phalanges; see Morwood et al., 2005; Larson et al., 2009) suggests that they probably belong to this individual.” ↩

Eckhardt, Robert B. et al.  “Rare events in earth history include the LB1 human skeleton from Flores, Indonesia, as a developmental singularity, not a unique taxon.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(33):11961–11966.  Aug 19, 2014.  The companion to the Down syndrome paper, by the same group.  It argues that LB1 is too abnormal to serve as the type specimen of a species whatever the diagnosis, and gives the group's answers on brain volume, stature and the wrist.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 16a.

   Page 11961:  “Subsequent independent attempts at diagnosis (Laron Syndrome, Majewski osteodysplastic primordial dwarfism type II, cretinism) have been hampered a priori by selectively restricted access to specimens, and disparaged a posteriori using data previously unpublished, without acknowledging that all of the independent diagnoses corroborate the patent abnormal singularity of LB1.” ↩

2. 16b.

   Page 11964:  “the anomalous wrist bones ally H. floresiensis to no particular previously known hominin, showing only diffuse hominoid resemblances, as might be expected for an atavism. … Because vague "plesiomorphy" of a sort might imply anything from heightened familial resemblance because of inbreeding, through atavism and other possibilities too numerous to explore here, and further because claims made for the phylogenetic significance of the carpals are so diffuse, discussion of them appears elsewhere (Supporting Information, SI5).”  The paper cites both the 2007 wrist study and the 2013 report of a second individual. ↩

Vannucci, Robert C. et al.  “Craniometric ratios of microcephaly and LB1, Homo floresiensis, using MRI and endocasts.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(34):14043–14048.  Aug 23, 2011.  A reply to Falk 2007 that measures the same two ratios on MRI scans of 21 microcephalic children and 118 controls, and on endocasts of 10 microcephalics, 79 normal modern humans and 17 Homo erectus.  It finds LB1's ratios outside the normal range and as likely microcephalic as normal.  Holloway is a senior palaeoneurologist at Columbia.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 17a.

   Page 14046:  “In conclusion, the LB1 ratios, cerebellar protrusion and relative frontal breadth, both fall outside the range of living normocephalic individuals. The endocast analyses also indicate that the LB1 ratios are just as likely to fall within the range of microcephalic (both primary and secondary) as in the range of normocephalic individuals (Fig. 6). The evidence supports the contention but does not prove that the LB1 endocast represents a pathological microcephalic H. sapiens rather than a new species (i.e., H. floresiensis).” ↩

Baab, Karen L. et al.  “Homo floresiensis Contextualized: A Geometric Morphometric Comparative Analysis of Fossil and Pathological Human Samples.”  PLoS ONE 8(7):e69119.  Jul 10, 2013.  Three-dimensional landmark analysis of the LB1 skull against fossil hominins, healthy modern humans, and clinical samples:  30 microcephalic skulls, hypothyroid skulls, one Laron syndrome patient and one pituitary dwarf.  Baab is a palaeoanthropologist who has defended the species since 2008;  none of the three authors was on the Liang Bua team.

1. 18a.

   Page 1:  “the sole Flores cranium (LB1) is clearly distinct from healthy modern humans and from those exhibiting hypothyroidism and Laron syndrome”. ↩ ↩

2. 18b.

   Page 1:  “Modern human microcephalic specimens converge, to some extent, on crania of extinct species of Homo. However in the features that distinguish these two groups, LB1 consistently groups with fossil hominins and is most similar to H. erectus.”  Page 5:  “Data were also acquired from 30 crania identified as microcephalic modern humans in catalog records at ten institutions in the United States and Europe”. ↩

3. 18c.

   Page 5:  “CT scan data for a single individual with Laron syndrome were graciously provided by Z. Laron and L. Kornreich.”  A second skull, catalogued as a pituitary dwarf, was added because the two conditions look alike in the skull. ↩

Westaway, Michael Carrington et al.  “Mandibular evidence supports Homo floresiensis as a distinct species.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(7):E604–E605.  Feb 17, 2015.  A letter answering the two Down syndrome papers on the jaw, with a CT section of the LB1 mandible beside that of an Aboriginal Australian.  None of the four authors was on the Liang Bua team.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 19a.

   Page E604:  “Additionally, LB6 is accepted to be a normal individual by all researchers, including Eckhardt et al. (p. 11963 in ref. 2). Therefore, the only reasonable interpretation of the traits is that they are part of the normal biology of the population to which LB1 and LB6 belong.”  The traits are the internal buttressing behind the chin, a strong extramolar sulcus and the form of the tooth roots. ↩

Eckhardt, Robert B. et al.  “Reply to Westaway et al.: Mandibular misrepresentations fail to support the invalid species Homo floresiensis.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(7):E606.  Feb 17, 2015.  A one-page letter by the Down syndrome authors answering Westaway and colleagues on the jaw.  It also restates the group's position on brain volume, stature and asymmetry.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 20a.

   Page E606:  “Of 52 Rampasasa individuals, 76.9% of the sample had neutral or negative hard tissue chins”.  “Their illustration (figure 1 in ref. 1) misrepresents as simple morphology what is functionally and developmentally complex (figure 8 from reference 3 in ref. 1).”  The letter answers the extramolar sulcus with a Holocene skeleton from Java and the tooth roots as variants found across populations.  It does not name the transverse tori. ↩

2. 20b.

   Page E606:  “Given hundreds of disorders producing small brain and short stature and asymmetry (2), Hf is an invalid taxon independent of any particular diagnosis.”  Hf is the letter's abbreviation for Homo floresiensis. ↩

3. 20c.

   Page E606:  “Endocranial volume of 380 mL, never duplicated, was >13% too low by identical techniques used to measure 430 mL, ignored until matched by skeptics within 1% (3).” ↩

Kaifu, Yousuke et al.  “Early evolution of small body size in Homo floresiensis.”  Nature Communications 15:6381.  Aug 6, 2024.  Reports the adult humerus SOA-MM9 and two teeth from Layer II at Mata Menge, bringing the site to ten hominin pieces, with bone histology, stature estimates and a molar-shape comparison.  Kaifu is a palaeoanthropologist at the University of Tokyo.  Open access.

1. 21a.

   Page 1:  “An adult humerus is estimated to be 9 − 16% shorter and thinner than the type specimen of H. floresiensis dated to ~60,000 years ago, and is smaller than any other Plio-Pleistocene adult hominin humeri hitherto reported.” ↩ ↩

Eckhardt, Robert B., and Maciej Henneberg.  “Paleospecies as cognitive construct: The meme of "Homo floresiensis".”  Anthropological Review 84(3):317–336.  Sep 30, 2021.  An essay by two of the Down syndrome authors that sets the hobbit beside Piltdown Man and other abandoned fossil species.  It restates their figures for brain volume and stature, answers Baab's criticism in one sentence, and discusses the Mata Menge jaw and teeth.  It was written before the Mata Menge arm bone was published.

1. 22a.

   Page 323:  “our emphasis for the parallel to criticisms of our Down syndrome (DS) hypothesis by Baab and colleagues (Baab et al. 2015) because some variably-expressed DS signs were not present in LB1”.  A bracketed aside in the essay's account of the Gardar skull, a medieval Greenland skull once named as a species and later diagnosed as acromegaly.  The next sentence says the missing signs "were overwhelmed by critically important signs that were not missing."  The Baab 2015 in the essay's reference list is a conference abstract;  the 2016 paper is not listed. ↩

2. 22b.

   Page 331:  “The features shared in common between Liang Bua and Mata Menge are principally overall body sizes loosely inferred from the mandibles at the two sites.” ↩

Weston, Eleanor M., and Adrian M. Lister.  “Insular dwarfism in hippos and a model for brain size reduction in Homo floresiensis.”  Nature 459(7243):85–88.  May 7, 2009.  Skull-volume measurements on the two extinct dwarf hippos of Madagascar, 24 and 12 skulls, against 18 of their mainland ancestor, with the Sicilian dwarf elephant as a further case, then applied to three candidate ancestors of the hobbit.  Both authors are at the Natural History Museum, London.  Locators below are pages of the authors' manuscript;  the journal pagination is 85–88.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 23a.

   Section manuscript page 1:  “Here we show that the endocranial capacities of extinct dwarf species of hippopotamus from Madagascar are up to 30% smaller than those of a mainland African ancestor scaled to equivalent body mass. These results show brain size reduction is much greater than predicted from an intraspecific 'late ontogenetic' model of dwarfism where brain size scales to body size with an exponent of 0.35.” ↩

2. 23b.

   Section manuscript page 3:  “If the hippo model is applied to a typical H. erectus ancestor with a body mass of 60 kg and average endocranial capacity of 991 (cm3) that reduced its body mass by 62 % to 23 kg (the median of the 16 – 29 kg estimated body mass of H. floresiensis), an endocranial capacity of 704 cm3 (71 % of the original value) would be predicted from scaling (body mass)0.35. If the brain were reduced by a further 30 % of that value, as in the case of the Malagasy hippo H. lemerlei, an endocranial capacity of 493 cm3 would result. This is still larger than the actual value of H. floresiensis (380 – 430 cm3), but if the ancestor had an endocranial capacity of 804 cm3, as in the African H. erectus KNM-ER 3883, scaling the body mass of the ancestor down to 23 kg and then reducing the brain size by a further 30 % of the scaled value gives an endocranial capacity of 405 cm3, comparable to that of H. floresiensis (see Supplementary Table 5). By the same analogy if the Dmanisi adult Homo remains (skull D3444 cf. H. erectus), with an endocranial capacity 650 cm3 (ref. 29) and body mass of 40 kg (ref. 30) are considered, an endocranial capacity of 378 cm3 would result”.  The passage runs onto page 4.  "(body mass)0.35" is body mass raised to the power 0.35.  Reference numerals in the printed passage are omitted. ↩

Hershkovitz, Israel et al.  “Comparative skeletal features between Homo floresiensis and patients with primary growth hormone insensitivity (Laron syndrome).”  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 134(2):198–208.  Oct 2007.  Proposes Laron syndrome, an inherited insensitivity to growth hormone common in inbred isolates, on resemblances between LB1 and an Israeli patient cohort.  Laron is the endocrinologist who first described the syndrome.

1. 24a.

   Page 198:  “Comparison between the skeletal remains of Homo floresiensis and the auxological and roentgenological findings in a large Israeli cohort of patients with Laron Syndrome (LS, primary or classical GH insensitivity or resistance) revealed striking morphological similarities, including extremely small stature and reduced cranial volume. … It is our conclusion that the findings from the island of Flores, which were attributed to a new species of the genus Homo, may in fact represent a local, highly inbred, Homo sapiens population in whom a mutation for the GH receptor had occurred.”  From the abstract. ↩

Rupe, Christopher, and John Sanford.  Contested Bones.  FMS Publications.  1st edition.  2017.  The fullest book-length young-earth treatment of the human fossil record;  its chapter 5, pages 79 to 94, is on the hobbit.  Sanford is a retired Cornell plant geneticist;  Rupe is a researcher at his foundation.  A second edition appeared in 2019 and may differ in pagination.

1. 25a.

   Page 93:  “Thus a single pathology is sufficient to explain the entire suite of correlated features seen in the Hobbit.”  The pathology meant is Laron syndrome, from a single mutation in the growth hormone receptor gene. ↩

Oxnard, Charles et al.  “Post-cranial skeletons of hypothyroid cretins show a similar anatomical mosaic as Homo floresiensis.”  PLoS ONE 5(9):e13018.  Sep 27, 2010.  The follow-up to the 2008 cretinism paper, adding sixteen postcranial measures on which LB1 co-locates with cretins, and giving the authors' answers on the wrist and on brain size.

1. 26a.

   Page 1:  “We therefore conclude that LB1 and LB6, at least, are, most likely, endemic cretins from a population of unaffected Homo sapiens. This is consistent with recent hypothyroid endemic cretinism throughout Indonesia, including the nearby island of Bali.” ↩

2. 26b.

   Page 2:  “A young adult cretin (Basle, specimen 84, male) shows exactly such an incomplete trapezoid lacking a ventral tip adjacent to a normal capitate. … In conclusion, although the LB1 trapezoid is described as complete (in the sense that it does not show any evidence of a piece broken off it), it does appear to be incomplete.” ↩

3. 26c.

   Page 7:  “Cranial volumes in cretins, though indeed small compared with unaffected humans, are bigger than this, ranging from 670–1,150 ml (n = 5). This range is, however, for cretins of European ethnic origin (mean of 1,300 ml in unaffected individuals). A parent population that was much smaller than European would give rise to proportionally smaller cretins. Thus, normal South East Asian pygmoid crania of 800–1000 ml have been recorded (refs in [7]) and estimated [30]). On this basis, cretins from such populations could have brain sizes as small as 400–500 ml, based on scaling of height and brain size found among European endemic cretins [7].”  "This" is the 417 ml then reported for LB1. ↩ ↩ ↩

4. 26d.

   Page 8:  “We predict that some of the epiphyses in the Liang Bua materials will be confirmed as missing, unfused, or only partially fused (as in adult cretins but not adult apes or humans). This is so far not certain because many of these regions are reported as damaged.” ↩

Oxnard, Charles et al.  “More on the Liang Bua finds and modern human cretins.”  HOMO 63(6):407–412.  Dec 2012.  The cretinism authors' rejoinder to Brown 2012, in six sections:  unfused growth plates, limb proportions, bone torsions, robusticity, the skull, and iodine deficiency on Flores.

1. 27a.

   Page 407:  “Brown (2012: LB1 and LB6 Homo floresiensis are not modern human (Homo sapiens) cretins, Journal of Human Evolution) makes errors of fact, omission and interpretation. … In each of these areas, much information about cretins is incorrect and much information (Oxnard et al., 2010) comparing the Liang Bua remains with cretins is ignored.”  From the abstract. ↩

2. 27b.

   Section Introduction:  “Brown (2012) commences by noting that Obendorf et al. (2008), had not examined the original Liang Bua (LB) materials. In this statement he is quite correct as we were not permitted access (and still have not been) to any original materials, pictures, measurements, or analyses. We could only rely on observations and figures provided in the original papers (Brown et al., 2004, Morwood et al., 2005). Because of this we were well aware at that time that our comparisons were tentative, and hence we indicated that the cretin hypothesis was another hypothesis that should be tested.” ↩ ↩

3. 27c.

   Section Delayed growth and development indicated by unfused epiphyses:  “In the LB postcranial skeleton, Brown (2012) claims that there are no indications of delayed growth and development. Oxnard et al. (2010), presenting data on the LB remains from colleagues of Brown, show unequivocally that this is not true. One category of such features includes a number of unfused epiphyses.” ↩

4. 27d.

   Section Skull features:  “Brown consistently misreports brain sizes in cretins. Thus he writes "brain weights and endocranial volumes … are in the normal human range of variation" therefore taking no notice of the large reductions in brain and skull sizes in small statured endemic cretins observed by de Quervain that we reported in 2008 (an English translation is now available in Dennison et al., 2012).”  The ellipsis is the authors' own. ↩

5. 27e.

   Section Conclusion:  “What is sorely needed is an independent review of, and free access to, the Liang Bua material.” ↩

Oxnard and colleagues give cretin skull volumes of 670 to 1,150 ml against a mean of 1,300 ml in unaffected Europeans.²⁶  The smallest is 670 / 1,300 = 0.52 of the healthy mean.  Applied to the Rampasasa mean of 1,270 ml,³ that gives 0.52 × 1,270 = 655 ml.  For a cretin at that ratio to have LB1's 426 cc, the healthy mean would have to be 426 / 0.52 = 827 ml.  The 2008 paper's "approximately 50%" gives 635 ml and 852 ml.⁶  The ratio used is the most extreme of five skulls and not an average, so it favours the cretinism reading. ↩

Henneberg, Maciej et al.  “Evolved developmental homeostasis disturbed in LB1 from Flores, Indonesia, denotes Down syndrome and not diagnostic traits of the invalid species Homo floresiensis.”  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(33):11967–11972.  Aug 19, 2014.  The Down-syndrome proposal, from the same group as Jacob 2006.  It reports a head circumference for LB1 and sets it against clinical series.  Its Table 1 marks the presence of a small brain, a short broad skull and the sinus signs in other Liang Bua specimens as "Unknown."  Henneberg is an anatomist at the University of Adelaide;  Hsü, a geologist and co-author, contributed the paper under the PNAS rules of the time, with three named reviewers.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 29a.

   Page 11967:  “Here we demonstrate that the facial asymmetry, small endocranial volume, brachycephaly, disproportionately short femora, flat feet, and numerous other characteristics of LB1 are highly diagnostic of Down syndrome, one of the most commonly occurring developmental disorders in humans and also documented in related hominoids such as chimpanzees and orangutans.”  From the Significance box. ↩

2. 29b.

   Page 11967:  “Predictions based on corrected LB1 femur lengths show a stature normal for other H. sapiens populations in the region.”  Page 11970:  “The stature for LB1 estimated from lower limb data should be 1.26 m and not 1.06 m (1)”. ↩

3. 29c.

   Page 11969:  “In 2005, our team (3) collected craniometric data, including the OFC, while Liang Bua Cave skeletal material was held at the Laboratory of Paleoanthropology, Gadjah Mada University. Measurement with a tape passing just above the supraorbital prominences was 385 mm.”  “For this range, the SD of 20.5 mm (46) produces z-scores of –3.17 to –6.68 SDs for the LB1 OFC of 385 mm.”  “A study of growth hormone deficiency in DS (48) included 20 patients (13 boys and 7 girls; age range, 15 mo to 13.9 y). More than one-third of those patients had OFC values between −3.29 and −6.60 SD.”  OFC is occipitofrontal circumference, the tape measure round the head.  The abstract on page 11967 says it is reported "for the first time to our knowledge." ↩ ↩

4. 29d.

   Page 11970, table 1:  The column "Presence in other LB specimens" reads "Unknown" for small brain, brachycephaly, small or missing skull sinuses, short femora, flat feet and several other signs.  The row "Anomalous wrists" reads "Unclear" in both columns. ↩

5. 29e.

   Page 11971:  “radius (from sector IV spot 58R LB3) dated to 74 ka, with an estimated length 210 mm; and a distally defective juvenile incomplete radius LB4/1 from sector XI. These three cannot be reliably used for stature reconstruction.”  The sentence begins on page 11970, where it calls this bone a partial radius.  The third bone is the radius of LB6. ↩

Brown, Peter et al.  “A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia.”  Nature 431(7012):1055–1061.  Oct 28, 2004.  The paper that described LB1 and named the species.  Brown, then at the University of New England, was the anatomist who cleaned and measured the skeleton;  Morwood led the excavation.  The stature and body-mass formulae are in its Supplementary Information.

1. 30a.

   Page 1056:  “The endocranial volume, measured with mustard seed, is 380 cm3, well below the previously accepted range for the genus Homo and equal to the minimum estimates for Australopithecus.”  The sentence runs over the page turn to 1057. ↩

Falk, Dean et al.  “The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis.”  Science 308(5719):242–245.  Apr 8, 2005.  A virtual endocast of LB1 from CT, compared with great apes, five Homo erectus, ten modern humans, a pygmy, one microcephalic and two australopiths.  Falk is a palaeoneurologist at Florida State University.  Its one-microcephalic comparison was its stated weakness, repaired in the 2007 paper.

1. 31a.

   Page 245:  “The CT-estimated cranial capacity was 417 cm3, as opposed to 380 cm3 measured with mustard seeds (1). The 37-cm3 difference is attributable to variation in how cranial holes were plugged and thus to measurement error associated with the current reconstructions.”  Note 10 of the paper. ↩

Tucci, Serena et al.  “Evolutionary history and adaptation of a human pygmy population of Flores Island, Indonesia.”  Science 361(6401):511–516.  Aug 3, 2018.  Genomes of the Rampasasa, the short-statured villagers beside Liang Bua:  32 people genotyped at 2.5 million sites, ten sequenced whole.  Locators below are pages of the authors' manuscript;  the journal pagination is 511–516.  Tucci was then at Princeton.  Mirror:  PMC

1. 32a.

   Section manuscript page 2:  “We collected DNA samples from 32 adult individuals from Rampasasa (average height of 145 cm)”. ↩

2. 32b.

   Section manuscript page 5:  “Although these individuals possess ancestry from both Neanderthals and Denisovans, we found no evidence of admixture with a deeply diverged hominin group. This observation, combined with the evidence that their short-stature phenotype resulted from polygenic selection acting on standing variation, suggests that insular dwarfism arose independently in two separate hominin lineages on Flores Island.” ↩

Wieland, Carl.  “Soggy dwarf bones.”  creation.com.  Oct 28, 2004.  The first young-earth response, written the day the Nature papers appeared, with an addendum and a note.  Wieland, a physician, was then head of Creation Ministries International's Australian office;  the page is unsigned and his authorship is fixed by his later note in "Hobbling the Hobbit?" of 8 November 2004.

1. 33a.

   Section opening text, before the heading "Small brains, big achievements":  “These may well have arisen because places with limited resources favour the transmission of already-existing genes which consume less of those resources—e.g., the genes for 'smallness'. Even a mutational stunting, like some hereditary instances of dwarfism today, might be favoured in such a situation and come to dominate a population.” ↩

Brumm, Adam et al.  “Age and context of the oldest known hominin fossils from Flores.”  Nature 534(7606):249–253.  Jun 9, 2016.  The dating paper for the Mata Menge hominins:  argon-argon on single crystals, zircon and glass fission-track, laser-ablation uranium-series on a hominin tooth root, and combined uranium-series and ESR on two Stegodon molars from the fossil layer.  Line numbers below are those of the authors' accepted manuscript, which is titled "Stratigraphic context and age of hominin fossils from Middle Pleistocene Flores";  the journal pagination is 249–253.  Mirror:  Strathprints.strath.ac.uk

1. 34a.

   Lines 366–367:  “Discovery grant (DP1093342) awarded to M.J.M. and A.B., and directed by M.J.M. (2010-2013) and G.v.d.B. (2013-2015)”.  Line 398:  “A.B., G.D.v.d.B., I.K. and M.J.M. directed the Mata Menge excavations.”  M.J.M. is Michael Morwood, who led the Liang Bua project and is marked in the author list as deceased. ↩