Talk:Homo floresiensis

About Scandal over specimen damage

There are a few things I wish to note here. First, I believe the word Scandal is not only sensationalism but also an opinion and is therefore subjective and is not neutral. I would like to suggest renaming it Specimen damage after all that is what the section is really about. Secondly, I have updated citations and added one to a sentence where the {{who}} tag was invoked. I also added an answer for the tag, but I'm not sure how to use the part of other "anthropologists", since the word in the article was simply "Anthropologists" in addition to the one professor, of course. Should this simply be , et al in relationship to the professor, or something similar? In any case, I hid the {{who}} tag and directed them here. I would like feedback on this.

Well, "scandal" suggests something improper took place. But there certainly was a row between the team that discovered the remains and Jacob. People who actually uncover fossils often forget they do not necessarily own them. It all depends on the legal system. In this case the team was definitely not amused when they were confronted with the simple fact they had to obey the Indonesian state. They reacted by expressing wild accusations, distortions and exaggerations to the press. In popular science books they portrayed Jacob as the villain of the story. This was reflected by an earlier version of our article. I made the text more neutral last May. "Scandal" might be replaced by "conflict".--MWAK (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I support the idea of using a more neutral word than "scandal" and I think "conflict" would do that well. I understand you feel passionately about the issues around the handling of the fossils. If you have additional reliable information on that might offer greater insight into Jacob's actions, I invite you to include it in the article. WynnAurelium (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible coexistence of H. floresiensis with AMHs

While we do not know, and may never know, the exact timing for when the settlement of Insular Southeast Asia (specifically Wallacea) by anatomically modern humans started, considering that Australia was certainly starting to be settled by c. 50,000 BP and could well have been first entered as early as c. 65,000 BP (even earlier dates have been proposed, but they are more controversial and widely considered dubious), very likely before 60,000 BP anyway (ultimately, it's more likely because of drowned evidence that an earlier date is correct rather than the latest possible date), and given that Flores was far closer to Sundaland (even neighbouring it, and easily reached over only a small maritime gap), and even en route (at least if the earliest arrivers used the Timor route rather than the Moluccas route, which is more likely if the earlier rather than later date is correct, compare Prehistory of Australia § Arrival), a fortiori it is quite likely that anatomically modern humans were present on Flores as early as 60,000 BP (or even earlier), and therefore co-existed with late H. floresiensis just prior to its extinction, after all, and may well even have encountered the species. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Classification debate

Is there a contention regarding the recent edits surround the species' classification? It appeared that recent edits had removed a lot of information, of which I attempted to restore in a balanced fashion. Some clarification regarding any criticism of my edits would be appreciated. KinthermStopenfi (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You're readding material that's extraneous or irrelevant. The 2.1 million year old China paper "Hominin occupation of the Chinese Loess Plateau since about 2.1 million years ago" that you readded in support of the early migration hypothesis never mentions H. floresiensis even once, in the main text (freely viewable here) or in the supplemental material (viewable here), nor does it even suggest that there was a migration of Homo habilis or even more primitive humans outside of Africa, so it's clearly a fail of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material to reach a conclusion not in the source by whoever originally added it.

The Larson et al. 2007 study (freely accessible at[1]) also doesn't argue in favour of H. floresiensis descending from an early migration either, see page 12 We believe these are not chance similarities, but part of a previously unrecognized functional complex that characterized early H. erectus and was retained in H. floresiensis, so I don't see why it is cited in this section as if its in favour of the early migration hypothesis when it's clearly not.

I have also recently removed the 2007 wrist article [2], because upon reading it it also doesn't argue that H. floresiensis wrists are more primitive that Homo erectus because there was a lack of data on the wrists of H. erectus. The paper was arguing that the wrist was more primitive than H. sapiens.

I really don't like blow-by-blow accounts of the views of different research papers. I think this really bogs the article down and makes it read more like a review paper than an encyclopedia article. A pretty egregious example can be found at Early European Farmers for excessive use of this style. It also places undue weight on earlier research papers that are now nearly two decades old and quite outdated. I think it's enough to summarise the positions of the two sides of the dispute and simply state the facts without lending undue weight to either side. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be clear the information in question were not my personal additions. The mentioned text appeared to have been there for a while, and your edits appeared to be a mass removal that I was attempting to restore. However if the sources are irrelevant, I think it would be best to mention so in your edit comments. KinthermStopenfi (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am aware that these were not your original additions, but by restoring them you are taking responsibility for them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood, but my intention was to restore, then discuss what to remove on an individual basis; again having edit comments describing why the sources were irrelevant in your removals would have been helpful.

But regarding how the debate is presented in the article, the concern is that your edits is favoring the "insular dwarfism" side of the debate, when the due weight should be equal weight. Chris Stringer himself stated recently that it remains an open question, and he could see evidence for both sides. The various phylogenetic trees, published in studies over the years, indicates that there is a good amount support among palaeoanthropologists for the "early migration" position, for example. Also the "early migration" position can encompass any hominin species that diverged before H. erectus, not specifically Australopithecus or specifically H. habilis. The recently published 2024 study should also not be considered a definitive conclusion to the debate, especially since several anthropologists have been publicly skeptical.

Regardless, I will follow any community consensus regarding this issue. KinthermStopenfi (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to be clear that I have no objections to removing irrelevant material. My edits were prioritizing on restoring and organizing the existing information first, in which verifying said sources individually would come afterwards. I think most would consider this a more collaborative and less disruptive approach. A concern regarding summarizing the existing sources is that we may start placing our own personal interpretation of the sources into the article, as well as flattening each researcher's specific opinions and positions.

Regarding the 2018 paper regarding the site in Asia, my understanding is that the paper did not make any statement regarding what species occupied that site, but the site's age raises the possibility of a migrating species outside of Africa earlier than H. erectus, since the 2.1 million year old dating itself may predate the appearance of H. erectus. A Nature article, covering the study's publication, specifically discussed this possibility with palaeoanthropologists. KinthermStopenfi (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you can find a source about this that specifically mentions H. floresiensis I would be willing to include it. The problem with having a back and forth of "a (2007) says x, b (2010) says y, c, (2013) says z" etc that your version has is that A. A lot of this is the same few authors repeating their opinions over and over again in successive papers (this goes both for the "early migration" and Homo erectus camps) and is therefore redundant, and B. many of the earlier papers are close to 20 years old now (time flies doesn't it), and they are therefore somewhat dated and may not reflect the current positions of the authors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I found these two academic sources, this and this, that discuss how the early sites in Asia inform H. floresiensis, although the full texts appear to not be freely available. And while not an academic source, a co-author of the 2018 paper, Robin Dennell, did an interview with BBC and shared how he thought his study's findings may support the "early migration" camp for H. floresiensis:

In truth, I am rather ambivalent on whether this article should mention the 2.1 million year old dating in Asia or not. Besides how early it is, the site does not provide critical evidence for the classification debate.

I also share your concerns regarding how old or outdated sources are presented, and it seems there were similar concerns on the talk pages of other palaeoanthropology articles. But the community consensus seems to be that such sources are still useful in illustrating the historical development of research, and that it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide when a source is outdated. Doing so would require citing a secondary source. KinthermStopenfi (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the two 2007 papers, again, I was organizing first on good faith that the text in the previous article revision accurately reflected the studies cited, where verifying the sources can be done afterwards. I had placed them under "early migration" because the edited text stated their wrists and joints more closely resembled to apes and early Homo than to modern humans. KinthermStopenfi (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Dunkleosteus77: who has extensively worked on archaic human articles for their opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the Loess Plateau is entirely relevant considering how far removed it is temporally and spatially from Flores and the earliest occupation of the island. As for classification it seemed to me that evolution from Australopithecus or habilis was never really widely supported in the first place, more just included in a list of possibilities pending further study. Looking at more recent studies (e.g., [3][4]) it seems floresiensis is pretty solidly characterized as a case of insular dwarfism from local erectus populations Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)