Wednesday, 27 March 2013

Was Homo floresiensis a cretin?


From the paper:

We are therefore disturbed that Brown (2012), though selecting those features that imply to him that LB1 could not be a cretin, does not also cite the many features in those same publications that imply cretinism, nor does he cite the many more features, both observational and quantitative implying cretinism, in Oxnard (2008), Oxnard et al. (2011), and Dennison et al. (2012). What is sorely needed is an independent review of, and free access to, the Liang Bua material.

HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology
Volume 63, Issue 6, December 2012, Pages 407–412
More on the Liang Bua finds and modern human cretins
Charles Oxnard et al.
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. Brown's comments refer, among others, to (1) delayed growth and development indicated by unfused epiphyses, (2) postcranial limb proportions: limbs to trunk, between limbs, and within limbs, (3) postcranial bone torsions and angles, (4) postcranial robusticity, real and apparent, (5) skull features, and (6) cretinism on Flores. 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.


No comments:

Post a Comment