Another video on the Homo florensiensis situation. Recent research suggests that the "Hobbit" might not be a dwarfed Homo erectus (sensu stricto) but some kind of pre-human or almost-human. Perhaps an australopith (sensu latto)? I´m not surprised. I had a hunch in this direction already seven years ago. So can we go home now? Second breakfast, guys!
New research on the mysterious "human" (?) species known as Homo floresiensis suggests that they didn´t and couldn´t hunt dwarf elephants in their island habitat of Flores 100,000 years ago. Rather, the Hobbit (as this species of Homo is colloquially called) was feeding on carcasses of said pachyderm. The unfortunate proboscids had already been hunted and killed by Komodo dragons! That is, the extremely large monitor lizards known as "Komodo dragons" (this species of reptile is of course still around).
Not sure what to make of this. If Homo floresiensis is an example of insular dwarfism - a shrunken Homo erectus as it were - then the erecti weren´t fully "human" in our sense of the term, still being subject to natural selection (which our species can at least try to escape or transcend). But isn´t there also evidence that Homo erectus were smarter than hitherto assumed? I mean, how on earth did they even *reach* Flores in the first place?
So I don´t know. Something strange is going on here. Either evolution can in extreme cases "go backward" even in a lineage were intelligence is developing. Or the good ol´ Hobbit wasn´t really a human in the first place, but some kind of stray australopith a long way from home...
Both perspectives are pretty mind-boggling. So if Frodo and his 57 half-cousins keep you up at night, pray that the Hobbits (those at Flores) were just monkeys!
