Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
Zimmer has a post on a new article from the Journal of Evolutionary Biology (Could some kind soul send me a copy of the article?). From the Loom:
Now comes a different take, in a dense review published online today in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Gary Richards of the University of California at Berkeley argues that scientists who have tried to make sense of Homo floresiensis have not grappled yet with the full potential of the human genome to produce different sorts of bodies. They've been focused too much on this or that individual, when they should be considering the range of variations. Richards takes his own best shot, and comes away with the conclusion that the Hobbit is most likely a population of small-brained pygmy humans.
This is a must read for anyone interested in the Hobbit...
Comments
Is Dr. Richards considering the full suite of features exhibited by the currently available specimen, or is he disregarding those features that either don't support his hypothesis, or which contradict it?
What about those features suggestive of Homo erectus? Those suggestive of H. habilis or Australopithecus? Features lost in modern humans the last I heard.
I do realize that lost traits can be re-expressed under the right conditions. However, how often are such traits re-expressed in certain outlier populations.
For that matter, how many microcephalics exhibit such regularity of form as exhibited by the restored hobbit skull?
Methinks somebody has his pet theory and is doing everything he can to avoid giving it up.
Posted by: Alan Kelllogg | June 22, 2006 4:02 AM
"Could some kind soul send me a copy of the article?"
Check your e-mail :)
Posted by: CFeagans | June 22, 2006 10:09 AM
What ever happened to the teachings of Georges Cuvier...
They make way more sense than the hopeless improvability of the "Theory of Evolution"
Posted by: JD | June 23, 2006 2:06 PM
They were proven wrong...Perhaps you could go here and actually learn a little about evolution before commenting in the future. At any rate what does your comment have to do with the subject of the post (Homo floresiensis)?
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | June 23, 2006 2:49 PM