More of a lumper vs splitter question. I tried this on r/askanthropology but someone recommended paleontology for answers.
What differences justify placing H. florensiensis and H. luzonensis as separate species as opposed to different variants of the same species?
Part of the reason for this question was the realization that apparently two kinds of tiny hominids inhabited two separate Southeast Asian islands in relatively close time frames. What are the odds that two hominids developed insular dwarfism separately as opposed to the possibility of one diminutive hominid colonizing the islands of a region and possibly the mainland?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)
> Our family tree may have grown a new branch today, with scientists announcing they have found a new species of early human in the Philippines.
> Not everyone is convinced we know how old Homo luzonensis is, or even if it really is a new species.
> It's no coincidence that new species are often found on islands, said Philip Piper, an archaeologist at the Australian National University and co-author of the paper.
> Professor Piper said that, just like the hobbit, Homo luzonensis had a unique combination of features that justified it being classified as a new species.
> He said the new species could be descended from Homo erectus which was in mainland Asia and in places like Indonesia long before 50,000 years ago.
> Professor Petraglia said previous research on Callao Cave found stone tools and animal bones with cut marks in the same layer as the new fossils.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Homo^#1 new^#2 species^#3 bone^#4 hominin^#5
Post found in /r/worldnews and /r/ABC_NEWS_TOP_STORIES.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
