Thanks for the link, Nick. I had my doubts about Homo florensis as a valid taxon, but I'm in the "pro-Hobbit" camp now. Funny how the skeptical Dr. Martin that the article mentioned is still sticking to his guns about the species being merely a microcephalic human... with an apparent major aberration of the wrist, to boot!
Thanks for the link, Nick. I had my doubts about Homo florensis as a valid taxon, but I'm in the "pro-Hobbit" camp now. Funny how the skeptical Dr. Martin that the article mentioned is still sticking to his guns about the species being merely a microcephalic human... with an apparent major aberration of the wrist, to boot!
ReplyDeleteA correction, I meant "Homo floresiensis." My bad..
ReplyDelete