Researchers offer alternate theory for found skull's asymmetry

Sep 06, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new turn in the debate over explanations for the odd features of LB1 -- the specimen number of the only skull found in Liang Bua Cave on the Indonesian island of Flores and sometimes called "the hobbit" -- is further evidence of a continued streak of misleading science regarding the development of a new species, according to researchers.

Robert Eckhardt, professor of and evolutionary morphology at Penn State, and Maciej Henneberg, Wood Jones professor of anthropological and comparative anatomy at the University of Adelaide, dispute that the skull represents a new species in the Aug. 31 issue of .

"We have a case in which the majority of workers in paleoanthropology support the idea that a single asymmetrical skull is the representative of a new species rather than an individual abnormal human," said Eckhardt. "Instead, LB1 provides a fantastic example of how biomedical research methods can be used to study the evidence for human developmental patterns whenever and wherever they occur."

What Eckhardt called an "unscientific" dialogue has eclipsed core facts in the debate -- the existing data on LB1's development, he said.
The facts concern left-right of LB1's face and braincase. In 2006, Eckhardt and colleagues showed that the face and braincase of LB1 were abnormally asymmetrical.

"Virtually everyone is asymmetrical to a minor degree," he noted. Normal becomes abnormal when that asymmetry exceeds about 1 percent. LB1 surpasses this cutoff for developmental abnormality -- all eight measurements on either side of the facial midline exceed 6 percent asymmetry, most by a large margin. The unusually large differences between the two sides of the skull provided evidence of disordered development, reinforcing their idea that the tiny of LB1 signaled not a new species, but a malformed human ancestor.
Over the past three years, a series of papers written by other researchers argued a contrasting opinion -- that the LB1 skull was symmetrical, not malformed.

In 2009 published research by Yousuke Kaifu of the University of Tokyo and his collaborators showed that the skull of LB1 was asymmetrical, as Eckhardt and his colleagues had maintained all along. But Kaifu and his collaborators then proposed the explanation that LB1 suffered from an environmentally caused disease known as posterior deformational plagiocephaly (PDP) -- a skull condition caused by too much pressure put on one part of an infant's head.

In their journal article last month, Eckhardt and Henneberg respond that this diagnosis is impossible.

The first reason, they point out, is that widespread PDP is a relatively modern problem. The 1990s witnessed a large increase in the incidence of PDP because parents began putting infants to sleep on their backs to reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The constant pressure on the back of the skull can cause a permanent deformation, which is PDP.

If LB1 represents a novel species with ancient roots, its ancestors predate PDP, say Eckhardt and Henneberg.

According to Eckhardt, Kaifu noted that PDP became evident only after the development of secondary altriciality, which forced modern humans to deliver a helpless newborn with soft and malleable cranial bones. The primate ancestors of humans probably were less dependent on their mothers than modern human infants. As the size of the neonate skull increased through time, human babies left the womb earlier in development to keep brain function intact.

This shift to more altricial comes much later than the hypothesized evolutionary branch point that led to "Homo floresiensis." LB1's discoverers invented this term to name LB1's species, which they believe to be different than direct . Eckhardt and Henneberg disagree with this proposal. There is debate among paleoanthropologists over when hominids evolved to become extremely altricial, but these estimates generally range from about 500,000 to 200,000 years ago.

"The original claim by its discoverers, Peter Brown and Michael Morwood, was that the hypothetical new species originated from Homo erectus during total isolation on Flores more than 800,000 years ago," said Eckhardt. Brown and Morwood later modified their explanation, instead deriving their new species from some earlier African species around 2 million years ago, with brain and body size supposedly having been reduced before the ancestors of LB1 ever reached Flores.

"No one outside of our research group seems to have recognized this contradiction," said Eckhardt. "With a chimp-sized brain, there is no basis for invoking plagiocephaly to explain the asymmetry seen in LB1."

Eckhardt said that, aside from having a tiny brain, LB1 resembles the normal people who still live on Flores in many features (such as jaws and teeth). But that tiny brain of LB1 is inside an asymmetrical , which is powerful independent evidence for abnormal development. He believes that many researchers in the field of paleoanthropology tend to favor differences as evidence of a new species rather than looking at characteristics as reflecting child development.

Explore further: Modern humans may have migrated into Austria 43,500 years ago

Related Stories

'Hobbit' fossils a new species, anthropologist says

Jan 08, 2009

An analysis of an 18,000-year-old fossil, described as the remains of a diminutive humanlike creature, proves that genuine cave-dwelling "hobbits" once flourished in Southeast Asia, according to a Long Island anthropologist ...

Recommended for you

New hadrosaur noses into spotlight

Sep 19, 2014

Call it the Jimmy Durante of dinosaurs – a newly discovered hadrosaur with a truly distinctive nasal profile. The new dinosaur, named Rhinorex condrupus by paleontologists from North Carolina State Univer ...

Militants threaten ancient sites in Iraq, Syria

Sep 19, 2014

For more than 5,000 years, numerous civilizations have left their mark on upper Mesopotamia—from Assyrians and Akkadians to Babylonians and Romans. Their ancient, buried cities, palaces and temples packed ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jsa09
not rated yet Sep 07, 2010
I have seen images of teams working on the island uncovering bones and was certain that there were many samples retrieved.

This article will now prompt me to investigate further to confirm there statement that only one skull was retrieved.

If it turns out they are correct about the number then I will tend to agree about the cause as well. Such a shame to find out that Homo Floresiensis is just a poor unfortunate individual.
jsa09
3 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2010
"Partial skeletons of nine individuals have been recovered, including one complete cranium (skull)."

From wikipedia the following:
"A study of three tokens of carpal (wrist) bones concluded there were similarities to the carpal bones of a chimpanzee or an early hominin such as Australopithecus and also differences from the bones of modern humans."

"A study of the bones and joints of the arm, shoulder, and lower limbs also concluded that H. floresiensis was more similar to early humans and apes than modern humans.[10][11] In 2009, the publication of a cladistic analysis[12] and a study of comparative body measurements[13] provided further support for the hypothesis that H. floresiensis and Homo sapiens are separate species."

The above quotes sort of indicate that perhaps one skull is not the only evidence.