Talk:Homo floresiensis

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Southeast Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indonesia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Primates Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archaeology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human Genetic History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Extinction Mid‑importance

	This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

About Scandal over specimen damage

There are a few things I wish to note here. First, I believe the word Scandal is not only sensationalism but also an opinion and is therefore subjective and is not neutral. I would like to suggest renaming it Specimen damage after all that is what the section is really about. Secondly, I have updated citations and added one to a sentence where the {{who}} tag was invoked. I also added an answer for the tag, but I'm not sure how to use the part of other "anthropologists", since the word in the article was simply "Anthropologists" in addition to the one professor, of course. Should this simply be , et al in relationship to the professor, or something similar? In any case, I hid the {{who}} tag and directed them here. I would like feedback on this.

Well, "scandal" suggests something improper took place. But there certainly was a row between the team that discovered the remains and Jacob. People who actually uncover fossils often forget they do not necessarily own them. It all depends on the legal system. In this case the team was definitely not amused when they were confronted with the simple fact they had to obey the Indonesian state. They reacted by expressing wild accusations, distortions and exaggerations to the press. In popular science books they portrayed Jacob as the villain of the story. This was reflected by an earlier version of our article. I made the text more neutral last May. "Scandal" might be replaced by "conflict".--MWAK (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I support the idea of using a more neutral word than "scandal" and I think "conflict" would do that well. I understand you feel passionately about the issues around the handling of the fossils. If you have additional reliable information on that might offer greater insight into Jacob's actions, I invite you to include it in the article. WynnAurelium (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AUT — Bundesland Salzburg — Salzburg — Museumspl. 5 (Haus der Natur · Homo floresiensis) Mattes 2022-10-30.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"Lai ho'a" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lai ho'a has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 4 § Lai ho'a until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we remove this?

We currently say

In 2006, American biologist Robert Martin and colleagues also concluded that the skull was probably microcephalic, arguing that the brain is far too small to be a separate dwarf species; he said that, if it were, the 400-cubic-centimeter brain would indicate a creature only one foot (30 cm) in height, one third the length of the discovered skeleton.

I wonder if this was misunderstood somehow from the original source. It seems self-contradictory ... he's saying that it's impossible for the brain to be so small because it's impossible for it to be so large. I think we can all agree that childbirth would be impossible if your baby's brain was a quarter of the adult human height (assuming similar growth patterns from birth to adulthood as with us and with other primates). Therefore we can set a minimum size on the stature of the mother that makes Martin's argument irrelevant. Why he failed to consider this, I dont know. But it seems to be a worthless distraction from the information in this section of the page. —Soap— 11:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Pardon the laziness of my brain – where do you see "impossible for it to be so large"? —Tamfang (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously a mistake by the journalist. Homo habillis had a brain size of 600 cubic cc. and a reduction of one third would not have such a dramatic effect. I will delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible coexistence of H. floresiensis with AMHs

While we do not know, and may never know, the exact timing for when the settlement of Insular Southeast Asia (specifically Wallacea) by anatomically modern humans started, considering that Australia was certainly starting to be settled by c. 50,000 BP and could well have been first entered as early as c. 65,000 BP (even earlier dates have been proposed, but they are more controversial and widely considered dubious), very likely before 60,000 BP anyway (ultimately, it's more likely because of drowned evidence that an earlier date is correct rather than the latest possible date), and given that Flores was far closer to Sundaland (even neighbouring it, and easily reached over only a small maritime gap), and even en route (at least if the earliest arrivers used the Timor route rather than the Moluccas route, which is more likely if the earlier rather than later date is correct, compare Prehistory of Australia § Arrival), a fortiori it is quite likely that anatomically modern humans were present on Flores as early as 60,000 BP (or even earlier), and therefore co-existed with late H. floresiensis just prior to its extinction, after all, and may well even have encountered the species. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)