Homo floresiensis: a cladistic analysis

Argue, Deborah; Morwood, Michael J; Sutikna, Thomas; Jatmiko, Jatmiko; Saptomo, E. Wayhu

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.05.002

Cited by 107 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The disorder may stem from a wide variety of conditions that cause abnormal growth of the brain or from syndromes associated with chromosomal abnormalities. The eterogenity of the condition poses problems for clinical evaluation as well as biological, genetic and antropological analyses [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 and 2) of a microcephalic skull that was found on Zakros, one of the major Minoan (Knossos, Faistos, Zakros and Malia) archaeological sites of Minoan Crete (Figs. 3 and 4) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was buried in a very small chest-shaped coffin, which suggests a short stature for the individual. The width of the skull is narrow in comparison with the length, the frontal bone retreats, and there is alveolar prognathism and a well-developed mental prominence ago [1][2][3][4][5][6].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…H. floresiensis has been attributed to a species of its own, a descendant of Homo erectus or another early hominid, a pathological form of Homo sapiens, or a dwarfed H. sapiens [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus neither Cretans, nor members of the Minoan dynasty were immigrants from elsewhere, but a result of local evolution [1][2][3][4][5][6]. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Microcephaly in ancient Greece—The Minoan Microcephalus of Zakros

Syrmos

2011

Childs Nerv Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus neither Cretans, nor members of the Minoan dynasty were immigrants from elsewhere, but a result of local evolution [1][2][3][4][5][6]. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Microcephaly in ancient Greece—The Minoan Microcephalus of Zakros

Syrmos

2011

Childs Nerv Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Congruence of Cranial and Genetic Estimates of Old World Primate Phylogeny

Cramon‐Taubadel

2013

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inferring the phylogenetic relationships amongst fossil hominins is necessarily based on morphological data. Attempts to reconstruct fossil hominin phylogeny have yielded inconsistent and inconclusive results. Old world primates – apes and old world monkeys – provide key referents for understanding the phylogenetic signal in cranial data. Application of phylogenetic methods to cranial data from primate taxa has failed to uncover the known molecular genetic relationships of these major primate groups, suggesting that hominin phylogeny based on morphological data cannot be estimated with complete accuracy. Propositions regarding the potential efficacy of individual cranial regions have been empirically tested in both apes and old world monkeys. No clear criteria have been uncovered to predict the potential efficacy of cranial regions. However, recent studies have suggested that the taxonomic scale of the analysis and the allometric scaling relationships amongst taxa may both play key roles in determining the phylogenetic efficacy of cranial data. Key Concepts: Palaeoanthropologists rely on fossilised cranial remains to infer evolutionary history of hominins. Extant primates form necessary inference models for understanding human evolution. Attempts to reconstruct hominin phylogenies have generated inconsistent results. Some cranial traits are likely to be more reliable for reconstructing phylogeny than others. Masticatory traits have higher within‐taxon variance than nonmasticatory traits, but do not have lower phylogenetic efficacy. Basicranial traits may have higher phylogenetic efficacy in some primate groups. No clear rules exist for deciding which cranial traits have the greatest potential to uncover hominin relationships. Allometric scaling relationships among taxa affect the inference of phylogenetic relatedness. Taxonomic scale at which cranial–genetic congruence analyses are conducted may also be important.

show abstract

Human Evolution: Radiations in the Past 300 000 Years

Pearson¹

2021

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Homo sapiens and Neanderthals ( Homo neanderthalensis ) evolved from Homo heidelbergensis in the past 300 000 years. H. sapiens subsequently spread throughout the world; all other hominins disappeared. The Out‐of‐Africa and multiregional models offer different explanations for this pattern. Modern humans ( Homo sapiens ) and Neanderthals ( Homo neanderthalensis ) both evolved from Homo heidelbergensis within the past 300 000 years. The Denisovans, known primarily from ancient genomes, were an Asian sister taxon of Neanderthals and modern humans. At least four very archaic species persisted into this time frame: Homo erectus in East Asia and Java, Homo luzonensis in the Philippines, Homo floresiensis on the Indonesian island of Flores and Homo naledi in South Africa. Modern humans spread from Africa 200 000 years ago, but this early spread left few traces in our genes. A later dispersal of modern humans from Africa at 60 000 years ago apparently led to the demise of other hominin species throughout Eurasia. Evidence from ancient DNA and new fossil finds have both revolutionised our understanding of human evolution during this time period.

show abstract

Homo floresiensis: a cladistic analysis

Cited by 107 publications

References 56 publications

Microcephaly in ancient Greece—The Minoan Microcephalus of Zakros

Microcephaly in ancient Greece—The Minoan Microcephalus of Zakros

Congruence of Cranial and Genetic Estimates of Old World Primate Phylogeny

Human Evolution: Radiations in the Past 300 000 Years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About