Talk:Homo floresiensis

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 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 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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * AUT — Bundesland Salzburg — Salzburg — Museumspl. 5 (Haus der Natur · Homo floresiensis) Mattes 2022-10-30.jpg

"Lai ho'a" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_ho%27a&redirect=no 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  until a consensus is reached.  Onel 5969  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 ), 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)