Below is a link to a recent article which argues that Homo floresiensis should be regarded as a separate species rather than a deformed dwarf-like relative of man.Dudlow
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81217124418.htm
Full Version: Homo floresiensis named as New Species
Below is a link to a recent article which argues that Homo floresiensis should be regarded as a separate species rather than a deformed dwarf-like relative of man.Dudlow
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81217124418.htm
this is defiently a very inportant informative new article that realy could help us out with our sasquatch research. thanks bill 
And here is today's more recent update on the same headline:http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/hobbit-new/
Dudlow
I followed a link to a similar article from the first post.
link to article
One of paleontologists who found it, Mike Morwood in his book A New Human , seems to think it was very likely something descended from an early Homo because of other features. Another article or perhaps a special on TV, mentioned how the wrist bone doesn't allow the the thumb to cross over the hand. Sorry that I don't know how to correctly state that technically but I got the idea that feature makes human hands more dexterous perhaps because of the large muscle on our thumb that drives that motion. So Morwood apparently believes that there is likely another lineage of hominids that are more primitive than what scientists had previously believed that evolved into the Hobbit. That is an inescapable conclusion if it is indeed a separate branch that branched off of early Homo.
link to article
QUOTE(article)
...The distinctive shapes of wrist bones form during the first trimester of pregnancy while most pathologies and growth disorders do not begin to affect the skeleton until well after that time. Therefore, pathologies or growth defects cannot adequately explain why a modern human would have a wrist that was indistinguishable from that of an African ape or primitive hominin...
One of paleontologists who found it, Mike Morwood in his book A New Human , seems to think it was very likely something descended from an early Homo because of other features. Another article or perhaps a special on TV, mentioned how the wrist bone doesn't allow the the thumb to cross over the hand. Sorry that I don't know how to correctly state that technically but I got the idea that feature makes human hands more dexterous perhaps because of the large muscle on our thumb that drives that motion. So Morwood apparently believes that there is likely another lineage of hominids that are more primitive than what scientists had previously believed that evolved into the Hobbit. That is an inescapable conclusion if it is indeed a separate branch that branched off of early Homo.
QUOTE(BobZenor @ Jan 21 2009, 01:55 PM) 
(In Sasquatch) ... the wrist bone doesn't allow the the thumb to cross over the hand. ... human hands (are) more dexterous...
Interesting point, 'BobZenor'. The proposed sasquatch hand does not include an opposable thumb, either. The sasquatch palm is said to be proportionately longer than man's, the four fingers proportionately shorter and the thumb is positioned higher on the long palm towards the wrist. However, unlike man, the sasquatch thumb is felt not to be opposable in terms of being able to grasp at 90 degrees to the fingers. So their hand is able to wrap a very strong grip around a baseball bat but is not able to perform delicate, thumb-based functions. It could not thread a needle and sew, for example; according to what I have read on the subject.This represents another interesting hybrid pongid/hominid characteristic which may show why BF has not adapted to the use of many more human technologies. Literally, they cant 'grasp' the idea.
Dudlow
Yeah, well they still have a mean palmar fast ball even if it's not four-seam.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.