Hobbits and House Elves

[justcarol67]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" <drednort at a...>
wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2004 at 2:26, susanmcgee48176 wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Well of course they were not human, they were precursors of homo 
> > sapiens, a different precursor to the Neanderthal Human.
> > 
> > That said, I think this is totally cool news. The article I read said 
> > that there were stories about them as late as the 1600s A.D.
> > 
> > Who said little people weren't real? And they had dragons, too!
> > 
> > Totally cool. 
> 
> Well, no, they're not precursors of Homo sapiens. They are a 
> separate species on a separate evolutionary track to Homo sapiens - 
> we're probably both descended from Homo erectus, but this new 
> species was not a precursor to us.
> 
> And whether or not they were human depends on your definitions. The 
> most common definition really is that any 'Homo' species is human, 
> and currently that's where this new species is being placed.

Carol:
I think Floresiensis is classified as Homo by default since it's
evidently descended, as you say, from the Java variant of Homo Erectus
and is two million years too late to be an Australopithecine. The
discoverers didn't want to invent a new genus and further complicate
the already messy terminology, what with "Paranthropus" as an
alternative to "robust Australopithecine" and the new distinction
between "hominin" and "hominid" and the controversy over whether "Homo
Ergaster" is a "valid taxon" or just a variant of "Homo Erectus." I
just hope that the existence of multiple forms of "humans" at any
given time will finally be accepted as a given. The assumption that
only one gracile hominid can exist at one time has resulted in lumping
a lot of fossils into the Homo Habilis category that probably
shouldn't be there. OH62 ("Lucy's child") is not a habiline but a
long-armed gracile australopithecine who needs to be assigned her own
species.

Carol, with apologies for being so very OT but had to get this off her
chest