Cited by 123Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyEvolution and Paleontology StudiesPrimate Behavior and Ecology

The affinities of Homo floresiensis based on phylogenetic analyses of cranial, dental, and postcranial characters

Argue, Debbie, Groves, Colin P., Lee, Michael S.Y., Jungers, William L.·2017·Journal of Human Evolution

Abstract

Although the diminutive Homo floresiensis has been known for a decade, its phylogenetic status remains highly contentious. A broad range of potential explanations for the evolution of this species has been explored. One view is that H. floresiensis is derived from Asian Homo erectus that arrived on Flores and subsequently evolved a smaller body size, perhaps to survive the constrained resources they faced in a new island environment. Fossil remains of H. erectus, well known from Java, have not yet been discovered on Flores. The second hypothesis is that H. floresiensis is directly descended from an early Homo lineage with roots in Africa, such as Homo habilis; the third is that it is Homo sapiens with pathology. We use parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic methods to test these hypotheses. Our phylogenetic data build upon those characters previously presented in support of these hypotheses by broadening the range of traits to include the crania, mandibles, dentition, and postcrania of Homo and Australopithecus. The new data and analyses support the hypothesis that H. floresiensis is an early Homo lineage: H. floresiensis is sister either to H. habilis alone or to a clade consisting of at least H. habilis, H. erectus, Homo ergaster, and H. sapiens. A close phylogenetic relationship between H. floresiensis and H. erectus or H. sapiens can be rejected; furthermore, most of the traits separating H. floresiensis from H. sapiens are not readily attributable to pathology (e.g., Down syndrome). The results suggest H. floresiensis is a long-surviving relict of an early (>1.75 Ma) hominin lineage and a hitherto unknown migration out of Africa, and not a recent derivative of either H. erectus or H. sapiens.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.02.006

Cites

135 of 135 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 137 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Argue, D., Groves, C. P., Lee, M. S. Y., & Jungers, W. L.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Stony Brook University Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Argue, Debbie
Venue
Journal of Human Evolution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
107
Pages
107-133
ISSN
0047-2484 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2605702023
Cited by
123
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
68.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Human Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DP1096870)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
Homo floresiensis, hominin phylogeny, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, human, skull morphology, dental morphology, postcranial morphology, island dwarfism, out-of-Africa migration, Down syndrome, Australopithecus
MeSH terms
Africa, Animals, Bayes Theorem, Biological Evolution, Female, Fossils, Humans, Phylogeny, Skull, Hominidae, Islands

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review