Now, what could contradict that hypothesis? In other words, what would be the right argument to support a new species?
Here, the morphology of the other specimens besides LB 1 come into play. It seems very unlikely that multiple archaeological individuals over many thousands of years would have had the same rare mutation(s) of the GH/IGR-I axis unless that mutation were very common in the local population. Richards (2006) accepted at face value the argument that these archaeological individuals were in fact of the same short stature and small size as LB 1, and suggested that the ancient Flores population of H. sapiens simply had a high frequency of this variant (in his view, possibly along with another variant affecting brain size). Hershkovitz and colleagues appear willing to accept this hypothesis, pointing out that LS patients have normal reproductive potential and are relatively more common in some populations: As LB1 replicates most of the diagnostic features of LS patients (Table 1), as well as those of pygmoid Australomelanesians (Jacob et al., 2006), it can be assumed that the findings from the
Related Questions
- It seems that double byte (Chinese-traditional words) cannot be shown exactly. Does JReport support Chinese characters?
- Now, what could contradict that hypothesis? In other words, what would be the right argument to support a new species?
- Do plants selectively associate with species of ectomycorrhizal fungi that support highest plant growth?
